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

Canada

10027 readers
1476 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.

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Two years after Valérie 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 96 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sounds to me like the fines need to be bigger.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 56 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 21 points 2 years ago

In that case the price needs to be uneconomical

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

Just start seizing rentals already.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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?

[–] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

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 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago (1 children)

who the fuck says shit like that?

[–] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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

Won't save my edit

[–] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

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

[–] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years 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 2 years ago (2 children)

From the article: "Those fees have so far amounted to a total of $24.5 million — 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 2 years 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 2 years ago

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

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago

And then what? They would protest?

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years 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."

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

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 2 years 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.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 14 points 2 years ago

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 2 years 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 2 years 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 Montréal, 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 ›