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

Canada

7106 readers
266 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 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
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago

90% more to go before I can afford a house

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day 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 1 day 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"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 1 day ago

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