OCMI.ca Real Estate

08/18/2026

The Economics Behind Saanich’s Rejection of Rental Housing

The Policy Conflict
Federal and provincial governments are pushing for more rental housing to address British Columbia’s housing shortage. Yet the August 13th rejection of a 77-unit, five-storey purpose-built rental project in Saanich demonstrates the conflict between provincial housing mandates, municipal decision-making, and community opposition.

If BC needs more housing and the Province is encouraging developers to create additional supply, why should a municipality be able to reject a rental project because residents believe it is too large for their neighbourhood?

This disconnect creates a significant problem for developers. A development application can cost tens of thousands of dollars before construction even begins, only to be rejected after substantial time and resources have been invested.

The Economics of Density
The familiar NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) phenomenon becomes particularly problematic when community preferences conflict with development economics. Saanich itself recognizes that density is necessary to make affordable housing financially viable.

Their January 2026 staff report stated that allowing up to five storeys would improve the economic viability of future low-rise development and that six storeys is typically the most economically viable option.

Developers must evaluate land acquisition, construction, financing, consultants, municipal fees, carrying costs and contingencies. They also face millions of dollars in development-related charges that fund infrastructure and amenities such as parks, schools, sidewalks, intersections, water and sewer systems.

Time is another major cost. Developers and investors are operating under financial constraints that municipalities do not face to the same degree. Delays increase financing and carrying costs and can ultimately make a viable project unviable.

The Consequences
Saanich’s own economic analysis found that some rental projects generated modest returns, while certain six-storey rental projects could achieve approximately a 5.5% Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Investors have alternative opportunities with potentially higher returns and less development risk.

In a nutshell: B.C. needs more housing → developers need viable economics → viable projects may require greater density → greater density creates community opposition → projects are delayed or rejected → less housing gets built.

When governments demand more housing while simultaneously imposing conditions that undermine development economics, the consequences extend beyond developers. Investors lose opportunities, renters lose potential housing, and communities face continued housing shortages.

Ultimately, the issue is whether BC’s housing policies are economically structured to actually produce the housing they demand.

07/02/2026

The Housing Paradox

On July 2, 2026 Stephen Chamberlain with the Investigative Journalism Foundation wrote an article about the Housing Paradox in Canada. The Federal government is trying to buy up unsold condo inventory as a solution towards filling the rental market while funding the construction of thousands of new purpose-built rentals at the same time.

There is a significant difference in the construction proforma for building for-sale versus for-rent. Condo developers generally realize their returns through unit sales shortly after completion whereas rental developers earn their returns through long-term ownership and operating income.

Although buying move-in ready condos would create immediate rentals, these tenants are living in a for-sale condo building with strata owners. One concern raised by reluctant buyers is the high proportion of rental occupants because mixed-tenure buildings can create additional governance challenges. Strata corporations must enforce bylaws involving both owner-occupants and investor-owned rental units.

Our experience managing rental housing has shown us that buildings designed from the outset as rental properties are generally easier to operate efficiently over the long term than properties adapted from another purpose. Because there is only so much an asset manager can do to renovate a rundown apartment. In many older apartment buildings, adding an amenity like in-suite laundry is prohibitively expensive because of structural, plumbing, drainage, electrical, and waterproofing limitations. Few older apartment buildings can realistically achieve the efficiency, amenities, and design standards of a newly constructed Class A purpose-built rental.

Condos and apartments are different products with different financing structures, operating models, and investment objectives. Thus, treating unsold condos as interchangeable with purpose-built rental housing risks addressing only a short-term symptom rather than the underlying shortage of purpose-built rental supply.

Subsidizing the purchase of unsold condos may temporarily relieve excess inventory, but it does little to increase Canada’s long-term rental supply. Instead, it reinforces a development model designed for ownership rather than purpose-built rental housing.

Every public dollar invested in a purpose-built rental contributes to expanding Canada's permanent rental inventory. Purchasing existing condominiums simply changes ownership of existing housing stock without increasing the supply of purpose-built rental housing.

04/09/2026

What’s Up With Runaway Developer Fees

In the April 2, 2026 Western Investor article, Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim wants an agreement with Ottawa to reduce municipal development charges.

However, this is not the solution. Municipalities can continue raising their development fees and cry for more Federal funding.

Development Cost Charges (DCCs) are the fees that municipalities charge developers for infrastructure upgrades such as roads, sidewalks, water and sewer, parks, childcare. Developers pay 12 items in addition to DCCs such as ACC, DP, RZ, BP, bonus density, inspection fees, permit fees, and everything in between. There is a lot of overlap in the in-between.

Amenity Cost Charge (ACC) is a recent addition. It replaced the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC), a voluntary contribution. ACC is supposed to cover amenities such as childcare, libraries, and parks. If developers are required to provide amenities onsite, why are they paying for ACC and DCC if they are providing it? Is this double-dipping?

Base density is 2.5. Developers pay to have the base density increased. A bonus density fee must be paid for all zoning over the base. If ACC and DCC fees cover infrastructure upgrades, what does the bonus density cover? Is this triple-dipping?

This is why 20% of the cost of a project is municipal fees.

Permit fees increased 75%. The Total Regional Base DCC tripled in 3 years. It went from $6,291 to $20,533. This is the base DCC rate. Then every municipality adds their DCC to this base rate.

In 2018, the DCC in the Township of Langley was $625 per unit. Today, the DCC is $38,482 per unit. That’s a 6,157% increase in 8 years. Developers also pay property taxes that are supposed to cover libraries, parks, roadwork, etc. A lot of developers could no longer make their projects viable once DCCs reached $26,000 per unit. Is this quadruple-dipping?

One solution is for municipalities to proceed with infrastructure upgrades as necessary, pay for it up front instead of waiting for a developer to pay for it, and charge developers a Latecomer Fee when they start to build.

A Latecomer Fee is a cost recovery system to ensure fairness among developers. This fee allows an early developer to recover part of the costs for installing infrastructure from developers who come into the area later. However, there is a maximum 15-year time period for this recovery after which the early developer is no longer eligible to recover costs.

Another solution, just a suggestion because it’s not ideal, may be for the Province to be in control of these runaway fees and subsidize municipalities.

The point is that without addressing the escalating and overlapping structure of municipal development charges at their source, shifting costs to other levels of government will only perpetuate inefficiency and further erode the feasibility of delivering affordable housing.

Source links available at

What’s Up With Runaway Developer Fees In the April 2, 2026 Western Investor article, Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim wants an agreement with Ottawa to reduce municipal development charges. However, this is not the solution. Municipalities can continue raising their development fees and cry for more Federa...

03/11/2026

The Case for Renting vs. Owning

Strata fees are going through the roof. Recently I heard about a townhouse complex in Vancouver where owners are paying $1,800 per month in strata fees. That alone is equivalent to a modest mortgage payment—and it may only be the beginning.

Many strata corporations in British Columbia have significantly underfunded reserve funds compared with other provinces. Keeping monthly dues low may feel like short-term relief, but it often postpones the real cost of ownership. Eventually the bills arrive.

Major capital repairs are inevitable in aging buildings:
• Roof replacement
• Windows
• Balconies
• Siding
• Concrete spalling

Last year, a family member received a $250,000 special levy for a two-bedroom condo. That’s an extreme case, but it highlights the risk.

According to a March 5, 2026 Western Investor article titled "Big bills are coming due for underfunded BC stratas", BC condo budgets lag far behind those in Ontario. In fact, Ontario strata budgets are nearly 40% higher.

If that $1,800 strata fee reflected those higher funding levels, it could be closer to $2,520 per month. Over a year, that amount alone could cover the rent for many properties.

To be clear—I’m an advocate for real estate ownership. But ownership always involves a risk-reward calculation. A few questions worth asking:

• Is the property worth owning if rising costs erode your equity?
• How long do you realistically plan to hold it?
• Is this the best use of your capital?

When I purchased my townhouse in Tsawwassen, I reviewed the strata minutes and financial statements carefully. The funding deficiencies were obvious, so I negotiated a purchase price discount based on the likelihood of future special levies.

After achieving financial independence, I actually rented for seven years. Why?
Mortgage payments on a primary residence aren’t tax deductible, and renting allowed me to maintain stronger cash flow and deploy capital elsewhere.

I also try not to become emotionally attached to real estate. For me, a home is an investment decision. I’ll live in a property for as long as it supports my financial goals.

Ultimately, every personal budget has two levers:
1️⃣ Increase revenue
2️⃣ Decrease expenses

But there’s a third option that many people avoid: eliminate an expense entirely.

Try a simple experiment: Cancel a subscription. Make coffee at home instead of buying it. Small changes can reveal how flexible your budget

02/26/2026

The World Is Your Oyster, But Only For Accredited Investors (Part 2 of 2)

An Ipsos Reid 2023 survey indicated that 60% of Canadians are unfamiliar with private investments. The report estimated that accredited investors represent about 1% of adult Canadian taxfilers. So, if Canada’s population is about 39,000,000 then roughly 390,000 Canadians qualify as accredited. It hardly seems fair that the top 1% of Canadians have access to the most lucrative investment opportunities. (https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/majority-60-canadians-not-familiar-private-investments)

That’s because investment regulation started in the 1900s, mostly in response to fraud and stock market crashes. Securities law was created to curb stock fraud and speculative promotions. After the 1929 market crash and Great Depression, securities legislation enforced mandatory requirements for public offerings. The securities framework that exists today was born out of a need to protect less knowledgeable Canadians from abuse. That’s why 99% of Canadians are limited in where they can invest such as in a savings account, term deposit, Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC), RRSP, TFSA, RESP, LIRA, or dabble in online trading.

The highest and best pursuit is to attain accredited investor status. The first step is to learn the language of money. The second step is to start investing. Due to the limited range of investment products, the best place to start for the highest and best return is in real estate. An investor does not need a certificate or a degree to buy, sell, or manage real estate. Investing in real estate is available to all. It offers the highest leveraged return on investment through the Seven Profit Centers in Real Estate (https://julyono.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2021-05-14-The-7-Profit-Centers-in-Real-Estate.pdf).

The primary reason we raise capital with accredited investors is the cost savings. Creating an Offering Memorandum or a Prospectus is expensive. For example, when investors subscribe through these documents, their subscription value is automatically diluted because a portion of that amount is allocated towards paying off the setup costs. The legal fees to set up a private equity Proforma is significantly less expensive. The investor retains more value from the start.

Also, the profit distribution in our real estate investments is taken on the exit. The principals earn their profit only when investors profit. Many funds have front-end load fees and a host of other fees that erode earning potential such as trading fee, brokerage fee, trailing commission, management expense ratio.

In 2015, after reviewing a 111-page OM for a construction project on the island, there were a dozen upfront fees listed throughout the document totaling 22% in fees. Any invested capital is reduced before it ever goes to work.

Although private equity offerings are higher risk and higher reward, they only available to elite investors except for the “family and friends” exemption.

02/26/2026

The World Is Your Oyster, But Only For Accredited Investors (Part 1 of 2)

Before we get into the article I’d like to clarify some terms, so we are on the same page.

What is an accredited investor? An individual whom the government deems financially sophisticated enough to invest in higher risk private investment opportunities. There is a financial fitness test to determine if the individual qualifies, the top two most common criteria being:

Asset threshold: $1,000,000 or more in financial assets excluding your home or $5,000,000 or more in total net assets including your home.

Income threshold: $200,000 per year individually for the past 2 years or $300,000 per year combined with spouse for the past 2 years.

What is Private Equity? This is capital invested in companies that are not publicly traded. The Securities Commission deem these types of investments as high risk. Only accredited investors are allowed to invest in the private market.

What is an eligible investor? This is a lower tier threshold used under an Offering Memorandum exemption. The government caps the investment amount and limits risk exposure whereas an accredited investor has no such investment caps.

What is an Offering Memorandum (aka OM)? This is a government regulated document used in the exempt market to protect investors from misrepresentation by an issuer; it increases transparency along with disclosures and stringent controls. It is used primarily by private companies, private investment funds, and exempt market dealers.

What is a Prospectus? This is a detailed disclosure document that must be prepared when issuing securities to the public for investments such as mutual funds. Ironically, these documents are so heavily focused on disclosure that it takes serious effort to understand the contents. Here is an example of a 136-page popular Canadian mutual fund:https://www.rightprospectus.com/documents/RBCGlobalAsset/PRO_EmergingMarketsEquityFund.pdf

What is Exempt Market? This is the regulatory framework that allows companies to raise money without filing a full public prospectus. A prospectus is very expensive document starting at $100,000 and up. The most common investments that use a prospectus are mutual funds offered by financial institutions. The legal costs for creating a prospectus are covered by investors, thus diluting the share/unit value until the fund makes money.

02/23/2026

Owner-Managed Rentals: The Key Advantage

There is a clear difference between an owner-managed building versus third-party management of a building and that of a strata corporation. All may be handled by professional property managers, but the incentives and accountability are not the same.

In our experience, third-party management companies have the challenge of balancing vacancies across their entire portfolio. If one building is sitting at 40% vacancy and another at 12%, occupancy can be shifted so each property reflects a similar average. While this may protect the management company’s broader client relationships, it disadvantages the owners who invest heavily in marketing and tenant selection. We discovered that prospective tenants generated by our advertising were redirected to other clients. This prompted us to move into direct owner-management.

The shift sharpened our focus on asset performance and tenant quality. We strengthened screening standards with credit checks and guarantors, along with continual building improvements. The outcome was measurable: higher occupancy, lower vacancy, and significantly reduced bad debt.

Enforcement is another key distinction. In a strata corporation, managers enforce bylaws on behalf of multiple individual owners. When a tenant breaches a bylaw, notice is issued to the unit owner, who must then address the issue with the tenant. This indirect structure can slow response times and dilute accountability.

This becomes more complex in larger buildings. Data from BC Housing shows that buildings with more than 100 units account for 52.7% of registered strata units in the province with another 24.4% in buildings of 51–100 units. As if community dynamics are not stressful enough among owners, amendments to the Strata Property Act in 2022 removed most rental restrictions and brought more tenant occupants into the mix.

By contrast, an owner-managed rental building operates directly under the Provincial Residential Tenancy framework by upholding both landlord and tenant rights to quiet enjoyment and habitable standards. Landlords act decisively and swiftly with enforcement when violations occur.

Thus, living in a well managed rental property can be a desirable option. Owner-managers are highly accountable and motivated to act decisively with a focus on asset performance and lifestyle quality. Responsive management equates to a more harmonious community dynamic, ergo happier tenants.

Source:
2022 BC Residential Building Statistics & Trends Report

02/14/2026

Architectural Resilience: Preventing claims through smart design

For more than two decades, I have watched the costly consequences of water damage in condominium towers—along with the steady rise in insurance premiums. When I asked construction consultants about prevention, the response was predictable: too expensive.

I later realized I was speaking to the wrong audience—developers focused on building and selling condominiums. Their objective is to complete the project, maximize profit, and move on. Ongoing maintenance becomes someone else’s responsibility.

The equation changes entirely with a purpose-built rental tower. An owner-developer who intends to hold the asset for decades thinks differently. Instead of designing for resale value alone, the priority becomes durability, efficiency, and long-term maintenance reduction.

Recent headlines illustrate the financial impact of water loss—litigation, special assessments, and steep insurance increases. The January 30, 2026 article reported by Western Investor involved an Aquilini Group-linked lawsuit seeking $87,000 from a university tenant. And the October 31, 2025 article reported by the Victoria Estate Digest highlighted the double-digit increase in deductibles and premiums. These disputes are costly and disruptive for all parties.

Yet many incidents stem from preventable overflow. A practical design enhancement—installing in-floor drains in kitchens, laundries, and bathrooms—could capture water before it spreads beyond the unit. The incremental cost is modest when incorporated at the construction stage, as it typically requires tying additional drains into existing plumbing lines.

In parts of Asia and Europe, high-end hotels often integrate discreet linear or “infinity” drains that blend seamlessly into the floor design. They are nearly invisible, yet highly effective.

Now imagine a high-rise where every unit includes built-in drainage and layered waterproofing. A resilient system would emphasize redundancy, proper slope, compartmentalization, and continuous membranes beneath all plumbing fixtures. Even a sprinkler activation would result in controlled drainage rather than widespread damage. These are some of the considerations for the Lougheed Landmark project.

The vision is straightforward: eliminate preventable water claims through intentional design. The most effective way to reduce insurance losses from water damage is to design against them—before the building is ever constructed.

01/23/2026

The Construction Conundrum: When Risk Meets Bureaucracy

Canada faces an affordable housing crisis and despite government incentives, the housing shortfall persists. A recent headline in the Jan 16 issue of Western Investor claims housing starts are increasing when the statistic reflects a national average. A closer reading shows year-over-year declines in major markets such as Toronto and Vancouver. In British Columbia, conditions remain especially challenging, making headline optimism misleading.

Current policy focuses on stimulating construction without addressing the root cause of delays: municipal processes. Federal and provincial mandates pressure municipalities to accelerate approvals, yet often bypass critical checks to ensure infrastructure can support new density. Cities must provide adequate water, sanitation, transportation, emergency services, and community amenities for developments that may double or triple local demand.

To cope, municipalities rely on Development Cost Charges. These include transportation, water, sanitary sewer, drainage, parks, fire and police services, plus regional levies such as TransLink and school site acquisition. As population density increases, so does the need for schools, community centres, and parks. These costs routinely reach into the millions and are borne upfront by developers.

Developers therefore assume enormous financial risk long before a project is approved. Construction is highly time sensitive: delays translate directly into rising carrying costs, particularly interest payments. When approvals stall, projects can become financially unviable, leading to bankruptcies and foreclosures. The result is wasted capital, stalled housing supply, and losses for all parties.

Developers are the true risk takers in this system. They envision the final product and its benefits for builders, municipalities, and end users, while managing the triple constraints of project management: cost, time, and scope. Municipal staff, by contrast, are largely insulated from these pressures and lack direct exposure to escalating construction costs and financing risks.

This disconnect creates a paradox. Cities and politicians depend on private developers to deliver housing, yet the bureaucratic structures governing development are becoming slower, more complex, and more expensive. If projects cannot achieve profitability, they will not proceed, regardless of demand.

A practical solution would be the creation of a dedicated municipal liaison or mediator. This role could bridge the gap between developers and city hall, resolve bottlenecks, and streamline timelines. Without such reforms, incentives alone will not solve the housing crisis. Addressing risk and bureaucracy together, rather than separately, is essential to delivering sustainable, affordable housing where it is most urgently needed.