this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
273 points (99.3% liked)

Canada

7130 readers
404 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Two years after ValΓ©rie Plante's administration said a new housing bylaw would lead to the construction of 600 new social housing units per year, the city hasn't seen a single one.

The Bylaw for a Diverse Metropolis forces developers to include social, family and, in some places, affordable housing units to any new projects larger than 4,843 square feet.

If they don't, they must pay a fine or hand over land, buildings or individual units for the city to turn into affordable or social housing.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 95 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sounds to me like the fines need to be bigger.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a fine, it's a price.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

In that case the price needs to be uneconomical

[–] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just start seizing rentals already.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

1 to 3 units > can be owned by anyone

4 to 8 units > need to be registered as a company

9 units or more > owned by a non profit crown corporation

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, like, if you reduced the number of rentals and made it uneconomical to build rentals, would you expect the cost of rent to go up or down?

Society can build things without a profit motive.

Housing should be a human right, so rent abolition is next after expropriation of land leeches.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 74 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They will add this fine to the price of the apartments. It should be really simple: certain % of the units have to be social housing or you will not get building permit, period.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yes, this is a prime example of why the neoliberal fascination with only acting on the market indirectly with tax/fee incentives instead of just making legal requirements or directly creating the goods and/or services the government wants is so foolish.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nutbane@lemmy.ca 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Quotes from Developer Nicola Padulo:

"If people can't afford it, they should not live in the city. The city is made for the privileged."

He says the city wants to "put its nose" in his business.

[–] yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'd love to see the privileged try to live in a city devoid of any service workers.

[–] Saneless@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My city is kinda like that. Stores have no checkouts open, fast food is bad and takes forever, and restaurants are never as good in other towns

They cry anytime affordable housing pops up yet don't understand why no one is around to stock the grocery store

[–] Kahlenar@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

That always cracks me up about Atlas shrugged. A colony of people who think they're too good to clean toilets, gonna go far.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago

The right wing consistently shoots themselves in the feet and cry about how evil everyone else is for gently suggesting that maybe we at least switch to .22 rounds instead of buckshot

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I love this point because they really don’t understand that if you put all the minimum wage employees 3 hours away from the city then they will need to drive 3 hours to get groceries

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's not just out of touch rich assholes who think this. I have so many friends that love to say people who work at don't deserve to live in any city and should get a real job. The most ironic part is non of them know how to cook and rely on fast food for the majority of their meals.

People making under the median household income are the ones who keep the city functioning and they deserve to live in the city more than someone making 300k a year.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

who the fuck says shit like that?

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Work at (insert service job) don't deserve...

Won't save my edit

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

No they won't. They'll just pay for delivery and carry on.

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Well I certainly don’t want anyone in that city seeing my art then. My art is for the non-privileged thank you very much

[–] ggleblanc@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From the article: "Those fees have so far amounted to a total of $24.5 million β€” not enough to develop a single social housing project, according to housing experts."

I don't know about construction costs in Canada, but in many cities in the United States, 24 million dollars could renovate at least 120 homes, assuming a cost of $200,000 per renovation. Renovation is more expensive than building new. You could easily build 240 modest homes on undeveloped land with 24 million dollars.

I've left them half a million for administrative costs.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 17 points 1 year ago

Houses are not 'affordable housing' and definitely are not housing projects. Medium size apartment building can easily have 100 apartments. That's $240.000 per apartment which would be considered 'affordable' where I live. I'm guessing in Montreal it's more expensive so yeah, they don't even have money for 100 apartments which would be a small housing project.

[–] Afrazzle@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

Montreal is a relatively big city, there's not much undeveloped land just sitting around there.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

They were stupid to give the developers an out. It's not hard to do some math and figure out what it would take to recoup the penalty in rent or sales compared to the much lower revenue stream of affordable housing.

Now the fine is just part of the cost of doing business. They'll either eat the fine, or more likely spread it out across whatever they were gonna charge for whatever they're building instead of the affordable housing.

You can't give greedy assholes an inch, or they'll take a mile and then bill you for it.

[–] TemporaryBoyfriend@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it's less painful to pay the tax than to do the right thing, then the tax isn't high enough. Keep doubling it until it works, and in the meantime, use the tax revenue for the city to use as low-income housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Housing really is one of those aspects of the market that needs to be demonetized and handled by governments.

[–] starclaude@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

it is too late, it is already become rich people gold mine/golden egg that they wont let go no matter what because how stable the investment is, not to mention not taxable when empty

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And then what? They would protest?

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We already got that. Municipal governments have control of the housing market. It's called "zoning" and their opinion on housing is "no."

Then buy a bunch of land and incorporate it as a separate county. Or the Canadian equivalent, I don't know what you guys call it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Awkwardparticle@artemis.camp 14 points 1 year ago

Developers are the sleaziest slimmest sub-human peices of shit you will ever meet. I used to work in the industry, they are all the same. You could fine them half of the net revenue, and they would still pay the fine over doing anything to help society. It is so lucrative the fine would have to be absolutely enormous to make them not just pay the fine. The fine doesn't really matter anyways because everything is done in credit leveraged against previous projects.

Fines are just the cost of doing business. Fines should be a percentage of gross revenue and at a significant rate. Until then corporations will continue to pay the fine and laugh to the bank.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Making for-profit private organizations do not-for-profit work will never work. They'll either find a way to get around it, or just not do it in the first place.

Won't be surprised if we suddenly see a host of new 4842 square feet projects, or maybe joint projects between multiple companies (all probably owned by the same guy) that split ownership so that nobody builds more than 4842 square feet on a single plot of land.

Or alternatively they'll just hand over useless land somewhere else in exchange for building that massive high value condo or something.

The only way to make affordable housing is to either rely on not-for-profit organizations, or the government to do it themselves.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Bylaw for a Diverse Metropolis forces developers to include social, family and, in some places, affordable housing units to any new projects larger than 4,843 square feet.

If they don't, they must pay a fine or hand over land, buildings or individual units for the city to turn into affordable or social housing.

According to data released by Ensemble MontrΓ©al, the city's official opposition, and reviewed by CBC News, there have been 150 new projects by private developers, creating a total of 7,100 housing units, since the bylaw came into effect in April 2021.

Benoit Dorais, vice-chair of Montreal's executive committee and the member responsible for housing, said the two-year review would be ready this fall, despite being promised this spring.

He says Montreal isn't a good city for investing in property: construction costs are high, there's too much regulation, and developers like him seek as much profit as possible.

AccèsLogis, the province's social housing fund, has only enough money to complete projects already in the works, and the Quebec government said last winter that it will be replaced with a program more attractive to private developers.


The original article contains 829 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί