66
Liberal platform: Carney pledges to cap non-permanent resident population at below 5%
(www.ipolitics.ca)
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
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
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
Literally none of the "build more houses" they've attempted so far has succeeded on provincial, municipal, or federal levels. We have significant bottlenecks that cannot be addressed in any short period of time, so limiting the incoming strain into the system WHILE also building more houses is the only realistic path.
Okay how about: Build houses without worrying about property values. Capitalism should have absolutely nothing to do with housing.
I haven't heard any arguments that maintaining property values is a bottleneck preventing more buildings. How does that make sense?
I've heard that policies that crater home values can't be chased (ie increased taxes on selling property, or other tax disincentives for houses to be so expensive or a vehicle for investments) but even those proposals don't actually address the root problem of not enough homes.
We have to wait for the boomers to die. Their wealth is all tied up in their overvalued homes, it's their retirement strategy. They're never going to agree to anything that ~~lowers property values~~ provides affordable housing.
That's because they keep trying to build houses whose primary objective is to be profitable for developers and/or investors. They keep building either suburban subdivisions or isolated condo towers. We need to be building to house people, not to create profit, i.e, we need to be building off market housing. And to make it work, we need to be building housing in transit oriented, mixed use walkable neighborhoods, not in car centric suburban sprawls.
I agree- we need more midrise buildings throughout.
IMO Canada's problem isnt one of feasibility but of desire. By and large, people dont WANT midrise apartment buildings. The vast majority of people want the white picket fence dream in a subdivision and two cars. I think the govt needs to get back into building housing on both the federal and provincial level, not just leaving it up to the upper tier municipalities. The housing that IS built by those municipalities typically is exactly what you're requesting - less car centric, cheaper, midrise buildings. They just don't build enough of them. If we can make enough of those buildings by the govt (who can ignore the low profitability of those builds), maybe we can make them desirable enough that people change their mind about suburbia. At the very least, providing apartments meant for a full family would be a huge step forwards compared to the current offerings.
NIMBYs existing is not a valid excuse as far as bottlenecks go.
Agreed, but that isn't what I'm talking about.