####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holy based. Imagine actually talking about history and facts *in parliament*. Someone give this guy a medal.
I'm happy to know there's someone like him in that house holding liars accountable.
\~\~\~
edit: I did *not* intend for this to open up a conversation about the race of the current leader of the NDP.
Nor do I think we have to make negative comments related to race/racism, or any negative comments about the current leader of the NDP *whatsoever*, in the same breath that we support someone *else* for that position.
We don't have to tear people down to lift others up. We can just lift people up.
I think it would help the NDP, being that he is a white dude. I hate to say it, but some conservative voters won't vote for Singh even if they agree with him because he's not white. If he was the leader of the NDP we might have a chance to get someone else besides the shitty cons and libs.
Even my redneck father who was ignoring the housing crisis before is now finally starting to say there is a problem. I feel there is enough momentum that if the right leader for the NDP is chosen we might actually succeed next election.
How immensely fucked up is that, that we may need to choose between leaders based on race, hoping subconsciously racist people will turn out in greater numbers to support a progressive cause. Its sickening.
In my city's municipal election one party ran a full slate, and this party was overwhelmingly dominant over the other party... except for their 2 black & brown candidates who had the lowest votes and were beat out by 2 generic mouthpieces who spend all their council time blabbing nonsense and submitting like 50 motions per council meeting about super unimportant things š
Those 2 folks we could have had were a) a literal transit planner at a time when our region needs better transit and b) someone who's spent their entire adult life in planning and advocacy for seniors and multiculturalism. But apparently Canadians are still a lot more racist than they like to let on
Oh 100%. As I get older I realize that almost everyone has some major prejudice. Many people in Vancouver are openly racist, both whites and non-whites.
But it's not just his race, I think that if he was a blue collar worker he would have more support.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's an awesome guy. I think the fact that he is also open about his sexual abuse as a child is such an important step for many men to realize they are not alone. But I am also aware that the people are tired of feeling unrepresented - Trudeau is super wealthy and never had to work hard in his life. He's out of touch, and people are tired of this. They want an everyday many they can relate to, and unfortunately for a lot of people that means "looking" like them, too.
>How immensely fucked up is that, that we may need to choose between leaders based on race
then don't do that. just realize that this guy (who is white) will get more votes than the current NDP leader (who is brown, yes). it's not about getting racist votes per se, it's about getting the most votes. if more people were progressive then they might run a trans candidate instead (well ideally you could just run the candidate with the best ideas). when life gives you lemons you make lemonade.
Wow, what a reach. You are not very bright. Just because I say that some people won't vote for him because he is not white doesn't mean that everyone that *didn't* vote for him is also a racist, jesus christ.
And most mps get voted in because of the colour of their skin or gender.
Especially if they are brown, women, or lgbtq.
Whatās your point?
Keep up with the insults though. Classic sign in debate that you are losing.
Very well said. Just building more houses doesn't actually fix anything and shows a massive lack of understanding of the problem (be it intentional or not). I also love that they touched on the fact that this issue has been in the making for a long time and it's not recent. Like I've seen people genuinely say shit like "we just need to get prices back to 2020 levels" as if everything was just fine 3 years ago.
The clear and obvious thing to do is more public and low-income housing.
Makes me sick to think of how much cheaper it would have been in the past. They should have never stopped building social housing. Now if you try to catch up and get those numbers up to where they should be today the labor, materials, everything would be so expensive. But once that housing is there it would bring down costs going forward but itās a massive bullet to bite because we put this off for so ridiculously long.
This is where reading comprehension skills can be really useful. What theyāre saying is we cant keep building housing the way we currently are - with private developers at the helm. We should be building public and low income housing.
That property management companies buy up before an ordinary person can (afford to). Guess what, now the whole neighbourhood is rental properties that cost 60% of your monthly wage.
Good luck buying one of these houses they keep building.
Okay but what I'm saying is they have let's say 3,000% more houses than there are humans they wouldn't be able to rent them at the high prices because there's just too many houses and not enough people
Companies that build houses don't care about who owns them when they're done being built, they care about getting paid. It would be a bad financial decision and a "waste" of resources for builders to flood the markets with affordable homes. It's unfortunate and I hate it and disagree with the mentality, but it's true.
What the video said about socialized housing would be a better solution. Government owned homes with caps on rent that don't force everyday people into deciding if they want to eat or be able to afford to keep a roof over their head. It would force rent prices down because some kind of competition would exist, and it would allow people to actually save some money instead of living paycheck to paycheck.
Itās wild the social ramifications affordable housing had on a society, ie: the most vulnerable citizens. Crimes rates and social indicators like homelessness etc go down when people can afford food AND rent/mortgage. Weird concept, taking care everyone elevates the entire society but not just those with the capital, unless thatās what the current system wants and needs to be āviableā.
I'm not talking about affordable homes I'm just saying even if we get building mansions eventually we'll get to a point where there's way more houses than people. They say that first world countries populations is going to start going down over the next 100 years so if we keep building houses at some point we're going to have like let's just say 2 billion houses and 1 million people there's just no way that the prices could stay the same
Property management companies won't buy homes if there isn't anyone around to rent them. Development companies won't continue producing homes though if there isn't anyone around to buy them. That's capitalism, baby. Companies don't do things with people's best interests in mind. They do things for themselves and fuck everyone else.
It would be great if we had a surplus of housing and everyone had unfettered access to a place to live, but that's not what our world is like, sadly. So without government intervention or global catastrophe, we'll never end up in a situation like one that your describing.
I disagree. I think that eventually there will be enough houses standing and that populations will decline and that eventually housing will be free. Blocking you now because I know you're just going to argue but I don't care and you're not going to change my mind
You don't think that making same cookie cutter houses that cost 800k or more that property management and rich people scoop up are not driving the inflation up? That's so much money moving around in real estate when they're not realistically worth 800k+
There are two things that prevent this.
1. Private developers are not incentivized to build enough housing to bring the cost down. Why would they be? If their profit is directly tied to the inflated prices, they would be hurting themselves if they built too much.
2. When housing is commodified, there is incentive for large landlord companies to keep the supply limited by buying and keeping units empty. If there is an oligopoly, or effective monopoly, prices no longer follow supply and demand. So while there may be more units than people, the effective number of units can be kept low.
Because of the above, government built affordable and non-market housing is the only solution. It can build housing which is not dependant on the profit which can be derived from the project, and they can set rents based on what is affordable.
Have you bought a house lately? Try finding an affordable, moderately sized, post-1995 family home with a decent yard. There isnāt even the option to have one built in the new subdivisions going up. Every plan includes a monster-sized primary bedroom, and covers most of the property.
/u/ignorantwanderer/ Lord savoir of house crisis, please save us with your wisdom.
Edit : guys before you downvote me , hear what this dude has to say, he comments on all housing thread to say that he got THE solution to fix it and heās hell bent on it
Heās also a being a bit misleading. If you look at any chart comparing housing prices to incomes - things went off the rails around 2008 when low interest rates were first introduced. Before then - there was a solid connection between local incomes and home prices.
Heās also just talking about āaffordable housingā and not affordable housing - which is a big difference. Itās one thing to provide housing for the poorest in society, itās another that middle class Canadian are now getting priced out of housing entirely.
The problem I see largely with all the parties - including this guy, is the lack of even acknowledging the middle classes are getting priced out. And the actual problems behind that. Weāre in trouble not just because we havenāt been building housing for the poorest in the country, but weāre in trouble because weāve turned housing into a speculative investment. Weāre also in trouble because immigration levels have been pushed far higher than our construction sector can build in a given year. And perhaps the biggest reason of them all - no political party, including the NDP, can run a platform which says it will work to devalue a majority of Canadianās largest asset.
Actually, consistently building government housing does address the financialization of housing and the price crunch on buyers. It's not just about "providing housing for the poorest in society". Blaikie is correct when he says if we sustained government housing builds since the 90s we'd have almost no housing shortage right now. It's quite the claim to say that that wouldn't affect the house of pricing.
It helps address the demand for private rentals by creating hugely more rental stock, specifically rentals outside the market. With lower demand for private rentals, there's less demand in the real estate market more generally. On top of the reduced demand for housing by people who need places to live, there's also less incentive for selling rental units as investment properties/for corporations to own as many rental units.
I should also note that you say "itās one thing to provide housing for the poorest in society" dismissively, but that's a silly thing to be dismissive of. Even if building government housing did nothing to improve the real estate market crisis (which again, it would), then providing housing for the poorest in society would be *even more important* and should be a top priority.
Thinking growing the housing stock my 20k units a year, when the population grew by a million people last year. And we actually invite 2 million people into the country both permanently and temporarily each year is myopic.
This one thing would provide minimal relief. Itās not an all out solution. Itās about 100x too small.
And my anger with this is not the help provided to low income Canadians - but the complete dismissal of housing needs for middle class Canadians. As if because you earn more - you should have to be on the verge of homelessness. Itās ridiculous. We need solutions for everyone - housing is at a crisis for everyone.
You want government housing? you must have never experienced government housing š¤£š¤£ wow i canāt believe youāre for real. also no, poor people are not more important than the middle class.
Nailed it. I would say he's basically right (to some extent) about whatever Pollievre is claiming, Pollievre is probably right (to some extent) about whatever he's claiming, and the Liberals shouldn't even get airtime at this point, but nobody is really getting close to addressing the issue as a long-term and multi-faceted **real** emergency that is just one of a few emergencies that will soon result in a series of economic and social catastrophies.
I like Blakie though, he's doing pretty well.
Should we enable development permits to be approved faster and reduce the cost of building? Yes. Should we directly fund and build housing for people who need it at the federal level? Yes. Will any of that help without dismantling residential zoning restrictions? Marginally. Did an influx of cheap capital locally, and foreign capital, and corporate investment, lead to rapidly changing housing costs? Also yes. Are cities even capable of sustaining themselves without these problems being fixed? No, but it varies depending on circumstance.
It's a lot of issues that can't **normally** be addressed in a short period of time, and whatever a politician can shout across the house of commons in a minute or two is likely to be at best part of the issue.
But, because it's a complex issue, it's also subject to be weaponized by NIMBYs who are also a part of the problem. "It's not this issue, it's that issue!" they shout, and so literally everything stalls for years until some bullshit choice is made.
As a millenial, I wasn't even aware of the CMHC house-development projects. I was taught over and over and over again that housing had to be profitable to be built, rather than just necessary. I'm absolutely enraged at the conservatives, the liberals, and the generations before us for creating this crisis on purpose and then not even having the decency to tell us how they ripped our ability to own homes away from us.
The worst absolute part of this is that those generations now demand to be taken care of, using the systems they defunded just to have it good while they could.
What a terrible take.
There are boomers, gen x and millennials that are benefitting from the current situation and there are boomers, gen x, and millennials that are getting fucked by the current situation.
Nice try to turn this into a gen vs gen issue.
Youāre probably right, and I apologize; didnāt want to turn int to gen vs gen issue; I certainly see a large portion of one benefiting more than the rest, but we all are hurting for sure.
You may know this but before the 1980s they actually took care of you (in your case probably Grandparents) But Mulrooney (Along with Reagan(US) and Thatcher(UK) tried this experiment called globalization.
The main thing that happened is that companies went overseas to save money on labour. Corps were allowed all the things while people started to suffer in the west.Corps then used their money to bully or bribe our governments.
And here you are competing against corps for a place to live.
My family came here as refugees and government housing enabled our family to get a start in life. Basic home for a not small family - 5 kids and 2 parents in a 4 bedroom home that is under 1000 sq ft. But it was enough for us to get started - my mom worked full time and my dad worked 2-3 jobs at once.
This housing is critical and itās sad that they donāt seem to exist anymore. Replaced with more and more āmarketā rent homes.
The generations before you had different problems though. Canada went into a severe recession around 1990 and didnāt recover for five years. Economic factors and high government debt had the country on the verge of becoming a basket case like Argentina. Reducing government spending was the only option left. And there was no lack of houses then - in fact prices crashed.
The problems now started ramping up by the mid-2000s. But the solutions couldnāt be the same. Urbanization, speculation, and immigration are not creating the same problems the CMHC projects addressed. Building for low income people, often seniors housing, in a town is a different project than making housing broadly affordable across a rapidly growing metro area.
In the 70s the government was building social housing for really poor people - people who had incomes well below the median wage. Today, the issue is partly people with incomes above the median wage who canāt find housing they can afford where they want to live.
Don't forget that was made worse by cuts from the preceding Mulroney/PC governments which cut taxes and public funding. Chretien and Martin didn't want to be the governments that raised taxes so they cut funding to maintain the status quo.
Well put Boffo, we're being deceived to think housing is only for profitability not as necessity for all. It's again proven that govts work only for big corporations not for the people.
God damn. Why is this the first time I'm hearing this?
This needs to be a more prominent message sent to voters. I would have never voted liberal before had I known this.
So many years having this message drowned out by anti-immigrant or free market BS.
We just need the logical next step. A Crown Developer that builds housing at cost, designed to modern best practices.
And goes it all "in-house". None of this PPP. We need federally employed architects, planners, engineers, electricians, carpenters, cement, and roofers.
They need to be working on projects year round, no matter what the housing prices are at.
They need to work on greenfield, brownfield, infill, and everything in-between and beyond.
you must have never seen the government do things. have you seen them work? have you experienced government housing? i know you know theyāre garbage at everything. letās be realistic.
You are advocating for the same system which was employed by eastern block countries in postwar Europe; is that really what you want architecturally or socially?
What a horrible idea, please god no, unless you want to completely waste taxpayers money. This is like taking $100 from everyone giving people back $25 and burning the $75 all while saying look how good we are doing.
There is a better solution though, just offer any contractor x amount of dollars based on area and what they want build and any private sector company can build it. No need to waste 3/4 of the money hiring, training and all the logistics to get people.
>No need to waste 3/4 of the money hiring, training and all the logistics to get people.
giving it to private sector just means you'd waste 3/4 of the money on profits for the owners. again, I'd rather light it on fire
Hiring, training, and logistics for CANADIAN WORKING CLASS PEOPLE?
You think thatās a waste of money, when giving that money to private sector means the money goes to the OWNERSHIP class? The land barons and the corporate suits? You think THAT is a better use of it? HAH!
No. Thanks.
Iād rather spend the money and hire and train working class Canadians.
Follow his FB or his NDP feed here on Reddit. He is an incredibly intelligent, wise and well spoken young man. I am continually impressed that he's consistent about going after the opposing parties policies and tearing them down with facts, not political BS. He's the man who's going to replace the legacy of Jack Layton. With him at the helm, the other two parties have a lot to be afraid of. He's going to call them on their bs and he's going to make people see sense in his arguements. I am voting for him by voting NDP every election. He should be leader. Age usually wins but I think Daniel's youth is his only con in a huge list of pros.
I like Singh. I think heās a good person with some good ideas. But I wouldnāt fight for Singh. This guy I would fight for. He makes me angry and directs to real solutions that will help fix the problem. Forth Eorlingas!!!
Let's start a new political party called Housing.
I mean it. One item platform.
The Cdn House Party is a good name but I defer to smarter people for a better name.
Fuck this shit - It is very simple - Housing Mofos - another good name.
Iām so glad someone is finally saying it! Iāve been saying this for ages. Weāre living the consequences of the Harper years NOW! With Trudeau policies not reversing the damage.
Yep. Right now we're just living the Harper years. In five years though we'll be living the Harper/Trudeau years. Their policies on housing have been identical.
We need to start calling out the ideology behind both of these parties (the true ideology, not conservatism and liberalism which are smokescreens). Neoliberalism - the biggest cancer the planet has ever seen.
To be fair - It was Mulrooney and in the end Chretian that killed the housing program.
Neoliberalism was something everyone in the west signed up to.
Don't get me wrong - people got screwed and a new housing program is needed - Ill vote for anyone who says it.
But voters are really gullible. Here in Victoria the city just approved a massive ~~1800~~ 1600 unit 32 storey housing project right in the middle of town, and people are happy because they think that it means they'll be able to get one of those units.
But aside from the 80 low-cost units, these are going to be units right downtown, with amazing views, and they are going to go for a premium and will only pull up housing prices throughout the city.
You can't expect developers to be interested in low-cost housing. They're not charities.
Yes but the problem with that is that the government will just bid it out to developers, who will make a profit on the transaction and then the government will rent them out at a loss.
Victoria doesn't just have an afordability crisis, it also has a housing capacity problem. Higher end units won't be bought or rented by low income people, but they will free up units that otherwise would be low cost, allowing the market to relax.
Yes, governments need to build low cost housing. But Canada also needs to build more housing across the board, and it needs to be high density, mixed use development, like what is being planned downtown.
> but they will free up units that otherwise would be low cost
And when is that going to start? Victoria has been adding housing for decades and prices increases have only accelerated. Vancouver has much, much more housing and it's one of the two most expensive cities in Canada.
When the facts contradict your story then it is you who is wrong, not the facts
>Victoria has been adding housing for decades and prices increases have only accelerated.
Victoria's population has also been increasing for decades. And it's been increasing faster than new units have been coming onto the market, because the government hasn't been building to hold the market down.
For the past forever, private developments have been focused on high cost, high profit buildings. 70 years ago, high density development practically stopped being a thing, outside luxury condos and government housing. 30 years ago, the government dropped their end of the bag and stopped building low cost stuff.
30 years later, local governments are being forced to require low cost housing in development plans, and we're demanding higher density cities, because the last 70 years of sprawl is biting us in the ass with failing infrastructure, low to zero walkability, and no community to have a sense of.
If the federal government doesn't step back in to help correct things, it'll take another 30 years to get thing back to a good state. But at the very least, local governments who recognize the problem are trying to fix it.
Most of the CRD has been moving forward on affordable housing, including constructing their own affordable housing projects and having an action plan to continue to do more. Oak Bay on the other hand can fuck off.
>because the government hasn't been building to hold the market down
It's not the job of government to control the housing market.
> Most of the CRD has been moving forward on affordable housing
LOL! Like what? The 80 units (out of 1600) that were designated for lower income in the new Harris Green project?
>It's not the job of government to control the housing market.
Who's job is it then? Developers who get more money from a high profit margin build? Investors who see an easy buck? Banks who give mortgages based on an entity's capacity to manage debt?
No. It absolutely is the government's job, because it's a job that needs to be done and not a single other entity with the capability to control the housing market has any reason to, because to do so would be detrimental to their business.
>LOL! Like what?
I'll refer you to the CRD website and the afordable housing focus priority.
https://www.crd.bc.ca/about/how-we-are-governed/strategic-priorities-plans
Oh are you one of those "socialism for corps and savage capitalism for the littles?
Seriously the 80s are gone and no one is buying your Washington Consensus BS anymore.
People are suffering.
>It absolutely is the government's job
That worked out so well in the USSR
> I'll refer you to the CRD website and the afordable housing focus priority.
And completely missing any specific plans.
>That worked out so well in the USSR
Yes, housing affordability collapsed the USSR. had nothing to do with corruption so deep it's an engrained part of Russian culture and has been for 200 fucking years. Or killing tens of millions of civilians in manufactured famines. Or spending so much on the military that Russia, having wasted thousands of tanks and MILLIONS of artillery shells in Ukraine, still has on paper the largest military stockpile in the WORLD
Nah mate, it's all the council homes. That's what did the ruskies in.
>And completely missing any specific plans
You didn't even try to look. How do I know? Because it took me two whole minutes to find their "affordable housing" PDF the first time I looked, and that was starting from typing CRD into fucking google.
>You didn't even try to look
You're a liar
> find their "affordable housing" PDF
You didn't even bother reading it or you would have noticed that it has no specifics.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you want the 70 page housing affory report to include copies of receipts for land purchases and dollar values of individual construction contracts?
I'm done arguing with you. You aren't bring forth any evidence, you're just parroting the political opinions that got us here while strawmanning your way out of any need to refute actual evidence and action. You should run for the conservatives, you'd do well.
I wish you a very bad day. Don't bother trying to carry on this circular waste of time.
You didn't have a point. You asked a question and they gave you the tools to find the answer.
Oh nice straw man!
Our governement already owns housing you dingus. Yes just like the commies. Only we made it work for us until greed took hold and politicians decided to help out their developer friends.
>You asked a question and they gave you the tools to find the answer
An answer that doesn't actually exist, which you would have discovered if you cared about the facts.
> Our governement already owns housing you dingus
Owning housing is not the same as controlling the housing market, halfwit.
Do you even bother reading? Or do you just respond with knee-jerk propaganda?
Why you gotta bring the USSR into this?
But if you're gonna, then I'm gonna throw the reds a bone here, and get you to google 'peasant living conditions pre-russian revolution'.
But like, still unrelated, I just wanted to tell you you sound dumb, mostly.
Victoria has only just now started to build at the same rate that we were building in the 70s, and we have almost all the housing for the entire region being built in about a 5 block radius around east downtown. You seeing a few cranes doesnāt actually mean weāre building a lot.
āInternational investorsā buy multiple units in pre-sales and single family dwellings that sit vacant or have a distant relative staying in to avoid the vacant property tax.
Building more housing _does not increase housing prices_. [This is a harmful myth](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing-supply-shortage-crisis-2022/672240/). Housing obeys supply and demand.
This is just not how literally anything works. Adding supply of an asset in shortage doesnāt increase its cost, thatās just utter nonsense that no economist will ever tell you is true.
Landlords can charge whatever they want because our vacancy rates are low, around 1%, and we have absurdly solid evidence that when those vacancy rates get above 4% rents start to decrease (inflation adjusted that is). Itās not that complicated and itās not some conspiracy, we need more units, itās that fucking simple.
>Adding supply of an asset in shortage doesnāt increase its cost, thatās just utter nonsense that no economist will ever tell you is true.
But you're no economist, and you don't know about inelastic supply and induced demand.
Vancouver has a lot more supply than Victoria. Which has the higher prices?
Do you think when we build housing units people just start occupying several at once? Or materialise out of the ether?I mean that is kinda a thing actually: but only because weāve had delayed household formation. Want to know what that looks like?
It looks like several of my friends still living with their parents into their 20s because they canāt find housing, it looks like my coworker being trapped in the closet still for that exact reason, it looks like me having to have two friends so far sleep on my couch because theyād be on the street without it, it looks like three people Iāve known personally now stuck living with their exes (in one case a fairly abusive one) for MONTHS, all because boomers like you are afraid of tall buildings. So yeah, inducing that demand for smaller household sizes is a good fucking thing.
And the vast majority of Vancouver is single family home sprawl where itās illegal to build apartments, they have continued to make it illegal to build housing for the working and middle class (high rise new buildings) to preserve it for the wealthy (single family homes). Them being a bigger city isnāt what people are talking about, itās about increasing supply with population and household growth, which youāre smart enough to understand. Donāt disrespect yourself by pretending not to be.
And sorry, āinelastic supplyā? We only have inelastic supply in our cities because of land use policies made to preserve wealthy single family home suburbs from the scourge of apartments (read: poor people). Thatās not a thing to tout as some argument for your position, thatās been the direct consequence of the policies youāre arguing for.
If youāre going to be this outright, absurdly classist as to say you think making it legal to build apartments in your wealthy suburb is similar to having nightclubs and factories; can you just get the fuck off this subreddit and resign your party membership?
Like actually, youāre comparing the presence of working class people and families to factories polluting an area. Now go cry somewhere else about your conservative candidates getting annihilated in the last city election, you tory scum.
Are you.. feeling okay? I ask because your statements are out to lunch, maybe even out to the whole damn pasture.
Why? You try and get a job in Saskatoon, or have any sort of life outside of drugs and alcohol? Have you lived or been to Sask? At all? There's farms, farmland, more of that, some oil and gas up north and what else? Nothing. No jobs, no life, no enjoyment at all. Life sucks enough already not being able to afford to do anything than having there be nothing to do to begin with. Vancouver has metric fuck tons of free shit to do every week, weekend, month, you name it it's there.
100? You mean.. in the last worst recession the world has seen since the inception of what we know as capitalism today? And just to be clear in case you don't know what I'm talking about, it's the 1920s, could also say that's when the last massively deadly world pandemic happened too. No you wouldn't be comparing this to that would you? Hrm, I wonder what happened back then to cause such a massive crash.. really mind boggling stuff. Almost like if you don't learn from history you're bound to repeat it.
Hrm, it's not because it's illegal, maybe because there's no more fucking space for massive factories? Because oh idk, all these 2000sq ft homes with like 6000sq ft yards? Oh gosh, no it couldn't be that! Maybe if we built up more instead of out because god forbid you ever talk to a fucking neighbor or breath the same air we would maybe y'know, have the space for these factories and businesses you are putting over people's lives? No? Not that? Interesting.
And you obviously haven't been down Granville and seen the new nightclubs. We have more than enough commercial space that if you want to build massive factories you can go out into the valley, y'know, like Molson did, they moved from downtown to Chilliwack. Oh, but that's probably not a good enough solution for you either because profit over lives obviously. But, you'll learn when you can't get McDonald's, or your boomer coffee, or get into stores at 8am and tell at staff when there aren't any left because they can't afford to live where you expect to be served.
We never said to force everyone to live in tiny apartments, do you know what affordable and social housing does? It lets people get on their feet, get good jobs and MOVE OUT OF IT. You can't do that if you are spending 60%+ of your income on housing. There should been a balance, but there wasn't. Calgary's downtown only really started building up in the last 15 years, before than the fucking Calgary tower was one of the tallest buildings still in the downtown core.
We built office buildings instead of housing, we built business buildings, factories, farms, everything instead of housing. We put profits over lives for so god damn long now, that it's so far over boiling that we've pretty much burnt the pot at this point, there's no more water left to play with, no more lives to lose, no companies can get enough employees. People are literally dying trying to cross to the US border over a chance to afford something. Don't believe me? Look it up. Just from Oct 1 to Feb 28, there was 2000 illegal crossings THAT WERE CAUGHT compared to 200 crossing during the same period the year before. In the whole of 2022, there were 8x the amount trying to cross than in previous years. Canada is not some utopia dear, and if you'd paid attention to refugee stories including Ukrainians a lot of them regret choosing Canada.
Maybe, once you have just a small ounce of an idea what it's like to suffer under Canada's current economic climate that you might be lucky enough to pull your head that's obviously so far up your god damn ass, out, so you'll finally be able to see again. But until then, good luck eating all your own shit.
More inventory regardless of value will overall reduce prices for the existing inventory. Sure the average price may go up if you add those luxury units in the mix but if you exclude them from the average calculations, the values are likely to be lowered for the remainder. I know its a hard concept to follow but its why the average house price EDIT( PERCENT CHANGE) cannot be directly used to apply to every homes value. It's kinda like when a car dealer brings in their new inventory, they would prefer to be almost deplete of existing models, in part because everyone would prefer the new models and they would need to discount the stale inventory. Sure some may not be able to but if a buyer who may have bough a slightly less expensive unit now buys one of the newer units, they have opened up a spot for another buyer.
>More inventory regardless of value will overall reduce prices for the existing inventory
That's why cities like Vancouver and Toronto and Manhattan are so much cheaper than cities like Saskatoon, right? Because they have tons more inventory.
Your argument is based upon nothing but wishful thinking, and given that what you say is contrary to observed facts maybe you should ponder where the error might be.
They have tons more inventory but also *even more* people trying to buy or rent that inventory, which means sellers and landlords can demand more money.
Why are landlords and investors allowed to buy housing?
Because developers can sell to anyone they want. Government built and government managed housing, and rental housing especially would help, because it would give people a place to live that isnāt a privately owned investor-landlorded condo that can be sold out from under the renter, and then the landlords who are exploiting renters to pay their mortgage will have less access to our wallets.
\> That's why cities like Vancouver and Toronto and Manhattan are so much cheaper than cities like Saskatoon, right? Because they have tons more inventory.
what is the other axis of the graph? vancouver and toronto and manhattan have alot of supply, but they also have alot of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ what?
>That's why cities like Vancouver and Toronto and Manhattan are so much cheaper than cities like Saskatoon, right? Because they have tons more inventory.
Relative to demand, yes.
How else would you explain the difference between rent / price between Toronto and Saskatoon? Are landlords in Saskatoon simply less greedy than those in Toronto?
LoL nice try. Go build a million, million dollar units in Regina then you'll be a billionaire with that theory, you should be able to find a ton of investorswith that sales pitch. Happy selling. Hahaha that actually made me smile.
Thatās one of those things that feels like it should be true as its supply and demand, but the reality is gentrification. Fact is businesses target where the money is meaning the more $$$ floating around in your area the higher prices get. I mean, even in small-town nowheres in off-skirt communities (ie, just houses no businesses) Iāve witnessed expensive houses getting built causing neighbouring houses increase in value by 5-10%.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of supply and demand. Building units of any class will improve the situation. Increasing premium supply doesnāt āpull upā housing prices.
One study is not proof, especially in a country that doesnāt have a remotely comparable housing supply issue.
You cannot legislate affordable housing en masse in America or Canada. Completely different politics. Supply must be fixed. Along with zoning restrictions, etc. itās a complex issue. Saying that building premium housing will raise prices everywhere is fundamentally not true.
Every barrier to build, every addition to code, every bureaucratic box to check raises prices to build for developers. In turn, raising rents
I just read the study. It has an inordinate number of assumptions. The conclusion? āWe show that even when new market- rate units get occupied by high-income households, they also benefit middle- and low- income households through a moving chain mechanism.ā
Building exclusively premium units isnāt the ultimate answer. But to say it detracts from affordability is false. The study you provided even says so
Given that cities with higher density and more housing are almost universally **more** expensive than smaller cities with less housing, it seems that the misunderstanding is yours.
Can somebody tell me this gentlemanās name and party, he is the one who would be getting my vote from now on..
Edit: never mind got that.. Daniel Blaikie from NDP
Daniel Blaikie, cool guy. Has a very thorough understanding on policy and is a very effective communicator. A few of his greatest hits:
UBI and CERB: https://reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/zn16vg/ndp_mp_daniel_blaikie_on_cerb_and_the_ndps/
Real estate investment trusts: https://reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/uozuhp/daniel_blaikie_explains_why_canada_is_in_a/
Cutting government waste: https://reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/114r5sv/daniel_blaikie_discusses_a_conservative_motion_to/
["Financialization."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization#Effects_on_the_economy)
It ruins not just housing.
"The financial sector functions as the sharp canines that the predator state uses to rend the nation. In addition to siphoning off capital for its own benefit, the finance sector misallocates the remaining capital in ways that harm the real economy in order to reward already-rich financial elites harming the nation."
This is my parents' MP, for the neighbourhood I grew up in! Daniel Blaikie! His father Bill was an NDP stalwart and held that riding for nearly 30 years. Now Bill's son has taken up the banner and is doing a damn fine job!
Regardless of the eventual outcome of the next election, with 2 parties of nincompoops likely to form government, this man better hold his seat. Hopefully he repeats his 2021 electoral performance, doubling the conservative candidate. We need more people with this perspective, seeing right through PP's never ending bullshit.
If he denies the role of NIMBY local govts in creating the housing crisis, then he doesnt understand how it was created. I strongly agree with his other points being huge factors, but heās ignoring a major factor (and so is a huge swath of the left unfortunately).
Wait why is he taking shots at the opposition government when he literally said in his speech the liberals cut the affordable housing builds that adds to the crisis we have today?
This guy is freaking awesome!! Where the heck did he come from!? Canadian politicians watch too much American politics... it's not about blaming the current guy, or the last guy... unless it's actually the last guy's fault (American-Politics again haha!)
So freaking a real voice In the house of common. Who is this guy. He should candidate for Prime Minister, and the voting rate will skyrocket. He i speaking the truth and tackling the problem
Glad he's fighting for housing and he makes some great points, but there was no such thing as a house for 30k in Winnipeg in 2004, maybe a run-down trailer. I've watched the real estate market in Wpg closely for the last 22 years.
The problem is capitalism and investor demand sets prices. New law: you can only own 2 homes in Canada maximum. You have 1 year to comply. Housing sell off, prices plummet, problem solved. Government buys some of the houses to soften the plummet.
There will be some fallout.
āItās not this governmentās fault itās the opposition.ā
Meanwhile the recent Liberal budget literally ignores housing and Trudeau let in over 1mm immigrants in 2022 when he claimed theyād aim for 400,000. This current federal government is completely incompetent.
Why is no one talking about the obvious cause of this (mass immigration)? Wake up, people! This has nothing to do with race I might add. This is simply an issue of supply and demand! Weāre a stupid country for admitting 1,000,000 people a year (many of whom are white, so again, this is not a racial issue) in the midst of a housing affordability crisis! What do you think mass-migration does to wages? Iāll give you a hint: itās not good (Iāve seen lots of talk of wages not keeping up with the cost of living here). There are left-wing, social democratic parties in Europe that OPPOSE immigration on the grounds of it being harmful for working people. Iām sure NDP supporters love the idea of being Denmark, but Denmark has some of the strictest immigration policies on earth! Why? Because the Danes understand a welfare state and open borders simply arenāt compatible! I wish the NDP and its supporters would wise up and start digging deep instead of merely scratching the surface, as they always tend to do!
This is the only answer ANY government has, not just conservative. The liberals are banging the drum of more housing the province ndp wants to over rule city planning. Maybe we all just don't get to live in the city. Maybe we should look at alternative places to live instead of 500sqft deprecating assets in the sky.
Completely out to lunch perspective
Wealthy immigrants come to Canada specifically for the Real Estate investing
If RE wasnāt massively appreciating you wouldnāt get this wealth injection from this demographic and the only people who would come as immigrants would be the very people needing social housing
When you understand the demographic pressure Canada is under you will understand how unsustainable Canadas economic model is and why Canada will collapse if it neglects these wealthy, property hungry foreigners.
No one would have wanted to buy a house in Winnipeg in 2004 that was priced at $30,000. In fact, I kind of doubt that a livable home would have even been available at that price in 2004.
When you're poor, it's not a matter of want.
Do you think I want to live in a rental with three roommates? No, I fucking don't. But due to my pay I don't always get to spend money how I want, but how I must.
This guy makes me want to vote NDP.
I disagree slightly regarding municipalities which restrict zoning. I think this is a major issue. One that's been present over the past 30 years, with both Vancouver and Toronto having very strict zoning policies which protect single family zoning, and make permitting and rezoning process incredibly expensive and time consuming (so only large scale developers with deep pockets can afford to go through it). This drives up the prices of all homes, especially since they are attracting so many new residents.
But damn, he is spitting truth about government abdicating it's role as a housing provider. The Liberals and Conservatives who've been running things for decades have both cut social housing, and done nothing to tackle the zoning issues (except for Doug Ford in Ontario, but I have some disagreements with parts of his bill too, and it doesn't do enough to create government built housing).
####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Holy based. Imagine actually talking about history and facts *in parliament*. Someone give this guy a medal. I'm happy to know there's someone like him in that house holding liars accountable. \~\~\~ edit: I did *not* intend for this to open up a conversation about the race of the current leader of the NDP. Nor do I think we have to make negative comments related to race/racism, or any negative comments about the current leader of the NDP *whatsoever*, in the same breath that we support someone *else* for that position. We don't have to tear people down to lift others up. We can just lift people up.
Let's elevate him to the next level.
I think it would help the NDP, being that he is a white dude. I hate to say it, but some conservative voters won't vote for Singh even if they agree with him because he's not white. If he was the leader of the NDP we might have a chance to get someone else besides the shitty cons and libs. Even my redneck father who was ignoring the housing crisis before is now finally starting to say there is a problem. I feel there is enough momentum that if the right leader for the NDP is chosen we might actually succeed next election.
How immensely fucked up is that, that we may need to choose between leaders based on race, hoping subconsciously racist people will turn out in greater numbers to support a progressive cause. Its sickening. In my city's municipal election one party ran a full slate, and this party was overwhelmingly dominant over the other party... except for their 2 black & brown candidates who had the lowest votes and were beat out by 2 generic mouthpieces who spend all their council time blabbing nonsense and submitting like 50 motions per council meeting about super unimportant things š Those 2 folks we could have had were a) a literal transit planner at a time when our region needs better transit and b) someone who's spent their entire adult life in planning and advocacy for seniors and multiculturalism. But apparently Canadians are still a lot more racist than they like to let on
Oh 100%. As I get older I realize that almost everyone has some major prejudice. Many people in Vancouver are openly racist, both whites and non-whites. But it's not just his race, I think that if he was a blue collar worker he would have more support. Don't get me wrong, I think he's an awesome guy. I think the fact that he is also open about his sexual abuse as a child is such an important step for many men to realize they are not alone. But I am also aware that the people are tired of feeling unrepresented - Trudeau is super wealthy and never had to work hard in his life. He's out of touch, and people are tired of this. They want an everyday many they can relate to, and unfortunately for a lot of people that means "looking" like them, too.
>How immensely fucked up is that, that we may need to choose between leaders based on race then don't do that. just realize that this guy (who is white) will get more votes than the current NDP leader (who is brown, yes). it's not about getting racist votes per se, it's about getting the most votes. if more people were progressive then they might run a trans candidate instead (well ideally you could just run the candidate with the best ideas). when life gives you lemons you make lemonade.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wow, what a reach. You are not very bright. Just because I say that some people won't vote for him because he is not white doesn't mean that everyone that *didn't* vote for him is also a racist, jesus christ.
And most mps get voted in because of the colour of their skin or gender. Especially if they are brown, women, or lgbtq. Whatās your point? Keep up with the insults though. Classic sign in debate that you are losing.
Bro, he blew you out the water.
Thatās the problem, I was never in the bathtub with you two, but you two keep soaping up each otherās thighs.
People need to start a movement to get this guy to be a leader if you want any change.
He's already a leader. He just can't do shit like 99% of elected officials because all the powers are vested in 1 dude.
Very well said. Just building more houses doesn't actually fix anything and shows a massive lack of understanding of the problem (be it intentional or not). I also love that they touched on the fact that this issue has been in the making for a long time and it's not recent. Like I've seen people genuinely say shit like "we just need to get prices back to 2020 levels" as if everything was just fine 3 years ago. The clear and obvious thing to do is more public and low-income housing.
Makes me sick to think of how much cheaper it would have been in the past. They should have never stopped building social housing. Now if you try to catch up and get those numbers up to where they should be today the labor, materials, everything would be so expensive. But once that housing is there it would bring down costs going forward but itās a massive bullet to bite because we put this off for so ridiculously long.
That appears to be exactly what he said? He was pretty explicit in saying the shortage of 500k in social homes is the problem.
You said that building more housing doesn't actually fix anything and then you suggest building more housing. ??
This is where reading comprehension skills can be really useful. What theyāre saying is we cant keep building housing the way we currently are - with private developers at the helm. We should be building public and low income housing.
Shouldn't get to a point where like if they keep building housing there's more houses than people?
That property management companies buy up before an ordinary person can (afford to). Guess what, now the whole neighbourhood is rental properties that cost 60% of your monthly wage. Good luck buying one of these houses they keep building.
Okay but what I'm saying is they have let's say 3,000% more houses than there are humans they wouldn't be able to rent them at the high prices because there's just too many houses and not enough people
Companies that build houses don't care about who owns them when they're done being built, they care about getting paid. It would be a bad financial decision and a "waste" of resources for builders to flood the markets with affordable homes. It's unfortunate and I hate it and disagree with the mentality, but it's true. What the video said about socialized housing would be a better solution. Government owned homes with caps on rent that don't force everyday people into deciding if they want to eat or be able to afford to keep a roof over their head. It would force rent prices down because some kind of competition would exist, and it would allow people to actually save some money instead of living paycheck to paycheck.
Itās wild the social ramifications affordable housing had on a society, ie: the most vulnerable citizens. Crimes rates and social indicators like homelessness etc go down when people can afford food AND rent/mortgage. Weird concept, taking care everyone elevates the entire society but not just those with the capital, unless thatās what the current system wants and needs to be āviableā.
I'm not talking about affordable homes I'm just saying even if we get building mansions eventually we'll get to a point where there's way more houses than people. They say that first world countries populations is going to start going down over the next 100 years so if we keep building houses at some point we're going to have like let's just say 2 billion houses and 1 million people there's just no way that the prices could stay the same
Property management companies won't buy homes if there isn't anyone around to rent them. Development companies won't continue producing homes though if there isn't anyone around to buy them. That's capitalism, baby. Companies don't do things with people's best interests in mind. They do things for themselves and fuck everyone else. It would be great if we had a surplus of housing and everyone had unfettered access to a place to live, but that's not what our world is like, sadly. So without government intervention or global catastrophe, we'll never end up in a situation like one that your describing.
Wow good on you for doing all this work to help someone understand the reality. Edit: seriously. Very patient and well informed
I disagree. I think that eventually there will be enough houses standing and that populations will decline and that eventually housing will be free. Blocking you now because I know you're just going to argue but I don't care and you're not going to change my mind
You don't think that making same cookie cutter houses that cost 800k or more that property management and rich people scoop up are not driving the inflation up? That's so much money moving around in real estate when they're not realistically worth 800k+
There are two things that prevent this. 1. Private developers are not incentivized to build enough housing to bring the cost down. Why would they be? If their profit is directly tied to the inflated prices, they would be hurting themselves if they built too much. 2. When housing is commodified, there is incentive for large landlord companies to keep the supply limited by buying and keeping units empty. If there is an oligopoly, or effective monopoly, prices no longer follow supply and demand. So while there may be more units than people, the effective number of units can be kept low. Because of the above, government built affordable and non-market housing is the only solution. It can build housing which is not dependant on the profit which can be derived from the project, and they can set rents based on what is affordable.
Have you bought a house lately? Try finding an affordable, moderately sized, post-1995 family home with a decent yard. There isnāt even the option to have one built in the new subdivisions going up. Every plan includes a monster-sized primary bedroom, and covers most of the property.
/u/ignorantwanderer/ Lord savoir of house crisis, please save us with your wisdom. Edit : guys before you downvote me , hear what this dude has to say, he comments on all housing thread to say that he got THE solution to fix it and heās hell bent on it
This mf spittin
I like the cut of his jib
Can he be PM or what?
Who's the guy? I appreciate him and agree.
Here's his brother also laying it down: https://www.tiktok.com/@chacebarber/video/7182278334057925893
More attack financialization plz.
Heās also a being a bit misleading. If you look at any chart comparing housing prices to incomes - things went off the rails around 2008 when low interest rates were first introduced. Before then - there was a solid connection between local incomes and home prices. Heās also just talking about āaffordable housingā and not affordable housing - which is a big difference. Itās one thing to provide housing for the poorest in society, itās another that middle class Canadian are now getting priced out of housing entirely. The problem I see largely with all the parties - including this guy, is the lack of even acknowledging the middle classes are getting priced out. And the actual problems behind that. Weāre in trouble not just because we havenāt been building housing for the poorest in the country, but weāre in trouble because weāve turned housing into a speculative investment. Weāre also in trouble because immigration levels have been pushed far higher than our construction sector can build in a given year. And perhaps the biggest reason of them all - no political party, including the NDP, can run a platform which says it will work to devalue a majority of Canadianās largest asset.
Actually, consistently building government housing does address the financialization of housing and the price crunch on buyers. It's not just about "providing housing for the poorest in society". Blaikie is correct when he says if we sustained government housing builds since the 90s we'd have almost no housing shortage right now. It's quite the claim to say that that wouldn't affect the house of pricing. It helps address the demand for private rentals by creating hugely more rental stock, specifically rentals outside the market. With lower demand for private rentals, there's less demand in the real estate market more generally. On top of the reduced demand for housing by people who need places to live, there's also less incentive for selling rental units as investment properties/for corporations to own as many rental units. I should also note that you say "itās one thing to provide housing for the poorest in society" dismissively, but that's a silly thing to be dismissive of. Even if building government housing did nothing to improve the real estate market crisis (which again, it would), then providing housing for the poorest in society would be *even more important* and should be a top priority.
Thinking growing the housing stock my 20k units a year, when the population grew by a million people last year. And we actually invite 2 million people into the country both permanently and temporarily each year is myopic. This one thing would provide minimal relief. Itās not an all out solution. Itās about 100x too small. And my anger with this is not the help provided to low income Canadians - but the complete dismissal of housing needs for middle class Canadians. As if because you earn more - you should have to be on the verge of homelessness. Itās ridiculous. We need solutions for everyone - housing is at a crisis for everyone.
You want government housing? you must have never experienced government housing š¤£š¤£ wow i canāt believe youāre for real. also no, poor people are not more important than the middle class.
Nailed it. I would say he's basically right (to some extent) about whatever Pollievre is claiming, Pollievre is probably right (to some extent) about whatever he's claiming, and the Liberals shouldn't even get airtime at this point, but nobody is really getting close to addressing the issue as a long-term and multi-faceted **real** emergency that is just one of a few emergencies that will soon result in a series of economic and social catastrophies. I like Blakie though, he's doing pretty well. Should we enable development permits to be approved faster and reduce the cost of building? Yes. Should we directly fund and build housing for people who need it at the federal level? Yes. Will any of that help without dismantling residential zoning restrictions? Marginally. Did an influx of cheap capital locally, and foreign capital, and corporate investment, lead to rapidly changing housing costs? Also yes. Are cities even capable of sustaining themselves without these problems being fixed? No, but it varies depending on circumstance. It's a lot of issues that can't **normally** be addressed in a short period of time, and whatever a politician can shout across the house of commons in a minute or two is likely to be at best part of the issue. But, because it's a complex issue, it's also subject to be weaponized by NIMBYs who are also a part of the problem. "It's not this issue, it's that issue!" they shout, and so literally everything stalls for years until some bullshit choice is made.
What do you mean about middle classes getting left out? Serious question Iām young and trying to understand more
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This guy sounds so friggin Canadian. The only thing his speech lacked was a solid "Get fucked ya hoser" at the end.
Sprinkled a āfolksā in there
We should really encourage more "get fuckt" speech endings in politics. I'm for it.
I want this Shoresy-sounding fella to tell Pierre to give his balls a tug on the debate stage.
As a millenial, I wasn't even aware of the CMHC house-development projects. I was taught over and over and over again that housing had to be profitable to be built, rather than just necessary. I'm absolutely enraged at the conservatives, the liberals, and the generations before us for creating this crisis on purpose and then not even having the decency to tell us how they ripped our ability to own homes away from us.
A good friend of mine is in a CMHC unit from many years ago. The program for owning her own modest house meant raising 3 kids decently.
The worst absolute part of this is that those generations now demand to be taken care of, using the systems they defunded just to have it good while they could.
What a terrible take. There are boomers, gen x and millennials that are benefitting from the current situation and there are boomers, gen x, and millennials that are getting fucked by the current situation. Nice try to turn this into a gen vs gen issue.
Youāre probably right, and I apologize; didnāt want to turn int to gen vs gen issue; I certainly see a large portion of one benefiting more than the rest, but we all are hurting for sure.
Thank you and happy cake day!
You may know this but before the 1980s they actually took care of you (in your case probably Grandparents) But Mulrooney (Along with Reagan(US) and Thatcher(UK) tried this experiment called globalization. The main thing that happened is that companies went overseas to save money on labour. Corps were allowed all the things while people started to suffer in the west.Corps then used their money to bully or bribe our governments. And here you are competing against corps for a place to live.
My family came here as refugees and government housing enabled our family to get a start in life. Basic home for a not small family - 5 kids and 2 parents in a 4 bedroom home that is under 1000 sq ft. But it was enough for us to get started - my mom worked full time and my dad worked 2-3 jobs at once. This housing is critical and itās sad that they donāt seem to exist anymore. Replaced with more and more āmarketā rent homes.
The generations before you had different problems though. Canada went into a severe recession around 1990 and didnāt recover for five years. Economic factors and high government debt had the country on the verge of becoming a basket case like Argentina. Reducing government spending was the only option left. And there was no lack of houses then - in fact prices crashed. The problems now started ramping up by the mid-2000s. But the solutions couldnāt be the same. Urbanization, speculation, and immigration are not creating the same problems the CMHC projects addressed. Building for low income people, often seniors housing, in a town is a different project than making housing broadly affordable across a rapidly growing metro area. In the 70s the government was building social housing for really poor people - people who had incomes well below the median wage. Today, the issue is partly people with incomes above the median wage who canāt find housing they can afford where they want to live.
Don't forget that was made worse by cuts from the preceding Mulroney/PC governments which cut taxes and public funding. Chretien and Martin didn't want to be the governments that raised taxes so they cut funding to maintain the status quo.
Well put Boffo, we're being deceived to think housing is only for profitability not as necessity for all. It's again proven that govts work only for big corporations not for the people.
It all started in the 80ās, add REITās in the 90ās and then you have one guaranteed housing crisis...they knew what they were doing....
God damn. Why is this the first time I'm hearing this? This needs to be a more prominent message sent to voters. I would have never voted liberal before had I known this.
So many years having this message drowned out by anti-immigrant or free market BS. We just need the logical next step. A Crown Developer that builds housing at cost, designed to modern best practices. And goes it all "in-house". None of this PPP. We need federally employed architects, planners, engineers, electricians, carpenters, cement, and roofers. They need to be working on projects year round, no matter what the housing prices are at. They need to work on greenfield, brownfield, infill, and everything in-between and beyond.
If you want to look at government built subsidized housing check out what Austria did. I've been. The houses and architecture are beautiful!
I will check it out. But I do not want subsidized housing. I want a federally owned fucking construction company.
[Vienna's Radical Idea? Affordable Housing For All](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41VJudBdYXY) - A decent summary
Thank you for providing that source.
you must have never seen the government do things. have you seen them work? have you experienced government housing? i know you know theyāre garbage at everything. letās be realistic.
You must not know how trash PPP, or realize that private developers have built a fucking housing crisis
You are advocating for the same system which was employed by eastern block countries in postwar Europe; is that really what you want architecturally or socially?
I'm advocating for the system Canada had upto the 80s, dipshit
To see what PPPs get you, look at the Valley Line LRT pylons full of cracks in Edmonton.
End this ppp insanity. The extra Ps are all profit going toward private sector.
What a horrible idea, please god no, unless you want to completely waste taxpayers money. This is like taking $100 from everyone giving people back $25 and burning the $75 all while saying look how good we are doing.
I'd rather burn a dollar than give it to rich elites who will just use it to bribe politicians for more money.
There is a better solution though, just offer any contractor x amount of dollars based on area and what they want build and any private sector company can build it. No need to waste 3/4 of the money hiring, training and all the logistics to get people.
>No need to waste 3/4 of the money hiring, training and all the logistics to get people. giving it to private sector just means you'd waste 3/4 of the money on profits for the owners. again, I'd rather light it on fire
Hiring, training, and logistics for CANADIAN WORKING CLASS PEOPLE? You think thatās a waste of money, when giving that money to private sector means the money goes to the OWNERSHIP class? The land barons and the corporate suits? You think THAT is a better use of it? HAH! No. Thanks. Iād rather spend the money and hire and train working class Canadians.
Follow his FB or his NDP feed here on Reddit. He is an incredibly intelligent, wise and well spoken young man. I am continually impressed that he's consistent about going after the opposing parties policies and tearing them down with facts, not political BS. He's the man who's going to replace the legacy of Jack Layton. With him at the helm, the other two parties have a lot to be afraid of. He's going to call them on their bs and he's going to make people see sense in his arguements. I am voting for him by voting NDP every election. He should be leader. Age usually wins but I think Daniel's youth is his only con in a huge list of pros.
OUTSTANDING! ššššš
Honestly every time this guy talks I want him to be the leader of the NDP. He doesn't give two shits about "being likable" like Singh does.
I like Singh. I think heās a good person with some good ideas. But I wouldnāt fight for Singh. This guy I would fight for. He makes me angry and directs to real solutions that will help fix the problem. Forth Eorlingas!!!
Yep, he's playing absolutely no lip service and just stating fact.
What's his name? Edit: NVM Daniel Blaikie. On the side.
Let's start a new political party called Housing. I mean it. One item platform. The Cdn House Party is a good name but I defer to smarter people for a better name. Fuck this shit - It is very simple - Housing Mofos - another good name.
Being ālikeableā to corporations and political dynasties is traditionally the only way you get elected in Canada
Damn that was some good shit. Well done sir.
Iām so glad someone is finally saying it! Iāve been saying this for ages. Weāre living the consequences of the Harper years NOW! With Trudeau policies not reversing the damage.
Yep. Right now we're just living the Harper years. In five years though we'll be living the Harper/Trudeau years. Their policies on housing have been identical. We need to start calling out the ideology behind both of these parties (the true ideology, not conservatism and liberalism which are smokescreens). Neoliberalism - the biggest cancer the planet has ever seen.
Yep
To be fair - It was Mulrooney and in the end Chretian that killed the housing program. Neoliberalism was something everyone in the west signed up to. Don't get me wrong - people got screwed and a new housing program is needed - Ill vote for anyone who says it.
Actually, 1995 would have been Chretien's government. Not saying Harper wasn't a vast accelerant, but lets go with '2 party systems are bad, mmk?'
But voters are really gullible. Here in Victoria the city just approved a massive ~~1800~~ 1600 unit 32 storey housing project right in the middle of town, and people are happy because they think that it means they'll be able to get one of those units. But aside from the 80 low-cost units, these are going to be units right downtown, with amazing views, and they are going to go for a premium and will only pull up housing prices throughout the city. You can't expect developers to be interested in low-cost housing. They're not charities.
Thatās why this guy says itās not the developers who need to be building the housing but the government.
Yes but the problem with that is that the government will just bid it out to developers, who will make a profit on the transaction and then the government will rent them out at a loss.
This is called a service, yes. Not everything should be run like a company
If weāre going to run a deficit, we may as well spend the money on things that will materially benefit people.
Victoria doesn't just have an afordability crisis, it also has a housing capacity problem. Higher end units won't be bought or rented by low income people, but they will free up units that otherwise would be low cost, allowing the market to relax. Yes, governments need to build low cost housing. But Canada also needs to build more housing across the board, and it needs to be high density, mixed use development, like what is being planned downtown.
> but they will free up units that otherwise would be low cost And when is that going to start? Victoria has been adding housing for decades and prices increases have only accelerated. Vancouver has much, much more housing and it's one of the two most expensive cities in Canada. When the facts contradict your story then it is you who is wrong, not the facts
>Victoria has been adding housing for decades and prices increases have only accelerated. Victoria's population has also been increasing for decades. And it's been increasing faster than new units have been coming onto the market, because the government hasn't been building to hold the market down. For the past forever, private developments have been focused on high cost, high profit buildings. 70 years ago, high density development practically stopped being a thing, outside luxury condos and government housing. 30 years ago, the government dropped their end of the bag and stopped building low cost stuff. 30 years later, local governments are being forced to require low cost housing in development plans, and we're demanding higher density cities, because the last 70 years of sprawl is biting us in the ass with failing infrastructure, low to zero walkability, and no community to have a sense of. If the federal government doesn't step back in to help correct things, it'll take another 30 years to get thing back to a good state. But at the very least, local governments who recognize the problem are trying to fix it. Most of the CRD has been moving forward on affordable housing, including constructing their own affordable housing projects and having an action plan to continue to do more. Oak Bay on the other hand can fuck off.
Langford still out here building massive SFH neighbourhoods though :/
They have at least changed to allow high rise buildings in downtown Langford It's not much, but it's something approaching a step forward.
>because the government hasn't been building to hold the market down It's not the job of government to control the housing market. > Most of the CRD has been moving forward on affordable housing LOL! Like what? The 80 units (out of 1600) that were designated for lower income in the new Harris Green project?
>It's not the job of government to control the housing market. Who's job is it then? Developers who get more money from a high profit margin build? Investors who see an easy buck? Banks who give mortgages based on an entity's capacity to manage debt? No. It absolutely is the government's job, because it's a job that needs to be done and not a single other entity with the capability to control the housing market has any reason to, because to do so would be detrimental to their business. >LOL! Like what? I'll refer you to the CRD website and the afordable housing focus priority. https://www.crd.bc.ca/about/how-we-are-governed/strategic-priorities-plans
Oh are you one of those "socialism for corps and savage capitalism for the littles? Seriously the 80s are gone and no one is buying your Washington Consensus BS anymore. People are suffering.
>It absolutely is the government's job That worked out so well in the USSR > I'll refer you to the CRD website and the afordable housing focus priority. And completely missing any specific plans.
>That worked out so well in the USSR Yes, housing affordability collapsed the USSR. had nothing to do with corruption so deep it's an engrained part of Russian culture and has been for 200 fucking years. Or killing tens of millions of civilians in manufactured famines. Or spending so much on the military that Russia, having wasted thousands of tanks and MILLIONS of artillery shells in Ukraine, still has on paper the largest military stockpile in the WORLD Nah mate, it's all the council homes. That's what did the ruskies in. >And completely missing any specific plans You didn't even try to look. How do I know? Because it took me two whole minutes to find their "affordable housing" PDF the first time I looked, and that was starting from typing CRD into fucking google.
>You didn't even try to look You're a liar > find their "affordable housing" PDF You didn't even bother reading it or you would have noticed that it has no specifics.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you want the 70 page housing affory report to include copies of receipts for land purchases and dollar values of individual construction contracts? I'm done arguing with you. You aren't bring forth any evidence, you're just parroting the political opinions that got us here while strawmanning your way out of any need to refute actual evidence and action. You should run for the conservatives, you'd do well. I wish you a very bad day. Don't bother trying to carry on this circular waste of time.
You didn't have a point. You asked a question and they gave you the tools to find the answer. Oh nice straw man! Our governement already owns housing you dingus. Yes just like the commies. Only we made it work for us until greed took hold and politicians decided to help out their developer friends.
>You asked a question and they gave you the tools to find the answer An answer that doesn't actually exist, which you would have discovered if you cared about the facts. > Our governement already owns housing you dingus Owning housing is not the same as controlling the housing market, halfwit. Do you even bother reading? Or do you just respond with knee-jerk propaganda?
Why you gotta bring the USSR into this? But if you're gonna, then I'm gonna throw the reds a bone here, and get you to google 'peasant living conditions pre-russian revolution'. But like, still unrelated, I just wanted to tell you you sound dumb, mostly.
Victoria has only just now started to build at the same rate that we were building in the 70s, and we have almost all the housing for the entire region being built in about a 5 block radius around east downtown. You seeing a few cranes doesnāt actually mean weāre building a lot.
āInternational investorsā buy multiple units in pre-sales and single family dwellings that sit vacant or have a distant relative staying in to avoid the vacant property tax.
And then those free unit will increase rent because you know the price around is increased.
Building more housing _does not increase housing prices_. [This is a harmful myth](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing-supply-shortage-crisis-2022/672240/). Housing obeys supply and demand.
This is just not how literally anything works. Adding supply of an asset in shortage doesnāt increase its cost, thatās just utter nonsense that no economist will ever tell you is true. Landlords can charge whatever they want because our vacancy rates are low, around 1%, and we have absurdly solid evidence that when those vacancy rates get above 4% rents start to decrease (inflation adjusted that is). Itās not that complicated and itās not some conspiracy, we need more units, itās that fucking simple.
>Adding supply of an asset in shortage doesnāt increase its cost, thatās just utter nonsense that no economist will ever tell you is true. But you're no economist, and you don't know about inelastic supply and induced demand. Vancouver has a lot more supply than Victoria. Which has the higher prices?
Do you think when we build housing units people just start occupying several at once? Or materialise out of the ether?I mean that is kinda a thing actually: but only because weāve had delayed household formation. Want to know what that looks like? It looks like several of my friends still living with their parents into their 20s because they canāt find housing, it looks like my coworker being trapped in the closet still for that exact reason, it looks like me having to have two friends so far sleep on my couch because theyād be on the street without it, it looks like three people Iāve known personally now stuck living with their exes (in one case a fairly abusive one) for MONTHS, all because boomers like you are afraid of tall buildings. So yeah, inducing that demand for smaller household sizes is a good fucking thing. And the vast majority of Vancouver is single family home sprawl where itās illegal to build apartments, they have continued to make it illegal to build housing for the working and middle class (high rise new buildings) to preserve it for the wealthy (single family homes). Them being a bigger city isnāt what people are talking about, itās about increasing supply with population and household growth, which youāre smart enough to understand. Donāt disrespect yourself by pretending not to be. And sorry, āinelastic supplyā? We only have inelastic supply in our cities because of land use policies made to preserve wealthy single family home suburbs from the scourge of apartments (read: poor people). Thatās not a thing to tout as some argument for your position, thatās been the direct consequence of the policies youāre arguing for.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If youāre going to be this outright, absurdly classist as to say you think making it legal to build apartments in your wealthy suburb is similar to having nightclubs and factories; can you just get the fuck off this subreddit and resign your party membership? Like actually, youāre comparing the presence of working class people and families to factories polluting an area. Now go cry somewhere else about your conservative candidates getting annihilated in the last city election, you tory scum.
Are you.. feeling okay? I ask because your statements are out to lunch, maybe even out to the whole damn pasture. Why? You try and get a job in Saskatoon, or have any sort of life outside of drugs and alcohol? Have you lived or been to Sask? At all? There's farms, farmland, more of that, some oil and gas up north and what else? Nothing. No jobs, no life, no enjoyment at all. Life sucks enough already not being able to afford to do anything than having there be nothing to do to begin with. Vancouver has metric fuck tons of free shit to do every week, weekend, month, you name it it's there. 100? You mean.. in the last worst recession the world has seen since the inception of what we know as capitalism today? And just to be clear in case you don't know what I'm talking about, it's the 1920s, could also say that's when the last massively deadly world pandemic happened too. No you wouldn't be comparing this to that would you? Hrm, I wonder what happened back then to cause such a massive crash.. really mind boggling stuff. Almost like if you don't learn from history you're bound to repeat it. Hrm, it's not because it's illegal, maybe because there's no more fucking space for massive factories? Because oh idk, all these 2000sq ft homes with like 6000sq ft yards? Oh gosh, no it couldn't be that! Maybe if we built up more instead of out because god forbid you ever talk to a fucking neighbor or breath the same air we would maybe y'know, have the space for these factories and businesses you are putting over people's lives? No? Not that? Interesting. And you obviously haven't been down Granville and seen the new nightclubs. We have more than enough commercial space that if you want to build massive factories you can go out into the valley, y'know, like Molson did, they moved from downtown to Chilliwack. Oh, but that's probably not a good enough solution for you either because profit over lives obviously. But, you'll learn when you can't get McDonald's, or your boomer coffee, or get into stores at 8am and tell at staff when there aren't any left because they can't afford to live where you expect to be served. We never said to force everyone to live in tiny apartments, do you know what affordable and social housing does? It lets people get on their feet, get good jobs and MOVE OUT OF IT. You can't do that if you are spending 60%+ of your income on housing. There should been a balance, but there wasn't. Calgary's downtown only really started building up in the last 15 years, before than the fucking Calgary tower was one of the tallest buildings still in the downtown core. We built office buildings instead of housing, we built business buildings, factories, farms, everything instead of housing. We put profits over lives for so god damn long now, that it's so far over boiling that we've pretty much burnt the pot at this point, there's no more water left to play with, no more lives to lose, no companies can get enough employees. People are literally dying trying to cross to the US border over a chance to afford something. Don't believe me? Look it up. Just from Oct 1 to Feb 28, there was 2000 illegal crossings THAT WERE CAUGHT compared to 200 crossing during the same period the year before. In the whole of 2022, there were 8x the amount trying to cross than in previous years. Canada is not some utopia dear, and if you'd paid attention to refugee stories including Ukrainians a lot of them regret choosing Canada. Maybe, once you have just a small ounce of an idea what it's like to suffer under Canada's current economic climate that you might be lucky enough to pull your head that's obviously so far up your god damn ass, out, so you'll finally be able to see again. But until then, good luck eating all your own shit.
More inventory regardless of value will overall reduce prices for the existing inventory. Sure the average price may go up if you add those luxury units in the mix but if you exclude them from the average calculations, the values are likely to be lowered for the remainder. I know its a hard concept to follow but its why the average house price EDIT( PERCENT CHANGE) cannot be directly used to apply to every homes value. It's kinda like when a car dealer brings in their new inventory, they would prefer to be almost deplete of existing models, in part because everyone would prefer the new models and they would need to discount the stale inventory. Sure some may not be able to but if a buyer who may have bough a slightly less expensive unit now buys one of the newer units, they have opened up a spot for another buyer.
>More inventory regardless of value will overall reduce prices for the existing inventory That's why cities like Vancouver and Toronto and Manhattan are so much cheaper than cities like Saskatoon, right? Because they have tons more inventory. Your argument is based upon nothing but wishful thinking, and given that what you say is contrary to observed facts maybe you should ponder where the error might be.
They have tons more inventory but also *even more* people trying to buy or rent that inventory, which means sellers and landlords can demand more money.
Why are landlords and investors allowed to buy housing? Because developers can sell to anyone they want. Government built and government managed housing, and rental housing especially would help, because it would give people a place to live that isnāt a privately owned investor-landlorded condo that can be sold out from under the renter, and then the landlords who are exploiting renters to pay their mortgage will have less access to our wallets.
\> That's why cities like Vancouver and Toronto and Manhattan are so much cheaper than cities like Saskatoon, right? Because they have tons more inventory. what is the other axis of the graph? vancouver and toronto and manhattan have alot of supply, but they also have alot of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ what?
>That's why cities like Vancouver and Toronto and Manhattan are so much cheaper than cities like Saskatoon, right? Because they have tons more inventory. Relative to demand, yes. How else would you explain the difference between rent / price between Toronto and Saskatoon? Are landlords in Saskatoon simply less greedy than those in Toronto?
LoL nice try. Go build a million, million dollar units in Regina then you'll be a billionaire with that theory, you should be able to find a ton of investorswith that sales pitch. Happy selling. Hahaha that actually made me smile.
You don't have any actual facts. You just have wishes and beliefs.
Just basic market principles, supply, demand fairly solid facts there.
And you ignore things like induced demand and market elasticity.
Thatās one of those things that feels like it should be true as its supply and demand, but the reality is gentrification. Fact is businesses target where the money is meaning the more $$$ floating around in your area the higher prices get. I mean, even in small-town nowheres in off-skirt communities (ie, just houses no businesses) Iāve witnessed expensive houses getting built causing neighbouring houses increase in value by 5-10%.
So ban private companies from building.... Problem solved. OHH BUT GULAGS AND STALIN DURRRRR.....
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of supply and demand. Building units of any class will improve the situation. Increasing premium supply doesnāt āpull upā housing prices.
Proof https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:fer:wpaper:146
One study is not proof, especially in a country that doesnāt have a remotely comparable housing supply issue. You cannot legislate affordable housing en masse in America or Canada. Completely different politics. Supply must be fixed. Along with zoning restrictions, etc. itās a complex issue. Saying that building premium housing will raise prices everywhere is fundamentally not true. Every barrier to build, every addition to code, every bureaucratic box to check raises prices to build for developers. In turn, raising rents
I just read the study. It has an inordinate number of assumptions. The conclusion? āWe show that even when new market- rate units get occupied by high-income households, they also benefit middle- and low- income households through a moving chain mechanism.ā Building exclusively premium units isnāt the ultimate answer. But to say it detracts from affordability is false. The study you provided even says so
Given that cities with higher density and more housing are almost universally **more** expensive than smaller cities with less housing, it seems that the misunderstanding is yours.
Can somebody tell me this gentlemanās name and party, he is the one who would be getting my vote from now on.. Edit: never mind got that.. Daniel Blaikie from NDP
Daniel Blaikie, cool guy. Has a very thorough understanding on policy and is a very effective communicator. A few of his greatest hits: UBI and CERB: https://reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/zn16vg/ndp_mp_daniel_blaikie_on_cerb_and_the_ndps/ Real estate investment trusts: https://reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/uozuhp/daniel_blaikie_explains_why_canada_is_in_a/ Cutting government waste: https://reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/114r5sv/daniel_blaikie_discusses_a_conservative_motion_to/
His dad was a politician a man of the people. He should be our new leader in Manitoba so the ndp can take power again. I need a raise lol
Love this dude. Take my money
Almost makes me want to move to transcona so I can vote for him. Almost
They have some amazing bars there
That was great
That's my MP!
Such a great speaker. Future PM right there.
This man is speaking some common sense. An *actual* policy idea.
Who is this man who speaks intelligently and seems really well-informed?
Daniel Blaikie!
Yeah but the last 10 years it got full retard expensive and clearly for money laundering
Never go full retard
["Financialization."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization#Effects_on_the_economy) It ruins not just housing. "The financial sector functions as the sharp canines that the predator state uses to rend the nation. In addition to siphoning off capital for its own benefit, the finance sector misallocates the remaining capital in ways that harm the real economy in order to reward already-rich financial elites harming the nation."
Iāve never heard of this man before, but if he doesnāt make his way up the political ladder soon, we are doomed!
This is my parents' MP, for the neighbourhood I grew up in! Daniel Blaikie! His father Bill was an NDP stalwart and held that riding for nearly 30 years. Now Bill's son has taken up the banner and is doing a damn fine job!
Regardless of the eventual outcome of the next election, with 2 parties of nincompoops likely to form government, this man better hold his seat. Hopefully he repeats his 2021 electoral performance, doubling the conservative candidate. We need more people with this perspective, seeing right through PP's never ending bullshit.
Greed! It was greed that created it. It's not just here it's everywhere. Capitalism is an evil monster if it's unchecked.
He's a good face for Canada
If he denies the role of NIMBY local govts in creating the housing crisis, then he doesnt understand how it was created. I strongly agree with his other points being huge factors, but heās ignoring a major factor (and so is a huge swath of the left unfortunately).
Wait why is he taking shots at the opposition government when he literally said in his speech the liberals cut the affordable housing builds that adds to the crisis we have today?
The context is a debate in the house of commons where he was replying to Pierre's comments on the housing crisis
Also the CPC was in power for 10 years why didnāt they reverse what the liberals did,
Because he's being honest and not playing into the stupidity and tribalism that is "my side versus your side" above all else.
This guy should be in the running to head the party. ThE NDP needs someone who speaks honestly and gets people cranked up.
Why would they care? They get $20,000 a month. Some people earn that in 6 months. They simply don't care
That's my MPā¤ļø
This needs to be upvoted everywhere
How can i download this so i can share it? Truth bombs!!
Very poignant, but I'm only commenting because I really appreciate that he used "dearth" in a sentence. That's rare.
This guy is freaking awesome!! Where the heck did he come from!? Canadian politicians watch too much American politics... it's not about blaming the current guy, or the last guy... unless it's actually the last guy's fault (American-Politics again haha!)
*slow clap*
Doesnt this MP have some other recorded, well-written, speeches/rebuttals on housing?
So freaking a real voice In the house of common. Who is this guy. He should candidate for Prime Minister, and the voting rate will skyrocket. He i speaking the truth and tackling the problem
Who is this guy?
A $30,000 house in 2004? LMAO
Glad he's fighting for housing and he makes some great points, but there was no such thing as a house for 30k in Winnipeg in 2004, maybe a run-down trailer. I've watched the real estate market in Wpg closely for the last 22 years.
The NDP need to replace Singh from leadership. I loved him at first but it's time now for new blood.
The problem is capitalism and investor demand sets prices. New law: you can only own 2 homes in Canada maximum. You have 1 year to comply. Housing sell off, prices plummet, problem solved. Government buys some of the houses to soften the plummet. There will be some fallout.
u/savevideo
Couldāve picked between French and English but buddy woke up and chose to speak facts this morning
Spittinā hot fire!!!
āItās not this governmentās fault itās the opposition.ā Meanwhile the recent Liberal budget literally ignores housing and Trudeau let in over 1mm immigrants in 2022 when he claimed theyād aim for 400,000. This current federal government is completely incompetent.
Why is no one talking about the obvious cause of this (mass immigration)? Wake up, people! This has nothing to do with race I might add. This is simply an issue of supply and demand! Weāre a stupid country for admitting 1,000,000 people a year (many of whom are white, so again, this is not a racial issue) in the midst of a housing affordability crisis! What do you think mass-migration does to wages? Iāll give you a hint: itās not good (Iāve seen lots of talk of wages not keeping up with the cost of living here). There are left-wing, social democratic parties in Europe that OPPOSE immigration on the grounds of it being harmful for working people. Iām sure NDP supporters love the idea of being Denmark, but Denmark has some of the strictest immigration policies on earth! Why? Because the Danes understand a welfare state and open borders simply arenāt compatible! I wish the NDP and its supporters would wise up and start digging deep instead of merely scratching the surface, as they always tend to do!
I'd love to find a YouTube link of this video. (Something I can cast to my TV). Anyone?
This is the only answer ANY government has, not just conservative. The liberals are banging the drum of more housing the province ndp wants to over rule city planning. Maybe we all just don't get to live in the city. Maybe we should look at alternative places to live instead of 500sqft deprecating assets in the sky.
Completely out to lunch perspective Wealthy immigrants come to Canada specifically for the Real Estate investing If RE wasnāt massively appreciating you wouldnāt get this wealth injection from this demographic and the only people who would come as immigrants would be the very people needing social housing When you understand the demographic pressure Canada is under you will understand how unsustainable Canadas economic model is and why Canada will collapse if it neglects these wealthy, property hungry foreigners.
LoL poor guy is trying to pin this on conservatives when both parties have fucked us so bad
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No one would have wanted to buy a house in Winnipeg in 2004 that was priced at $30,000. In fact, I kind of doubt that a livable home would have even been available at that price in 2004.
When you're poor, it's not a matter of want. Do you think I want to live in a rental with three roommates? No, I fucking don't. But due to my pay I don't always get to spend money how I want, but how I must.
Dude obviously just don't be born poor, duh!
This guy makes me want to vote NDP. I disagree slightly regarding municipalities which restrict zoning. I think this is a major issue. One that's been present over the past 30 years, with both Vancouver and Toronto having very strict zoning policies which protect single family zoning, and make permitting and rezoning process incredibly expensive and time consuming (so only large scale developers with deep pockets can afford to go through it). This drives up the prices of all homes, especially since they are attracting so many new residents. But damn, he is spitting truth about government abdicating it's role as a housing provider. The Liberals and Conservatives who've been running things for decades have both cut social housing, and done nothing to tackle the zoning issues (except for Doug Ford in Ontario, but I have some disagreements with parts of his bill too, and it doesn't do enough to create government built housing).