this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
39 points (95.3% liked)

Canada

7210 readers
233 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


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 and 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
 

This was an eye-opener for me. Less temporary foreign workers do construction than the general population? Seriously?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As simple as that sounds, some of these SFH neighborhoods cost as much or more to maintain than their owners bring in annually. You can't just tax someone their entire income. There is no simple solution to this as the problem has been slowly brewing since the initial development of the suburbs 70 years ago. Raising SFH taxes is a good idea but that alone will not dig the suburbs out of the hole they dug.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I agree, and I should have been clearer: this is why the tax rates should have gone up in general, not just property taxes on SFHs.

Of course, what we actually did--at least in Ontario--was eliminate the fees developers pay. Sounds great, right? It would mean markets would make low-density housing unprofitable, right? Nope, because it didn't come with any incentive to build higher-density housing at all, just a stick to beat municipalities with in hopes that they'd cut other services to make up the budget shortfall required to service these lands.

Again, this is a market failure, and we're continuing to look for market solutions for it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We stopped building cities the way they were built for centuries in favor of rural style living with city amenities while simultaneously promoting car centric design to service that development. We started building cities for cars and not for people while ignoring the overall costs of that. There is no one single or simple solution to such a complex problem. Removing or reducing housing as a market force would be a step in the right direction. Housing isn't some luxury service someone can stop using if they can't afford it.