this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
31 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

8188 readers
2881 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: /c/britishcolumbia

"For too long, the idea of home ownership has been out of reach for way too many people β€” people who earn a decent income, who are priced out of the market and do not see any path to home ownership," said Premier David Eby, speaking at the project unveiling on Thursday.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] a9249 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

700,000 is "Affordable?" ??????

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

I'm not up with the play but I'm on the opposite side of the world to Vancouver and I distinctly remember it being used as an example of where house prices are utterly insane. It's basically the poster child of the housing market being fucked.

[–] RandAlThor 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's innovative. It's a great idea. A fantastic way to invest public money in housing. But it has to be done in conjuction with other measures that stimulates housing development.

[–] LimpRimble 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Eby said the 40 per cent from the province is not a grant or ongoing subsidy, but financing that is to be repaid at the end of 25 years, or when the owner sells.

Is that an exclusive or an inclusive "or"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

yeah sorta needs a whichever comes later in which case I would take that deal. Sorta funny though. Like bundling a mortgage and reverse mortgage at the same time.

[–] Someone 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It sounds more like a "whichever comes first, which I'd argue makes a lot more sense. The mortgage on the 60% would be paid off by 25 years and if you sell early you'd basically use any appreciation/the full value to pay back the 40%. In your scenario you could just immediately sell it and pocket the 40% for the next 24 years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

see that is scary given where the person may or may not be in 25 years.

[–] howrar 0 points 5 months ago

Exclusive or would mean that if the owner happens to sell at exactly 25 years, then there's no need to repay. It wouldn't make sense.

Based on the other comments, it sounds like you mean "and" rather than "xor"?

[–] wordletras 2 points 5 months ago

90% more to go before I can afford a house