British Columbia’s premier clarified details of a program to buy unsold homes for rent-to-own, insisting it isn’t a bailout for developers. Meanwhile in Nanaimo, teenagers are terrorizing a neighborhood as part of a dangerous challenge—kicking in doors, frightening residents, and causing damage.
British Columbia weighs a questionable deal to buy up unsold condominiums
British Columbia Premier David Eby offered unexpected clarifications about a proposed government program to buy unsold condos and put them into rent-to-own arrangements. The comments came after last week Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a joint initiative worth about $1.5 billion to purchase 2,200 new but unsold condominiums. Eby stressed that the scheme would essentially not burden taxpayers, because the purchased property would become an asset. However, critics have already branded the program a bailout for developers, and experts question how much real benefit it will bring to families.
As Eby explained in an interview with Business in Vancouver, the idea came specifically from the provincial government. Initially, the federal government proposed directing $300 million toward housing programs, including scrapping the GST on new homes—a move Eby described as “developer-friendly,” since it benefits only those already participating in the market. Instead, the province proposed using half of the federal money to buy up condos stuck on the market for people who can’t afford a down payment, but pay exorbitantly high rent. Eby said the purchases would focus on problematic projects teetering on the brink of bankruptcy—something he said would prevent developers from profiting. At the same time, the condos would not be purchased in Vancouver, where prices are too high to make the program workable.
The federal government and the province are each putting in $150 million for the down payment and financing. Eby noted, however, that a mortgage is essentially an asset, so taxpayers would lose nothing. He also admitted that the initial announcement was poorly communicated to the public, and that media errors reporting $3.2 billion in developer subsidies only added to the confusion. The premier responded to criticism, saying, “If people don’t like it, we don’t have to do it. But I think we can buy below the cost of construction—without allowing developers to make money—and give people a chance at housing.” He also clarified that the target regions would be the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, and the Okanagan.
At the same time, many details remain unclear. Simon Fraser University’s city program director Andy Yan said that even with 5,849 unsold units in the province (May 2026 figures from CMHC), most are concentrated in Metro Vancouver. He questioned whether three-bedroom units could be found for under a million dollars and whether market rent could cover mortgage payments on new builds. Yan doubts the program isn’t just “a solution looking for a problem,” and points to the risk of artificial intervention that could disrupt natural price-setting in the market. Thus, while the premier says there will be no cost to the budget, the initiative’s success remains highly uncertain—too many details, such as the types of units and their specific locations, have not been disclosed yet.
BC premier denies bailout accusations and lays out details of the unsold condo buyback program
Last week, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney announced a joint program with British Columbia to buy newly built, unsold condos. But the initiative has sparked plenty of controversy and misunderstanding. A few days later, the province’s premier, David Eby, provided detailed clarifications that shed light on the project’s real goals and mechanics. In an interview with Business in Vancouver, he emphasized that the program is in no way a bailout for developers and would not extend to Vancouver.
It has been confirmed that the “rent-to-own” concept was proposed by the Government of British Columbia. Carney acknowledged that the province originated the initiative, and the federal government agreed to participate by contributing $300 million Canadian. Carney himself said the total buyback cost for 2,200 units would be about $1.5 billion, with the federation covering only a tenth. Eby clarified that the federal government would put in $150 million and the province would match it. The money will go toward the down payment and financing, while the main amount will be secured through mortgages, which the premier said would become an asset for taxpayers and not put any burden on them.
Eby explained that his government rejected a more typical option for assisting developers—eliminating the goods and services tax on new homes, which already applies to first-time homebuyers. In the premier’s view, that approach would support only those already in the market and would not help people who still can’t save up for a down payment while also paying high rent. Instead, the decision was to use half of the federal funds specifically for that group—the people “caught” between expensive rent and an inability to buy.
It is particularly emphasized that only “problem” properties would be bought—such as projects in bankruptcy or those facing a mortgage foreclosure process. In this way, developers would not profit from the deal. Eby said directly, “If it creates a backlash, that’s fine—we don’t have to do it.” He explained that the government could purchase units for less than the cost of construction, cheaper than what the government could build itself, and then place them into the “rent-to-own” program. That gives people a chance at housing they otherwise would never be able to afford.
Purchases will not be made in Vancouver either—“the numbers don’t add up there.” The target regions named are the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, and the Okanagan. However, as Andy Yan, director of the city program at Simon Fraser University, notes, much remains unclear. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in May 2026 there were 5,849 new unsold units in the province, including 4,376 in Metro Vancouver, which includes 457 in the city proper. Yan doubts that housing will be affordable: “I can’t imagine many three-bedroom units for less than a million dollars.” He also points to the gap between market rent and mortgage payments for new homes. The expert questions whether the program is “a solution looking for a problem” and whether it could interfere with market pricing finding a bottom.
The article also explains that the confusion began with incorrect media reports. Some outlets mistakenly described the program as totaling $3.2 billion—when in fact that figure refers to subsidies paid to developers to offset municipal charges for infrastructure development, which has no direct connection to the condo buyback. Eby and Carney acknowledged that the initial announcement was poorly communicated to the public. The BC premier also responded to critics who believe the buyback would prevent the market from reaching a price bottom. He repeated that if the idea proves unpopular, they would drop it—but for now, it is seen as a unique opportunity to help families.
Uncertainty also remains about the type of units: it is still unclear how many bedrooms the purchased properties will have, even though Eby has repeatedly said the goal is families. Andy Yan emphasizes that real assessment will require details on location and pricing. In any case, as stated in Castanet’s article, the program remains an experiment and could be scrapped if it fails to gain support.
Teens terrorize a Vancouver Island neighborhood with a “door-kick challenge”
What started as an “harmless” teen prank has turned into real terror for residents of Nanaimo, a Canadian city in British Columbia. At night, unknown young people run at the doors of private homes and kick them in, film the act, and post videos online for likes and views. Local residents say that, in addition to damaged property, they have faced threats of violence toward a family—and one homeowner, Marty Peters, whose eight-year-old granddaughter was frightened to death by the loud banging, said the situation has gotten out of control.
As reported by the CBC News website, the story began last August. At first, strange knocks could be heard at night; then someone started knocking and running away—but over time the impacts became stronger. “We heard a loud bang and thought a car had crashed into a pole,” remembers Kylie Sollenberg, who previously lived in the same area. Doorbell cameras captured teenagers in hoodies and balaclavas running up and kicking the door. The blow caused a crack almost the entire length of the door. Repairs cost thousands of dollars, and Nanaimo police say incidents have continued since early 2025, with most targets located in the Departure Bay area.
Constable Gary O’Brien of the local police service said the suspects are students at Wellington Secondary School, but no one has been arrested yet. Police are working with the school to identify the vandals. O’Brien said that teenagers they spoke with were blunt about their goal—to “get likes and show how cool they are”—and they didn’t realize they were committing a criminal offense. In one incident, Peters and his wife tried to talk to a group of young people, but, according to the homeowner, they threatened to kill his spouse.
The article notes that the “door-kick challenge” is an international trend that has already led to tragic outcomes. In the United States, an 11-year-old boy was shot and killed after joking around in a similar way; in Quebec, a woman was sentenced to 27 months in prison for scalding a 10-year-old child with boiling water during a comparable stunt; in Abbotsford, an elderly driver crashed into two teenagers and received a one-year driving ban. In nearby Courtenay, a couple set up a wire trap to knock down a girl kicking in their door, leading to a physical confrontation.
Marty Peters says older neighbors have already been injured trying to chase the vandals, and many keep baseball bats and other items for self-defense by the front door. He warns, “These kids are also at risk of getting hurt.” Nanaimo police remind residents that such actions are a criminal offense and urge parents to explain to teenagers what the potential consequences are—because next time a homeowner may use a weapon under self-defense laws. The situation remains tense, and police continue their investigation but have not yet laid charges against people they know about due to a lack of direct identification.
