Here's some data (via Jeremy Withers) explaining that a large portion -- about 61% -- of new condominiums built in Ontario between 2016 and 2021 were not owner-occupied. In the case of low-rise houses, the figure is lower -- about 24%.

Now, the premise of Jeremy's tweet storm is that non-owner-occupied housing is bad and that the government should be doing more to discourage this. Simply taxing and restricting foreign buyers is not enough (and I agree that this is mostly symbolic).

But is non-owner occupied really such a bad thing?

First of all, non-owner occupied implies that somebody else is renting the place. I don't think that a significant chunk of these homes are being left vacant. So isn't the fact that somewhere around 61% of all new condominium apartments are becoming rental housing something that is potentially positive?

One counter argument would be that these investors are bidding up new home prices and squeezing out end users. But that brings me to my second point: small-scale individual investors are a critical ingredient in the delivery of new condominium housing in Ontario.

This point cannot be overstated.

The lender requirement to pre-sell suites in order to obtain construction financing means that developers rely heavily on buyers who are willing to purchase many many years before occupancy. And this is generally a lot more challenging for end users, as we have talked about many times before.

So if it weren't for investors, I am certain that we would see a lot less new housing getting built. And in turn, that would mean a lot less new rental housing getting built.

Here's some data (via Jeremy Withers) explaining that a large portion -- about 61% -- of new condominiums built in Ontario between 2016 and 2021 were not owner-occupied. In the case of low-rise houses, the figure is lower -- about 24%.

Now, the premise of Jeremy's tweet storm is that non-owner-occupied housing is bad and that the government should be doing more to discourage this. Simply taxing and restricting foreign buyers is not enough (and I agree that this is mostly symbolic).

But is non-owner occupied really such a bad thing?

First of all, non-owner occupied implies that somebody else is renting the place. I don't think that a significant chunk of these homes are being left vacant. So isn't the fact that somewhere around 61% of all new condominium apartments are becoming rental housing something that is potentially positive?

One counter argument would be that these investors are bidding up new home prices and squeezing out end users. But that brings me to my second point: small-scale individual investors are a critical ingredient in the delivery of new condominium housing in Ontario.

This point cannot be overstated.

The lender requirement to pre-sell suites in order to obtain construction financing means that developers rely heavily on buyers who are willing to purchase many many years before occupancy. And this is generally a lot more challenging for end users, as we have talked about many times before.

So if it weren't for investors, I am certain that we would see a lot less new housing getting built. And in turn, that would mean a lot less new rental housing getting built.