In a country with some of the world’s most expensive real estate, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government wants housing to become more affordable.

  • tellah@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There is a logic to this. Private developers will not make multi-year, large capital investments in something if they think that its value is guaranteed to decrease. That should be obvious.

    And we desperately need to increase supply. For better or worse, we do still live in a capitalist society so its going to be up to the private sector to increase supply, with the govt providing an incentivizing role. The govt ever saying anything like “we need to bring house prices down” would paralyze private sector investment into building houses.

    FWIW, in my esteemed position as an armchair big-social-problems-fixer, the solution is obvious: Govt investment/subsidies to convert downtown commercial real estate towers into condos. Instead of forcing people back to the office to salvage what’s left of the real estate value for those empty towers. The owners get their handout, people can continue to work from home, it’s good for the environment too! I dunno, I think it makes sense.

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We accept that a fundamental need like healthcare shouldn’t be subject to market forces. We don’t have to treat housing any differently. Vienna was rated the #1 most livable city because they understand this. Our path forward is not only clear as day, it’s tested, proven, and already putting out the best results in the world. The only reason we don’t follow that path is because those with the authority to change things are in the class of people profiting from doing things wrong.

      • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This. Fucking this.

        Homes are infrastructure not investments. Well not monetary investments anyway.

      • Dearche@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Governments have done the work of providing housing in the past, and still do in limited numbers. There is no reason why they can’t just push the number of projects up until there is no housing crisis anymore.

        I’ve heard some numbers here and there, and it seems like there’s plenty of organizations providing non-market housing that rent at below half the usual prices. Apparently the YMCA is one of them.

        If the governments aren’t willing to do it themselves, they can just make it easier for corporations that are willing to provide non-market housing to get the property rights and loans needed to actually get this done.

        • psvrh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is a logic to this. Private developers will not make multi-year, large capital investments in something if they think that its value is guaranteed to decrease. That should be obvious.

          Government can make large, multi-year capital investments, too. They just don’t want to, because we’re two generations of civil servants and politicians that consider publicly-provided services to be heretical.

          You’ll note that anything that doesn’t involve giving money to the private sector is not done, and what little fully public institutions we still have left are a) from an earlier era, and b) so intrinsic to the cash flow of a functioning government that not even the most boot-licking Thatcherite can make a case for selling them off.

          If the governments aren’t willing to do it themselves, they can just make it easier for corporations that are willing to provide non-market housing to get the property rights and loans needed to actually get this done.

          As above, there is no appetite in government to do this as it would erode the ability of the wealthy to make money, and even if they did, developers would just build something expensive to maximize value.

          The entire philosophy of how government delivers services would need to change, reversing course on a quarter-century of neoliberal policy.

          • Dearche@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The issue is that the top parties feel secure in their oligarchy. It doesn’t really matter which one is in power as they’re always relevant and can squabble as they like.

            They don’t feel threatened during elections anymore because it’s not about leading the country in a better direction according to their party principals, but it’s about what each person can personally gain by doing favours.

            I’m worried that the only way to actually make positive change is to put one of the minor parties in charge. Maybe seeing the Green party or the Communist Party of Canada in charge for a few years’ll be what it takes to make the mainstream parties actually fix their crap. Of course, the level of a miracle for something like that to happen is so remote that it’s hard to see any hope in the government without some sort of major upheaval to happen.

            • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m worried that the only way to actually make positive change is to put one of the minor parties in charge.

              We tried that. The, once minor, Reform Party was given chance for the first time in 2006 and we gave them a second try in 2011. I’m not sure anything changed.

              Trouble is, once a party takes charge, they are fundamentally no longer minor and naturally become just like all the rest. You haven’t accomplished anything.

              What you really want to do is elect a representative who works for you, not for his labour union (i.e. the party). As the employer, choosing your employee based on their union affiliation is, quite frankly, strange.

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agree with the diagnosis, but disagree with retrofit. Vancouver doesn’t need that right now. It takes more political will but I think a better solution would be to finish the job of bringing density to downtown and just rezone the whole of west end into condos with commercial fronts. Then move on to do the same with mt pleasant and Kitsilano. SFH within 5 minutes of seawall is just too much subsidy for suburban conservatives.