I've heard that Mark Carney wants to 'bail out developers'. It looks to me more like David Eby wants to help out people who can't afford to buy a first home---but then spin, vibes, and ideology got involved. :-(
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
10 points (91.7% liked)
CanadaPolitics
3298 readers
18 users here now
Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees
Rules
- 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.
- Has to be relevant to Canadian politics.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sounds like the big problem that really needs to be solved is the commodification of a basic human need - housing. Housing has also turned into someone's retirement which have become political suicide to 'change up the formula' per se. All of these 'solutions' work in a capitalistic framework which we know have predictable results - none of which will result in a solution where we don't have homeless people - unless we collectively look at basic human needs differently.
I don't think it's that fine-grained. My read is housing is stymied because the rules of city councils are set up so boomers who already own their homes have an effective veto against new, higher-density housing. I'm a boomer and I'm frankly appalled at the selfishness of people who don't want anything to change in their neighbourhoods simply because they're old and they don't like change. This isn't about people's retirement income because the money you can get by selling your home just gets wiped-out when you buy your next place to live. (I know, the house I bought sold for something like 5 times what I bought it for. But the house I purchased to live in afterwards was so expensive that I pretty much broke even. That's standard now.)
It doesn't help when so-called progressive people throw around red-herrings like 'financialisation' and blame the problem on everything but the fact that most cities have made it illegal to build medium and high density housing in the vast majority of their land. Most (and mean the overwhelming majority) of the land in Vancouver and Toronto, for example, is zoned so it is illegal to build anything but single, detached houses. And any time someone pushes to change these rules Councils weave and dodge like crazy to avoid actually allowing things like duplexes, row housing, small apartment buildings, etc. That's only because most councilors believe they won't get re-elected if they stand up to the NIMBYs in their ward.
The other thing that people routinely forget is the constitution effectively ties the hands of the federal government by giving all the real decision-making into the hands of the provinces and city councils. That's why the feds are reduced to coming up with financial inducements to 'nudge' cities into changing their rules--like Carney's proposal to help Eby with the condo program.
So much of government policy is like this. When you dig into it, it turns out to be a clown show dominated by disinformation.
I think you're both saying the same thing in different ways. Boomers don't just not want change because it's change, they don't want change because it impacts their property values. Its not about selling, it's about home equity, and home equity financing. It's truly shocking how much of that I see. Effectively selling off the market value of their property to fund their retirements as long as the property values never drop. Honestly not that much different than how the ultra wealthy never actually realize any tangible profits, they just take out equity backed loans and live large on tax free cash.
As Albertans have found out the hard way, it all comes down to the provinces. At the end of the day, local policy exists only at the discretion of the provinces. If the province wants something done, it'll get done, and if the province doesn't want something done, it's dead in the water, and there's nothing the local councils can do about it. The fed can play a role... if, and only if, the provinces allow it. Municipal autonomy is more of convention than a hard and fast rule. If the province wants to intervene, they can. That's not to say the city councils don't share some blame here. They have, historically, been the major hurdle. We should be very clear eyed about the problem though. The levers to fix this exist at the provincial level. They aren't being used, because provincial governments live or die at the whims of the senior citizens.
What the feds SHOULD be doing is figuring out how to shut off the gravy train of equity financing without a) collapsing the whole economy, or b) leaving us a bunch of broke old people we have no way to house or take care of.
Of course people could believe that intensification will lower their property values, but from what I've read it usually increases the value of properties. When I hear these guys talk, however, I think it isn't about the money--it's just they are afraid of change. I can understand that, as there's no 'do over' once the developers start building. I agree, however, that it ultimately comes down to the provinces---even though toads like Poilievre will go to great lengths to blame it all on the federal Liberals.
As for equity financing, I suppose boomers know it as a 'reverse mortgage'--from the television adverts. It strikes me this only happens because of the weird situation we currently find ourselves in because zoning won't allow cities (if they wanted) to build enough housing. Without the lack of supply, houses would cost less, so there's less incentive to loam money to owners. It's true the provinces have the last word, but I've had some weird conversations with 'progressive NDP' council members in the city where I used to live who refused to even consider allowing having enough housing for everyone as one of the city's official plan criteria. I also have read that councils often move heaven-and-earth to get around reforms that were supposed to increase density--effectively sabotaging the province when it tries to do something right.
Frankly, the housing issue has made me somewhat bitter about the so-called 'progressives' I meet.
Well, allow me to be the first "progressive" you met that thinks the housing situation is absurd. I too am sick of people who acknowledge it's become a vicious cycle of property speculation leading to people afraid to upset the apple cart, then pass laws that make it worse. And I'm a 40 year old homeowner, so not exactly the demographic with the most to gain from fixing it, personally. I won't bore you with my policy ideas about how to deflate the market without sending us into a financial crisis, I find most people stop trying to listen when they see the "public housing" part of it, even if I point out it's revenue net neutral and ultimately doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime (unlike the moderate liberal plan). Unfortunately I'm about as charismatic as a boot upside the head, so I know better than to run for office.
The one time a progressive actually did try to fix the zoning problem here in Calgary the recall petitions started flying around the next day and they ran her out of office so fast you'd think she had personally kicked every single dog in the city.
I think one also has to consider the persistent low interest rates that has happened in the last 20-30 years and how this has incentivized for assets to not only skyrocket in value, but also make people think that money is 'cheap'. What's even crazier is that the banks and various private lenders were more than willing to give out large mortgages and loans to people until they realized the problem got so big and risky that they had to introduce stress tests.
The feds have a difficult job ahead of it if they try and unwind the gravy train - the economy would have to run red hot so that the interest rates can be raised slowly over time by the BoC. If the BoC's rates were somehow managed differently when it came to housing, there might be an easier way out.
I still think it's all about supply. I think people try to bob and weave, tap dance, and do cartwheels to avoid admitting the problem is cities aren't allowing enough housing to get built. The cost of borrowing wouldn't matter much if there was enough housing to go around. I think people confuse the effects of the problem with the causes of it.