The New Uncertainty in Canadian Housing: Land Rights, Falling Condos, and Investor Retreat
An interview with realtor, real estate investor, and host of The Loonie Hour podcast, Steve Saretsky.
What happens when a court ruling suddenly throws property ownership into question?
In this episode of the Missing Middle’s Classonomics podcast, Mike Moffatt and Steve Saretsky unpack the growing uncertainty surrounding Indigenous land rights in B.C. and how it’s already impacting mortgages, investment, and development. They also dive into falling condo prices, rising vacancy rates, rent control, and what Canada’s rapidly shifting housing market means for affordability and the future of housing policy.
If you enjoy the show and would like to support our work, please consider subscribing to our YouTube channel. The pod is also available on various audio-only platforms, including:
Below is an AI-generated transcript of the Missing Middle podcast, lightly edited.
Mike Moffatt: Hi everyone. Today we’ve got a special guest. We’re happy to welcome Vancouver realtor, real estate investor, and host of The Loonie Hour podcast, Steve Saretsky.
I’ve followed Steve’s Substack for years. I’m a big, big fan. We wanted to bring him on to provide our national audience with deeper insight into the B.C. housing situation. We’ll talk a little bit about Calgary and move beyond our typical Ontario-centric focus. This is something that you’ve been calling for in the YouTube comment section for us to do more non-Ontario content. We hear you. So Steve, thanks so much for coming on today.
Steve Saretsky: Yeah, thanks for having me on. Looking forward to this conversation. And we were delighted to have you on the Loonie Hour a little while back. So it’s good to be here.
Mike Moffatt: Here in Ontario, where I am, we don’t really understand what’s going on with the Cowichan decision - this land issue in Richmond, B.C., just south of Vancouver, the court case and the legal decision that was made. And I don’t think it’s getting enough attention out here.
So, my understanding, and noting that neither you nor I are legal scholars, we’re just people who know a lot about housing- but, my understanding of this is that, back in August last year, the B.C. Supreme Court recognized the Cowichan Nation’s Aboriginal title, but that doesn’t cancel out private property rights. Instead, they’ve come up with this complex system where the two are supposed to coexist, with Aboriginal title being recognized as a senior claim that requires further government negotiation.
That’s just my understanding as an outsider. Have I got that right? And what does all this mean?
Steve Saretsky: You’ve summarized it well. That’s the legal, technical decision that was ruled.
Just for some context, I grew up in Richmond, and I went to school; I actually lived in that little parcel of area that’s basically contested. I actually used to rent there. So I’m very familiar with the area. I’ve got friends who own land in that area that’s now under this sort of cloud.
To give you my perspective, again, not like a legal expert, but when people come out and say, “Hey, listen, there’s no one’s taking their homes away, right? Like the First Nations aren’t coming to take your house,” which is true. They’re not saying, “Hey, get out of your house; you need to leave.” But what you’re doing in real estate is that the judge has ruled the two titles can coexist. And like, the reality is, if you walk into a bank and you say, “Hey, TD, I would like to get a mortgage, can you give me a mortgage? And by the way, my title coexists.” It doesn’t work. That’s not how the real world works; that’s not how the lending world works. And so what we’re hearing on the ground is that it’s very difficult to get a new mortgage.
None of the big banks are going to come out publicly and say, “Hey, we’re not going to give you a mortgage.” But what they’re going to do is they’re going to find creative ways for the appraisal value to come in very, very low. That’s number one. I would say what it’s done to these landowners is it’s created properties that are, from a Realtor’s perspective, illiquid.
I couldn’t convince a buyer to say, “Hey, this is going to be a great investment. You should go in there and buy.” The reality is that the ruling has created a whole bunch of uncertainty around what is the ownership structure. Are you going to have to enter into a First Nations lease agreement, like a 99-year lease? And is there something we don’t know? And so until that ruling really gets clarified, all of these properties are now, in my opinion, illiquid.
And I’ll give you a real-life example, and this is from a close friend that I grew up with. They have a bunch of industrial warehouse land in that area. And so they built the roads and did all the stuff.
And they were in the process of building a new warehouse, and they had a lease agreement in place with a large corporation. And as soon as that judgment came to pass, that large corporation said, “We’re out.” We are no longer interested in this lease. There’s too much uncertainty. And that immediately killed the financing; it immediately died. Because if you don’t have a secure tenant, there’s no loan. So that’s the real-life implication.
The reality is, something like 90% of British Columbia is on unseated territory or unseated land. It’s creating additional layers of uncertainty about what homeownership is. What is a fee-simple title? I think that’s kind of the easiest way I can summarize it.
Mike Moffatt: And I can see all that because we’re in a situation right now where there are a lot of projects fighting for capital, not just in real estate, in general. And you’ve got real estate downturns, at least in residential. So you look at this and go, “Okay, there’s increased risk. So why don’t I just put my money somewhere else?”
Now, when it comes to the public discourse and where the public is on this, when this decision came out and we had a tweet from one of your mayors down there, this blew up. Is the public sentiment changing at all? Is this dying down a little bit, or is this still as red hot as it was a few months ago?
Steve Saretsky: I would say, truthfully, I think it’s as red hot. I think when we look at B.C. provincial politics, for example, I think this will be the number one topic of conversation in the next election. This will be the number one political point. And that you’re seeing, for example, the NDP is currently in power, the Conservative Party of BC, which is their number one competition, is going through a leadership race right now with 4 to 6 candidates. And all of them are focusing on the First Nation stuff as talking point number one. So I think that, politically, it’s a very hot-button topic, and I don’t think it’s going to go away.
I mean, real estate in Canada, particularly in places like Vancouver and Toronto, is number one. It’s everyone’s favourite hobby or pastime. And so when you start to introduce things that can start to jeopardize home values, people get pretty interested. You’re seeing people who otherwise wouldn’t be following First Nations-type stuff are now suddenly very interested in what’s going on.
Mike Moffatt: A complete outsider perspective here, but my understanding is you have an NDP government that’s almost like the federal government here, where there’s not a clear majority or minority; they’re kind of down the center. You’ve got, what I think is, five major conservative leader candidates who are all talking about this. How do you see this playing out both in a political sense and also just in a market sense in, say, Lower Mainland B.C. over the next 6 to 18 months? Where do you see this going?
Steve Saretsky: I think that the NDP under Horgan was quite popular. Obviously, when Eby took power, I mean, you can see it in the data, in the polling, his popularity is way down. I think that people are just looking for change. And so I would be shocked if he doesn’t get replaced. It feels to me a little bit like the Trudeau era, which is like it’s run its course. I don’t know; we’ll see.
I think we’re seeing even municipal leaders, of course, coming out with all the First Nation stuff. We had the mayor of Richmond and Pocos come out. So there are all these mayors coming out.
I think what’s actually happening, ironically, is that it’s actually setting back the reconciliation culture or whatever you want to call it. I think it’s creating a lot of social friction and political rifts. So you’re seeing the NDP that brought in DRIPA, for example, which is like a First Nations policy. But they’re seeing them trying to walk that back and saying, “Okay, we’re going to try to repeal it, but we don’t want to upset the apple cart.” I think that everybody knows it’s probably gone a bit too far. And now they’re just trying to find a politically palatable way to walk it back.
Mike Moffatt: So you mentioned Trudeau. And one of the things I’m watching these days is that, as we’re recording it right now, Keir Starmer is still the Prime Minister of the UK. But I think by the time this comes out, he won’t be because he’s getting essentially pushed by his own party. Do you think Eby might be in trouble in his own party?
Steve Saretsky: I mean, there are talks. I’m certainly not a political insider, but there are talks about whether he gets shoved out and will the B.C. Conservative Party end up actually running against someone different, similar to the Trudeau-Carney thing. It’s like Pierre Poilievre thinks he’s going to be running against Trudeau. And then at the last minute, he gets replaced. I think there’s a decent possibility that could happen in B.C. as well. I think, as it is right now, I think that Eby, even with his own base, is becoming increasingly unpopular. It’ll be interesting to see how that all shapes up.
Mike Moffatt: It is going to be an interesting few months. Your politics in B.C. are a little bit more interesting than our provincial politics in Ontario.
Let’s do another Ontario - B.C. comparison here. So the GTA and Vancouver are experiencing this weird combination of events where we still have a housing crisis, prices are still unaffordable to the middle class, but we’ve got falling rents and we have vacancy rates that are surging. So can you provide a picture of what’s been going on over the last few years in the Greater Vancouver area? What’s changed? Is it like what we’re seeing in Toronto? Are there any subtle differences?
Steve Saretsky: The two markets move very much in unison; they’re so similar. What we’re seeing today in Greater Vancouver is home prices, particularly in the suburbs, that went up crazy during the pandemic - they’re coming down. I mean, it’s not unreasonable to see home prices down somewhere between 20 to 30% in the suburbs from the peak. And then you get into the inner cities, and those valuations have held up better; maybe you’re down 10 to 15%.
Where you’re seeing that weakness is in the condo market, particularly downtown, where you used to get a lot of investors, I would argue that 40-50% of that market would be investor-bid, and that investor-bid has completely disappeared.
The psychology around real estate and investing in Canada has changed dramatically over the last couple of years. The idea used to be, “I’ve got to get one investment condo or two or three.” And it seemed like everybody wanted to build this investment portfolio of real estate properties. And what I see today, increasingly, is, “Hey, I’ve got three condos, Steve; I would like you to come and sell two of them. I’d rather liquidate, and I want to put it into whatever- the S&P 500 or pick your poison. But I don’t want to be in real estate because I don’t see the returns over the next 3 to 7 years.”
Look at the tremendous growth in purpose-built rentals. I think as much as we like to slam the government and the federal government and all the mistakes that they made, I think one of the programs that they brought in that worked tremendously well was the CMHC insurance for rental construction. It’s created a boom that we haven’t seen in many, many decades. And so what we’re seeing now in Vancouver is, you’ve got a 31-year high in the vacancy rate. Rents are down anywhere from 10% to 30%, depending on the suburb.
If I’m an investor, what am I looking at today? I’m looking at a situation where valuations are falling. My income from rents is declining, and my mortgage rates are up, and then there’s no immigration. And so you’re like, “How am I going to get any sort of future return over the next 3 to 5 years?” And so I think that’s ultimately what’s sowing the seeds for the next shortfall, because there’s an inability today to pre-sell. And if you can’t pre-sell condos to investors, then they don’t get built.
So, of course, developers are completely turning off the taps on pre-construction units, and some are converting to rental. But that’s going to slowly, I think, roll over as well.
Mike Moffatt: We’re seeing the same thing here in Ontario, where you had all these investors for years and years, basically being on the buy side when it comes to condos, either pre-construction or built units. And now we’re going on the sell side, which certainly accelerates things.
One thing we’ve started to see here - there was a report in the Toronto Star and a few other papers - is bulk selling of condo units to purpose-built rental operators at pretty discounted prices. So you’re looking at condos that may have gone for 1200-1300 bucks a square foot, and they’re being bulk sold in the 700-750 range. Are we seeing any of that activity in Vancouver yet?
Steve Saretsky: Not really. It’s a good point. Not really seeing any funds coming out, or at least publicly, that are saying, “Hey, we’re going to buy up all these unsold units.” I’m sure there are a few people out there, but nothing like that’s being caught in the newspaper in the GTA. I don’t think we’re there yet.
But I think what we’re seeing is just more and more stories of people who bought pre-sales that aren’t going to be closing, can’t close. Appraisal values are low. You’re seeing units that have closed. We’re seeing million-dollar losses in some buildings. It’s significant.
The presale pricing was also grossly inflated. I think what happened was that there was definitely a speculative mindset around it, which is like, “Hey, listen, the developers are charging 15% above the comparable resale product, but when it completes in three years, the market is obviously going to go up 7% a year. By the time you close, this is actually going to look like a good deal.” And I think that was the challenge of the presale market is not only that today your price is not rising, but it’s declining. And so that really killed the whole presale engine.
Mike Moffatt: Yeah, I think so too. And I tend to mock that idea of: it’s a 15% premium, but prices are going to go up 7% a year. But there was a 15-year period where that wasn’t a bad bet at all. And people who took that did quite well.
But when it comes to investors, I’d like to talk about the purpose-built rental market. Part of what we’re seeing here is that you’ve got a set of developers who are looking at the units under construction numbers. They’re looking at starts, which are still strong, and they’re saying there’s no point. In the US, a 30-year T-bill is now at like 5.6% a year. Why am I going to take all this risk building a purpose-built rental?
But there are some developers who are still out there starting new projects. Do you see that in B.C.? Are there people still going ahead, or is everybody looking at the numbers, pulling back and just going, “There’s just way too much risk here”
Steve Saretsky: I mean, they’re definitely pulling back. I think you’re still seeing starts, though. It’s not like it’s gone to zero. I find it quite interesting. I agree with your point; the risk-reward to start construction on new rental today doesn’t look overly appealing.
The reality is, though, when you talk to some of these developers, a lot of them have a whole bunch of staff and overhead, and they want to keep the lights on. They want to keep these people who are on the payroll; they want to keep them employed. They don’t want to lose good employees, skilled people, because they have no work for them for the next couple of years. So a lot of them are just starting projects with the idea that I’m not going to make any money on this, but we’ll keep more of our staff employed.
But again, you look at every big major developer in the city that’s been around for 30 to 60 years, and all of them are laying off staff. And it’s not 100% of the staff, but 10% to 30% of the staff. Nobody seems to be immune. And so I think that’s just really telling of where the industry is today and where it’s going to be over the next couple of years. I think it’s going to be very challenging. We’ve got a full pipeline of rentals under construction today that will be completed over the next 12 to 24 months at a time when you already have a 31-year high in the vacancy, rents are falling, and there’s no population growth. I think the returns are going to be very subpar.
Mike Moffatt: It surprises me, but as you say, some of these companies want to keep the band together. As one developer said to me, “I’m in the business of building homes, not just sitting still.” So I do think they have this bias that way.
And I think when it comes to B.C., we don’t pay enough attention to it here in Ontario. And when we do, we use it as a cudgel to make a political point. And one of the political points that we’ve heard over the past few years, the Ford government basically exempted new units from rent control on the idea that that would help get more built. And I know the opposition, particularly some members in the NDP, would like to point to British Columbia and say, “Hey, they have really strict rent control, and they’re still building all kinds of purpose-built rentals. So that isn’t necessary.” So I guess my question is, what is the rent control regime like in British Columbia, and is it having any effect on development?
Steve Saretsky: Yeah, from my observation, looking at various housing markets, I think B.C. has the strongest rent controls or pro-tenant policies in North America. So if you’re building a brand-new condo building or you’re building a brand-new rental building, there are rent controls basically from day one. Which means if I just finished a purpose-built rental building, it’s ready to be leased up. I put a new tenant in there. The rent growth is capped every year from that day forward.
Under the previous B.C. Liberal government, they had a policy that stated it was whatever CPI was - CPI inflation plus 2%. So let’s just say inflation’s 2 plus 2%. So you could raise your rent 4% a year, which allowed you to maintain the buildings and cover rising costs of repairs, insurance and things like that. The B.C. NDP came in, and they said, during COVID, no rent increases- zero. And then they changed it to basically just CPI. So if inflation is 2.5%, you can raise your rents by 2.5%.
And when you look at the rental numbers, it hasn’t really throttled construction. I mean, I would argue that it disincentivized investors from deploying capital there. I think people have learned a valuable lesson over the pandemic era and the era of rising interest rates, which is what we saw on the ground: a scenario where you’d have a mom-and-pop investor who, let’s say, has owned a condo for ten years. They’ve had a tenant in there for the last six. And so they say, “Well, I don’t really raise my rent on the tenant. He’s so good. He always pays on time.” So they kept the rent pretty low. Then what happened was their variable mortgage went up, you know, 400 basis points in the span of 12 months, and suddenly, I just went from cash flow neutral to -$800 a month. What do I do?
We’re like, “Well, there’s nothing you can do because the tendency laws state you can only raise it 2% a year.” So effectively, you became a forced sale.
People go through that experience. So why would I want to be a landlord in B.C.?
I just think we were in an environment where we had stability, we had stable interest rates for ten years, and people thought it would never be a concern. I think a lot of the policies were just built in a different era.
Mike Moffatt: Yeah, I think we can say that a lot about a lot of housing policies, where we had this era of fairly stable interest rates, about 25 years of 2% inflation. And that does change things.
Steve Saretsky: So Mike, just to add to that point on the purpose-built rental side. So what you’re seeing now, for example, again, because in Vancouver we’re not used to having a 3.5% vacancy rate. It’s always been like 1%. So the times have changed. You have a 31-year high in the vacancy rate.
What you’re seeing from the purpose-built rental operators today is that they’re extremely reluctant to drop the rent. What they would rather do is say, “Hey, listen, we’ll give you two months free rent. We’ll give you a year free of internet. We’ll give you free parking. They’ll do everything they possibly can to not drop the rent, because they know that as soon as I drop the rent and that tenant moves in, I’m now rent-controlled indefinitely. I find that an interesting dynamic that’s playing out today.
Mike Moffatt: Yeah. I always found that interesting as well.
And back when I taught business school for about 20 years, I’d always tell my students, “When you see a really bizarre pricing strategy or a bunch of add-ins, more often than not, it’s due to getting around some kind of regulatory factor.” So it’s not an unusual thing. We’ve seen that here in Ontario as well.
Now I want to pivot. We talked about one market where you have an NHL team that didn’t make the playoffs. And we’ll move to another market with an NHL team that didn’t make the playoffs. And that’s my Calgary Flames.
We spent some time and attention here. We had an episode on this, on Demographics, around the city council, which agreed to upzoning as part of the housing accelerator and then flipped that on its head and pulled that back.
What’s your perspective, as somebody who understands this market, on why that happened? Why did we see, after the municipal election, the council flip from being pro-intensification to taking a pause?
Steve Saretsky: I think it’s really interesting just around zoning and density. And there’s always that internal battle between the YIMBYs and the NIMBYs. But I think what happened with Calgary is because they just went so far so quickly. They did the blanket rezoning, which basically allowed every inner-city property to effectively build a multiplex or a townhouse or whatever infill they call them there. And so all of a sudden you’d have an old little rancher, and then you’d have a three-story stacked townhouse right next door.
I think what we saw was that blanket zoning was brought in at a time when home prices were going up double digits. Rents were inflating at a record pace. You had a whole ton of immigration. And of course, that slowly started to dissipate. And I think everyone was like, “Hold on a minute. I don’t want these multiplexes' infill right next to my house.” The public sentiment shifted, and ultimately, that became the number one talking point of the municipal election. And of course, people who campaigned on saying, “I will repeal this blanket zoning. I will change it. Vote for me.” That’s the way that the Calgary citizens voted.
So I think that’s a lesson in density. I mean, we actually, ironically, have seen it here in Burnaby, 15 minutes outside the city of Vancouver. They adopted the B.C. government’s mandate, carte blanche. The first townhouse multiplexes started going up. Neighbours complained, and immediately the council balked and changed their mind and adjusted the heights.
Mike Moffatt: Yeah. Your background is real estate, but my understanding is you’ve actually done some development in that area. So what has it been like to shift from being on the real estate side to the development side and operating in these markets?
Steve Saretsky: I’ll sort of put an asterisk there, which is to say, I don’t consider myself a builder or developer. I’d say I’m a casual investor. I built a fourplex there from scratch. We were working on a 24-unit townhouse rental construction.
I can tell you from my experience operating day to day in Vancouver and then going and doing the investment side in Calgary - two very different markets - I think the ability to obtain a permit and the development fees in Calgary is a tiny fraction…It’s so quick to get a permit there compared to Vancouver. And it’s just dramatically cheaper, which is interesting because when you look at it, the ability for a city like Calgary to add density and add supply, it happens at a very fast pace. When the market gets hot in Calgary, they build, and they build really quickly. And so it’s not long before they become oversupplied, prices correct, rents decline, and the next cycle starts.
Whereas in Vancouver, once the housing bull market starts, you start working through your rezoning, you start working through your applications, and you’re waiting three years. By the time you get your permit, the bull market is almost done.
Places like Vancouver, and I’m sure Toronto is the same, have an inability for the market to respond to the market conditions because of the permitting process. They just can’t move quickly enough. And so you get these wild swings in home prices to the upside.
Mike Moffatt: Yeah. And that lack of elasticity is a huge problem. And particularly when we see unexpected population growth.
I’ve been a fan of yours for a while. And one of the reasons why is that I feel like there were very few of us a few years ago who had connected the dots between population growth and what was going on in the housing market. You know, Ben Rabidoux, you and I and maybe a couple of other folks - it was a very small fraternity. We saw, here in Ontario, rents shoot up in cities and towns. And some of that was migration out of the GTA, but some of it was a big surge in population in college towns, like Kitchener, Waterloo, London, and so on.
We know at least anecdotally that B.C. had a similar phenomenon when it came to both permanent residency and nonpermanent residents. So how did that play out in B.C., in the Lower Mainland in particular? Was it like southern Ontario, or were there some subtle differences?
Steve Saretsky: I don’t think it was as extreme. Reading all these stories about basements filled with 10 to 14 foreign students, I don’t think we had that. I mean, certainly not in the city of Vancouver. I think if you go to the suburbs and the outskirts, obviously, we saw it, but the pressure on the rental market was so extreme. That was obvious in any market.
And many of the people who became home-buyers were people who were frustrated with the state of the rental market. They’d say, “Hey, I’ve been renting this condo in downtown Vancouver, and it seems like every 12-18 months, I’m getting basically evicted because my landlord is selling. He wants to capitalize on the rising home valuations and cash out.” And so people were so frustrated because when you get evicted, for example, because your landlord is selling, you’re now going into a rental pool with a sub-1 % vacancy rate. And you were paying $2,000 a month for your one-bedroom, but the new market rate is $2500. So you’re subject to the turnover rate of the market. And so I think what we saw was those renters that would have probably stayed renting, they got so frustrated with having to compete in a sub-1 % vacancy market, and they were choosing to go into the purchase market. And so I think that’s ultimately supercharged the demand side on the resale market.
They’re all correlated. I think that’s the one thing where I advocate for what we’re seeing in the rental market today, which is the tremendous growth in purpose-built rentals. Giving people a healthy alternative to homeownership relieves the demand pressure on the purchasing side. If you have a stable rental in a professionally managed rental building, you might not be inclined to say, “Hey, I need to go and buy a condo,” because you’re happy in your rental place.
I think when you have a 3.5% vacancy rate compared to 1%, it takes a lot of the pressure off not only the rental market, but also the resale market, for home buyers. And so I think they’re all correlated.
Mike Moffatt: I’m really glad you mentioned that because it’s one of the frustrating lessons. I see policy makers and advocates silo off these things.
Look at Kitchener and Waterloo. A particular college brings in 30,000 international students, and you've got people going, “Well, that wouldn’t affect the single-family market because international students aren’t buying single-family homes.” It’s like, well, no, but investors are, and then renting them out to students.
So part of the lesson I’m trying to impart to governments is that housing is a system and if one part is broken it’s going to affect those other parts.
What other lessons do you see that the government should be taking from this experience?
Steve Saretsky: That’s a tough one. I don’t know. I just think a lot of the policies were created at different times.
I think developers have to pivot. I think that we’re sort of pivoting away from the dog-crate-condo, which was catered to the investor, and we’re moving back to more of an end-user market where you’re seeing changing of zoning that’s allowing multiplex ground-oriented housing.
I think ground-oriented housing is actually great. I understand that sometimes you have to move at a slower pace because people don’t like change. It’s just the reality of human beings. If you’re used to a single-family neighbourhood and all of a sudden you go carte blanche to multiplex, it can be challenging.
If you look at housing that is relatively cheap and quick to build. I mean, wood-frame, ground-oriented multiplexes, for example, are a lot cheaper than building a 40-story concrete tower. I think it’s a very useful product.
And I think if you look at the cohort of people that are coming up into the home-buying years- it is younger millennials that are starting families - the reality is, they don’t want to start a family in a junior two-bedroom, 650-square-foot condo. They want to start it in a 1300 square foot, 1400 square foot, three-bedroom with their own front door.
Obviously, it took governments some courage to get on board to alleviate some of the zoning and to allow those products. So I think it’s going to be a very useful product moving forward.
Mike Moffatt: I certainly think we need more of all housing. And I think there has been this resistance to building more family-friendly units. The counting of a unit, as a unit, as a unit, and you get a higher unit count when building a high-rise. But that’s probably another conversation you and I can have another time because we are running out of time here. But if you want to invite me on, I’ve got some thoughts.
Steve Saretsky: We’re going to have you back on for sure.
Mike Moffatt: But I have to say, big fans of your channel, you guys are hugely successful. You’ve been doing this for more years; you’ve got more subscribers. We’re trying to grow our audience - to get to where you are. So can you give us some advice? You’ve been where we are; how can we take this podcast and this YouTube channel to the next level?
Steve Saretsky: I think you guys are doing a great job. I think just keep doing what you’re doing. I think it’s just consistency, day in, day out.
I mean, I’ve been following your work predominantly on Twitter for the last number of years, and I think you’ve done so much of the homework, the deep dive on the numbers. Especially around population growth, immigration, and rents. I think you’ve been a strong advocate for shifting the narrative of the housing market and bringing in policies that really make a difference. So, I mean, I think you just keep doing what you do. I think good content and smart thinking stand out on their own.
Mike Moffatt: Well, I really appreciate that. And I’m going to always be who I am. And I’m a wonky, nerdy numbers guy. That’s never going to change.
So Steve, I really appreciate you coming on today, giving us the Western Canadian perspective, which we haven’t been doing enough on the channel.
We hear you, YouTube commenters, and this is something we’ll be doing more of in the future. So thanks again for coming on.
Steve Saretsky: Thanks for having me, Mike.
Mike Moffatt: Thank you so much for watching and listening. Thanks to our producer, Meredith Martin and our editor, Sean Foreman. If you have any thoughts or questions about NHL teams that didn’t make the playoffs, please send us an email to [email protected].
Additional Reading/Listening that Helped Inform the Episode:
The Cowichan ruling isn’t a threat to private property
To recognize aboriginal title is not to abolish property rights, but to uphold them
What the Musqueam rights recognition agreement means and what it doesn’t
Real-estate firm bulk buys $30 million of downtown Toronto condos: ‘They’re sitting empty’
Funded by the Neptis Foundation
Brought to you by the Missing Middle Initiative
 | A guest post by
|