this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7128 readers
366 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has introduced a private member's bill in the House of Commons that outlines a plan to address the national housing crisis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlareHeart@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And still no word on any plans to ensure houses are bought by people who don't already own a whole bunch of investment properties.

Until we address that issue, building more will continue to make the rich richer. But this is to be expected of the politicians whose lobbyists consist of real estate investors.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And I'll chime in that yours is but a small part of a multi-facetted problem to be fixed, as is building new homes.

What is disingenuous is selling it as a simple problem that can be fixed quickly and easily.

Not saying you're doing this intentionally but we are notoriously lazy and looking for an easy fix when there is none. I wish politicians would be stressing that more.

I'm starting to think I'll vote for a politician that provides a comprehensive plan addressing multiple of the conditions that got us in this mess. To that I say good luck!

[–] mPony@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

we also have a historical problem of demanding a perfect solution to a complex problem and then being upset when nobody can provide it. Even if someone provides a Very Good solution, the moment it causes financial discomfort for wealthy people you'll see next-level lobbying and media saturation of "the plan isn't working."

Seeing as we're currently lacking a multi-faceted plan for this multi-faceted problem, I'd settle for taxing the fuck out of those who own more than 3 single-family houses as a good first step.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More than 1 home and you got my agreement lol

I fully understand my viewpoint there is far more aggressive than those with cottages or rental homes want to hear.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's an excuse, in some cases, for owning more than one house—I know of at least one person who owns a home for herself and a second that's used by her disabled sister, for instance, and there's the classic case of someone who just inherited their parents' house but is too deep in the grieving process to have been able to empty it out and sell it off yet—so I think we do need some flexibility. 2-3 houses seems like a logical upper limit. We do need some house-sized rental properties, and better to have them separated between multiple small landlords than owned by corporations who see the additional tax as just a cost of doing business.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Yup I fully understand there's some nuance there but still doesn't change my opinion. In edge case scenarios like this the first one ODSP needs to be revisited and quite frankly a whole house for a disabled person when many disabled people are far less fortunate reeks of entitlement. Concerning inheritance well again my opinions probably don't jive well because I disagree with inheritance then again I come from nothing and will be getting nothing from my parents when they die.

I agree 100% corporate ownership needs to be revisited.