this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
42 points (80.9% liked)

Canada

9779 readers
415 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
42
Carney wants big government to get into housing – a major risk to taxpayers (archive.is)
submitted 3 weeks ago by sbv to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As always, the Fraser Institute is shitting on ideas that could help the 99%, and saying government should rEmOvE ReD tApE.

I really want this to work. But the announcements I've seen for the building plan only address the supply side and ignore the problems on the demand side: people who own houses are able to pump up the cost of new houses; tax law encourages Canadians to treat their primary residence as an investment; real estate is used for money laundering (at least in some jurisdictions); mortgage fraud is a thing (at least in some jurisdictions); renovictions are used to pump the cost of rentals; and rent caps aren't available in many jurisdictions.

Anyhow, here's hoping the investing in modular housing succeeds, rezoning somehow lowers prices, and the feds are able to push housing starts to the moon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's riskier, but Carney's got 20 years experience in managing financial risk. It's a bet I'm willing to take, since incentives to private developers have only gotten us so far. High risk high reward and all, and you can't get anything big done if you don't think big.

Fraser Institute: "But what if, we could get tax breaks for the rich and disguise it as nation-building? Hohohoho, delightfully devilish, Fraser."

[–] sbv 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Totally. Something is better than nothing.

But there's a political risk that needs to be addressed quickly: many Canadians are getting priced out of their homes now, while others are unable to save for retirement. They see older Canadians making out like bandits on primary residences they bought 10+ years ago and they're justifiably angry.

These people are probably going to vote Conservative in the next election if they don't see an improvement.

It's unclear if the current LPC plan will provide housing relief within four years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I find it funny how someone who thinks the Liberals would think the Conservatives would make it better. Almost as funny as the idea it only took 10 years for the housing market to get to this state.

[–] sbv 1 points 3 weeks ago

I think it's more a question of getting rid of the incumbents that presided over the most noticeable part of the affordability crisis.

Trudeau & co initially said our GDP is growing, what's there to worry about? People have a long memory when they are ignored or slighted. Then add that Poilievre focused on affordability issues during the election. Even if the CPC policies suck, his supporters appreciate that he's talking about the problem.

Neither of the LPC or CPC plans looked great for affordability, IMO. If Carney can stay in power long enough, I think they might be able to get 500k starts/year, but that won't be soon enough for the people who are priced out.