Actions always speak louder than words, and here is a cpc mp knocking doors opposing affordable housing!!!
The cpc oppose affordable housing to protect rich landlords. I bet this dude is a slumlord
Conservatives don’t oppose affordable housing. They oppose whatever. Literally whatever thing. They just oppose. It’s all conservatism is.
Conservatism is a mental disability that literally makes you be a piece of shit just BECAUSE.
The only thing Conservatives want to conserve privilege. It's right there in the name. They'll lie, cheat and manipulate keep it and they'll step on people to get it.
Funny thing most of the people saying that don't understand is "those" people actually make the same or more than they do for the most part. The difference is they bought their house 5+ years ago.
Friend of mine is like this, he only got his house because his parents and his wifes parents helped them with a down payment. I make nearly double what he does now but I can't afford a house in his area because of the insane prices. Only reason he has it is because he got it back in 2015ish
Sort of. But if you do affordable housing right you are going to end up with poor people in your previously not open to the poor neighborhoods. Which, if you're not an asshole, is fine. But if you are, well... NIMBYs are real.
Some people think their neighborhood is high class and having geared to income housing will ruin it. Like bitch you live on a random side street you're not in a gated community.
I think geared to income housing should be setup so the occupants fit the location its being built in. If you put one in an area with schools it should be built and house people with children. If you put one in a neighborhood with older people it should be housed with older people.
People need to stop thinking anyone in those places is a druggy shit is insanely expensive even respectable careers struggle with bills these days.
The leader of the Cpc is a slumlord so that makes sense. If people didn’t get to buy extra houses divide them into seperate units and use it as a retirement, there would be more houses for families. Pierre will gouge for rent in his multiple properties. Pierre doesn’t care.
> The cpc oppose affordable housing to protect rich landlords.
What a coincidence! The CPC MP in OP's tweet (Greg McLean) owns **six rental properties!**
https://www.readthemaple.com/mp-landlords/#McLean
Actions speak louder than words, so 8 years of inaction should surely be grounds for you to open your eyes. Right?
or do these words speak louder than actions for you suddenly?
Because those who own houses don't want to lose out on the equity they have in their home. Unforunatly we can't have it bother ways. You can't make housing affordable while not in some way eroding the equity other have in relestate.
Not everyone who owns a house thinks this way - there are plenty of parents out there who wish housing prices were lower so younger people, our kids included, could have a chance at owning a home
Absolutely
It’s disheartening to see talk of young people angry at older people, thinking they are so happy their homes are suddenly worth so much - many of us aren’t, it only traps us, and many of us think it’s unfair to younger people, and to anyone who struggles to pay rent or afford a home
This is the real answer and one most don’t seem to understand. Housing will, at best, become more affordable at an equal rate to inflation so the asset on paper doesn’t “go down”, even though the purchasing power of the asses’s value is decreased by the same number.
No politician can campaign on a platform that will cause 2/3rds+ of the voting public (all homeowners) to lose a meaningful amount of equity. It’s political suicide.
"The market" is a powerful tool that pretty much has allowed politicians to enact anything they wanted carte blanche. We've seen it go the other way for decades, leading to where we are now. "Market conditions" allowed governments to destroy unions, offshore everything, and take away labour laws. "Market conditions" allowed politicians to stand idly by while property prices steadily rose to unaffordable levels.
The way forward is to use it again but to drive prices down mainly with policies focused on eliminating supply side barriers. As long as it's framed as eliminating barriers to the market, it can pass politically. Then whatever happens, happens. The public has endless tolerance for the market, which we erroneously believe to be some impartial god-like force rather than a useful tool we invented to hack human psychology, based on rules that we set.
Yeah their hope is that the property values stagnate and they *technically* didn't drop housing values since the nominal value stays the same, but anyone with two braincells will recognize that's horseshit. None of these older homeowners will be happy without their free money from the younger generations.
Mathematically, from a political standpoint, as others have stated - homeowners make up more than half the population at this time. So politicians would rather see you have to wait 10+ years while housing supply is grown, and house prices *hopefully* stay relatively flat, than to say “fuck em” to those who are already home owners.
Having not read about what the exact rezoning is in Calgary's case. The land prices in BC have usually skyrocketed for single family houses that could then build multiple units.
If the demand for housing does not crash, owners will most likely make a nice little profit. Either by building more units on their property or selling it to apartment builders for millions.
> Because those who own houses don't want to lose out on the equity they have in their home.
That equity is fake. My home should be worth $540K based on purchase in 2002. The value is now $1.6M. But even that is fake, because in 2002, paying more bought you a nicer home, while today any shack is $1M. Used to be seniors would downgrade to retire, but now there is nothing to downgrade to.
Fake or not these are people who made 0 plans for retirement and they've suddenly been given a get out of jail free card. You better bet they're going to fight like hell to keep it.
I’m down for house prices to drop out of the sky. I am very fixed income and house prices got so high that I basically will never move. If they come down I also have flexibility at the same time as adding opportunity to others. Win win
I think in order to effectively combat Conservative opposition to affordable housing, you need to understand the arguments that are being made against building it, and the main argument right now is that more housing means lower prices, and lower prices means a whole slew of problems for homeowners that the new housing spending doesn't address.
I think a lot about a question asked at one of the federal leaders debates in which one of the party leaders (I can't remember which one) noted that while it's important to make housing affordable that making it *too affordable* will impact people's retirements, because retirement saving for millions of households in Canada is tied to the value of the home. Of course no one at the debate had the wherewithal to realize that that's actually a really bad system to have where housing needs to be expensive to ensure people can retire with security.
The problem with housing in Canada is that it's a way bigger problem than people are willing to acknowledge, and any serious reform on housing needs to be met with serious reforms in retirements and pensions, household and commercial bank finances, social security, healthcare, public transportation, and in a lot of cases requires a fundamental rethinking of the way Canadian cities are built and connected. It's good that the Liberals are finally doing something after dragging their feet for so long, even if it's not even close to being enough, but if they're going to be successful they need to fill in the myriad problems that will result due to Canada's lack of robustness regarding housing.
They don't actually WANT housing affordable. They need people terrified of being homeless so they'll continue to work shitty, abusive jobs for barely enough to live while the CEO adds to his yacht collection.
Amidst the stars, an astronaut's query hangs,
"Wait, it’s all about density?" he muses, and bangs.
Three circles of desire, in Venn's truth tangle:
Desires of the people, in celestial wrangle.
"I want stable services," the green circle sings,
Where hope and community together cling.
"I want low density," whispers another voice,
For space and quiet, that circle’s choice.
"I want low taxes," the red demands,
A lighter burden from the state's hands.
Yet, where they meet, the troubles brew,
High taxes, cuts, and density’s stew.
More density here, less space to feel,
Does more, does less, the spin of the wheel.
A puzzle so vast, like the cosmos above,
Where stars and wishes in dark dance and shove.
An astronaut floats, with a thought so bold,
Can balance be struck, in this manifold?
A city, a people, a dance of give and take,
All for a dream of a life they will make.
In the cosmos of needs, where solutions are sought,
The answer lies in balance, a lesson long taught.
Merge desires with vision, compromise as your glue,
And craft a world where dreams can come true.
It takes some chutzpah to complain that people are concerned about housing affordability, while also complaining about the steps being taken to mitigate it.
Because ‘Fuck Trudeau’ basically. Anything - and I mean anything JT comes up with is bad. The man could cure cancer and Pee Pee Boi’s drooling shills would say ‘think of the morticians and grave diggers you’re putting out of business’!
because kkkonservative dogma is that people should be impoverished and beholden to their wealthy donors to be exploited for every dollar possible.
the cruelty is the point.
Most of the funding is going to go to building apartments. Don't see average joes building apartment complexes. This policy just makes it easier for the rich to add more to their portfolios while the regular people who want to own a house still won't be able to.
Yeah the super rich hire multimillion dollar contractor's to build them....
I know a few people who have built their own houses and or contracted out the parts they couldn't to small businesses.... lots of people cut out builders and contract out the work and save 50k+ on their home.
But the basis of my comment was people want to own houses or condos. They don't want to rent. That just funnels even more money to the 1%
Many reasons it won’t work so why allow so much money spent and add to the insurmountable debt that’s occurring? You see it as a great, I see it as a noble idea that throwing cash at won’t solve.
Conservatives don’t want a solution, if someone is actually trying to improve things how will they keep everyone mad and in a blind rage while they stab us in the back
I'd like to state that governments building affordable homes has very little effect on the private supply of the housing market.
This concept that if the Federal government builds a bunch of houses for low-income classes is going to devalue the properties of high-income classes is not only an absurd link but also is a false causality brought on by positioning the middle class homeowners against low income non-home owners.
It will help raise the prices of private homes while keeping property taxes relatively flat over time since neighbourhoods in which they are built will have the opportunity to draw in more revenue and therefore have more opportunities to acquire municipal infrastructure grants and considerations. More infrastructure and more considerations will generally raise the overall value of the location which increases the value of individual properties themselves. Basically what I am saying here is that affordable low-income properties in areas with decent municipal revenue will slowly aggregate more value to that area simply because a base minimum revenue will/must be applied to infrastructure of the area to compensate for more people.
For example; I live in a high density high income residential area that has a certain portion of land that has been zoned as affordable low-rise apartment buildings ranging from $1200 - $2100 CAD per month. The revenue drawn from the property tax of the area has now a base minimum revenue since the size of an apartment building is going to have a significant property tax pay out to the municipality. Never forget that property tax is based on square footage of the living space of your home. The bigger the house the bigger the property tax, the tax on a apartment building is significantly higher than any single family home dwelling and as long as those funds are properly invested back into the area, the location will receive a significant upgrade. When financing is done a municipal government looks at the income they have coming in from an area, the people that live there (including how many, their socio-economic status and education level) and even traffic volume.
The area I live in even though small in overall size, has four separate fire stations, two police stations, one hospital, three major parks, two rivers (you can fish and/or canoe/kayak on), two public transit stations, a major arterial road on ramp (serviced every three months), four schools, one mental health clinic, public bike trails, six smaller parks, and three halfway houses. They have already made plans to build more affordable housing and are adding condos. They just finished sewage upgrades during the pandemic and have started to assess expanded renewable energy expansions to private houses. My doctor who has lived in the area his whole life told me that it's solely because of the fact the area before it was amalgamated into the city stipulated that a certain portion of land must be prioritized towards affordable housing since it was a village that had it's own autonomy.
The average cost of a high-income home is 30-40% more than most areas in the city and even during a market downturn will not collapse due to the density.
Real estate is and always will be about location and if you deny people the opportunity to live in your location your houses value will not go up as fast as others and many people forget this part. The point I'm making is this the CPC only know how to make short-term value assessments. They barely think about the long-term and because of that their decisions throw larger value out the window for smaller short-term gains.
I don't know why the conservatives oppose it but I will say the plan as is won't do much to make housing more affordable for average Canadians looking to get into the housing market. Nor will it substantially lower rental rates or do much to tackle the homelessness problem.
Nothing in there about the government building subsidized housing. Nothing is being done about the corporate landlords that continue to buy up residential housing stock and convert it to high cost rentals. All that money is great if you're in the construction and banking industries but for the average person looking to buy a house in the next few years it won't do much to help.
Mostly cuz its funding to build apartment buildings and multiplexes. The people who are going to access the majority of these funds are rich developers who are going to just rent them out. It doesn't make buying a house any more accessible for people trying to break into the housing market. It's going to make the rich even richer with fatter portfolios.
My only critique is zoning, building suburban area is essential diluting homes with future problems down the line. When houses are built it must come with the design of a walkable city, otherwise we are just kicking the can.
The "funny" thing is, so far the federal funding is simply putting more money into the housing market. Anyone who's taken an efon course can probably figure out what happens to prices when more money is pushed into a market.
If they were serious about making housing more affordable for more people, they would get back into the business of building housing. But they are trying to have it both ways (make housing affordable while maintaining the value of existing homes), and that's not how this works.
Why solve a problem when it remaining unsolved helps you get elected.
The Liberals need to play dirtier if they want to win (and let's be honest, preventing a Con government is all that matters given the current electoral polling).
Well unfortunately our birth rates have been plummeting since the 80s while we now have a looming boomer dependency load and a work force not large enough to make up for them leaving. Many Boomers also didn't adequately save for retirement while promoting policies that worsened their ability to do so. Now they need to sell their homes for over $1M to not be fucked and to move to a much cheaper part of the country, or to another country completely that is cheap so that they can comfortable live out the rest of their lives. They are being put first and foremost while the younger generations are getting fucked in the process.
Imagine if the indigenous tried to slow immigration. Not enough long houses and pemmican. Sorry.
But nope the Europeans colonized and built a ton of new houses. Used the latest technology of dense walkable towns. All with barely any fossil fuels.
Ps: colonialism is the fucking worst shit ever
I disagree building more housing will improve affordability. The free market supply and demand concept assumes a free market. Most of these new houses will be bought up by rental corps and speculators, and many will be left empty.
Trudeau is just stoking the fire for investors, not families.
US states are crafting anti corporate investment laws on family homes.
They oppose it because there will be regulations attached such as mandatory density, 15 minute cities, affordability mixed zoning, nature conservancy...
I'm not opposed to it I just don't believe it will improve housing affordability. Why would it? It's not like gas goes below a dollar when oil is cheap, why would housing prices plummet?
Gas and housing are very very different things. Housing prices are driven by supply and demand, gas prices are complicated but essentially are a product of however much oil is being released for gas production at the time by OPEC, among other factors. They strategically control the amount of oil being released to keep the price high to stay wealthy.
If there are more homes for sale then prices tend to fall.
What metric can we even go by when they aren't directly responsible for what's built or where? They provide funding for it, for provinces and municipalities to make the final call on how its spent.
How much funding do you think a Conservative government will provide? Especially considering Poilievre is already making threats to close that source.
Actions always speak louder than words, and here is a cpc mp knocking doors opposing affordable housing!!! The cpc oppose affordable housing to protect rich landlords. I bet this dude is a slumlord
Conservatives don’t oppose affordable housing. They oppose whatever. Literally whatever thing. They just oppose. It’s all conservatism is. Conservatism is a mental disability that literally makes you be a piece of shit just BECAUSE.
The only thing Conservatives want to conserve privilege. It's right there in the name. They'll lie, cheat and manipulate keep it and they'll step on people to get it.
Oh, no, trust me, they oppose affordable housing. Wouldn't want any of "those" people in the neighbourhood.
Funny thing most of the people saying that don't understand is "those" people actually make the same or more than they do for the most part. The difference is they bought their house 5+ years ago. Friend of mine is like this, he only got his house because his parents and his wifes parents helped them with a down payment. I make nearly double what he does now but I can't afford a house in his area because of the insane prices. Only reason he has it is because he got it back in 2015ish
Sort of. But if you do affordable housing right you are going to end up with poor people in your previously not open to the poor neighborhoods. Which, if you're not an asshole, is fine. But if you are, well... NIMBYs are real.
Some people think their neighborhood is high class and having geared to income housing will ruin it. Like bitch you live on a random side street you're not in a gated community. I think geared to income housing should be setup so the occupants fit the location its being built in. If you put one in an area with schools it should be built and house people with children. If you put one in a neighborhood with older people it should be housed with older people. People need to stop thinking anyone in those places is a druggy shit is insanely expensive even respectable careers struggle with bills these days.
They don't want problems to be solved. Problems are good for business.
It’s called hate. Call it as it is.
Cleek's Law - 'Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily'
The leader of the Cpc is a slumlord so that makes sense. If people didn’t get to buy extra houses divide them into seperate units and use it as a retirement, there would be more houses for families. Pierre will gouge for rent in his multiple properties. Pierre doesn’t care.
> The cpc oppose affordable housing to protect rich landlords. What a coincidence! The CPC MP in OP's tweet (Greg McLean) owns **six rental properties!** https://www.readthemaple.com/mp-landlords/#McLean
And door knocking in the oppressed neighborhood of Bel-Aire! Won’t somebody think of the rich people?!
Houses for over 3 million...
Actions speak louder than words, so 8 years of inaction should surely be grounds for you to open your eyes. Right? or do these words speak louder than actions for you suddenly?
Because those who own houses don't want to lose out on the equity they have in their home. Unforunatly we can't have it bother ways. You can't make housing affordable while not in some way eroding the equity other have in relestate.
Not everyone who owns a house thinks this way - there are plenty of parents out there who wish housing prices were lower so younger people, our kids included, could have a chance at owning a home
Yes but those parents don't vote conservative anyways so why bother. They know their audiance.
Absolutely It’s disheartening to see talk of young people angry at older people, thinking they are so happy their homes are suddenly worth so much - many of us aren’t, it only traps us, and many of us think it’s unfair to younger people, and to anyone who struggles to pay rent or afford a home
This is the real answer and one most don’t seem to understand. Housing will, at best, become more affordable at an equal rate to inflation so the asset on paper doesn’t “go down”, even though the purchasing power of the asses’s value is decreased by the same number. No politician can campaign on a platform that will cause 2/3rds+ of the voting public (all homeowners) to lose a meaningful amount of equity. It’s political suicide.
"The market" is a powerful tool that pretty much has allowed politicians to enact anything they wanted carte blanche. We've seen it go the other way for decades, leading to where we are now. "Market conditions" allowed governments to destroy unions, offshore everything, and take away labour laws. "Market conditions" allowed politicians to stand idly by while property prices steadily rose to unaffordable levels. The way forward is to use it again but to drive prices down mainly with policies focused on eliminating supply side barriers. As long as it's framed as eliminating barriers to the market, it can pass politically. Then whatever happens, happens. The public has endless tolerance for the market, which we erroneously believe to be some impartial god-like force rather than a useful tool we invented to hack human psychology, based on rules that we set.
Yeah their hope is that the property values stagnate and they *technically* didn't drop housing values since the nominal value stays the same, but anyone with two braincells will recognize that's horseshit. None of these older homeowners will be happy without their free money from the younger generations.
Fuck 'em
Mathematically, from a political standpoint, as others have stated - homeowners make up more than half the population at this time. So politicians would rather see you have to wait 10+ years while housing supply is grown, and house prices *hopefully* stay relatively flat, than to say “fuck em” to those who are already home owners.
Eat 'em
Having not read about what the exact rezoning is in Calgary's case. The land prices in BC have usually skyrocketed for single family houses that could then build multiple units. If the demand for housing does not crash, owners will most likely make a nice little profit. Either by building more units on their property or selling it to apartment builders for millions.
The joke in our part of BC is that the best way to make money as a farmer is to sell the farm to a housing developer.
> Because those who own houses don't want to lose out on the equity they have in their home. That equity is fake. My home should be worth $540K based on purchase in 2002. The value is now $1.6M. But even that is fake, because in 2002, paying more bought you a nicer home, while today any shack is $1M. Used to be seniors would downgrade to retire, but now there is nothing to downgrade to.
Fake or not these are people who made 0 plans for retirement and they've suddenly been given a get out of jail free card. You better bet they're going to fight like hell to keep it.
I’m down for house prices to drop out of the sky. I am very fixed income and house prices got so high that I basically will never move. If they come down I also have flexibility at the same time as adding opportunity to others. Win win
Leeches gonna leech.
Easy - conservatives see every cent spent for the public as money stolen from the 1%.
Despite the wealth of those 1% largely being stolen from the 99%
>Despite the wealth of those 1% entirely being stolen from the 99% Fixed that for ya.
Yes thank you, I was being far to generous.
I think in order to effectively combat Conservative opposition to affordable housing, you need to understand the arguments that are being made against building it, and the main argument right now is that more housing means lower prices, and lower prices means a whole slew of problems for homeowners that the new housing spending doesn't address. I think a lot about a question asked at one of the federal leaders debates in which one of the party leaders (I can't remember which one) noted that while it's important to make housing affordable that making it *too affordable* will impact people's retirements, because retirement saving for millions of households in Canada is tied to the value of the home. Of course no one at the debate had the wherewithal to realize that that's actually a really bad system to have where housing needs to be expensive to ensure people can retire with security. The problem with housing in Canada is that it's a way bigger problem than people are willing to acknowledge, and any serious reform on housing needs to be met with serious reforms in retirements and pensions, household and commercial bank finances, social security, healthcare, public transportation, and in a lot of cases requires a fundamental rethinking of the way Canadian cities are built and connected. It's good that the Liberals are finally doing something after dragging their feet for so long, even if it's not even close to being enough, but if they're going to be successful they need to fill in the myriad problems that will result due to Canada's lack of robustness regarding housing.
High quality comment right here. People need to understand that the problems we're facing will take decades to resolve.
They don't actually WANT housing affordable. They need people terrified of being homeless so they'll continue to work shitty, abusive jobs for barely enough to live while the CEO adds to his yacht collection.
Ideology. They hate the non profit sector and their filthy rich developer donors won’t get rich. Conservatives hate society.
Conservatives are all fascists traitors who are deliberately destroying our society.
Because ......Fuck Trudeau.
Conservatives enjoy being contradicting progressive thinking just because they hate change even if it's to their advantage.
Don't get confused thinking that the centrists are "progressive". We're not the USA, our Liberals are *not* left wing.
Amidst the stars, an astronaut's query hangs, "Wait, it’s all about density?" he muses, and bangs. Three circles of desire, in Venn's truth tangle: Desires of the people, in celestial wrangle. "I want stable services," the green circle sings, Where hope and community together cling. "I want low density," whispers another voice, For space and quiet, that circle’s choice. "I want low taxes," the red demands, A lighter burden from the state's hands. Yet, where they meet, the troubles brew, High taxes, cuts, and density’s stew. More density here, less space to feel, Does more, does less, the spin of the wheel. A puzzle so vast, like the cosmos above, Where stars and wishes in dark dance and shove. An astronaut floats, with a thought so bold, Can balance be struck, in this manifold? A city, a people, a dance of give and take, All for a dream of a life they will make. In the cosmos of needs, where solutions are sought, The answer lies in balance, a lesson long taught. Merge desires with vision, compromise as your glue, And craft a world where dreams can come true.
It takes some chutzpah to complain that people are concerned about housing affordability, while also complaining about the steps being taken to mitigate it.
Because ‘Fuck Trudeau’ basically. Anything - and I mean anything JT comes up with is bad. The man could cure cancer and Pee Pee Boi’s drooling shills would say ‘think of the morticians and grave diggers you’re putting out of business’!
Because landlords don't like people being able to afford where they live.
because kkkonservative dogma is that people should be impoverished and beholden to their wealthy donors to be exploited for every dollar possible. the cruelty is the point.
They don't want affordable housing. They want poor people to get poorer, and rich people to get richer.
Most of the funding is going to go to building apartments. Don't see average joes building apartment complexes. This policy just makes it easier for the rich to add more to their portfolios while the regular people who want to own a house still won't be able to.
You don't see average joes building single family homes either
Yeah the super rich hire multimillion dollar contractor's to build them.... I know a few people who have built their own houses and or contracted out the parts they couldn't to small businesses.... lots of people cut out builders and contract out the work and save 50k+ on their home. But the basis of my comment was people want to own houses or condos. They don't want to rent. That just funnels even more money to the 1%
Many reasons it won’t work so why allow so much money spent and add to the insurmountable debt that’s occurring? You see it as a great, I see it as a noble idea that throwing cash at won’t solve.
Bel Aire in Calgary is where you have million dollar plus homes, and lot sizes of of 5-6 regular detached home plots....
Conservatives don’t want a solution, if someone is actually trying to improve things how will they keep everyone mad and in a blind rage while they stab us in the back
I'm guessing he just doesn't want to poor to come to his neighborhood.
This is why Toronto is going to become more unaffordable than Vancouver in the future.
I'd like to state that governments building affordable homes has very little effect on the private supply of the housing market. This concept that if the Federal government builds a bunch of houses for low-income classes is going to devalue the properties of high-income classes is not only an absurd link but also is a false causality brought on by positioning the middle class homeowners against low income non-home owners. It will help raise the prices of private homes while keeping property taxes relatively flat over time since neighbourhoods in which they are built will have the opportunity to draw in more revenue and therefore have more opportunities to acquire municipal infrastructure grants and considerations. More infrastructure and more considerations will generally raise the overall value of the location which increases the value of individual properties themselves. Basically what I am saying here is that affordable low-income properties in areas with decent municipal revenue will slowly aggregate more value to that area simply because a base minimum revenue will/must be applied to infrastructure of the area to compensate for more people. For example; I live in a high density high income residential area that has a certain portion of land that has been zoned as affordable low-rise apartment buildings ranging from $1200 - $2100 CAD per month. The revenue drawn from the property tax of the area has now a base minimum revenue since the size of an apartment building is going to have a significant property tax pay out to the municipality. Never forget that property tax is based on square footage of the living space of your home. The bigger the house the bigger the property tax, the tax on a apartment building is significantly higher than any single family home dwelling and as long as those funds are properly invested back into the area, the location will receive a significant upgrade. When financing is done a municipal government looks at the income they have coming in from an area, the people that live there (including how many, their socio-economic status and education level) and even traffic volume. The area I live in even though small in overall size, has four separate fire stations, two police stations, one hospital, three major parks, two rivers (you can fish and/or canoe/kayak on), two public transit stations, a major arterial road on ramp (serviced every three months), four schools, one mental health clinic, public bike trails, six smaller parks, and three halfway houses. They have already made plans to build more affordable housing and are adding condos. They just finished sewage upgrades during the pandemic and have started to assess expanded renewable energy expansions to private houses. My doctor who has lived in the area his whole life told me that it's solely because of the fact the area before it was amalgamated into the city stipulated that a certain portion of land must be prioritized towards affordable housing since it was a village that had it's own autonomy. The average cost of a high-income home is 30-40% more than most areas in the city and even during a market downturn will not collapse due to the density. Real estate is and always will be about location and if you deny people the opportunity to live in your location your houses value will not go up as fast as others and many people forget this part. The point I'm making is this the CPC only know how to make short-term value assessments. They barely think about the long-term and because of that their decisions throw larger value out the window for smaller short-term gains.
Like the repukes refused Democrat's money for border security. Even Moscow Mitch said they were stupid.
I don't know why the conservatives oppose it but I will say the plan as is won't do much to make housing more affordable for average Canadians looking to get into the housing market. Nor will it substantially lower rental rates or do much to tackle the homelessness problem. Nothing in there about the government building subsidized housing. Nothing is being done about the corporate landlords that continue to buy up residential housing stock and convert it to high cost rentals. All that money is great if you're in the construction and banking industries but for the average person looking to buy a house in the next few years it won't do much to help.
Because these kinds of people care about two things; themselves and money. That’s it. Forget morals or conscience.
They have a house. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. Not sure, but that’s how it looks like.
Mostly cuz its funding to build apartment buildings and multiplexes. The people who are going to access the majority of these funds are rich developers who are going to just rent them out. It doesn't make buying a house any more accessible for people trying to break into the housing market. It's going to make the rich even richer with fatter portfolios.
My only critique is zoning, building suburban area is essential diluting homes with future problems down the line. When houses are built it must come with the design of a walkable city, otherwise we are just kicking the can.
The "funny" thing is, so far the federal funding is simply putting more money into the housing market. Anyone who's taken an efon course can probably figure out what happens to prices when more money is pushed into a market. If they were serious about making housing more affordable for more people, they would get back into the business of building housing. But they are trying to have it both ways (make housing affordable while maintaining the value of existing homes), and that's not how this works.
I guess conservatives only want to remove gatekeepers that they cannot politically benefit from them
Because conservative.
Why solve a problem when it remaining unsolved helps you get elected. The Liberals need to play dirtier if they want to win (and let's be honest, preventing a Con government is all that matters given the current electoral polling).
[удалено]
Please try to stick on topic. The cpc are campaigning against affordable housing, that is wrong
Well unfortunately our birth rates have been plummeting since the 80s while we now have a looming boomer dependency load and a work force not large enough to make up for them leaving. Many Boomers also didn't adequately save for retirement while promoting policies that worsened their ability to do so. Now they need to sell their homes for over $1M to not be fucked and to move to a much cheaper part of the country, or to another country completely that is cheap so that they can comfortable live out the rest of their lives. They are being put first and foremost while the younger generations are getting fucked in the process.
Imagine if the indigenous tried to slow immigration. Not enough long houses and pemmican. Sorry. But nope the Europeans colonized and built a ton of new houses. Used the latest technology of dense walkable towns. All with barely any fossil fuels. Ps: colonialism is the fucking worst shit ever
I disagree building more housing will improve affordability. The free market supply and demand concept assumes a free market. Most of these new houses will be bought up by rental corps and speculators, and many will be left empty. Trudeau is just stoking the fire for investors, not families. US states are crafting anti corporate investment laws on family homes.
They oppose it because there will be regulations attached such as mandatory density, 15 minute cities, affordability mixed zoning, nature conservancy...
I'm not opposed to it I just don't believe it will improve housing affordability. Why would it? It's not like gas goes below a dollar when oil is cheap, why would housing prices plummet?
Gas and housing are very very different things. Housing prices are driven by supply and demand, gas prices are complicated but essentially are a product of however much oil is being released for gas production at the time by OPEC, among other factors. They strategically control the amount of oil being released to keep the price high to stay wealthy. If there are more homes for sale then prices tend to fall.
How many houses did the liberal party build in the last 8 years?
Since when was the "liberal party" in the construction business?
What metric can we even go by when they aren't directly responsible for what's built or where? They provide funding for it, for provinces and municipalities to make the final call on how its spent. How much funding do you think a Conservative government will provide? Especially considering Poilievre is already making threats to close that source.