What's going on Canada?
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
ποΈ Cities / Regions
π Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknownπ» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
π£οΈ Politics
π Social & Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
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.
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!
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.
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.
There's an excuse, in some cases, for owning more than one houseβI 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 yetβso 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.
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.
Building homes won't fix anything. The way we build cities for the past 70years is the problem..
I don't think any one thing is gonna be a magic fix. We gotta do all the things rather than focus on just one aspect.
Or just wait. The housing market has quite clearly crashed already, peaking in 2022 and dead cat bouncing over the past few months. It took around three years for the US housing market to go from crash to finding the bottom during their last event. It is likely we will see something similar play out here.
Of course the politicians know that which is why they are just now all of sudden, after decades of ignoring the issue and trying to pass the buck to other levels of government, ready to swoop in as the saviour. "Look what I did!" they will proclaim, even though it will have nothing to do with them.
We allow landlords to still exist
What are you talking about?
He means that the issue is housing is viewed as an investment
Personally I'd like to see one of the parties come up with a plan that doesn't just funnel money into developers' pockets, and addresses other necessary solutions such as easing zoning restrictions (which is not the same as selling off protected forest and wetlands, Douggie), limiting or removing speculators, corporate ownership, and short term rentals that are preventing first time homebuyers from entering the market, public transit options to developing neighbourhoods to allow people who rely on it to move there, even (and this is a pipe dream) high speed rail between small towns and major cities so people could more easily spread out across the provinces without giving up jobs or doctors or their entire lives, etc.
There's so many ways to come at this, but all I ever see is people who think throwing more money at developers will fix the problem.
Here's the thing: Liberals and Conservatives solutions will always rervolve around giving more money to entities that already sit on variously sized piles of money. Even NDP won't risk alienating home owners. Political and economic system requires massive rework to actually address underlying issues. However I know of no Canadian political entity ready to sacrifice themselves and go through with necessary changes, including changes to electoral system that sustains current status quo. I'm in Alberta and AB NDP has walked away from the electoral reform as soon as they figured how to win in current system (sort of) so I'd expect the same from gederal NDP, or any party, really as reword system is wired for that. "Small steps" are all cute and heart-warming but they will never solve real problem and with major parties eager to rip out legislation of previous "other party" moving forward is unlikely. Not arguing for dictatorship, rather the opposite - real multi-party system that has to represent all Canadians. Any decision made has to be supported by 51+% of Canadians, not 51% parlamentsrians. (end of rant)