this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
63 points (94.4% liked)
Canada
7193 readers
435 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
🍁 Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's primarily the municipalities as this is a supply and demand issue, they have the power to end single family exclusionary zoning, incentivize and fast-track new developments to start gently densifying into missing middle townhouses and multiplexes, but don't because they worry about losing the vote from older generation NIMBY'S. So a lot of cities and towns are waiting for the province or feds to do that for them so they don't have to take the blame.
What the province and feds can work on the cities really can't is funding more public housing/co-op's which is also desperately needed. But as soon as we start creating more supply the cost and demand will go down.
Municipalities are a creation of the province, so the province has the same power as municipalities. As this is reported to be a province-wide issue (in most provinces, at least), it does seem like a place for the province to step in.
The province can pass domestic speculation taxes. Municipalities are hamstrung in this thanks to the province. The province limits what municipalities can do. The province needs to do more.
While I agree that it's the municipal responsibility to actually get the zoning laws and passing new developments, it's also the responsibilities of the governments higher up to do something when the lower governments are starting to fuck around.
I imagine that the provincial government is within its rights to force the change of zoning laws so that single residentiary zones no longer exclude townhouses and multiplexes. A simple change that'll have radical effects in the long term, though admittedly limited effects in the short term.
Both governments are able to simply purchase land and build what the hell they want on them as well. Government subsidized housing doesn't have to mean that the government has to subsidize the rent, but instead just subsidize the land sale and force multiplexes and low-rise apartments to be built on them.
It's a brute force method that'll piss off certain groups, but it'll make others shower them with praise as the basics of living become affordable.
The provincial government can also pass legislation to stop domestic speculation. If we are being real here we have Canadians doing this to other Canadians. It needs to be stopped. We need to build more AND prevent domestic speculators from buying it all up and sell the stock their currently sitting on.
The only way to stop speculation is either price fixing, or to make sure that there's enough supply that market forces won't bring any notable profit to those who treat land like an investment. The first one's definitely the one that's not going to help, as it doesn't address the issue of a lack of housing, but it's basically the one we're getting with how subsidized housing is done right now.
Honest, if it's possible for there to be a law that states the government is required to build and expand high density housing every time the prices go above something like 30% minimum wage, it would be a solid solution. Either that, or the housing bubble crashes so hard that everybody who invested in housing basically loses their entire life savings, like how it's going on in China right now.
There is also the option of simply making housing something people don't want to own again. Turn our cities back to how they looked 50-60 years ago and you'll scare the people away from owning homes pretty quickly. That is easily within the hands of municipal/provincial governments.
Can you explain? From what I know, the reason why housing wasn't a big issue 60 years ago was because they actually made enough homes so prices were low and pretty much anybody could afford one with 3-5 years' wages.
Why do we even need to do this? The population didn't magically triple in the last 5 years. We should not have run out of housing this fast, so where did it all go?
Because its a limitation of personal property rights and freedom. Why can't I as a property owner turn my single family home into a ground level cafe/bakery with 4 units above if I have the capital? It's a government overstep that limits our supply, artificially increasing demand and cost, and gets in the way of entrepreneurship. Having relative freedom over property usage was only something recently taken away in the last 80 or so years due to racist white flight to the suburbs.
While populations hasn't tripled in the last 5 or so years, we are experiencing growth pains that investors and speculators are taking advantage of limited supply, and relying on the fact we will have limited supply for some time to come as long as the zoning stays as the status quo.
Cramming people into tiny apartments is not a solution to this problem. Clawing back all the property that's been gobbled up by “investors” over the last few years, and then selling it at a reasonable price to people who will actually live in it, is a solution to this problem.
And spare me your complaints about “entrepreneurship” and “government overstep”. There's nothing innovative about house hoarding and rent seeking.
Every working family should have the ability to own a house with a yard for the kids to play in, as my family did when I was young. That's the minimum acceptable standard of living for a developed nation. Not being packed like sardines into tiny apartments. This is not the Soviet Union.
We can't keep bulldozing farm land and natural ecosystems to build tax payer subsidized, non eco friendly single family suburban homes anymore. Families can live and do live very comfortably in missing middle sub 6 story low rise duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and multiplexes. All of which can be built up on existing property at the will and freedom of property owners. https://www.canadianarchitect.com/editorial-finding-the-missing-middle/
Then why did real estate prices skyrocket only in the last few years? Why do they affect multi-family housing equally? I'm paying nearly USD2000 per month for one apartment in a building with dozens. 15 years ago, I paid only USD725 per month for a larger apartment in the same area.
Land scarcity is not the problem. It's a distraction from the problem, no doubt perpetuated by the people causing the problem. Stop letting them deceive you.
And no, there's nothing comfortable about living under the tyrannical whims of a building manager and not being able to let your pets roam outside. That is a dramatic decrease in quality of life, it is not necessary, and it is not acceptable.