Metro Vancouver, which includes the City of Vancouver and 20 other municipalities, is proposing to increase its development cost charges (DCC):
Metro Vancouver is proposing to increase DCCs by roughly $23,000 per new single-family home; $21,000 per new townhome; and $14,000 per new apartment. For example, fees for a townhouse in Vancouver will rise from $10,027 today to $30,861 by 2027.
In response to this, federal housing minister, Sean Fraser, has just pulled $138 million in funding that was intended to accelerate housing permits and new affordable housing projects in Surrey and Burnaby.
This makes some sense. Because it is pretty weird to say, "Hey, we need more affordable housing. Give us some money for this and, while you do that, we're also going increase the cost of building new housing."
Of course, this is the whole growth-should-pay-for-growth mantra. And supposedly, there's growth-related infrastructure that needs to be built.
To be fair, Metro Vancouver is also proposing to increase its property taxes: 12% in the first year, 11% for the next two years, and then 5% for the next three years. So this is not all going onto new supply.
I don't know enough about the finances of Metro Vancouver to comment on these numbers specifically, but I do think it's important that policy makers understand what the current market environment means for new housing.
It is difficult, and in many cases impossible, to underwrite new housing projects today. Which means that even if all fees and charges were to remain unchanged, we are going to see a decrease in new housing supply.
For next year's budget (2024), the City of Toronto is projecting a $1.5 - $1.7 billion budget shortfall. And over the next 10 years, this shortfall is expected to grow to nearly $47 billion if changes aren't made. This is according to a recent report prepared by Ernst & Young and Strategy Corp. So right now, all of this is being looked at and debated by Council.
Where are we going to get this money?
One persistent debate is whether the city actually has a revenue problem, or whether it's simply an expense/spending problem. I can't say that I've scrutinized the city's expenses at any length, so I'm not going to get into that level of detail today. For this post, I'd like to focus on two specific things. The first is property taxes.
Here is a figure, from the report, showing residential property tax rates across southern Ontario:
What you will see is that Toronto has the lowest rate of the 35 municipalities that they looked at. Now obviously there are some nuances to consider. The average home price in Toronto is higher than it is in, say, Sault St. Marie. Toronto also has a large commercial property tax base. But even still, historically speaking, Toronto has tended to increase its residential property taxes at or below the rate of inflation.
This is a problem. And it is the exact same problem that we have talked about on this blog in regards to residential rent controls. If you own an apartment building where the rents are capped and your expenses are, therefore, growing faster than your revenue, you are (1) highly incentivized not to invest in the apartment (you can't afford to) and (2) eventually going to hit a financial wall.
Sound familiar? As far as I can tell, that is, at least partially, what is happening here.
Secondly, one of the first things that I did when I opened the report was run a search for "road tolls" and "congestion charges". Regular readers of this blog will know that this is something I feel strongly about. Here's what I found:
In 2017, when the City considered implementation of tolls for the Gardiner and the DVP, staff estimated that a $2-per-trip toll would generate $5.6 billion in 10 years. The province has refused several requests to consider these options, with the Minister of Transportation rejecting any discussion of uploading or tolling as recently as December 2022.
This is also a problem. One of the general rules with taxes is that you should ideally tax the things you want less of. Hmm. So why not tax traffic congestion? There is no question that it works. There's lots of evidence from all around the world. We just lack the political will to actually do it. Instead, we pay lip service with solutions that don't work.
At the same time, if we were to actually implement road pricing, I don't believe that a flat toll is the way to go. $2 also seems low. The best practice is dynamic road pricing that fluctuates based on actual congestion levels. Meaning, if you're driving at 5am, expect a low rate. And if you're driving at 5pm, expect a high rate.
Virtually overnight, we know this would do at least three things: (1) it would reduce/eliminate traffic congestion (congestion levels would become a function of pricing); (2) it would reduce overall carbon emissions in the city; and (3) it would take a meaningful chunk out of this $47 billion budget shortfall.
A blog reader responded to yesterday's post about rent controls (and inclusionary zoning) with an excellent point: If you're against rent controls, then you must also be against artificially low property taxes for homeowners. And I would agree with this.
One of the points I was trying to make yesterday was that if you're in a situation where your revenue is capped but your operating expenses are free to grow based on the market, then you are likely heading down an unsustainable financial path.
This is true if the revenue is in the form of rent and this is true if the revenue is in the form of property taxes. A good example of this is California's Proposition 13, which is the principal thing that keeps property taxes artificially low over on that coast.
Similar to what I argued yesterday with rent controls, it too creates a misallocation of housing. If you're sitting on historic and artificially low property taxes, then you are now highly incentivized to stay put where you are. Why would you move only to have your taxes mark to market?
So this line of thinking cuts both ways, whether we're talking about renters or homeowners.