terath

No it wouldn't. Here is a comparable: https://www.realtor.com/rentals/details/166-Amsterdam-Ave_New-York_NY_10023_M33265-52776?property_id=3326552776&from=ab_mixed_view_card

A three bedroom would go for $12k a month, but we don't even have three bedroom units here. Assuming this is a two bedroom it would probably be in the middle of the range given. So 7k-8k USD. But Toronto shouldn't be as expensive as Manhattan, NYC.

No, we don't end up in the same place. While the liberals are not great, neither the liberals or the NDP will erode our social progress like the conservatives will. Both would also probably be better for the environment if that's your jam.

Literally the only reason to vote for the conservatives is if you agree with their campaign of hate and intolerance. If you want social regression go vote for them, but you wont' get anything else out of them.

Even if he was hypothetically not lying about wanting to address housing in the way he suggests, I still wouldn't be able to support him because eroding our social protections and freedoms is not worth it.

But I also think the likely hood that he upsets his rich suburban supporters and friends by allowing condos to be built next to their nice houses is close to zero. So it's probably one of those bullshit planks like the liberals saying they were going to potentially get rid of first past the post. There are zero consequences for our politicians lying like this.

It would be nice if our elections laws defined a class of promises where if they are broken an election is forcibly triggered.

Prices are already down over 20% and it IS a buyers market at the moment. The problem is that people don't have the funds so even though prices are down significantly there are now fewer buyers because people can't borrow. The elephant in the room is that wages need to come up.

The other way to make things more affordable is to raise wages for the lower 90% of earners.

Someone has to own the building genius. That person is the landord. The only alternative to having a corporation or individual as the landlord, is having the government or a coop as a landlord. There is a place for those, but sorry I'm not for communism, that can't be the only option as otherwise we run into the well known problems with communism, no competition leads to shit quality, which is generally what you get from government run housing.

So in your mind all those new grads out getting their first jobs should just be homeless for 30 years until they can afford to buy a house? That's a pretty harmful idea.

The idea that landlords shouldn't exist is one of the most ignorant and thoughtless rage memes going around right now. There are many many many situations where people need to rent rather than purchase, and without landlords there is no renting.

I think it's easy to rage about NIMBYs, but it shouldn't be any surprise that someone with a nice house and pool is going to be upset with a sky scraper going up next to them. It would ruin their land value and enjoyment of their property.

While we shouldn't be prioritizing individuals over the needs of the many, if you want support from the NIMBYs you'll need to do something for them. For example, if you're going to be ruining the value of people's houses with billion dollar projects, perhaps there should be some compensation for those people included. It wouldn't fully convince the NIMBYs, but it would soften the bitter pill they have to swallow and might win over the moderates in those areas.

But that aside, regarding PP I think you're incredibly naive if you really think he's going to implement policies that upset his rich friends. It might be in his platform, but he's a divisive lying shit and I wouldn't trust a word he says. The only thing I'm confident of is that PP will pass laws funnelling more money to his rich friends, just like Ford, and he'll likely attempt to weaken our democracy to ensure his minority party continues to get majorities.

How's your linux phone doing?