Saskatoon population drops by 2000 since January 2007?
Saskatoon’s population has seen a decrease of 2,000 people since January 2007 according to an estimate just released by a Toronto analytics firm. Generation 5 provides population estimates for the City of Saskatoon between census periods.
According to the Star Phoenix, “The firm uses census figures as a starting point, adjusted by databases of consumer spending, home sales, and address information to arrive at its estimates.
Information from various sources suggests Saskatoon’s population grew from 202,340 in 2006 to 214,034 by the beginning of 2007, and receded to 212,000 by mid-2008.
Anyone else have any thoughts on how these measures could lead to the conclusion of a population drop, given that 2007 produced a record number of homes sales, and Saskatoon has been the nation’s leader for consumer spending?
Read the Star Phoenix story here.
See a Google map displaying the boundaries of Saskatoon real estate “areas” here
Data collection and calculation for our statistical reports
I’m always happy to answer your Saskatoon real estate questions. All of my contact info is here. Please feel free to call or email.
Follow our daily updates on Twitter @SaskatoonHomes.
Norm Fisher
Royal LePage Saskatoon Real Estate
121 comments so far. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:17 PM
That’s a pain
April 30th, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Why couldn’t population be down?
Listings >> Sales for last half year, ie. more people selling than buying
I suspect cashing out at peak, or just not wanting to get into an expensive market, when young professionals can make way more in Alberta, often for lower rents, and sometimes for lower purchase prices
Like I said on other post, spending = consumer confidence, up what 16%? v. 5% nation wide? Everyone is spending because TV keeps telling them how awesome they are doing. Out enjoying life, cruising around, complete disregard for the fact that their house value has went down in last few months.
Regina lost population between 1996 and the 2006 censuses, despite big increases in East End retail stores (new Home Depot, Rona, Walmart, Super Store, Winners, Home Outfitters, Sears Home, Linen n Things, 2 other grocers, outlet mall, etc…). New stores does NOT equal population gain, nor does increased spending.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Jim,
I’m not suggesting that it couldn’t be down. I’m just not sure how you conclude that if you’re using census data, house sales and consumer spending as factors in calculating it. Both of those items were through the roof in 2007 and unit sales were only off 14% year to date at the end of June. That just strikes me as odd.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:19 PM
I suspect there was a large amount of speculative buying going on in the Saskatoon real estate market which fueled the frenzy and drove sales upwards. As far as retail spending goes, I would guess this is the result of the families who saw their $80,000 bungalow jump in value to near $300,000 in a fortnight and have as such cashed out their equity to go on a toy shopping spree. And why not? As we all know, real estate only goes up in value, especially in Saskatoon!:)
April 30th, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Jason “As we all know, real estate only goes up in value, especially in Saskatoon!:)”
Sarcastic I hope? Especially in a city that is losing population, is over valued by pretty much any estimate and keeps having its inventory bulge even higher.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Norm, a 14% drop in unit sales seems like a lot, and with all these places for sale and vacant but not selling, that would tell me people have moved on and are just waiting for the house to sell.
And with available rental units all converted to non-selling condo conversions, maybe all these displaced renters moved on to bigger and better in Alberta.
And where are all the bulls coming out to pretend this study is made up?
Summarized on other post:
Population is down, apparently desirable 30′s/40′s age
Inventory is up
Sales are down
Prices in neighboring provinces are down
Alberta’s wages increased by MORE than Saskatoon’s
Oil is still high, but $20 off peak prices/barrel
That coal thing sounds like a bust/over hyped
How the heck DO we justify our current house prices?
Just waiting to see if saskhouses actually sticks this as a news story, they usually only put up rosy or pretending to be gloomy (like lack of property stories that really are just more price boosterism) stories. I emailed them link/posted comment, so they definitely are aware. Not up yet. Was the top story on CTV/Global, but down played. Of course Saskatoon’s mayor is denying it. I mean look at how busy Walmart is! How can Walmart be busy if we’re losing people? Oh wait, Arizona has huge and busy Walmarts too (see USA housing crash center)
April 30th, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I’ll give saskhouses some credit, link’s up now, but oddly about half hour after I sent them email – over hour after news story (on TV) and 11 hours after I heard about population loss on radio, even more after whenever morning paper comes out. Almost like they were waiting to be forced to put it up…
April 30th, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Doug,
Ya, perhaps it’s based on more recent data. While sales were strong through Q1, they really dropped of in Q2.
I also agree that there is a ton of vacant rental units (several large buildings on Pinehouse totally vacant) but I don’t see that they’ve used that in their calculations.
I can certainly see that many people, especially renters may have been forced to leave. The change in house prices has been shocking but I just can’t imagine how renters are absorbing these wicked increases.
I’m sure we’ll be hearing more about this in the days ahead.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Well, Doug, you can hardly blame SK Homes for not making a big stink about this. I expect nothing different. I’m happy as long as the main news outlets pick it up, which they have.
Where *are* all the bulls?
Sheesh. And I was bearish before!!
Perhaps the S’toon housing bubble, if there indeed is one, is rotting from the inside and moving toward collapse?
If so, I feel for lots of people
I got a buddy who bought at the peak.
Did I hear something about 750 vacant units on the last post? That’d hold around 2,000 people, no? A lot of units have been built though; so I’m not sure of the relevance.
Best of luck everyone.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:21 PM
oops!
I see that ‘half units vacant was a misquote.’ It’s half vacant *or tenent occupied.* Sorry Norm.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Personally, I am a bit puzzled by this. Every other piece of data I have seen shows an increase of at least 2,000 people into Saskatchewan ( not Saskatoon) for the first quarter. Did a bunch move out in the second quarter? Maybe. But I don’t think so
But remember this is a estimate from this group, so take it whats its worth.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:21 PM
George,
You’re not the only one. Here are the StatsCanada reports for Saskatchewan.
July 1, 2006 – 987,500
July 1, 2007 – 996,900
Jan 1, 2008 – 1,006,644
Apr 1, 2008 – 1,010,146
Net change + 22,646
http://tinyurl.com/sask-pop-by-year
http://tinyurl.com/sask-pop-Q108
Mean time, Saskatchewan’s largest city loses 2,000.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:22 PM
How come when an estimate suggests people moved out it’s “remember this is a estimate from this group, so take it whats its worth” but when one says the province grew, it’s gung ho boosterism?
No reason with all the oil activity in the south (IE Weyboom and Esteboom), and natural resources in general not being based within Saskatoon’s city limites, that other communities could be growing, at Saskatoon’s expense. And Regina thinks they’re growing too.
And no reason the provincial population couldn’t have dropped some since April 1, 2008, when house prices reached about their peak.
A loss of people sure would help to explain going from 300 places for sale in February vs. 1,500 now (1,200 more houses = at least 2,000 people if they aren’t vacant). And would explain what Norm points out is “only” a 14% drop in sales, although year-over-year, sales seem down even more as of late.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I also would like to point out that when Stats Can says Saskatoon led Canada in violent crime for 2006 and when Maclean’s dubbed it ‘[the 2nd most dangerous city in Canada]‘ based on Stats Can data we all made excuses and bashed the Ontario/Government based Stats Can, as we do everytime they point out Saskatoon/Saskatchewan’s blemishes.
Apparently Stats Can numbers are legit when they show Saskatchewan (whole province, not necessarily Saskatoon) grew a little bit in population, but not when they show Saskatoon was tops in violent crime in whole country in 2006 (also 2007, just out!).
April 30th, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Doug said:
“I’ll give saskhouses some credit, link’s up now, but oddly about half hour after I sent them email – over hour after news story (on TV) and 11 hours after I heard about population loss on radio, even more after whenever morning paper comes out. Almost like they were waiting to be forced to put it up…”
Doug WTF man? You need a vacation!
April 30th, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I think it’s fair to say an online real estate company, that posts only positive economic news, is kind of misleading potential buyers. You’d think this would be a pretty big story to get up right away.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:23 PM
everyone is saying “Where *are* all the bulls?”
God, I feel like the token bull around here… What did I say in the other thread? Don’t get excited about every headline that comes along, you’ll give yourself a coronary. I’m worried about Doug – he really needs to take a break from this.
So a report says Saskatoon’s population is down 2,000, so what? Net population has increased for Sask. in general, am I right? Gut feeling: people think Stoon is too expensive and are looking for alternatives. Did this study include areas like Martensville, etc?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Jim,
For cryin’ out loud man. Please take a pill or something! We’re just people talking here. I mean, do you mind if we’re a little surprised? Do you mind if we discuss this story or do we all have to jump on your little bandwagon to keep you from having a fit?
You are the worst spinner that has ever visited this blog and I am really getting sick of you bringing up saskhouses and crime stats on a daily basis. Smarten up, or go hang out somewhere else.
…and by the way, Dale and Suzanne at saskhouses don’t owe you a friggin’ thing. As far as I can tell, your neither a buyer or a seller so cut them some slack. They’re a commercial enterprise and they have every right to decide what gets published on their site. I’m sure they’re not going to be taking marching orders from someone like you.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Thsnks for stepping up, Norm. I value open discussion as much as anyone, but some people need to find an “incessant whining” blog instead of polluting this real estate blog.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Agreed law guy, as a potential buyer, this is one of a lot of recent positive developments, along with increased inventory, it would seem houses will become more affordable in the coming months.
Can’t we all be happy about this?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Norm, I don’t think I bring up saskhouses much, although occasionally I’ll drop the number of houses (401) they have just because added to MLS it’s kind of substantial in the idea that Saskatoon’s real estate inventory is bloated.
I think today’s post (in its entirety below)
“I think it’s fair to say an online real estate company, that posts only positive economic news, is kind of misleading potential buyers. You’d think this would be a pretty big story to get up right away.
”
Was appropriate and fair to saskhouses (not mentioned by name in original)
And I do think a real estate site which posts lots of economic news stories, and tries to be a resource centre, has some obligation to try to be impartial. I didn’t actually mention any names in my post, although flipping through them, I’ve gotta say I agree with Doug; even this title “Saskatoon population estimate takes city by surprise” on saskhouses is toned down from even Star Phoenix “City population sinks Estimate shows decline of 2,000 people since Jan. 2007″. Their stories seem to emphasize reasons house prices would be higher and ” Saskatchewan Real Estate News|” seems a claim that objective coverage is provided.
Anyway, I’m putting my self on a self imposed time out, it’s your blog Norm, I can find other avenues to vent. You should be able to enjoy it. Sorry if I pissed you off.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:28 PM
It doesn’t really matter if they can’t yet prove where Saskatoon’s population lies. It’ll all come out in the wash. It’s funny watching Atch and the Homebuilders Assoc. on the news trying to explain how different calculations can result in different conclusions. There’s only ONE way to determine population size before and after – counting! Either these Toronto analysts are jerking us around, or we are in fact losing more people than we are gaining.
My contractor says he is still seeing TONNES of interest in new home building… and drywalling just inflated substantially… AND he feels materials will get even worse. How is ALL of this possible if people aren’t even able to sell their existing homes and *if* we’re losing population? The increasing costs might be a last ditch effort to rake in more money before the gig is up.
I think it’ll be a different story once all the backlogged construction gets caught up from 2007. Many of the new labourers pulled in from outside areas might find themselves out of work and needing to move again. If we could only find a balance…
April 30th, 2009 at 3:29 PM
To All Bears,
I think you guys are right when I walked out today on my block I could hear crickets. Noone was there no cars no kids and no people. Then…..I watched X-Files and it all made sense maybe you guys are not the only ones who want house prices to go down “looks to the sky”
~~X-Files theme music plays~~
p.s.
Norm just let me know if I cross the line I love ur blog and the different views on it even tho it sometimes doesnt match some of my views =o)
April 30th, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Regardless of the headlines the down side of all this may not be so bad. Calgary’s listings seem to have peaked and are receding with sales staying fairly strong.Now I’m not a pumper or a dumper. But there may be an indication that we could return to a more normal balanced market sooner than any one thought.(Relative to you as S’toon seems to follow) Not skyrocketing bidding war hourly increases but a nice market you can buy or sell in without worrying if some turn in the market is going to make J Rochest fatten up Fluffy.
Or … it means everyone has given up, delisted their property and given them away to charity.
Trying to stay balanced.
Jim… you do have a valid point in this discussion, and a right to express it but it is so repetitive with no new issues.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:30 PM
It makes sense to me that people would leave Saskatoon to find a cheaper place to live. I’m not saying that everyone is leaving Saskatchewan but more likely bedroom communities or areas that are prospering from oil and mining.
A lot of people will drive into Saskatoon to spend their money because of what it offers compared to smaller centres. Of course our retail is busy and growing.
I think we sometimes forget that there are other places in this province that are “booming.” I just can’t help but feel that there is a “hysteria” in this city’s real estate market that isn’t happening elsewhere in the province.
On an aside:
It would seem that more people than Jim and Doug need to take a break from this site. The way I see it there are an equal amount of “bulls for the sake of being a bull” vs. “bears for the sake of being a bear” that post here.
Norm, as the (hopefully impartial) moderator of this site I would expect a little more professionalism from your comments and the way that you deal with “problem” posters. I just thought you could have chosen your words better.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I agree that we should not take too much stock in each headline that either says the sky is falling or the economy and housing market are booming. It is the overal trend that should be given more stock.
That being said, one only has to look at the price of the listings on our goodly hosts page to understand what may be fermenting migration out of Saskatoon. And I am in no way saying that Norm is charging more than what he thinks the market can “bear” and what his clients want. After my locum is finished in eight months time, I shall certainly be doing a cost benefit analysis of Sasaktoon as oppoosed to other pastures.
Frankly I am a bit surprised and encouraged that the local canary cage liner, also known as the Star Phoenix, published an article not intended to stampede the foolish into the arms of their local realtor.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Hey Jeff, just because people know who Norm is doesn’t mean anything in terms of dealing with people on HIS blog. He has every right, and more rights than anyone else, to dish out comments in regards to what people are spinning on here. I think his words/criticism are perfectly legitimate and if it was me in his shoes I probably would be a hell of a lot more critical of some of the things that are posted repeatedly on this blog. Lastly as far as I can tell Norm is the most honest and impartial Realtor I’ve ever come across, if it was another realtor’s site I’m sure 80% of the stuff posted on this blog would be screened and dropped to the cutting room floor.
Keep up the excellent work Norm!!!
And thank you providing this blog, it is very informational and impartial!!!
April 30th, 2009 at 3:31 PM
How can they get an accurate number with all those on vacation and holidays during the summer months?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Wesco,
I’m not saying Norm is doing a bad job with this site nor am I saying that he is being unfair (the fact that my comment is still up shows this). I think quite the opposite of that. Why would I lurk around here on a daily basis if I didn’t?
I’m just saying he is a professional who deals with the public. I don’t know maybe my expectations are too high. Whatever.
I appreciate that this site exists and provides a forum that allows us to discuss something that is important to us. That being said, if I don’t like something I’m going to tell it the way I see it.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Jeff,
Of course, you’re correct in your comment (On an aside) and I apologize to you, to Jim and the other readers for losing my cool. Sorry Jim.
I guess that I’m feeling like my property is being used as a propaganda tool and that things are often blown way out of proportion. For instance, I don’t think that it’s noteworthy when saskhouses inventory increases by one unit. In fact, they’ve been hovering up and down between 390 and 400 for the past few weeks but we’ve received at least a half dozen reports, always on an up day, of course. These variances essentially represent no change. Perhaps it would have been interesting to know that they had broken the 400 mark, but 393 to 396, c’mon.
To Jim’s last comment.
“I also would like to point out that when Stats Can says Saskatoon led Canada in violent crime for 2006 and when Maclean’s dubbed it ‘[the 2nd most dangerous city in Canada]‘ based on Stats Can data we all made excuses and bashed the Ontario/Government based Stats Can, as we do everytime they point out Saskatoon/Saskatchewan’s blemishes.
Apparently Stats Can numbers are legit when they show Saskatchewan (whole province, not necessarily Saskatoon) grew a little bit in population, but not when they show Saskatoon was tops in violent crime in whole country in 2006 (also 2007, just out!).”
These crime stats have also been raised in pretty much every string over the past few weeks. Again, an effort to paint Saskatoon in a certain light.
More importantly, since I posted the StatsCan population estimates, the implication in Jim’s comment is that I somehow attempted to downplay the legitimacy of the crime stats. I don’t believe that I have done that.
“Just waiting to see if saskhouses actually sticks this as a news story, they usually only put up rosy or pretending to be gloomy (like lack of property stories that really are just more price boosterism) stories. I emailed them link/posted comment, so they definitely are aware.”
This is simply unfair. Dale and Suzanne are good people providing a valuable service to private home sellers. I’m sure that they’re also busy people and I expect that their top priority on any given day is providing service to their clients, not posting the news of the day. I think that it’s fair that they choose what news stories they’ll publish and I appreciate the fact that they have interests to protect and promote. Whatever one’s position is on that, I will not provide a public forum to call them out for their decisions. If you don’t like what they’re doing, send them an email, but don’t call them on at my place please.
Armoth,
You also seem to be going out of your way to poke people in the eye. You’ve made some good comments but these provocative little jabs don’t add much to the discussion and only serve to inflame and lead us off into silliness. I’d appreciate it if you could try to take the edge off please.
Wesco,
Thanks for the props but there’s never a good reason for me to respond in an angry manner. After all, I control the delete button. I don’t like using it, and I don’t want to chase anyone away. I accept Jeff’s polite criticism and I should try harder not to let anyone get me freaked out.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Jeff,
“That being said, if I don’t like something I’m going to tell it the way I see it.”
And so you should. Left unchecked, who knows where I could end up?
I’m very passionate about housing and I love Saskatoon. Sometimes my mouth gets ahead of my brain. I need to make an effort to be considerate of all opinions and to maintain a “professional” demeanor under all circumstances.
manoffaith,
So far there’s little info available on how this study came together but since it’s not a physical head count, I’m guessing that “vacations” aren’t factored in to the equation. If I can learn more I’ll post it.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I agree with Jeff that some people are moving back to Weyburn, Kindersley, Estevan, etc. Saskatoon ain’t the only boom town in SK – but it’s certainly the most expensive.
callum,
Don’t pay attention to headlines eh? Sort of an ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach? Granted, it’s less stressful with one’s head in the sand. Good luck with that.
I agree that Jim’s posts can be over the top – although he has made some good points. I also agree that Norm’s comments to Jim were a little harsh. However, I think Norm showed great integrity when he apologized – way to take the high ground! (not that I’m surprised one bit).
Armoth,
Your posts betray you as one of the worst provocatures on this blog; crickets? x-files? wtf? All you do is berate bearish posts – how about some analysis?
I’m bearish; but I try to be objective and weigh the evidence. Saskatchewan is booming; but I don’t think everything’s quite as rosy as politicians and the media would have us believe.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Thanks for the comments Norm. Its easy to lose your head in all of this. Everyone has an opinion and we all like to share ours
Wading in and finding the useful information becomes difficult after a while.
I’m just trying to make sense of the crazy circus that is the Saskatoon real estate market and am very grateful that this site exists.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Getting back to housing…
Resorting to gimmicks and giveaways, this place (mls 311209) comes with a 5 day cruise.
http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?PropertyID=7144581
April 30th, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Thanks Lou,
Hey, call it whatever you want but I give John an A+ for initiative and I don’t see anything wrong with adding some value for the buyer.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:36 PM
kind of funny how atch, on the news, is all of a sudden trying to distance himself from a consulting company that has worked with the city for 3 years?
why can’t saskatoon’s population be down?
some one else mentioned Regina lost people between 1996 and 2006, in the actual census, but it did gain a lot of stores
not sure why atch can’t just step up, say maybe we’ve lost a few people, we’ll get em back, instead of deny deny deny, and all of a sudden they don’t support this consulting company they’ve used before
2,000 people, spread across a dozen small boom towns, with oil, and gas and potash, and maybe a few moving to Alberta as of quite recently or after graduation doesn’t seem like that many to me
saskatoon does not equal saskatchewan, the province can gain, while over priced saskatoon loses young people to rural areas, actually, maybe a good thing for the province as a whole!
i think atch loses credibility by instantly citing the traffic situation as evidence no one went any where, cut your losses big guy, try to be the bigger man
April 30th, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Yeah, that’d be nice if the cruise thing starts a trend and other sellers start offering up extra incentives too.
Hey, whatever it takes. If I was selling now I’d be doing something similar.
How’s the sales vs listings so far this week?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Dan,
Give him a little time to get used to the news. Must be rather embarrassing to have lost 2,000 people since the “boom” started.
Do you know if this interview is online somewhere? I didn’t catch it.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:43 PM
At the close of business yesterday listings were at 1,499, same as last weekend. Sales look similar to recent weeks provided some are reported today.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Hi Norm,
Just a note to say thanks for coming to our defense – you are a class act!
Yes, we have stopped posting comments that some bloggers are submitting to our blog. The main reason is that we sell advertising to people who are trying to sell their homes privately. They want to succeed, and we want them to succeed. I don’t think it is fair for them to pay us money for advertising, and then read nothing but unsubstantiated, negative talk about the Saskatoon housing market, and Saskatchewan in general, from unidentified people, on our blog.
In my opinion, some of the bloggers who send stuff to us have gone beyond commenting on the market – it seems like they are actually trying to affect the market. They seem to want the market to fail, putting a negative spin on every posting, and do their level best to try to convince buyers not to buy. They are upset if the economy is doing well, and happy if the population numbers drop. Why…I’m not sure.
And by the way…I don’t think Saskatoon’s population is dropping, but we’ll probably have to wait until the next census results to find out for sure.
Yes, we do focus on positive news items, but we also have links to items which could be viewed as being negative. Cases in point – the following headlines which are currently on our home page…
Average asking prices dip in May
Housing market slows, but still strong
Red-hot housing market cooling off?
Canadian home sales expected to drop in 2008
Average asking prices dip in April
We will continue to report things like the average asking price of listings on our website every month. If they are up, we will report that, and if they are down, we will report that.
And we will continue posting news stories about Saskatchewan & the Saskatchewan economy as it relates to real estate. If bloggers want to comment on those articles, that is great, but we won’t be posting any comments from people who won’t identify themselves, and clearly have an agenda aimed at making our customers, and the market fail.
There…I’ve had my rant – I feel much better
Norm, thanks again for your comments, and for providing a great service to the people of Saskatoon!
Dale Neufeld
http://www.saskhouses.com
April 30th, 2009 at 3:46 PM
So, meet the new stats, same as the old stats?
I wasn’t around last night, so I missed the quarrel, but I’d like to point out that this is a *very* good blog, with the most courteous and least ‘ax-grindish’ community of commentators I’ve seen.
RE blogs tend to be very polarized, and in many the comments threads devolve into lunatic taunting, with a lot of provocateurs and trolls. The worst Canadian example, bar none, is Alberta Bubble — commentators with four sock puppets apiece and constant gibbering flamewars with vitriol galore.
And there’s always the guys with the potted investment plans or the spam links to totally unrelated websites or the goldbugs or the Ron Paul supporters or the lunatics with a massive ammo dump in the basement and forty-seven cases of Spam (the canned meat kind) to last them out the coming Great Depression/ fiscal apocalypse. I haven’t seen anyone with a REPENT sign yet, but I’m sure it’s a matter of time.
We’re a much saner and friendlier community, and we do actually talk about real estate, prices, costs and policies, and the various ways it impacts our lives and the citizenry of this city. If we all agreed it would be dull, and while there’s a certain amount of ad hominem attacks and lots and lots of straw men walking around, this is a pretty pleasant group.
Moderating the comment thread on any kind of weblog akin to conducting an orchestra where half the tubas want to eat the piccolo players and the strings are playing Mahler while the brass have the score from “Mama Mia”. And the percussionist is drunk.
It’s complicated, in other words
. Norm does a very good job, and this is a very good blog — lots of useful information in the posts and many points of view. Keeping it that way is harder than it looks
April 30th, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Are crime stats based on reported incedents or people arrested and convicted. Saskatoon and regina have alot of police around hard to go from one end of city to the other without seeing at least 1-2 cop cars. When I lived in calgary I barely saw a cop once a month and never recieved a traffic ticket in 3 years, but in saskatoon I get one or 2 a year lol I like to speed. Does anyone else notice whats seems to me like alot of cops compared to other cities maybe thats why we have a higher arrest cause they are actually doing there job.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Well Norm I have to commemorate your even more, since reading Dale’s blog, for having this blog and letting it flow the way that it does. You have just as much at stake as Saskhouses.com in terms of providing your customers with service in selling their homes,however you still run an open forum. To me you are providing an excellent service to Saskatoon and I’m betting you are a top notch real estate agent for your clients. If I hear of anyone looking to sell their home I will definite suggest you to represent them.
CHEERS
April 30th, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I appreciate this blog as well, I enjoy that everyone here has a right to get their 2 cents in.
Norm “from someone like you” (to Jim) not criticizing at all, just thought it was a funny line, reminds me of all those sitcoms where some one says “you people”
Will be interesting to see how the public reacts to a loss of 2,000 people, temporary lull in sales and new listings as people consider what, if any, impact this may have?
It was hilarious that Atch immediately came out and call the numbers wrong because of all the new houses (1,500 for sale though compared to only a few hundred just months ago) and all the traffic. Sure, may be tough to accept, but you think he’d at least pretend to be considering it for a few days. Kind of loses credibility in a knee jerk this must be wrong answer, as really, what could he have actually looked into in the couple hours since he heard the news?
Personally, over a thousand more places for sale than earlier this year, tells me somebody’s leaving. And they aren’t being replaced by buyers. Even the same number of buyers as last year wouldn’t be enough, since so many more are selling, “cashing out” (I think Jim’s line).
April 30th, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Since Dale stuck them on HERE, I think fair game:
“Housing market slows, but still strong
Red-hot housing market cooling off?
Canadian home sales expected to drop in 2008″
Come on, the first one is pretty obvious boosterism, the second a pretty fluffy comment, and the third, not specific to Saskatoon.
Using a title like “Real estate news” and putting up one sided articles, or softening up Saskatoon “city population sinks” to “Saskatoon population estimate takes city by surprise”, kind of clear where their motives are. Yeah they help sell real estate, but almost under the guise of legit, unbiased reporting.
Anyway, that’s my rant, only because it’s on here, therefore fair game, I checked saskhouses today, no comments (okay 2 congratulatory a few articles ago) so assuming that I, like most, are done with their “blog”. That’s it. Agree to disagree. I won’t mention them here anymore, unless Dale is on here pretending to provide 2 sided coverage. I know he doesn’t have to. I know it’s his blog.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:55 PM
On the topic of Saskhouses , does anyone know if it’s the owner only who comes up with the asking price or does Saskhouses offer any advice.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Although I understand Dale’s point of view (his job, after all, is to help people sell their houses), I find this statement a bit much:
“In my opinion, some of the bloggers who send stuff to us have gone beyond commenting on the market – it seems like they are actually trying to affect the market.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not into spiralling cycles of negative comments or unsubstantiated anti-RE/economy rumor, but I’m not into spiralling cycles of postive, pro-RE/economy comments either.
Perhaps one can “affect” the market by posting opinions and/or information (although I find this somewhat hard to believe), but this goes both ways. Many people have been hurt by the “buy right now or you’ll be priced out forever” or “borrow as much as possible, RE values only go up” mentality. If the RE market was that easily affected by “negative” comments, it’s much more fragile than I would have even guessed.
jrochest, if you aren’t a writer, seriously think about publishing, please! I, like you, appreciate the openness of this blog, and to be frank, I’d be running screaming through the hallways on a regular basis if I had the job of moderating it.
So everybody’s human. Wow, what a concept.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Dale,
Thanks for your input, and for explaining your position.
jrochest,
Thank you for bringing some needed perspective as you often do. You may have the most pessimistic outlook for Saskatoon real estate here but you always argue intelligently and with respect for others. Your thoughts and opinions are valuable to me and others who read this blog.
Ted,
I think it’s based on reported “incidents.” I heard Chief Weghill argue once that people in smaller communities are more likely to report crime than those in large centres. Not sure if there’s any evidence to support that. Regardless of how they’re calculated, media coverage and blogger spin rarely tells the whole story. In fact, crimes against persons are down over 15% in 2008. Property crimes are down 23%. Our police service is doing a good job and I don’t know many people who feel unsafe in this city.
See current stats at http://www.normfisher.ca/crimestats.pdf
Doug,
“from someone like you”
Not the best choice of words as Jeff pointed out.
“I, like most, are done with their “blog”. That’s it.”
I’m sure Dale is all cracked up about this one.
I’m pretty sure you are falling far outside of his target market at this particular time.
Eric,
saskhouses is an advertising service for private sellers. The Real Estate Act requires the certain services can’t be provided without a license and their website is compliant with the act. You can pick whatever price you like when you advertise a home there.
Crikey,
I can’t speak for Dale but I suspect he’s more concerned about how his prospective clients might view the posting of negative comments than he is about negative comments affecting the market. Personally, I think it’s a fair concern.
I agree with your argument that people’s comments are unlikely to impact the market much but there’s no question that this is the objective in many cases.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:56 PM
We have the most police, highest incarceration rates, and most crime. Crime rates are based on incidents reported to police per 100,000 population. There are also victimization surveys that give insight into crime levels.
Saskatchewan has more crime per capita than any other province, much more in most cases.
I know accusations about spin go both ways. But I’d have to say that, overall, it seems much more acceptable to put a positive spin on things than a negative spin.
Some people attack bears for ‘hoping prices go down for their own gain.’ Yet these bulls hope prices go up for their own gain – what’s the difference? There is none; only the degree of spin implemented.
I’d say Sask Houses sugarcoats things.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I’ve been thinking about this population thing. Increased retail sales, increased traffic, and decreased population are all completely reconcilable.
We know retail sales are way up. So, what are people doing these days? They’re buying stuff. They’re consuming goods and services. They’re driving around and shopping. You can easily shed a small proportion of the population, and traffic and everything will still be way up; *especially* when the population lost consists of relatively low-income people.
Still, I think the trend is worrisome. No longer is Saskatoon the competative powerhouse it was. It’s not even growing – it’s shrinking, apparently.
What’s also worrisome is the Mayor’s response. This firm has been providing services to the city for some time – they haven’t seemed to release any wacky estimates before. Maybe there have been problems and we don’t know; but I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that. So, here they publish a report that’s contrary to the prevailing ethos (world view) of the city. And all of the sudden the Mayor has lost confidence in the firm…. very convinient for the status quo.
This plays back to my above post about it being taboo to question, second guess, or even slightly dampen, the boom mentality. I consider the aggressive discrediting of naysayers to be a very mild form of fascism; a sort of embryonic fascism, if you will. What ever happened to weighing the evidence and debating its merits? These activities are fundamental to any free and democratic society – and to any well informed decision, position, or policy.
For the record I’m not calling anyone a fascist or suggesting that fascism has emerged in Saskatoon – that would be ridiculous. I’m merely objecting to the seemingly irrational discrediting and dismissal of particular evidence.
Hee hee; but you *do* know what Picasso portrayed Mussolini as in his famous painting “Guernica” don’t you?
Have a great weekend everyone!
April 30th, 2009 at 3:56 PM
guy_in_regina,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
So I’m clear, do you see “aggressive discrediting” and “seemingly irrational discrediting and dismissal of particular evidence” in the comments in this discussion, or are you talking about the mayor?
April 30th, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Norm,
Sorry for my comments I know alot of them are wacky yet most are factual. Ive had a kidney stone now for over a week and im in extreme pain so I can see when i reread my comments it is affecting my judgement I apologize to all and will try to keep it clean Ill poke the chest not the eyes people =op
p.s.
Fact of the day since i like repeating myself check out the major index funds in Canadian equity like Ishares.ca . They have increased their exposure to Canadian companies alot of which are located directly into Saskatchewan. The amount of newly invested equity is already over the billions and thats why I take my stance as a bull even if I didnt own a home I still would buy 1 at this time. If not in Saskatoon it would be somewhere in this province since we have so much potential.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:57 PM
guy_in_regina said:
“Don’t pay attention to headlines eh? Sort of an ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach? Granted, it’s less stressful with one’s head in the sand. Good luck with that.”
I was waiting for someone to say that. A Guy In Regina wins the prize. I said “don’t get excited about every headline that comes along.” My head is not in the sand Guy. My head is in this market, my money is in this market. Try reading before you post please. Don’t waste our time.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Thank *you* Norm for running this great blog. I know you’re held in high esteem by all who utilize this great resource.
“thanks for the thoughtful comment”
You’re too kind. I find my post a bit embarassing in hindsight. Why? Because I really don’t see much aggressive discrediting of information at all! I’ve seen a few posts on previous threads that would qualify; but not this one. But they’re few and far between. The funny thing is, after I think about it, there seems to be much more agressive discrediting done by bears than bulls! When that donned on me it really showed me my bearish bias. I oppose propaganda posts of all stripes; and it was really half-baked for me to single out the bullish side. All kinds of people dismiss inconvenient evidence from time to time, myself included.
What else is embarassing is that I haven’t even read or heard the Mayor’s response – I’m assuming he’s naysayed the the estimate because that’s what I read on another post, which is pretty irresponsible of me. He probably just downplayed it’s importance, which is fair enough; this might not even be an issue – it sure hasn’t hurt retail spending!
Oh, and I’ve reconsidered; I really don’t think your comments to Jim were ‘a little harsh.’ This is your blog; and you were just telling like it is. Jim even said as much himself.
Sorry I didn’t respond to your post earlier – I was halfway out the door to see the new Batman flick when I saw it. The movie was pretty good. Long though!
So, thank you for your question, which really made me take a look at my assumptions. And thank you for this blog. The discussion and debate that take place here contribute greatly to our province. I in no way meant any criticism of this blog by my earlier comments. The exchanges here are the hallmarks of a healthy and vibrant civic society. The odd time some nasty stuff creeps in, and I just want to encourage people to guard against that.
Armoth,
I respect your determination and I share much of your optimism; there *is* much to be bullish about. I apologize for calling you a provocature. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours, and a speedy recovery.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Well, callum, I brought up the prospect of a federal election(previous thread) and you said don’t worry about it. But there will be an election, and, depending on how it goes it could have a huge impact on our provincial economy.
You really don’t strike me as someone with their ‘head in the sand.’ My comment was out of line (seems to be a pattern emerging here?). Please accept my apologies – I just couldn’t resist
Sorry if I wasted your time as well.
What you said is probably good advice. But, you seemed to be saying it in response to bearish headlines; so, that kind of caught the attention of my bias.
Now I must go to bed! I don’t even live in S’toon! what am I doing blogging about RE there at 2 a.m.!?! Oh yeah, I’m backtacking
April 30th, 2009 at 3:59 PM
jrochest said:
“RE blogs tend to be very polarized, and in many the comments threads devolve into lunatic taunting, with a lot of provocateurs and trolls. The worst Canadian example, bar none, is Alberta Bubble — commentators with four sock puppets apiece and constant gibbering flamewars with vitriol galore.”
Well said. I am one of a few non-confrontational occasional posters there.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:59 PM
The apparent population loss is troubling.
Anecdotally,
My neighbours recently moved to a (largish) small town. It wasn’t that Regina was too expensive for them; they were just from that town, and now that things are better there, they’re moving back.
So, some of this population loss could be chalked up to that. A lot of Saskatonians hail from a (previously) depressed small community.
That being said, I would *much* rather live in Saskatoon than the small community that I came from!! I imagine *a lot* of people would feel the same way.
And even if a bunch of people moved out, I would think the city should still have net growth due to very strong economic indicators and high quality of life.
It seems to me that the city’s (estimated) population loss is primarily due to overvalued RE.
Perhaps the cart got a little ahead of the horse?
OK, no more blogging this weekend!
April 30th, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Regina “What else is embarassing is that I haven’t even read or heard the Mayor’s response – I’m assuming he’s naysayed the the estimate because that’s what I read on another post, which is pretty irresponsible of me. He probably just downplayed it’s importance, which is fair enough”
No Atch came right out and completely denied it. No actual looking into anything. Just it’s probably wrong. He’ll wait till the next census. And distanced himself from the company.
Friggin hilarious to just see him deny it without even really giving it any thought.
April 30th, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Doug,
That is funny! I’m curious though, how do you know that the mayor didn’t “really give it any thought?” Curious.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Norm, I saw the mayor interviewed on CTV and Global, not sure where Doug saw it, no real reference to anything, just kind of said the city’s involvement with the analytical firm was pretty minimal and not at current (even though reported the city has used them before) and that he doesn’t believe it because there’s lots of new stuff out there.
Atch, didn’t mention high/increased number of listings available, decreased real estate sales, number of places for sale that are vacant, graduate retention, anything, just that he didn’t believe it, and not like he got cut off, he had a lot of time to pout about the suspected loss of 2,000 residents.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Thanks Dan,
Checked both websites but I can’t find the video.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Like Dan said, Atch basically just trivialized the results, no real reasons to back up his claims. Basically, he just doesn’t believe Saskatoon lost 2,000 people, but he can’t explain why it didn’t.
And kind of a milestone, for residential – Saskatoon on realtor.ca, the initial page turned up 1,708 listings for Saskatoon and immediate area, first time I’ve seen it above 1,700 (1,879 zoomed out to include Warman/Martensville).
To pull an Atch, my knee jerk response would be it seems like people are leaving.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:01 PM
1,509 listings for just Saskatoon on the map thing, so kind of a milestone too, 1,500 for stoon, 1,700 for greater Saskatoon, and almost 1,900 with bedroom communities.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Norm,
even though I have stated I am bearish for RE here for the next few years, the more I think about this study, it seems to me to be totally out to lunch.
Jan 07 showed about 250 listings. At this time was also stated that about 2200 lots would be developed in 2007.
Now in July 08, most of these 2200 lots have houses and some houses from the housing starts this year are finished. I am going to guess there are about 3000 new places to live in since Jan 07. If listings were at 250 and we guess there are 2 people per home. Our population grows to about 6,000. Follow me?
But listings are at 1500 ( x2) so to take away 3000 people. We should be at positive 3000 people.
Too many holes in this theory of mine. But the number to look at would be the 3000 new residencies since Jan 07. If we lost 2,000 people since then, wouldn’t we have something like 5 thousand listings, more with the condo conversions.
And rental vacancy is pretty low right now.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:01 PM
George,
Ya, that sound a little “unscientific.”
It is a tough one to get my head around as well but perhaps I’m just caught up in a false belief created by all of the “boom” hype. There are an awful lot of vacant homes out there though (nearly 600 on MLS). Probably a couple hundred apartments which aren’t listed as well.
My theory is that a lot of renters were simply forced to move with the constant eviction notices and rent increases. Maybe it was just easier for some of them to pack up and go.
I’m sure that the city will be working overtime to try to dispute the results of this study. Should hear more in the weeks ahead.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Doug,
Thanks for the inventory update.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:02 PM
George, you omitted the vacant apartments that are being converted. And as has been pointed out by a few people on this blog as a comparison, Regina lost people from 1996 to 2006, despite new homes and areas being built, and 2 extensive commercial areas way bigger than Stonebridge being started from scratch. Maybe it’s from fewer people per home.
It did seem at the beginning of the “boom”, all my buddies who were living at home, or sharing an appartment, ran and bought themselves a condo or cheap house so they wouldn’t be priced out of the market, that most now live in by themselves.
So in one case, from 3 guys sharing an appartment, to 2 guys living in 2 condos, and the 3 rd guy moving out of province for school/work, Saskatoon actually loses one resident, yet doubles the residences, from one to two, since both thought they needed to buy now.
And then there’s all the people who bought a second place just as an investment, but no one actually lives in it!
While you have some reasonable arguments behind doubting the numbers – more than Atch, I still would have to believe the study by a group that does these kind of things and likely spent some time on their methodology before deciding Saskatoon lost 2,000 residents. Same way I wouldn’t say that because a lot of friends live alone in condos, population density is down, I’d defer to the actual study.
It does seem surprising Saskatoon lost people, but then again, I bet the average Regina resident wouldn’t believe they lost people between 1996 and 2006, even if you showed them the census results.
Regina in 1996 = 180,400
Regina in 2001 = 178,225
Regina in 2006 = 179,246
That’s a loss of over 1,000 over 10 years in which Regina grew a lot, with a loss of 2,000 from 1996 to 2001. Just look at the east end of Regina, almost all within those 10 years, most of Windsor Park and Parkridge. Or the Northwest. Lots of new subdivisions/houses in that time. Sure looked like it was growing …
So Saskatoon could easily have lost 2,000 people even though it appears to be growing.
Regina did.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil/Details/details1.cfm?SEARCH=BEGINS&ID=807&PSGC=47&SGC=4706027&DataType=1&LANG=E&Province=All&PlaceName=Regina&CMA=705&CSDNAME=Regina&A=&TypeNameE=City
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=301&S=3&O=D
April 30th, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Doug:
I am pretty sure Regina has grown in the last two years, though obviously not as much as most people probably expect.
However, Regina is a totally different beast than Saskatoon.
-Our average home price is about 30% less than Saskatoon right now (and we were about 15% less back in 2005 I believe) so we certainly rose much less. You can find a nice house in Regina for $200-$250k and that is well within the range of 2 income families to afford.
-We have higher wages in Regina than Saskatoon.
-We have built about 1/3 to 1/2 half as much in new housing in the last 2 years as Saskatoon, so less surpluss.
Regina will no doubt correct but how much is anybodies guess, but when you consider we didn’t go up nearly as much as Saskatoon and we have always had higher wages in Regina (and a more stable economy), I dont think a correction will hurt us that much. I mean, if you lose $40k on a home, it isn’t the end of the world if you are going to live in it for 10 or 15 years right?
However, longer term, we at least have about $5-8 Billion in direct investment being spent within 20km of the city over the next 3 years ($5 Billion more if the Ethanol Plant is approved).
No idea if Saskatoon has that…
April 30th, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Joe, I think you missed my point.
Regina lost over 1,000 people during the 10 years period between 1996 and 2006, which is counter intuitive, given the development of the majority of the east end/Vic Ave commercial district, and the start on the Rochdale development.
Just saying that just because we have new stuff in Saskatoon, doesn’t mean 2,000 people couldn’t have left over the past year and a half. As an example, Regina lost population during a time when it appeared it was growing. Maybe we shouldn’t use new commercial development as indicative of population. Just consumer confidence. Which ironically enough, will likely dip with news of a population decline.
As of right now, Saskatoon probably lost 2,000 residents and we’ve got a surplus of housing.
—–
And Fiacco promised 50,000 new residents over his first 10 years in power, you’re at – 1,000 to date as a city. And prices are becoming unaffordable and infrastructure there, especially in the east end sucks. Not sure what Fiacco will do in the next couple years when the promised 51,000 people show up. Or if he’ll ever admit Regina has a crime problem. But it’s okay, because he has a nice smile and is happy.
I’ve got no idea what Regina’s population is, but given it was losing people during most of the Vic East stuff, and has been stagnant for at least the last 25 years, I sincerely doubt it’s much different.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Then again Joe … Maybe people from Saskatoon, many initially from Regina, are moving back there, since housing was cheaper there for longer and still is cheaper, and wages are higher, with more stable jobs. Would have actually been an awesome deal to sell my town house 6 months ago (for whatever the heck I wanted, $260 no problem) and bought an actual Regina house for that much, and got a raise…
Would make sense. About the only place in Saskatchewan, other than Saskatoon, that could absorb 2,000 people without anyone noticing (kind of like how Saskatoon lost 2,000 people without anyone noticing).
April 30th, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Kind of makes you wonder where the extra 22,000 people who moved to Saskatchewan since 2006 settled down. Can’t imagine that Regina isn’t growing, but then, I wouldn’t have guessed the news about Saskatoon.
Also, has anyone read anything about this study? I’m curious about methodology, margins of error, etc.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Regina could have grown a lot since 2006.
I think Doug’s just trying to show that Saskatoon could have lost 2,000 people, just like Regina did, even though new construction seems like it’s substantial. Doesn’t mean Regina is continuing to lose people, just that it did and no one noticed. I agree with Norm/Doug, a lot of investment and vacant properties seem to be out there.
And a lot of people I know came up here for university and stayed. No reason they couldn’t have moved back to Regina over the past year and a half. A $300,000 condo in Saskatoon would have bought you a home in Regina’s best neighbourhood last year. Not anymore, but Regina’s cheaper home prices to live in a pretty similar city, has to be kind of appealing. And we keep hearing that Regina has higher wages too. Granted, I only know a few people who moved back to Regina, most moved to Alberta after graduation.
I also agree with Doug Re: Fiacco, (edited by mod. Sorry, we don’t accuse specific people of specific things without putting our names on it).
April 30th, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Norm, not to nit pick, but the 22,000 gain is since July 2006, just over 13,000 gain since July 2007. So really some where in between are unaccounted for, and could easily be spread across Regina and small city/town Saskatchewan.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Doug:
Well ya, but you need to keep in mind as well that just because a city isn’t growing in Population doesn’t mean that things wont change within that city or that the city can’t be doing very well.
People’s wages increased over the last 10 years in Regina and it WAS very cheap to live in, which actually meant that we have had a lot of money to spend on the local economy as opposed to repaying back Mortgages. Regina was doing pretty damn good overall and probably had the most balanced economy in Canada. Recessions and Booms in other parts of Canada (and the US) always sort of left Regina untouched. We didn’t grow crazily, but we never busted either.
As for population loss, when you consider that the biggest Economic Boom in Canada’s history happened 5 hours away (Alberta) during that 10 years and people STILL stayed in little old Regina, I think the loss of 1000 people over 10 years is pretty negligible.
Either way bud, at the end of the day, the only thing that will really matter for Regina is two words:
Job Growth
As pessimistic as I am, I am hopefully that a lot of those projects will get off the ground because our government has the money to get them off the ground and if that happens, I think our RE market in Regina will be in for a very soft landing at the slightest.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Dan:
Good comments, just a few points:
-You can still buy nice homes in the $200-$250k range in Regina, in nice areas. Yes, you will probably need to spend $20k on renovations
-Regina having higher wages is a statistical fact (I don’t have a link, sorry)
(edited by mod. Sorry, we don’t allow mud throwing at specific people without putting our names on it).
Prices are going to go down for sure, the only thing is, how fast and how much?
Most people are very bullish about Regina’s future and if that stuff pans out, we are in for a very soft landing.
If that doesn’t happen and prices correct 20-50% and interest rates go up 3 or 4% over the next 5 years (worst cases I know), well, I expect you will see a lot of people simply decide that For Closure is the better option.
You know what? As much as I hate to say it, if my Mortgage was 50% MORE than my home was worth and I was tight financially, I would stop payments and walk away from it and let the bank take it and you can bet your asses many other people would do the same thing.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Joe,
And thats why I hope some of you dont buy houses because your not planning to live in them for the next 10-15 years while your kid grows up. Everyone keeps saying dont look at your house as an investment yet if it loses value you will walk away? I can honestly say if my home dropped in value 100k I wouldnt really care cause im here for at least 9 years while my kids grow and im sure there is probably alot like me. If som1 leaves there house after it goes down 50k I hope som1 stamps idiot on there head cause its like selling stock after its bottomed out. K thats my rant for the day I kept it clean norm =)
April 30th, 2009 at 4:05 PM
And walking away from a house where you owe substantially more than you will ever get out of it has to be a heart wrenching decision. One I’m sure no one takes lightly, but if you owe $300,000 on a $200,000 house, you’re almost better off to walk away, rent for a while, then buy your old house for $200,000 ish. I don’t think any of us can really talk big, until it happens here, like it did in the states. I’m sure a lot of those people were planning on spending their lives, beyond your “10-15 years”, in those houses. No one plans to lose their shirt.
And with the wonderful 40 year/0 down mortgages that helped to start our “boom”, even after 10 years, people would not have paid down $100,000 on a $300,000 house, that may only be worth $200,000. Walking away, renting for 7 years, and re-buying the same house is the better deal. 10 years into a mortgage and still owing more than the value of your house? That’s just demoralizing.
Blame the speculators, boosters and real estate agents (not the balanced ones like Norm) who endlessly hyped values beyond what the market could support. Don’t blame the poor suckers who are stuck in a horrible situation. Maybe you should write a letter in the Phoenix paper? tell everyone how it’s no big deal and to suck it up.
(editing by mod)
April 30th, 2009 at 4:06 PM
And Joe, I don’t doubt you can buy a decent place for $250,000, but a just over a year ago, you could have bought in Wascana View for that much. After having sold your crummy town house in Saskatoon (bought at $100) for that much. Kind of kicking myself for not fleeing Saskatoon for Regina a year ago. Now Regina’s almost caught up price wise.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Armoth,
Dan makes a good point in that if you find yourself owing significantly more than a property is worth, you may be in a position where it is best to foreclose. However, the thought that someone would be able to stay in their home regardless of the circumstances shows a bit of a lack of foresight. Even if you wanted to stay in a home that may be worth less than the mortgage you owe, there are legitimate reasons why this may not be possible. Keep in mind that as an economy worsens, the following may be more likely:
Divorce: A split in a household could cause someone to lose their home in foreclosure. A frequently used statistic is that one in about every two marriages (in the US, less so in Canada) end in a divorce. No one, of course, expects to be that couple going in to the marriage. Unless arrangements are made in a prenuptial agreement, it is not a given who becomes the home proprietor and the legal process of a divorce takes time. The cost of a divorce itself can be the main cause of losing a home in foreclosure.
Job Loss: The economy strengthens and weakens, and in conjunction with that the workforce moves up and down in numbers. As the unemployment rate goes up, it is safe to assume that foreclosure numbers may rise as well. Ideally one might hope to have saved enough money over the years to cover 3-6 months worth of loan payments, credit card bills, utilities, etc. in the case of job loss, but I wouldn’t say that this practice of saving is common, however.
Death: For instance, if the sole provider of the mortgage payments has died, then it is possible that the rest of that family may lose their home in foreclosure unless there is insurance to cover that situation. Unfortunately, either wage earning spouse may be disabled or unable to work.
Suffice it to say, I don’t think most people choose to foreclose.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Dan,
If people have no pride to own their own home and choose to walk away to “buy the same house later for less” I dont want them in my neighbourhood. They probably wont mow their lawn their place will look like crap on the block cause they have no pride of ownership. since I bought my car and the loan is now worth more than it I should go belly up and wait till the car drops in value so I can buy it again how the heck does that make sense. So I go back to my original point if your not looking to stay in your home for 5-15 years or till the mortgage is up why the heck u buying your just the same as the speculators then. Try to prove that point wrong pls…
p.s.
Try to ditch out when the going is tough will leave you with horrible credit and if you do choose to buy the same house later… good luck with the new rules in place you have to have an above average credit rating which should help to keep the scum out.
(edited by mod)
April 30th, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Crikey,
In those certain points I admit it might be better to walk away and foreclose but the thought of purposely losing your home cause your upside down on your mortgage is horrible. What happened to raising your kids up in the home getting married and buying your dream home what does it matter the price of the house in the short term 25,30,35 years from now I can almost guarantee you you wont be upside down. And Joe stay away from the stock market it aint for the queasy =o)
April 30th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
armoth is right there, walk away and buy the same house later….less any equity you might have had….
seems pretty cut and dry to me
April 30th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Armoth:
When the unemployment rate hits 30% or 40% by 2015, you will get the point and we can discuss the virtues of paying your mortgage until you no longer cant at the local soup kitchen or labour camp.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Maybe someone can validate this:
During the ’80s when housing values here in Calgary went seriously downhill I heard of situations where people went to renew their mortgage and were told that since their house was now worth less than the mortgage they would have to pay in that amount to balance their equity with the balance owing. Very substantial amounts too at a time when Calgary’s economy was lousy to say the least. I remember reading of at least one case like this, but maybe didn’t get all he details. If that happened to me I would probably walk depending of course on the amount I had to cough up.
(edited by mod)
April 30th, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Ken,
In my case house prices would have to fall another 70-80k for me to be upside down but even then ill cash in my stock and drop another 50k on my mortgage. Thanks for asking tho. Oh and can you please provide some examples or maybe even a link to a website supporting your claim? thx
April 30th, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Just one point that nobody has raised here with respect to the “should I walk away” discussion.
A mortgage is essentially an agreement by which one party agrees to lend money to another, and that party promises to pay it back. The idea that it’s okay to just change your mind because it works better for you financially as the borrower is plain wrong. Personally, I’m not that comfortable with the idea of hanging shareholders and tax payers with debt that I’ve taken on even if I’ve made a poor decision in doing that.
Certainly there are circumstances under which some people may be unable to deliver on their promise. Under those circumstances, “walking away” may in fact be the right thing to do but returning your keys to the bank because you’ve lost your equity when you’re fully capable of living up to your agreement just isn’t the right thing to do.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Norm;
It’s a given to me that the true test of character is how you live up to your word when circumstances change to your disadvantage.
I’m not saying it would be my choice to walk away, just that there may be circumstances over the course of time that make it impossible to carry on in a given situation
Armoth
That would be the ethical and right thing to do if you could. Probably the soundest too as any downturn in housing is temporary and the value should come back. Walking away usually reprsents a los of down payment equity and any added alue to the home.
If I can find substantiation I will post it.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:08 PM
To Crikey’s list, I’d add the Casey Serin ‘speculator trap’ — if you bought a property as an investment, and you can’t sell it except as a loss or rent it for enough to cover your costs, ‘jingle mail’ becomes your only option. I think that will be a big trigger for Calgary and Edmonton, as well as here.
As Norm points out, you’re on the hook for the whole amount in Canadian law. You’d have to go bankrupt to discharge the debt completely.
That said, if you have a 45,000 income and you owe a 500,000 mortgage on a house that you can only sell for 300,000, bankruptcy’s a reasonable solution.
I think most of the people in the US who are short selling, walking away or mailing the keys to the bank are all in negative equity — not only is there no added value, but the drop in value has eaten the down payment, making the house a depreciating asset.
The fact is that most people in bubble areas took on payments larger than they could afford.
The expectation was that the appreciation would make it worthwhile, that you’d sell and move in three or four years and the extra equity would buy you a better house.
So once prices fall, the mechanism doesn’t work; you can’t live and make the payments and the house is losing value, not gaining it.
I found something out there that suggested that Calgary banks are being briefed on how to handle this situation. I’ll have a hunt for it a little later.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:09 PM
When the choice becomes poverty or paying a mortgage, what do you guys think people will take?
At the end of the day, WE ALL share a bit of blame for things like this.
The media for covering it in a biased way. Home Buyers for taking a risk. Speculators who had no real business to come here in the first place. Politicians who drive the stories to make it seem like things are better than they are, when they really are not. Everybody in Saskatchewan for propogating the same stories and unquestionably buying into it. Real Estate agents not tellin the entire truth or hiding things about who is buying what and why. Banks for easing up way too much in the last 10 years on mortgages, which allowed prices to drive up more than they should have.
I don’t care what anybody says, at the end of the day, reality is defined by our senses and if everybody around you is talking about everything being “great”, eventually there is no real reason to question it.
I bought a house because I believed that Saskatchewan is going places, has people moving into the province, has a lot of huge investments lined up for the future, etc, etc. I took a calculated risk, but at the end of the day I made it based on what I was seeing and hearing around me. In other words, I made it based on MY REALITY and the fact that I anticipated that I would have a solid job here for the next 20 years or so and that things would be relatively stable.
No doubt Armoth will be the first to complain if he bought a Stock for some company that padded the balance sheets and lied about everything and then he lost all his money. Sort of like Bre-X.
Well, how is it any different that what “could” be happening/happened in Saskatchewan?
I will leave you with two last comments:
—-IF—- this Economic Boom that people are talking about really is here, then in the next 5 years things will slowly work out and there wont be huge corrections or large portions of people leaving the province again and home prices wont correct 30 or 40% and while things will be up and down, it will always be relatively level. I don’t mind sticking it out for 10 or 20 years in that case.
However, if the Economic Boom is a bunch of crap and in 5 years from now we look back and find that homes purchased for $300k are worth $120k and our economy stinks and people are having a tough time making ends meet and that all this “Economic Boom” talk was just a bunch of BS pushed by Pols, Media and Citizens, what do you think is going to happen around here?
This is exactly what is going on in the United States right now. Society as a whole lost its collective mind for 30 years and society as a whole is now paying for it. We’ve all been brain washed into thinking “debt is ok, pay tomorrow” and whatever else, and the bills are now coming due.
Hopefully GenX’ers like myself and most of you who are used to progress for the last 30 years and really only seeing our first “big” recession are just blowing things out of proportion on the internet. But what if we are not? Makes you wonder.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Great post Joe,
It’s a scary thing. Hearing the boomers and the naysayers, the ups, the downs, and dismissings from both sides. Personally i’m paranoid simply beucase over the years i’ve heard of so manythings that will ‘bring THOUSANDS of people into the city of saskatoon’ like the synchotron etc…
I mean things like circle drive being busier, 8th street etc…i would wager that that is from a little bit of growth, but a lot to do with poor city planning. The type of city planning that is needed is not usually thought out very good in this province i’ve found. Much like in Regina where they closed off Victoria Ave east to add another turning lane, only to have both lanes merge 50 feet later so no one actually uses both turning lanes and use the same old one they used before the road work.
So many variables….so little answers.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Joe,
All of the numbers that people are throwing out that point to investment in Sask is real. Cameco is real, Potash Corp is real, Oilsands Quest is real, and the big 3 developing the Bakken is real. I invite you if you are in disbelief of the money that is pouring into Saskatchewan which is in the billions to look at some index websites such as Vanguard, Ishares, and even check out RBC,s Canadian Index Fund which has assets of 527 million some of the top 10 holdings should look very familiar to you. The boom isnt a figment of some of our imaginations its just the house prices did rise too much too fast I admit but when some of these projects are finished in 3-4 years……its gonna be worse.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Yep.
I can promise you this:
If this “boom” turns out to be a pipe dream, there will be a lot of financial fallout in Saskatchewan that will take 10-15 years to clean up and it will affect everybody to some extent.
People will also boot out the Sask Party in the next election and I certainly wouldn’t want to be Fiaco or Atchison, though they will survive in November.
Lets pray and hope that there is some reality to the hype and that it just hasn’t actually had time to fully develop yet (which is very reasonable assumption as these things take years) and that predictions from some of the most conservative people that we shouldn’t expect a big boom, but just a nice solid 20-30 years of economic progress does become reality.
I just want stability for me, my friends, family and you all.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Armoth:
I HOPE you are right.
I PRAY you are right.
I realize that everything got ahead of itself and things take YEARS to develop (not months) and that many of us are impatient.
Hopefully you are correct and things will decline a little this year to correct the excess speculation and then a nice steady growth will finally start showing up in the form of long term job growth and in-migration and people wont lose their shirts and those who do buy homes will have the jobs to pay for them.
When I say I am expecting the market to drop out and homes collapse by 30-50%, most of us to lose our jobs and thus say screw it and forclose, I do realize it is based on a lot of “worst case scenarios” and a very pesimistic view that is based largly in irrationality and is even more unlikely to happen, but still… what if.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Does anyone smell a Potash bubble? When a stock (PotCorp)goes up that much that quickly, it reminds one of real estate.
As for Cameco, it exists until fusion comes on line, then it vanishes overnight. Now luckily for Saskatoon that may not be for 20-30 years. You just do not want to be here when that happens.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Just to remind Armoth, as others have, Bakken is no where near Saskatoon and will probably mean Saskaton losing young people to the area 2 hours south of Regina.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Dan Joe and Sam,
Even if we lose potash and lose cameco we still have uranium, diamonds, gold and oil. Watch CNBC sometimes you will see some analysts mention Canada is the safest place for investment cause of our diversity of resources and the demand for all of them. And the reason why I mention Bakken and Axe Lake projects Dan is because the tax breaks from oil revenue will benefit every1 is Saskatchewan not just Saskatoon why do you think Alberta has lower taxes than every1 else. If I was a doom and gloomer I would pray the oil market stays strong in Alberta cause without oil the only thing they got going is beef and we seen what happened with the mad cow scare.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:11 PM
The 2000 went to Warman, Martensville, etc. I live in Warman and I have met a tonne of people, all young families, parents in the early thirties. They almost all say they have moved from Saskatoon.
Last Census warman grew by 37%, Martensville 14 or 20% I believe. There are four new subdivisions opened in warman alone.
Norm can you give us some numbers on the outlieing towns?
April 30th, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Joe,
Please, try to relax. We’ve already had one nervous breakdown here recently. It’s pointless to fret over what you can’t control, especially if you don’t know it will happen. You’ll be okay. If I thought differently, there would be a for sale sign on my front lawn.
Kenny,
Thanks. I can, but probably not today.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Do you really think Warman/Martensville absorbed 2,000 people last year. And Saskatoon has a lot of new subdivisions too – but lost 2,000 people.
I’m sure some left Saskatoon for Warman/Martensville. Probably not quite 2,000.
And still weakens Saskatoon prices, if 2,000 people are willing to leave, for whatever reason. Still competition for your Saskatoon house. Like Regina. Or Calgary. Just closer.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Doug,
I don’t think you tried hard enough to over use “2000″ in that comment.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Hey Joe, I think for those that purchased a home (regardless of at what point they bought into the market) for the sole purposes of *LIVING* in it (raising a family, etc.) did so for all the right reasons, and it’s really hard to put a price on that.
Markets are cyclical, and we’ve simply seen an incredibly fast “boom” which will (hopefully) be followed by a slow cooling off period.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I think we should all step back and actually look at the numbers before we start criticizing Atch (no big fan) or get worked up about them. Saskatoon population ~200,000. “Estimated” drop in population ~2,000. This is a 1% drop. It’s entirely possible that this change is within the margin of error of the study ( although I can’t find the value to be certain) and, as a result the change would be meaningless (at least to statisticians). That is to say the study can’t say with certainty that the pop. went up or down. Speculation on changes to population in saskatoon’s environs to estimate if the number is true just seems like a waste of effort to me.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:13 PM
To put what is happening in Saskatoon and Canada in a larger context here is an article from The Times.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article4421630.ece
One should always be aware of the larger picture and not rely on the hope that somehow Saskatoon will emerge unscathed from a global shake out. I hope it does, but am not expecting us to emerge unscathed.
I was just remarking today to a fellow that I would like to purchase a house in Saskatoon, but I see enough signs to make me take a very long wait and see attitude. Particularly as the Bank of Canada seems to be enaging in some spectularly idiotic collateral accumulation.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Ummm . . . this may be ridiculous, but is it possible those people could have just . . . uh . . . died?? Everyone around here seems OLD! Has anyone skimmed the obits any time recently?? Used to be 1 page, max. Now you turn the page, and there’s at least half a dozen there too. Gone to Market Mall recently?? The food court is an absolute sea of white, grey, and blue hair (I’m not kidding).
Is it possible that our population is simply getting old, and a lot of young families have left in the past, which means maybe not as many young people to keep up the population? I don’t know. Just a thought. 2000 heads isn’t an awful lot, so I thought I’d just throw it out there.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Ringo,
Lol. Could be. There are two places were you can pretty much expect to see older people, those being the obits and Market Mall.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Lol. Hadn’t been there in a while. Took my kids to the indoor play area. Nice for them to put it there for all the folks to take their great grandkids when they visit. I think I was one of the only 3 people in the mall without a walker. My two year old was one of the other 2. Wow. It was almost spooky.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:14 PM
There are hundreds of condo units in close proximity which were built for seniors and many of them “hang out” at the mall.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Well I’ve been accused of being Doug anyway! So I thought I’d repost his comment on this blog – seems more appropriate than the weekly review
**
Apparently: Regina is gaining a huge new Loblaw’s warehouse/distribution center …
Apparently: Saskatoon is losing Western Grocers to Regina,
2 years ago, the second headline would have been used, now a days, “boom” it’s the first
**
I wonder if some big distribution warehouse leaving Saskatoon will cause a further population drop?
Beginning of a trend?
April 30th, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Dan,
Im so sad one of Saskatchewan’s worst employers is lessening their presence here. And I hope is it beginning of a trend where all the low paying jobs where they treat you like crap all go to Regina.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Armoth, good to see you’re above so many jobs the rest of society needs to do to get you your food.
Mining jobs = higher paying
Warehouse + Mining jobs = diversified economy
Losing a big employer is never good
SO bad news for Saskatoon
May 1st, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Actually, I think there’s a case to be made that crappy employers leaving (not saying Western Grocers was necessarily one of them) would be good for Saskatoon as long as this labour shortage continues.
I know of several “good” employers who have packed up shop (Minacs- Apple computer customer support call centre) or are struggling mightily to fill their labour needs (Case New Holland) right now, and if 300 employees become available to the labour force, it could keep some good companies/employers in town for the longer haul.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:30 AM
law guy, a call centre?
May 1st, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Um, yes? Not a creditor call centre, or a a telemarketing call centre, but a computer technical support call centre, which provided extensive paid computer training to its employees, good wages, and a decent working environment.
Why the surprise that I feel losing it due to a (likely temporary) labour shortage was a bad thing?
May 1st, 2009 at 10:35 AM
So Law, you think that now that the warehouse is gone, with most former employees moving to Regina, that there will be more trained computer technicians in Saskatoon to work at future call centers?
Warehouse worker does NOT equal computer tech.
Hence the whole idea of diversified if both!
And we’ll probably always lose high paid, computer literate people to Alberta.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:36 AM
“So Law, you think that now that the warehouse is gone, with most former employees moving to Regina, that there will be more trained computer technicians in Saskatoon to work at future call centers?”
No, I don’t. My comment doesn’t say that I do, either.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:40 AM
lawtalkingguy,
Very nice convo except Doug is confused =o) On the issue of call centers there is a Marriott owned call center is Saskatoon as well which has decent pay and excellent benefits. So yes I do agree with you not all call centers are bad =p
May 1st, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I’m not confused, Law if you don’t think the Western Grocer’s workers will be potential Apple IT guys, why bring it up? A call center, in this case an IT one, closing has nothing to do with a warehouse closing. Other than Saskatoon losing 2 big employers!
Saskatoon is losing (apparently) another big employer.
That is bad and affects our economic diversity.
Some of these workers will move to Regina, so more population loss.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Law
“I know of several “good” employers who have packed up shop (Minacs- Apple computer customer support call centre) or are struggling mightily to fill their labour needs (Case New Holland) right now, and if 300 employees become available to the labour force, it could keep some good companies/employers in town for the longer haul.”
Again, not sure how a big warehouse closing down would have kept Apple in town, likely they were looking for a specific skilled work force, that we can’t fill …
May 1st, 2009 at 10:44 AM
I hope you’re not offended if I say that this seems like a silly argument.
Adding workers to the labour force re-shuffles the whole deck, so to speak. Say those 300 workers go and work for 300 separate employers, in all sectors. There are now 300 less slots available to people who are in the pool of possible employees for a call centre (who don’t require advanced computer education, btw; as I said, They were paid to train for over a month before starting).
The net result is Minacs has less trouble supplying the massive demand of hours that they were getting, and maybe stick around for the longer haul.
I feel we’re really pushing the limits in still calling this a real estate-related discussion, agreed?
May 1st, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Personally, I feel any loss of a large employer is bad for Saskatoon, especially as people are already leaving the city.
If Western Grocers was such a terrible place to work, their employees would leave. That they had 300? employees, means that for 300 people, that was the best job possible.
Agreed law guy, that this is pushing the limits a bit in terms of calling it “real estate” related, but I think that it is important to realize these aren’t “boom” times for all sectors in Saskatoon.
And 2,000 Saskatoonites leaving means they were looking for something else, jobs, more affordable housing, or otherwise.
Congratulations to Regina, you finally bested us in something, even if it’s only warehousing!
May 1st, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Apparently oil is at $120 a barrel today, still high, but way down from high of about $145, and half way back to that below $100 mark some were calling for. Think this might take some of the wind out of the west’s sails?