It's a problem to use single-family home values as a proxy for housing costs, as Charles does here. They aren't making any more land, so the supply of single family homes cannot rise. Inevitably, the price of those will go up if population increases.

"All property holders in Vancouver literally won the lottery," Latteier says, sitting in a restaurant called Havana, with decor meant to reproduce the four-decade-long architectural decay that defines the Cuban capital. "This has created a huge divide between property owners and renters."

Well, it's like having a lottery ticket that most can't cash out, because if you sell your now-expensive house is Vancouver (or Seattle), you still need somewhere to live, so unless you're going to leave the expensive area (Vancouver, Seattle) and go live somewhere cheap, you're going to have to buy another expensive house in the same area, perhaps with a less favorable mortgage than the one you're sitting on now. It's rare that someone goes through the hassle of moving to move to the "same" house in the same town--there's usually an upgrade involved.

At some point, things will cool off, or a bubble may burst, and the people who leveraged themselves into an expensive house that they can't afford post-bust will go through the usual pain of people who bet big on something and lose.

Charles.
The things you worry about.

Welcome to the income inequality bros, it only gets better.

Seattle would be lucky to have the level of investment and development Vancouver has received. The additions to the housing stock are valuable asset which benefit the people and the tax base.

@2 - Precisely. Owning a very modest home in a neighborhood that "came up," I've had that exact conversation dozens of times. People really can't get their heads around the fact that there's very few circumstances in which a homeowner can profit from their primary residence.

@5 - "[A] study that was conducted by the City of Vancouver in 2014 and used data from water bills found nearly 11,000 homes in the city are vacant"

That's positive "investment & development"??? What are you talking about?

It's actually somewhat worse than CM describes it. $1.56 million Canadian - the median price of a detached house - is closer to $1.2 million US at today's exchange rate - not the stated $1 million.

Vancouver(and Toronto) would probably be fine if all the empty housing units were forced to be inhabited. Trudeau needs to reverse Harper's policies* that created that clusterfuck of useless investment. What happens to Seattle when that investment comes and we don't even have all those apartments? In the meantime privileged white Seattle, keep fighting in your privileged white neighborhoods to keep out new privileged white people.

*Harper (Trump without an obvious mental illness, just as corrupt and bigoted) got 10 years as a minority PM, because the left wouldn't compromise with the center left. Not even to just to get him out and replaced by a normal Canadian Conservative.

At the 2011 census, there were 891K dwellings in the city of Vancouver, says the Internet; 11K of that would be 1.2% empty. Presumably more built since then so call it a round 1% empty.

Is 1% a significant factor in the shape of the housing market, or should we set aside the vacancy angle and just focus on foreign people moving into the city?

I think the best way to make sure Seattle does not suffer Vancouver's fate is to force it into economic decline.

I am sure we can find a way to do this, even if decline is more difficult to achieve than growth in this neoliberal world Charles tells us we are trapped in.

"the cost of a typical detached home in Greater Vancouver in June of this year was $1.56 million in Canadian dollars (about $1 million US; the average cost in King County is a little more than half that)."
Huh? Where I come from 2/3 is more than "a little more than" 1/2.

This situation can be even worse! For example, my 85 year old grandma had to rent her house and move in with my parents because property values kept going up and so did the property taxes. Yes, on paper, it's a great deal that an old lady bought a house for $25K that's now worth $600K but when she's got to pay $1,000 a month in property taxes--and rising--and is trying to live on $1,200 a month from Social Security, it's just not doable so now she has to rent the place for $1,500 a month JUST TO BREAK EVEN and she CAN'T EVEN LIVE IN THE HOUSE SHE PAID FOR. At least in California I'll (hopefully) be protected by Prop 13 when I get old so that I won't be out on the street when homes here become $5 million with $100K a year in property tax.

Tangent time...

@14 - People outside California love to bag on prop 13, but this is exactly the situation it was designed to address. I'm still in the middle of my working life and even I could be forced out if the county we allowed to reassess. Realy though, the State has no shortage of residential property tax revenue, so anyone suggesting the law be reexamined in just being an asshole.

@15 Seriously, a reverse mortgage? No. Expensive and foolish of the vast majority of people.

Mistral is that classic conservative: lives in a complete fantasy world, believes everyone else does.

@14 either your grandmother's property was improperly assessed (and she doesn't know about the senior citizen property tax exemption/deferment programs), or you've greatly exaggerated the amount she's paying in property taxes. Care to explain why your grandmother's tax liability appears to be roughly three times the going rate?

@19 She lives in the Northeast in an area that's getting to be popular with techies, not California, so isn't covered by Prop 13 or any other type of protection

@15 Not whining, just stating that it's very regressive to tax people more than they make just because they bought a property a long time ago.

@20 Ah, got it. I had assumed the comments to this "article" would be somehow related to Seattle. Accordingly, I didn't realize you were discussing California legislation and Northeast property tax rates. Carry on.

But back on topic, I would support a stiff foreign deed transfer tax—something persuasive, say 20% of the value? You can be from anywhere, I don't even care if you're here legally, you just have to establish residency (whatever length of time the state requires for other services).

Do local legislatures have that authority? (If you've dealt with them, assessor/recorders seems to be all powerful. AM I RIGHT PEOPLE? Sorry.)

Agree,@13. Also, what's with the authors allusion to a real estate "shock" and "empty towers?" If he is implying a crash, aren't the renters the winners here? And wouldn't the obvious solution be to just wait it out until that happens, and buy?

I'm guessing Charles already knows these facts: MOST tax-haven money ( which is basically stolen money) is actually off-shored to Global-North nations. Much of THAT dough is used to purchase real estate. China's Upper Class is actively engaged in such treasonous shenanigans. -- https://www.washingtonpost..com/news/won…

Hmmm . . . . --- https://www.money.cnn.com/2016/04/04/new…

mistral should be shot in Public; Our World never needs such scum.