this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
78 points (94.3% liked)

Canada

7241 readers
120 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

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]
78
Canada’s progressive parties have lost the plot on the housing crisis (www.theglobeandmail.com)
submitted 1 year ago by sbv to c/[email protected]
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Liberals and NDP need to up their housing game before the next election. They're more worried about protecting paper gains for existing homeowners than than getting prices back to affordable levels.

Why is the Liberal Party still droning on about protecting high home values while promising to make new home ownership easy? The Liberals should drop this obvious lie – voters can see the impact of housing speculation on increasing generational wealth inequalities for themselves – and heed their own legislation by focusing on the federal role in ensuring renters’ equal rights.

And why is NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh prioritizing owners’ returns over renter rights? British Columbia, which is the only NDP government in power in Canada, is the most pro-housing supply province. Build on that. Income-based housing targets, leasing public land to scale up non-market housing, and tax change to lessen wealth inequalities should be talking points for the “workers party” right now.

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

At the federal level, it seems absolutely nobody cares about pushing the real solutions -- abolishing our insane zoning codes that bake in inequality, abolishing other crazy land use regulations like parking minimums, and taxing land.

Canada has some of the most habitable land per capita in the world, so clearly it's not a shortage of land or a "toO mAnY iMmiGrAnTs" problem (as some people would like to make it out to be). The problem is we have all collectively bought into the same delusion as America -- that we can have government-mandated suburban sprawl for all, and that home values can go up in perpetuity.

But suburban sprawl is thoroughly unsustainable -- both environmentally and economically -- and the land use laws we use to artificially manufacture suburbia are artificially restricting housing supply, choking the economy, and driving inequality sky-high.

And those very same laws we use to mandate sprawl-for-all are responsible for maintaining housing-as-an-investment. But to be a good investment, housing has to appreciate faster than inflation, but if it's outpacing inflation, it by definition cannot be affordable!

Plenty of desirable, high QoL cities have shown that upzoning can stabilize rents. Plenty of desirable, high-growth regions have shown that taxing land can stabilize housing prices. And any new housing -- even market rate or "luxury" -- improves overall affordability.

The housing crisis is a policy choice.

Edit: shoutouts for [email protected] and [email protected]

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

My pet peeve is the provincial policy that as well pushes the needle to be expensive.

I own a home in Calgary that is zoned to allow for secondary suites. I already have a kitchen down there. I wanted to add a walk-out exit but the province said no, unless:

I redo the HVAC for the whole house so that the basement is on a completely isolated loop with a completely seperate furnace, and I rip apart the roof and walls to apply sound dampening materials.

The hurdle is insane. I spent a great portion of my life living in basement suites without either of those... And much worse!

I'm all about safety, but this is far past that.

We talk about densifying urban spaces but the new regulations make it cost prohibitive to do so on an existing build. I'd love to help ease the stress on the INSANE rental market in Calgary... But even provincial policy makes it extremely difficult to densify.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Ah yes the "let's build our way out of an monetary imbalance" policy that literally cannot possibly work.

Most notably because such concepts never include massive infrastructure spending nor a way to prevent 1%ers from just buying up stock as investment vehicles.

The only viable solution is punishing people who buy housing as an investment, strict rent control, building denser, more efficient housing And completely redoing our cities to remove car reliance.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The article actually mentions fixing (butchering is what's needed, really) zoning for the moment it wanders away from parliamentary politics.

[–] Kecessa 3 points 1 year ago

Barking at the wrong tree, zoning, housing, municipalities... All of that is provincial.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/OUNXFHpUhu8

https://piped.video/tI3kkk2JdoI

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

At the federal level, it seems absolutely nobody cares about pushing the real solutions – abolishing our insane zoning codes that bake in inequality, abolishing other crazy land use regulations like parking minimums, and taxing land.

How do you suggest the federal level tackle those problems without breaking the law?

Or are you saying that the feds should try to overthrow the power that be in some kind of coup? That would be interesting, but how could that happen when the people who control the feds are, ultimately, the same people who control the power that would need to be overthrown?

In fact, the same people who went out of their way to ensure that the feds don't have legal authority over these kinds of matters. It would be kind of strange to walk back on that now after all the toil to set that up in the first place.

[–] sbv 9 points 1 year ago

How do you suggest the federal level tackle those problems without breaking the law?

Typically by tying federal funding of municipalities and provinces to bare minimums of legislation. That's what the feds did with the last round of provincial health funding, for example.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I would like it if they at least talked about the real solutions, or perhaps provided incentives for municipalities to institute the necessary changes. Instead, we get them talking about things like rent control (well-meaning but horrible policy) and banning boogeymen like foreign investors (as if native-born slumlords are any less predatory).

If absolutely nothing else, they oughta be using their bully pulpit to get a national conversation going about these things, rather than solution theater that maintains the status quo.

Of course, the biggest thing they could do would be a federal land value tax to replace some amount of income taxes and other federal taxes. Land value taxes are more economically efficient, progressive, basically impossible to evade, can't be passed on to tenants, incentivize more and denser housing (and less sprawl), and reduce upward speculative pressure on housing prices. In theory, there is no limit to how many taxes can be replaced by land value taxes; it has been shown that land value taxes are capable of replacing all taxes at all levels of government.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I would at least like it if they talked about the real solutions

It is not likely that they have all the information to talk about it intelligently. It is not their jurisdiction. This would be like asking municipalities to comment on military operations.

or perhaps provided incentives for municipalities to institute the necessary changes

They tried that with childcare. Remember how that went? Not well, in case you forgot. It was treated like the world was going to end if the incentive was accepted. And that was a complete nothingburger in comparison to this.

If absolutely nothing else, they oughta be using their bully pulpit to get a national conversation going about these things

Have they not? In my mind they have made it abundantly clear that if people end up underwater in their homes, we're in serious, serious trouble. It would be like what happened in the US in 2008, except way, way worse as we're in much, much deeper.

How much clearer can they be without actually scaring people away from housing, which will then become a self-fulfilling prophesy?

I get that you, an individual, may actually want that to happen, but it is pretty obvious why the representation of the entire country does not.

[–] sbv 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They tried that with childcare. Remember how that went?

Doesn't every province now has policy requiring affordable childcare? That was as a direct result of federal intervention.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm just curious, but how exactly do Canada's non-progressive parties 'have' the plot? I feel like you could just say 'Canada's parties' because I think we can agree the Cons sure as hell don't either.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This looks like someone very far left ripping the parliamentary left for pandering to owners at all, even just verbally.

There's also an outline of some very sensible zoning policies earlier on, though, which is more helpful.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Well, it would explain why the G&M hires the rare lefty... to create infighting as the neo-liberal capital class continues taking over everything

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

He called for politicians to get serious about affordability for single parents, students, seniors and others in housing need, by getting many more new high-rise apartments approved by municipalities near federally funded public transit.

On the other hand, there is the problem that Mr. Poilievre correctly highlights: exclusionary zoning by municipalities that continues to block new purpose-built rentals where they are most needed – and not just studios and one-bedrooms, but the kinds of three- to four-bedroom flats that European cities produce.

In fact, 76 per cent of families living in unaffordable, overcrowded or uninhabitable private homes, or who are unable to afford adequate housing in their area, are low- or very low-income households, and can pay a maximum of $1,050 a month on rent.

While the Liberals and the NDP seem to be tripping over themselves to assure everyone that they will ensure that home values will stay high, millions of young Canadians are faced with no viable option except to turn to the only party that is speaking to their shared reality.

The Liberals should drop this obvious lie – voters can see the impact of housing speculation on increasing generational wealth inequalities for themselves – and heed their own legislation by focusing on the federal role in ensuring renters’ equal rights.

Why not talk about the potential of modular housing as an export industry and promote building-code change to scale up family-sized, accessible, energy-efficient flats, instead of trying to outflank the Liberals and Conservatives from the right?

The original article contains 1,427 words, the summary contains 250 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] MyDogLovesMe 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Housing, and health care.

Both should, after CC(!), be our primary national priorities in the media, and public discourse.

End transmission!

[–] can 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

CC?

[–] Voroxpete 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Climate change

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Chic coiffs.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The title implies that they ever had the plot. They haven't. The Liberals especially have always been the party of NIMBYs and inflated housing values.

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

Indeed; and as an article last week stated, there’s no housing crisis; there’s a squeeze on middle income housing, no different than we’ve seen come along in every decade since the 1920s.

Playing it as a crisis is a political thing to push an agenda that doesn’t involve fixing the endemic issues.

Canada has ALWAYS had bad housing policy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It got worse when the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals gutted the nationwide plan that was in place to build low cost housing around... I want to guess late 70's, early 80's.

We used to have the government helping to make housing cheaper, but now all of that is in the hands of private owners, because, well, obviously the private sector can do better (grumbles)

[–] Kecessa 2 points 1 year ago

Learn the difference between federal and provincial powers. The federal government can't make the housing market crash since it insures mortgages (ie we would all pay for the shit that comes with a crash and people not paying their mortgage anymore and people losing the wealth they had for their retirement). Cities and housing is much more a provincial business than a federal one.