Housing: The back door wealth transfer

Dan Osborne
March 16, 2014
Canada’s Housing Market has been called the world’s most overpriced. Dan Osborne argues that the boom in house prices amounts to a massive intergenerational wealth transfer that is killing fertility in the millennial generation.

Housing: The back door wealth transfer

Dan Osborne
March 16, 2014
Canada’s Housing Market has been called the world’s most overpriced. Dan Osborne argues that the boom in house prices amounts to a massive intergenerational wealth transfer that is killing fertility in the millennial generation.
Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter

 

Can you imagine a $400,000, 400 sq. foot condo being your entry-level home? That is the reality young Canadians face in what The Economist calls the world’s “most overvalued housing market.” Many Canadian Millennials are left asking themselves why they should leave their parents’ basements and why they should purchase a home and start a family. For the first time in Canadian history, young Canadians will not be able to afford a house unless they are very fortunate.

The situation is at odds with Canadian tradition. Canada has always been a vast, young and forward-looking country. Whether it was building a farmhouse in the Last Best West 100 years ago or building a suburban ranch home on the edge of one of our major cities 50 years ago, Canadians have always looked upon development favourably. Despite the inhospitable climate, Canadian homes were among the most affordable in the world. Until about 15 years ago, that is.

Housing is now judged “seriously unaffordable” in Canada’s largest urban areas, such as Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary, according to housing analyst Wendell Cox. The average home price stands at $391,000 and is expected to reach $500,000 by the end of the decade, a level that will be unaffordable for even many upper middle-class Canadians.

What has changed? Ten years ago, only two Canadian markets were considered unaffordable – Vancouver and Toronto. Today, all but the smallest and most economically dysfunctional metropolitan areas are considered either “moderately” or “seriously unaffordable.”

The fact of the matter is that the cost of building a new home is not substantially different anywhere in Canada. Carpenters might make a few dollars an hour more in Toronto or Calgary than they do in Moncton or Winnipeg, but the actual difference to the price of a new home is negligible. Those costs have not substantially increased in the past decade. Low interest rates cannot be blamed; they are available everywhere in Canada. Demand is not a substantial reason either; there are economically dynamic regions that are affordable as well as unaffordable. Economically dynamic metropolitan areas like Edmonton have remained affordable whereas less competitive regions like Montreal have become fairly unaffordable.

This really leaves only one reason: land-use regulation.

Consider the case of Ontario, and particularly the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), over the past decade. Following up on a 2003 campaign promise, Ontario’s Liberal government passed legislation in 2005 to limit urban sprawl with new provincial planning policies, and it put a Greenbelt around the fast-growing GTA. This policy required all municipalities to enact the province’s planning policies of constraining growth, even in rural and Northern Ontario. Ontario’s Greenbelt Act restricted 1.8 million acres of prime, developable land surrounding the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe to its current use, making it illegal to develop or redevelop it.

Since Ontario’s government enacted these pieces of legislation and tightened development throughout the province, Ontarians have seen a dramatic decrease in housing affordability. Following the reforms of 2005, Toronto has become a “seriously unaffordable housing market” according to housing policy experts. The area’s median multiple, a common measure of housing affordability, has increased from between 2 and 3 to 5.9. Other previously affordable Ontario cities such as Hamilton and Ottawa have seen similar increases in the same time span.

As other Canadian provinces and cities have tightened their planning and land-use policies, they have seen similar increases in housing unaffordability. As Québec strengthened its agricultural land reserves in the past decades, prices in Montreal have dramatically increased. Calgary has seen a similar run up in prices as the city has made new outward development more difficult. The Lower Mainland of British Columbia, which has had an agricultural land reserve and strict zoning laws since the early 1970s, has been unaffordable since that time. Vancouver has recently been ranked as the second-least affordable housing market in the world behind only Hong Kong.

Consistent economic research shows that the anecdotes about land-use regulation are true; it is the reason for increased Canadian home prices. Since there is little difference in the actual cost of constructing a home in different areas, a lack of a supply of land is the only reason economists can find for the difference in home prices between metropolitan areas. Moreover, in a country as vast as Canada, that supply is artificially, not naturally, constrained.

Just how much of an effect do these artificial constraints have? In a noted study looking at the Boston metropolitan area, Harvard economist Ed Glaeser found that land-use regulations drove up the cost of housing approximately 60 per cent – similar to the increase in Toronto’s median multiple since more restrictive land-use policies were put in place – or about $160,000, enough to buy a home in some U.S. housing markets at the time. Even economists on the other side of the political spectrum concur. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman agrees with the assertion that restrictive land-use policy is responsible for expensive housing; he refers to expensive metropolitan areas derogatorily as “zoned zones.”

The result of these “zoned zones” has not just been increased housing prices. They have the effect of indirectly delaying many young Canadians’ transitions out of adolescence and into adulthood. As the price of housing increased over the past decade, more and more Canadian twenty-somethings than ever before have made the decision to live with their parents. Faced with stagnant incomes and low starting salaries out of university, nearly 45 per cent of Canadian twenty-somethings have chosen to live at home, a nearly 50 per cent increase over the rate two decades prior.

In a major metropolitan area such as Toronto, rent on even a modest apartment will take up more than one-third of a young person’s income; the median 25 to 29 year old in Canada with a university degree earns only $29,000 a year. Paying $1,000 a month in rent, not to mention hydro, water, etc., forces many Canadian Millennials to live at home. Cultural variations cannot explain it. Cities with similar demographics, such as Vaughan and Sudbury – both have similarly large Italian-Canadian populations but divergent house prices – do not have similar rates of twenty-somethings living at home.

Some evidence suggests that this may have long-term demographic implications as well. As young people delay moving out of the house, they also delay marriage and children. The declining birth rate due to this phenomenon is particularly pronounced in cities with high housing costs. Research has found that areas with higher housing prices and denser urban environments have lower birth rates than areas with lower housing prices and more dispersed housing. Cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Vancouver and New York have dramatically lower birth rates than more-affordable housing markets such as Houston or Atlanta. Vancouver has the lowest birth rate of any North American city; it is no coincidence that it also has the highest housing prices.

~

Dan Osborne is a recent graduate of Queen’s University and sells liberty-themed ties at libertyties.ca. Whilst at university, Mr. Osborne worked with a number of think-tanks working as a Students For Liberty Campus Coordinator and sat on The Prince Arthur Herald’s Board of Directors.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

It's time for an open, rational debate on immigration policy in Canada.

Can Canada Handle a Rational, Polite and Fact-Based Debate About Immigration?

It seems as if a new taboo is foisted upon Canadians by the week. Immigration is already among our established taboos – while the limits on its remaining areas of policy discussion grow ever-tighter. Canadians as a whole want less of it, while our elites are convinced that only good can come from more of it – and that increasing our diversity of origin is so important that it shall require uniformity of thought. Academic economist and former Parliamentarian Herbert Grubel says nuts to that, offering his take on key elements of immigration policy, plus the facts to support it. Part I of a two-part analysis.

It's a gross example of government overreach for there to be policies directing the diet and exercise of the population.

The Right To Be Fat: Pushing Back Against Government Overreach

Would beloved comic actor John Candy have lived longer if government forced him to eat less? What about Orson Welles? Or Luciano Pavarotti? Perhaps. Would they have been happier or more successful? We’ll never know the answer to the first, and as to the second, almost certainly not. Candy built his career around a lovable portliness, Welles often played menacing fat men and Pavarotti’s girth helped him belt out arias. A few extra pounds, in other words, offers both advantages and disadvantages − and it should be up to the individual to decide how to balance the scales. As governments ramp up policies designed to put their citizenry on a diet, Matthew Lau sallies forth in defence of eating what you want, and exercising only when you feel the need.

Pictured is Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians. Illustrating the plight of civil servants under increasing regulation.

Slow Death by Regulation, the Great Public-Sector Disease

When do the words “transparency” and “accountability” mean the opposite of what an untutored citizen might think? Why, when they’re passing the lips of a Canadian civil servant. The federal bureaucracy also seems the one place where the digital revolution made everyone less productive. And while this sounds amusing (if pathetic), the federal bureaucracy’s power and intrusiveness just grow and grow while the freedoms of individuals and voluntary associations shrink and shrink. Former citizenship judge Joe Woodard takes a wry look at these trends and with good humour tracks the deadly serious slide of Canada from a free society in which everything that isn’t specifically forbidden is allowed, into something sadder, darker and more constrained.

More from this author

Why modern liberals should love capitalism

Modern liberals believe in social justice. They ought to also believe in capitalism which makes redistribution possible. But even though a new author makes a persuasive case, reviewer Dan Osborne explains why the two are not likely to twin any time soon…

Share This Story

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.