This strikes me as a convenient scapegoat more than anything. None of the major parties dares admit that more affordable housing would require home prices to drop
So let's blame the scary REIT bogeyman!
For those that seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of people who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour, co-operative, feminist, human rights and environmental movements, and with First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, to build a more just, equal, and sustainable Canada within a global community dedicated to the same goals.
This strikes me as a convenient scapegoat more than anything. None of the major parties dares admit that more affordable housing would require home prices to drop
So let's blame the scary REIT bogeyman!
It's definitely corporations. It has been for a long time. I knew that corporations were pushing up housing prices for at least 10 years.
It can't be corporations.
66-68% of Residential properties in Canada are owned by the family living in them. Another 15-20% are dedicated rental apartment buildings which have to be owned by a corporation in order to be built in the first place.
That leaves 10-15% of the whole market to be owned by "Corporations" except most of that remaining amount is just regular people who own two or three homes either for themselves(summer cabin, etc.) or to rent out as small time landlords.
I'd bet you money that corporations own less than 5% of all single family homes in Canada.
I haven't seen any stats to back this up? I've seen lots showing FTHB being overtaken and replaced by mom and pop investors though.
"mom and pop" has such a nice and fun ring to it. Not like scary "REITs". Ironically though, people who own 1 share in a REIT are less of a problem than every single "mom and pop" investor who wants to ban REITs altogether.
Don't get me wrong, both should be eliminated.
I'm not going to do your research for you, but I'll do you the favour and provide this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/real-estate-investment-firms-financialization-housing-1.6538087
We've gone through a very long time at very low interest rates. This means that investors who would normally buy bonds for safekeeping have no choice but to put their money elsewhere. For example, stocks and Real estate.
Due to the free money that we had before interest rates started to rise, stocks were at an all time high but it's not based on fundamentals and higher earnings, so P/E ratios have gotten worse. And there has yet to be a big market correction (that is coming). This makes value investors nervous, but again, there's nowhere else to put the money that gets a good return.
So what would you do if you can't buy treasury bonds and the market is a big bubble? Real estate. Also, the real assets is good to offset any bad bets a corp made in the casino we call a stock market.
So yeah... corporations. All you have to do is follow the money. It's always the same old story. Raw greed and political corruption.
It's a known problem in the US, there just hasn't been any data showing it's an issue in Canada (yet), that I've seen.
But statscan does have data on mom and pop investors:
- The proportion of investors among owners varied from 20.2% in Ontario to 31.5% in Nova Scotia.
- Among houses and condominium apartments, just under one in five properties was used as an investment in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined.
Thank you very much for this source.
When I discuss policy with "mom and pop" landlords. They always say that they're not the problem it's other people that's the problem. This source shows that investment in general is the problem.
I like the breakdown between owner-occupier and the different types of investors. I also like the distinction between second residences and units intended to be rental properties.
Some bias, but I also like that the introduction showcases that the empirical data corroborates the conclusion reached by supply-demand theory (emphasis mine):
the study by Allen et al. (2018) also found that an increase in the percentage of houses purchased by investors in a given area led to higher prices in that market.
This is some serious data. Thank you again.
We need a massive, WW2-style investment in home construction, and we need housing prices to go down. That's something that the NDP believes in more than any other party. Take a look at this response in the last leader's debate, where Singh actually pushes back on the notion that housing should be an investment and prices should keep going up. You think Poilievre or Trudeau are going to say anything like that?
The fact is though, that REITs are buying up massive amounts of property, have perverse tax incentives, and have a lot of political influence through their accumulation of capital over the past decades.
Meanwhile, the government is allowing The Montreal Shuffle
Let's say rent is $1000/month for existing tenants:
Vacancy control is a policy that would fix this, and has been proposed by the Ontario NDP! It would tie rents to units instead of tenants, which would mean landlords can't raise rents beyond the rent control guideline when putting a unit back on the market. This removes the incentive for landlords to renovict tenants.
We need more dense, transit oriented, non-market housing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41VJudBdYXY&t=2s&ab_channel=BloombergOriginals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk&ab_channel=AboutHere
Vienna, the capital of "affordability" and MULTI-YEAR WAITLISTS FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH FUCKING UNITS. You can't even get onto the list for a unit until you live in Vienna for two years. You can't make too much money either, 80k Euros total for a couple, but you can't afford to move to Vienna for the 2 years to even get on the waitlist unless you make more than the amount to get accepted onto the waitlist.
And don't even think about trying to move once you've got a unit either. That isn't happening.
Goddamn do I hate when people try to use Vienna as an example of things working well.
Cool. So when do you guys stop propping up the Trudeau gov't, and start making them do something.
The fact is, the NDP and conservatives lost the last election. The NDP won 25 seats. And polling right now shows that the conservatives are going to win the next election if it were called tomorrow.
In the last parliament, from 2019-2021, there was also a Liberal minority, with deal between any party. But the Liberals simply got what they wanted because they could count on the support of either the Bloc (when shooting down legislation over jurisdiction), the NDP (for childcare), or the Conservatives (when legislating workers back to work), and have a working majority.
So, the NDP has three options:
Option 3 is probably the best deal. Would an NDP government do more to tackle the housing crisis? Yes, but in the current parliament, with only 25 seats, you get what you can get. I think the NDP should push for more, be more aggressive, and have a more credible threat of pulling the plug in order to extract more from the Liberals, and for that reason, I'm not super excited about the way things are going. I'll certainly push for more at the party convention.
However, let's look at the bigger picture. What policy goals have the other parties (including the conservatives) actually accomplished in Parliament over the past decade? They've made a bunch of noise, but gotten pretty much nothing done.