this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
66 points (95.8% liked)

Canada

9541 readers
978 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.

  2. Election Interference / Misinformation

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Proposed cap is a 5% non-permanent resident cap, and a cap of 1% annual population growth (416k). A 14% cut from last years numbers, a 53% increase over 2015.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Okay how about: Build houses without worrying about property values. Capitalism should have absolutely nothing to do with housing.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago

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.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago

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.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

NIMBYs existing is not a valid excuse as far as bottlenecks go.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago

Agreed, but that isn't what I'm talking about.