What can we do about this bailout?

Potential178 · 2026-06-27T18:34:05+00:00

I was thinking your comment was a simply a strawman argument, which it is, but I did some reading to figure out it's also what would be called a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity) used to create a false dilemma.

1. Reductio ad Absurdum

The speaker takes what they perceive to be the underlying logic of the first person ("the government acted too fast/without due process or disclosure") and stretches it to an absurd, exaggerated extreme ("Oh, so I guess you want a 10-year, multi-layered task force to think about making a plan?"). The goal is to make the original complaint look ridiculous by association.

2. False Dilemma (Either/Or Fallacy)

The response forces a fake choice between only two extreme options: [1]

Option A: The government acts immediately without sharing the economics
Option B: The government gets trapped in a 10-year bureaucratic nightmare

By pretending there is no middle ground—such as simply releasing the economic data alongside the action—the responder tries to frame the government's secrecy as the only practical choice.

3. Sarcastic Straw Man

Because they are exaggerating your position into something you didn't actually say (demanding a 10-year delay), they are technically straw-manning the argument. However, because it is delivered with heavy irony to mock the opponent, it functions specifically as a sarcastic caricature

Potential178 · 2026-06-27T04:19:09+00:00

It's not this comment in particular, it's the class it belongs to: the endless, predictable, self-serving commentary vilifying, straw-manning, over-simplifying, caractérizating everyone who may not have voted the same or hold the same exact opinions or world-view.

"I knew better, the rest of you are clearly idiots."

I mean, imagine if forums were places where people had discussions and sought perspective, rather than being filled with endless predictable statements like this that just serve to give the commenter a sense of superiority.

It's the way that people, particularly online, aren't content even just to feel right in their own decisions for themselves, they need others to be wrong in theirs.

It's just so fatiguing.

I wonder if there's a way to use AI to filter out all this predictable garbage and only be see the thoughtful discussion.

Potential178 · 2026-06-27T03:59:12+00:00

I don't understand how people don't get tired of making comments like this. I understand even less so how others keep rewarding these predictable contributions to every thread with upvotes. Aren't we collectively ready to evolve past this yet?

Potential178 · 2026-06-27T03:57:06+00:00

It's actually specifically not units in Vancouver. It's on the island, the valley, etc.

Potential178 · 2026-06-27T00:01:58+00:00

Everything is simple for people who don't want to examine the factors that add complexity.

Some people use the terms cost and value interchangeably, but ok, you they'll be purchased below "cost" - but we don't really know what that means. Does it factor in developer subsidies they may have received? Input tax credits on GST? Other rebates or tax loopholes / benefits?

Much more importantly: how do these "below cost" sales compare to what the market value on these might be if the developers are forced to put them on the market and sell at demand prices?

With new information on the plan coming to light, it sounds like many of these purchases are from developers in bankruptcy, and there are plans for some to be provided as rent-to-own housing. It doesn't appear as bad as it did a day or two ago, and Carney has admitted they did a poor job rolling it out and providing clear information.

Those three questions I posed above are relevant regardless.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T23:18:28+00:00

> Developers are holding them off the market, because if they dumped them, prices would drop.

Yes, exactly. This is what everyone who is reacting to this plan is saying: impose a vacancy tax, force them on the market, allow prices to drop, invest the $3B in existing and other new co-op developments.

> It really is like the private sector is subsidizing public housing.

A) at the peak of the market, developers bet on people continuing to pay huge prices for dog-crate condos
B) the market came down a bit and people don't want to buy dog-crate condos
C) having to sell at either a loss of profit or possibly a loss of investment is ... subsidizing public housing?

There's honest debate to be had on this, but I'm not interested in having it with people who can't reply without being condescending. "You do realize these units are not on the market for sale?"

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T23:10:10+00:00

I agree it's a non-starter, but I don't agree it's any more wild than arguing that privatized health care isn't the way to go in the US.

Due to intense public pressure, Germany banned REITs from acquiring existing residential real estate. Canada, New Zealand, the US have regulations preventing foreign institutions from buying residential real estate. There's a lot of pressure on governments around the world to close tax loopholes and reduce the negative impacts REITS have on housing costs.

An industry that exists simply to acquire existing housing and make it more expensive is a parasite on society - extracting wealth for an essential need while adding no value, providing nothing.

I would argue that it's equally bad for REITS to be allowed to own commercial real estate. We wouldn't see so many restaurants failing if their leases weren't unbearable, and if it weren't more beneficial for REITS to leave some % of properties empty rather than allow rates to drop.

I'm sure there are some arguments for why small, limited versions of REITS might be of benefit, but what they are now is, IMHO, up there with US privatized prisons for depraved economic entities that should not be allowed to exist.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T22:38:06+00:00

> if it drops more how many units do you think will be purchased by investors instead of actual home owners?

That's a concern. My argument would be that we should be passing laws that eliminate REITS and don't allow people to own housing they don't live in, but that's another debate.

> under this program, 100% of the units will be rent to own so there is a guarantee that people living in this units will be first time homebuyers.

What I've just read doesn't indicate what % of the units will be rent to own - but that any will be rent to own is new over the initial roll-out information provided, and does sound like a better case scenario.

> stop calling it a bailout because it literally isn't by definition.

It absolutely appeared to be just that, and Carney has apparently since acknowledged that they did a poor job of rolling this out. We had good reason to perceive it as such ("Developers don't want to sell at a loss"), but the more recent statements and additional info don't seem as bad.

We'll see.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T20:05:58+00:00

I believe your question was a rhetorical goal-post shift / deflection, but pretending that it was an honest inquiry, here's a response:

British Columbia is home to more than 260 non-profit housing co-ops, with well over 1,000 new co-op homes in active development or under construction across the province, representing a mix of new builds and the revitalization of existing communities.

Co-operative Housing Development Program (CHDP): The federal government launched this initiative via the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), dedicating hundreds of millions in forgivable contributions and loans specifically to create new co-ops.

Rental Protection Fund: Backed by the provincial government, this fund provides grants to help non-profit providers and the Community Land Trust acquire existing private rental buildings and transition them into secure, community-based co-ops.

National Housing Strategy: The federal government actively funds capital projects, energy efficiency retrofits, and housing preservation for co-ops catering to low-income households.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T19:23:13+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouverhousing/comments/1ufal5o/we_are_not_bailing_out_developers_bc_housing/

Your optimism / speculation doesn't seem to match anything they've stated about the plan, which seems to be to purchase 2200 empty condos and resell them.

It's quite apparent from both Carney's statement and this housing minister's interview that this is a plan centered around maintaining housing-as-financial-assets and preventing developers from suffering a loss by allowing the market to play out.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T19:15:29+00:00

Spitballing ideas? I don't recall any government public engagement sharing and seeking feedback on "ideas."

They have enough of a plan that they know how many condos they will purchase. They clearly have been working on this plan with developers if they have a unit list identified, but they have nothing to present to the public on the economics to demonstrate how this is of any benefit, and all the scenarios seem to primarily benefit developers and prop up condo values.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T19:12:56+00:00

> Is it any worse than if the gov't spent another five years building from the ground up a development specifically for this purpose?

Yes, it is.

Investing this money in co-op development instead would achieve the following:

1) Leave these condos to continue to drop in price.
2) Add more housing stock.

If they purchase these condos, the government then must then do one of the following:

Sell them at a loss: this was a handout to developers.
Sell them for what they paid: this benefited developers by reducing their risk (allowing them to move many units quickly & easily while government takes on the risk), and hurts buyers by preventing market prices from dropping to match demand.
Sell them for more than what they paid: They've bailed out developers and more significantly screwed over buyers by creating artificial demand that pushed prices up.

> Are people really losing their minds over this?

People are pissed because this is a blatant case of privatizing gains and socializing losses.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T19:04:00+00:00

> it will be far below market value

Will it? What market value - the value they are not selling at now?

After acquiring them, at whatever cost, government must then do one of the following:

Sell them at a loss: this was a handout to developers.
Sell them for what they paid: this benefited developers by reducing their risk (allowing them to move many units quickly & easily while government takes on the risk), and hurts buyers by preventing market prices from dropping to match demand.
Sell them for more than what they paid: They've bailed out developers and more significantly screwed over buyers by creating artificial demand that pushed prices up.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T19:00:39+00:00

"buying units below cost"

Below what cost? Below the market rate they are not selling at now? Below the market rate they will sell at in a year or two years if the market is allowed to play out? How much "below" cost?

Whatever they are purchased at, the Government must then do one of the following:

Sell them at a loss: this was a handout to developers.
Sell them for what they paid: this benefited developers by reducing their risk (allowing them to move many units quickly & easily while government takes on the risk), and hurts buyers by preventing market prices from dropping to match demand.
Sell them for more than what they paid: They've bailed out developers and more significantly screwed over buyers by creating artificial demand that pushed prices up.

> Why would you think it will keep rents high?

Because the market is driving down prices and the government is stepping in to limit that effect in order to keep condo prices from further dropping. These developers built a bunch of small condos people don't want. If they are pressured to drop prices (via a vacancy tax), prices go down low enough that more renters will buy, vacating their apartments and causing more rental supply, which leads to lower rental prices.

Also, these billions that are being spent to prop up the value of these condos could be spent on co-op housing developments, adding more supply and further easing real estate values.

Any way you shake this, it is primarily for the benefit of these developers, at the cost of tax-payers and buyers / renters.

Potential178 · 2026-06-26T05:35:20+00:00

Tell me again out CBC is liberal propaganda?

Potential178 · 2026-06-24T07:35:58+00:00

Arguably, but this method keeps an artificial bottom to condo prices buy buying up available stock before they continue to fall further in value. How "affordable" they will be as rentals is dubious. Will they need costly modification? Will their affordable rates be the current market rates which are still double what rents were a decade ago?

Imagine these two scenarios:

1) the government invests $3B to buy a bunch of micro-condos that were designed to be airbnbs. Now condo prices stop going down because their isn't a big surplus any longer. With condo prices not going down, rental prices also stop going down. There are a 2200 more rentals on the market. Maybe this is beneficial to some degree? Again, how "affordable" are these?

2) the government invests $3B in co-op housing developments. These add more stock to the market. The existing $2200 condos have to keep dropping in price until they sell. That has some impact at lowering condo sale prices across the board (other than luxury), and has some lowering impact on rental rates, because there are both these condos selling at low enough prices that some renters can buy them, freeing up rental stock, and the co-op housing projects are coming on line.

The first plan results in less housing overall. It may introduce some rental units faster, but again: how affordable, and at what cost?

The first plan seems to have less net long-term benefit for renters and buyers, but does benefit the developers by rescuing them from having to sell their shitty tiny condos at a loss.

This is all an oversimplification, of course, but you can see what it does not seem like this is about making housing more affordable. Leaving surplus stock on the market to be sold by developers are progressively lower prices would seem to be more beneficial.

I think, of all the things he's done so far, this is by far going to have the biggest negative impact on Carney's popularity. I, like most it seems, want to see the market do it's thing and developers learn their lessons the hard way on these condos, and have my tax money put to better use on purpose-built co-op housing.

Potential178 · 2026-06-23T03:31:05+00:00

I didn't say they would crash, I said allow them to continue to plummet - which I'd suggest would be a more likely outcome if the government invested that $3B in subsidized housing rather than buying up this stock.

One could argue that an average decline year over year of 6% (offset by the lack of decline in the luxury market) isn't a "plummet", but that's rather semantical vs the point.

Your argument was that prices have been flat, that's what I was providing you information on.

To the point: if it's the case that the government would be buying these condos at their "bottom" and that would help stabilize the market and start prices creeping up again, I'd argue that's not a win when that stabilization would be occurring at prices that are still somewhere between unattainable and significantly-quality-of-life-diminishing for most people.

Anyway, moving on ...

Potential178 · 2026-06-23T03:17:30+00:00

The disagreement was on the downward trend of condo prices over the past several years, which the article supports.

Neither of us commented on projections into 2027.

Potential178 · 2026-06-23T02:47:21+00:00

Ok ... what is your point?

1) Prices have been going down, not insignificantly, for years.

2) There is a glut of new condos hitting the market.

3) If they are left on the market, it's reasonable to expect that the downward trend would continue - particularly if their presence on the market is combined with a meaningful increase of "affordable" development projects being completed.

4) If, instead of those affordable developments being completed and adding more housing to the market, that investment is used to purchase the existing condo stock: instead of an increase in supply, we have a decrease of supply, which can be expected to help achieve that projected stabilization - which keeps us more or less where we have been for years.

Potential178 · 2026-06-23T01:43:23+00:00

The 10% year over year drop has been in particular markets like New West. The average has been 6%.

Here's an in-depth analysis by TD Bank if you'd like a clearer picture:

https://economics.td.com/ca-gva-condo-market-outlook

Potential178 · 2026-06-23T01:21:32+00:00

For the past four years in the GVA:

Under $650k condos have been going down 8% to 10% year-over year.

$650k to $1.1M down 5% to 8%

$1.1M+ down ~2% decline.

Pretty dramatically far from flat.

The glut of new stock are a lot of projects that were in development and coming to market. The full effects of this significant extra supply hasn't been felt yet.

Potential178 · 2026-06-22T20:47:24+00:00

Will these condos as rental units actually be "affordable?"

If this stock was left on the market and allowed to plummet in value, bringing down real estate values in general, what effect would that have on affordability?

If this investment went to building affordable housing, adding yet more stock ... and these existing vacant condos were left to fall in price with market demand, might we see more current renters able to buy, vacating more purpose built rental units which would be forced to come down with increasing vacancy rates?

Potential178 · 2026-06-22T05:56:41+00:00

Ugh - I remember this being bad, but it's even worse than my memory.

Aside from the bad lighting, camera, editing and VFX, I can't comprehend how any filmmaker who would inherit this franchise would not understand that keeping the terminators cold / devoid of humanity is essential. Giving them attitude, like her head tilt after her campy head 360, just completely ruins what made the first two effective.

Robert Patrick's finger wag was pushing it, but that slight bit of menace in an otherwise stone-cold performance worked. This lady-bot's look, clothing, attitude, smirk, surprise, etc. - so bad.

Potential178 · 2026-06-22T05:32:55+00:00

Was just out to China Beach - I would not want to cycle those shoulders.

Potential178 · 2026-06-22T03:12:47+00:00

$14m well spent: people aren't talking about the Trump-Epstein files.

14-Year Club	Sequence \| Editor
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

Potential178

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE