Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

[NewGlobalOrder]

- The CMHC has four main types of government assisted housing, and all these programs will be shut down. Those currently in one of the four programs, will be grandfathered in


- Instead, the federal government will partner with municipalities on a national housing program, starting with municipalities with the biggest population


- The new CMHC program will work like this: cities will give up the land needed to build the housing, and run the housing program. Why? Because each city will have their own housing needs, something a massive federal bureaucracy cannot understand. But there will be conditions that all buildings must meet, like environmental standards


- The federal government will provide the funding, and the profits from housing will be shared 50/50


- These buildings will have commercial retail space on the ground level, which could possibly take up more floors, depending on a city’s needs, and apartments for single people, seniors and families


- A 1 bedroom will be 500-1,000sq, and families will live in a 4 bedroom apartment of 2,000-2,500sq. The rent-geared-to-income of 30% will stay as is


- Having a national public housing program will not only raise the standard of living for renters, but the federal and municipal governments will have a new revenue source


My goal is to have at least 10 million people part of public housing. Now say if the average rent was $500 per month, that would equal $5 billion per month, $60 billion per year, minus operating costs.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Uhm....yeah. OK.

I live in Regina, Sk. where a rathole for rent is a $1000.00/month, and a
nice place in a nice neighbourhood can be twice that and much more...&
FYI, Regina has a rental vacancy rate of about 1/2 of one %, and has been
like that for a few years now.

Assume a new built home is a "minimum" of $200,000.00 easily, and that's
being very conservative. I haven't seen a 500sq.ft. home built in my lifetime
either, other than some tiny condos which go for large dollars. A newly built
no frills cookie cutter home that's tiny on a 25ft lot would still exceed $200,000
by far.

I live in a 980sq.ft. home, and it's about 50 years old, and its last appraisal
put it at being worth $260,000.00 just for perspective. A new 2000-2500sq.ft.
home in this city is an easy (and being very conservative) $400,000.00....and
most likely much more than that, but lets use this number for the sake of
debate.

A couple, each working for $12/hr full time, for a combined gross of monthly
of a little over $4000.00 per month....paying 30% of that would be about $1200
for their rental on your plan (the 30% would be of the gross income, right?).

To break even on $400,000 with no interest what so ever, would take over 27
years, and that's with zero profit and the origional investment tied up for over
a quarter of a century. Assume a mortgage (borrowed money) of 5%/annum
or so and that would double the time to just recoup the origional investment
to a bit over 1/2 a century...and that's not factoring in upkeep & upgrades....

The population of Canada is something like 34 million or so, and your goal is
to have almost 1/3rd of the total population of the country in public housing?

My goal is to have at least 10 million people part of public housing. Now say if the average rent was $500 per month, that would equal $5 billion per month, $60 billion per year, minus operating costs.

This would fall into the catagory of "so what?" in a bleeding money financial
wound. Really, you give me $100, & I give you back $1.80/yr for the next 55
years (or make that 15 cents/month = the same thing), minus operating costs,
and that's your plan using similiar ratios boiled down to understandable #'s,
not confusing the issue with dollar figures in the billions.

- The new CMHC program will work like this: cities will give up the land needed to build the housing, and run the housing program. Why? Because each city will have their own housing needs, something a massive federal bureaucracy cannot understand. But there will be conditions that all buildings must meet, like environmental standards.

Give up? Like, as in "give away?" Really? I'm having a problem picturing
that happening. The city here turns a good coin selling lots, both infill and
new plots in what where grain fields (or muskeg) the year before.

- The federal government will provide the funding, and the profits from housing will be shared 50/50.

The Fed's will profide the funding from where? What profit will be shared 50/50?
There is not profit that I'm seeing, but a monstous sinkhole of debt, and will that
be split 50/50?

- These buildings will have commercial retail space on the ground level, which could possibly take up more floors, depending on a city’s needs, and apartments for single people, seniors and families.

Sorry Brother, I just caught this last sentance above, as its meaning just
sunk in for me. You're planning of builting government tenament buildings.
I was picturing "houses," as in "housing." My bad.

Nothing but apartments over retail outlets. Got ya'. A 2000-2500sq.ft.
apartment/condo (in new construction) goes for over a million dollars in
this city. I just don't see how this is going to benifit anyone by bankrupting
the nation. What am I missing?

Hell, a two bedroom basement suite in this city rents out for around $1000.00
a month. Check this out:

Updated 2 Bedroom Basement Suit Including Utilities For Rent - Regina Homes For Rent - Kijiji Regina Canada.

 

[lone wolf]

Give up land that could be used for $20,000/yr fee golf courses?

 

[Ron in Regina]

- Having a national public housing program will not only raise the standard of living for renters, but the federal and municipal governments will have a new revenue source.

I'm just not seeing the income here.

 

[L Gilbert]

- A 1 bedroom will be 500-1,000sq, and families will live in a 4 bedroom apartment of 2,000-2,500sq. The rent-geared-to-income of 30% will stay as is

Holy crap! Whatta fool I have been, living in and raising 2 kids in a 3 bdrm house that is only 1100'sq. I could sell everything and stash the money in some offshore account, live under a bridge for the summer's camping season and then get a 2500'sq. app't for cheap.
Um, I'll take one in Vic., BC please.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Holy crap! Whatta fool I have been, living in and raising 2 kids in a 3 bdrm house that is only 1100'sq. I could sell everything and stash the money in some offshore account, live under a bridge for the summer's camping season and then get a 2500'sq. app't for cheap.

You and just under 1/3 of the population of the entire country, according
to the plan in the O.P.

Doesn't make....any...sense to me at all. Where's the incentive to buy your
own home and free up space in Public Housing for others that really need
it? Seriously, why would anyone buy a home, only to worry about upkeep &
property tax and where will the $$$ come from for that new furnace or shingles
or water heater or bathroom taps or whatever?

 

[captain morgan]

You and just under 1/3 of the population of the entire country, according
to the plan in the O.P.

Sure it makes sense Ron, didn't you read buddy's manifesto on his website?

For a budding politician, he/she sure has a grim outlook for the nation with 1/3 of all Canadians needing subsidized housing to make ends meet... Maybe they are aware that this will be the reality when you discourage the private sector and punish people and corps for succeeding.

The only real question is, once everyone (or at least 1/3) are relegated to peon status, will he allow elections or simply declare themselves some form of royalty

 

[NewGlobalOrder]

First off, cities want the feds back into the public housing game. The cities used to give up the land, and the prov/fed govt provided the funding.

Second, we have to start building up. We have to make our schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings higher, if we want to continue to grow our population.

Building flat schools like the BC NDP, then the next year having to buy portables to teach kids, is short sighted.

The government building apartment buildings is no different than the private sector doing so, expect it will take a little longer to break even, then make a profit, but renter's standard of living will go up, and they will have more money to spend locally.

Right now, at least in Vancouver, condos are being built over apartment buildings. But thx for the positive feedback, it warms my heart!

 

[captain morgan]

So.. The above diatribe is justification for providing housing for 1/3 of the Canadian population?

 

[Ron in Regina]

First off, cities want the feds back into the public housing game. The cities used to give up the land, and the prov/fed govt provided the funding.

Second, we have to start building up. We have to make our schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings higher, if we want to continue to grow our population.

Building flat schools like the BC NDP, then the next year having to buy portables to teach kids, is short sighted.

The government building apartment buildings is no different than the private sector doing so, expect it will take a little longer to break even, then make a profit, but renter's standard of living will go up, and they will have more money to spend locally.

Right now, at least in Vancouver, condos are being built over apartment buildings. But thx for the positive feedback, it warms my heart!

Where will the cash come from for this?

The cities used to give up the land, and the prov/fed govt provided the funding.
Why do you think this isn't happening currently?

Renters pay tax's too. This will have to be paid for somehow, and expecting to
hopefully break-even in 5+ decades, and then start profiting is.....farsighted, I
guess. The country isn't just Vancouver or Toronto, and "up" is a great direction
to grow when that is the only option.

Seriously though, if you're looking at entering politics, this is a good place to
work the bugs out'a your platform with honest criticism, so that you can refine
it before your opponents and constituents can eyeball the raw concepts. Good
to throw it out here before it can become hurtles you have to deal with in the
real world where the opportunity to revise things is limited and you're voted off
the political island before you really get started.

You've got idea's and you want to make a change for the greater good, and
that's not a bad thing, but there also has to be some balance or you're just
kicking your own arse.

Canada has poverty, and an aging population, and something needs to be
done. Your ideals are admirable. Politics is a visious game. Change comes
hard & slow, but it can come with nudges so as not to overburden the system.

Toss your ideas out here, and expect them to be disected, as that is what
would happen out in the big arena. Think of this place as a tool to work the
bugs out'a your platforms.

Keep your chin up.

 

[L Gilbert]

But thx for the positive feedback, it warms my heart!

Ahhh, the appeal to emotion argument. Typical Gliberal crap.

So.. The above diatribe is justification for providing housing for 1/3 of the Canadian population?

And we taxpayers funding it. I can see half the population becoming poor and needing these low rents 2500 sq ft palaces.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Maybe the Guy is just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks?

This one just doesn't work in its present form, but something else
he comes up with might....

 

[captain morgan]

Fair enough Ron, however, there has to be an element of reasonableness to act as the foundation.

Constructing housing for 1/3 of the population assumes that 1/3 of the population can't fend for itself, at least enough to make ends meet. If this is the case, perhaps this gent's efforts would be better served by generating solutions to the root problem or the economic circumstances that lead to this eventuality in the first place.

It's like trying to use a few band-aids to treat a severed artery.

 

[SLM]

First off, cities want the feds back into the public housing game. The cities used to give up the land, and the prov/fed govt provided the funding.

Second, we have to start building up. We have to make our schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings higher, if we want to continue to grow our population.

Building flat schools like the BC NDP, then the next year having to buy portables to teach kids, is short sighted.

The government building apartment buildings is no different than the private sector doing so, expect it will take a little longer to break even, then make a profit, but renter's standard of living will go up, and they will have more money to spend locally.

Anything the government does takes longer and costs more money. Government is not know for it's super efficiency.

Right now, at least in Vancouver, condos are being built over apartment buildings. But thx for the positive feedback, it warms my heart!

Um ok, did you not say before that you political aspirations? And you're looking for positive feedback? You're in the wrong line of work for that.

Maybe the Guy is just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks?

This one just doesn't work in its present form, but something else
he comes up with might....

Ah yes, the old blindfolded guy throwing darts approach. Duck and cover!

Fair enough Ron, however, there has to be an element of reasonableness to act as the foundation.

Constructing housing for 1/3 of the population assumes that 1/3 of the population can't fend for itself, at least enough to make ends meet. If this is the case, perhaps this gent's efforts would be better served by generating solutions to the root problem or the economic circumstances that lead to this eventuality in the first place.

It's like trying to use a few band-aids to treat a severed artery.

Wow, you mean proactive as opposed to reactive? Radical!

 

[mentalfloss]

Mortgage lending tightens for self-employed, immigrants

It’s going to be tougher for the self employed, new immigrants and higher-risk borrowers to get a mortgage as concerns continue to mount over the state of Canada’s housing market.

CIBC’s wholesale mortgage arm, FirstLine, quietly announced Tuesday that it will no longer accept new applications from “stated income” homebuyers who can’t prove they have the annual net income to qualify for home loans.

FirstLine also set a $1 million cap on what it will lend for a home purchase.

The major change in policy, which is bound to pique the interest of other major lenders, came on the same day it was revealed that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. could be forced to cut back on the mortgages it insures.

The moves are seen as among the clearest indications yet that Canada’s hot housing market and record levels of household debt are a concern far beyond just the Ottawa offices of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney.

The CIBC was unable to comment last night on the changes, other than to say FirstLine’s decision “reflects the normal course of business.”

But that, coupled with CMHC’s predicament, is sure to raise concerns.

CMHC has traditionally backstopped loans, especially to first-time homebuyers who can’t raise the traditional 20 per cent downpayment for a home.

But the housing corporation has recently received “an unexpected level of requests for large amounts of CMHC portfolio insurance” that has pushed it close to the $600-billion cap on insurance set by the federal government.

Those requests have come from financial institutions looking for, in essence, taxpayer backing on pools of previously uninsured low-ratio mortgages.

While a CMHC spokesperson insisted this “does not affect the availability of CMHC’s mortgage insurance for qualified home buyers and will not impact the cost of buying a home,” the federal housing company may inevitably be forced to take a harder look at who it insures down the road, housing experts say.

That’s led to speculation that CMHC, too, could back away from self-employed home buyers who often need insurance to get a mortgage.

CMHC declined to comment on those suggestions Tuesday, other than to say “CMHC continues to manage its mortgage loan insurance business in accordance with the $600 billion insurance in force limit.”

FirstLine’s announcement is “a pretty substantial change in thinking” from the second-biggest mortgage lender in the country, said Friesen.

The question is whether other institutional lenders will follow suit.

As of Sept. 30, CMHC had insured $541 billion in loans, up from $501 billion a year earlier. Just three years ago, CMHC was insuring $450 billion in loans and asked Ottawa for approval for the $600 billion cap.

The increase in insurance-backed loans is not only evidence that increased prices are pushing houses further out of reach of many homebuyers, but that people are still so keen to get into the market, they’re willing to pay for mortgage default insurance, said TD Bank economist Sonya Gulati.

Mortgage lending tightens for self-employed, immigrants - Moneyville.ca

 

[NewGlobalOrder]

So.. The above diatribe is justification for providing housing for 1/3 of the Canadian population?

It is not going to happen over-night. It will take years, slowly over time. But yes, it is.

Where will the cash come from for this?

The cities used to give up the land, and the prov/fed govt provided the funding.
Why do you think this isn't happening currently?

Renters pay tax's too. This will have to be paid for somehow, and expecting to
hopefully break-even in 5+ decades, and then start profiting is.....farsighted, I
guess. The country isn't just Vancouver or Toronto, and "up" is a great direction
to grow when that is the only option.

Seriously though, if you're looking at entering politics, this is a good place to
work the bugs out'a your platform with honest criticism, so that you can refine
it before your opponents and constituents can eyeball the raw concepts. Good
to throw it out here before it can become hurtles you have to deal with in the
real world where the opportunity to revise things is limited and you're voted off
the political island before you really get started.

You've got idea's and you want to make a change for the greater good, and
that's not a bad thing, but there also has to be some balance or you're just
kicking your own arse.

Canada has poverty, and an aging population, and something needs to be
done. Your ideals are admirable. Politics is a visious game. Change comes
hard & slow, but it can come with nudges so as not to overburden the system.

Toss your ideas out here, and expect them to be disected, as that is what
would happen out in the big arena. Think of this place as a tool to work the
bugs out'a your platforms.

Keep your chin up.

Seriously though, if you're looking at entering politics, this is a good place to
work the bugs out'a your platform with honest criticism, so that you can refine
it before your opponents and constituents can eyeball the raw concepts. Good
to throw it out here before it can become hurtles you have to deal with in the
real world where the opportunity to revise things is limited and you're voted off
the political island before you really get started.

This is the reason why I am posting this, to get feedback. But... this is the internet.Peoplecan research any changes I do make to my platform. They can say... but you used to stand for x!!!

 

[Angstrom]

Holy crap! Whatta fool I have been, living in and raising 2 kids in a 3 bdrm house that is only 1100'sq. I could sell everything and stash the money in some offshore account, live under a bridge for the summer's camping season and then get a 2500'sq. app't for cheap.
Um, I'll take one in Vic., BC please.

Good old capitalist pig mentality! Lets screw the system for all its worth yiihaw!!!

I wish we would just pick a direction and run with it instead of a little of both and ending up having one big failed mess of a system.

Its Free markets 100% or communism 100% pick one and stick with it.

 

[Ron in Regina]

This is the reason why I am posting this, to get feedback. But... this is the internet.Peoplecan research any changes I do make to my platform. They can say... but you used to stand for x!!!

'Yep....I use to stand for "x" and many other things, before I truly
waded out hip deep into the toilet that is the current political
scene in Canada....and before that when I was younger,
I also believed in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, etc...
So....what's your point?' sort'a thing in reply. Done deal with
washed hands. 'Next Question please?' follows the silence.

Someone states that they googled your name and found
something interesting in conflict with your current persona,
reply: "Was it the picture when I was four and wearing my
footy-PJ's? I don't wear those anymore." whether or not
such a thing exists. Gets a laugh and steers their
questioning towards the absurdity before they
fire their big guns.

 

[PoliticalNick]

1/3 of all Canadians in subsidized housing? With the plan stated in the OP taxes will be so high to pay for it I think more than 1/3 will need the help.

Maybe this guys political aspirations are to bloat the govt even further than it already is and create the "nanny state" utopia where he can be king over the 99.9% and tell us what we need.

 

[taxslave]

You and just under 1/3 of the population of the entire country, according
to the plan in the O.P.

Doesn't make....any...sense to me at all. Where's the incentive to buy your
own home and free up space in Public Housing for others that really need
it? Seriously, why would anyone buy a home, only to worry about upkeep &
property tax and where will the $$$ come from for that new furnace or shingles
or water heater or bathroom taps or whatever?

Don't worry. If a goofball socialist plan like that ever got implemented that would be about all the housing any of us could afford. Fortunately for us their isn't that many freeloaders to ever vote in a government like that.
I for one would not be caught DEAD LIVING IN A CITY, nevermind an apartment over a store. Where would we keep the horses? Park my toys?

Maybe the Guy is just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks?

This one just doesn't work in its present form, but something else
he comes up with might....

Like $hit?

Mortgage lending tightens for self-employed, immigrants

It’s going to be tougher for the self employed, new immigrants and higher-risk borrowers to get a mortgage as concerns continue to mount over the state of Canada’s housing market.

CIBC’s wholesale mortgage arm, FirstLine, quietly announced Tuesday that it will no longer accept new applications from “stated income” homebuyers who can’t prove they have the annual net income to qualify for home loans.

FirstLine also set a $1 million cap on what it will lend for a home purchase.

The major change in policy, which is bound to pique the interest of other major lenders, came on the same day it was revealed that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. could be forced to cut back on the mortgages it insures.

The moves are seen as among the clearest indications yet that Canada’s hot housing market and record levels of household debt are a concern far beyond just the Ottawa offices of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney.

The CIBC was unable to comment last night on the changes, other than to say FirstLine’s decision “reflects the normal course of business.”

But that, coupled with CMHC’s predicament, is sure to raise concerns.

CMHC has traditionally backstopped loans, especially to first-time homebuyers who can’t raise the traditional 20 per cent downpayment for a home.

But the housing corporation has recently received “an unexpected level of requests for large amounts of CMHC portfolio insurance” that has pushed it close to the $600-billion cap on insurance set by the federal government.

Those requests have come from financial institutions looking for, in essence, taxpayer backing on pools of previously uninsured low-ratio mortgages.

While a CMHC spokesperson insisted this “does not affect the availability of CMHC’s mortgage insurance for qualified home buyers and will not impact the cost of buying a home,” the federal housing company may inevitably be forced to take a harder look at who it insures down the road, housing experts say.

That’s led to speculation that CMHC, too, could back away from self-employed home buyers who often need insurance to get a mortgage.

CMHC declined to comment on those suggestions Tuesday, other than to say “CMHC continues to manage its mortgage loan insurance business in accordance with the $600 billion insurance in force limit.”

FirstLine’s announcement is “a pretty substantial change in thinking” from the second-biggest mortgage lender in the country, said Friesen.

The question is whether other institutional lenders will follow suit.

As of Sept. 30, CMHC had insured $541 billion in loans, up from $501 billion a year earlier. Just three years ago, CMHC was insuring $450 billion in loans and asked Ottawa for approval for the $600 billion cap.

The increase in insurance-backed loans is not only evidence that increased prices are pushing houses further out of reach of many homebuyers, but that people are still so keen to get into the market, they’re willing to pay for mortgage default insurance, said TD Bank economist Sonya Gulati.

Mortgage lending tightens for self-employed, immigrants - Moneyville.ca

That all sounds like a sensible business move to me. If banks want to risk their own or rather their shareholders money on questionable loans that is up to them. But us poor taxpayers must not be on the hook for bad loans.