Discussion in 'Buildings' started by M5A, Dec 8, 2010.
Today they are taking down the large sign at the corner of Front and Lower Sherbourne. Odd!
The sales office was open to the public today. I walked in and asked some general questions. I was told phase one is entirely sold out and phase two is going on sale to the public next week. They're planning on building phase one and two consecutively, just the occupancy in phase two will be staggered behind phase one. At least thats what the salespeople are saying.
Did they say that they are going to build Phases 1 and 2 concurrently (at same time) or consecutively (one after the other)? (With occupancy of phase 2 following after Phase 1.)
They said concurrently, at the same time, but Phase 1 would be occupied first. Don't know how much sense that makes since it's much larger than Phase 2, but that's what the salesperson said.
The sales office is closed for a private event today, and I can see they’ve added the second phase to the model inside.
It has been closed for 'private events" for some weeks now and I have not seen it 'open' for quite a while. They are marketing Phase 2 and say Phase 1 is sold out.
I guess they'll open it to the public once phase 2 is completely sold out like they did with phase 1.
Actually, it shouldn't make any difference whether the money is foreign or domestic or from Mars. Fact is there is a significant portion of the condo and freehold market in the hands of speculators, which is fine. But if a buyer is trading real estate just as someone trades stock, the same rule on the Capital Gain should apply. Buy a residential property and hold it and rent it (or not) as part of a passive investment strategy, no change. Pay Capital Gains tax on 50% of the gain. Trade and flip real estate as a income source, foreign or domestic, pay Capital Gains on 100 % of the gain. Simple solution to quell the market. Perhaps too simple for our Peerless Leaders in Ottawa.
I think they HAVE changed this or at least made it easier to find people who are buying and selling so they can see if it is really a business . This from CRA website:
I think they realised they were losing out on many properties where the owner NEVER lived (or owned more than one property) so "On October 3, 2016, the Government announced an administrative change to Canada Revenue Agency's reporting requirements for the sale of a principal residence.
When you sell your principal residence or when you are considered to have sold it, usually you do not have to report the sale on your income tax and benefit return and you do not have to pay tax on any gain from the sale. This is the case if you are eligible for the full income tax exemption (principal residence exemption) because the property was your principal residence for every year you owned it.
Starting with the 2016 tax year, generally due by late April 2017, you will be required to report basic information (date of acquisition, proceeds of disposition and description of the property) on your income tax and benefit return when you sell your principal residence to claim the full principal residence exemption."
A tax on 100% of the Capital Gain from a sale of property would certainly affect the market - maybe too much!
As an investor, I already pay tax on 1/2 of the gain on a non primary residence. I'm simply saying extend the same principal that applies to speculation on stocks and bonds where such activity becomes a business and attract tax on 100% of the gain. If it's a passive investment, no change, but if you're flipping properties, pay the full freight. Everyone wins.
This would make sense if you completely discounted that many buyers are actually helping supply rental stock for the current public. You want to stop people from buying property and renting it out? Well, build more rental housing. There simply is none of it being built. So where will people live?
Your solution is simple....but the problem is complex.
There is quite a good pile of rental buildings going up now, and I do not believe that the latest rule changes will kill off most of the next batch of them either.
No, but the out-of-left-field changes to rent control will.
No, I am saying that they won't. There's simply too much money to be made in this tight a market to not be building rentals too. Condos are following homes into the realm of too-expensive-for-many, or at least fewer and fewer people are able to save up for down payments. Developers will be able to set the initial rents high enough to be just fine.