[graeham]

Arguably, the main driver of the problem is foreign purchase of investment properties which aren't rented. Speculation drives this further, as lots of people have made high returns on a market that 'can only go up'.

Nine students 'own' a combined $57M in vancouver property: http://www.news1130.com/2016/09/14/nine-students-own-57m-wor...

Another point that is not often raised is the crazy increases are mainly in detached houses. Condos and attached properties have increased a lot, but not nearly as frothy as detached houses. Suggests the type of purchase that is driving the increases. http://www.news1130.com/2016/02/02/vancouver-house-price-new...

[msie]

Although the first headline is not good news I'm afraid it adds to and is a product of the hysteria in Vancouver. Sadly, blaming foreign buyers is a foregone conclusion. Realize too that David Eby, the guy behind the report in the first headline, is a politician (of the opposition party) getting ready for a provincial election that's coming soon. The ruling Liberal party has already put ads on the tv.

[zo1]

I must be missing some part of the equation here. How is it possible that these properties are not being rented out? Even if the price of the homes are over-inflated, the owners should still be able to get some extra money out of such a capital asset?

Is there something that is tilting the balance the other way? I.e. Making renting out for some amount not worth it?

[Kadin]

> How is it possible that these properties are not being rented out?

Maybe they are, and it's just all being conducted on a cash basis. Or if a Chinese owner is renting to another Chinese expat, they could be handling the rent payments in China (advantageous as it avoids moving the money outside China, which I am led to believe can be difficult and is one reason for the complex real-estate-based 'money parking' schemes in the first place).

The tax on "vacant" properties should probably be set equivalent to the income tax that one would pay on the average rent that you could extract from the property if it were fully rented. That would discourage actual vacancy and eliminate much of the incentive to have under-the-table renters.

[mattm]

One possible reason is that house prices have gone up so much in the past few years that people can sell quickly and make a huge profit. If you have people renting, you can't just kick them out immediately if you want to sell. Renters would be a liability in this case.

[jdavis703]

I don't know about Canada, but in California you can evict people in 30 days... If you (the tenant) really work the court system, maybe it'll take up to 50 days. 50 days should be enough time to kick someone out and put the house for sale.

[breitling]

Can't do that in Canada so quickly. In Toronto at least, the landlord is not allowed to evict the tenant even if they have stopped paying rent. It can take months and months of court visits.

One reasoning I heard is because our winters are so brutal, it would be inhumane to kick people out in the cold.

[pjc50]

It's capital flight property. The owners want it available to move in when SHTF in China.

Besides, not having tenants helps increase the upward pressure on property prices. Like trying to corner the silver market.

[ubernostrum]

While I don't discount the possibility of the live-there-someday option, my understanding of it has always been that purchasing overseas real estate opens up some of the few opportunities for a Chinese national to move money out of the country and convert it into a foreign currency.