VAUGHAN, Ont. - Liberal Leader Mark Carney says his government would double Canada’s rate of residential housing construction over the next decade to nearly 500,000 new homes per year.
The problem is building an insufficient number of homes, below the rate of population growth, at government expense, costs taxpayers money without solving the problem. Worse, it takes the place of effective solutions.
When we learn more about this proposal, we can understand if it would lower the cost of housing. Until then, skepticism is warranted.
I think it doesn’t matter whether new construction is funded by taxpayers or not. We all end up paying either way through various channels. I think what matters is how much money is collected as profit due to what we build, how we build it and how much we build.
The government isn’t really exploring other options.
Trudeau (to his credit) talked about limiting capital gains exemptions over 250k (which could take some money out of housing), but the Liberals, CPC, and NDP allowed that to die.
There hasn’t been talk of a tax on home sales over a certain value.
There hasn’t been serious talk of cracking down on money laundering or mortgage fraud.
The Liberal and CPC have both talked about limiting municipal regulations as a way for developers to (somehow) build cheaper buildings.
Part of the problem is traditional suburban zoning tends to be too expensive in the long run for cities to maintain due to lots of infrastructure and low density for taxation. Moving away from prioritizing suburbia and focusing government efforts more on density could spur the changes we need and build more homes from the government investment. It could add more housing while minimizing the additional infrastructure costs the city has to take on to accommodate the housing.
Not good enough is a stepping stone to good enough and a great starting point for done.
Reward what works, disengage what doesn’t, and promote ideas that can grow.
Sceptism is important, dissent is healthy, but recognizing what will progress society and putting effort into that is what’s needed now.
The problem is building an insufficient number of homes, below the rate of population growth, at government expense, costs taxpayers money without solving the problem. Worse, it takes the place of effective solutions.
When we learn more about this proposal, we can understand if it would lower the cost of housing. Until then, skepticism is warranted.
I think it doesn’t matter whether new construction is funded by taxpayers or not. We all end up paying either way through various channels. I think what matters is how much money is collected as profit due to what we build, how we build it and how much we build.
The problem I’m trying to highlight is that this plan may give developers sweetheart deals, but leave housing prices at unaffordable levels.
It may not, but the strategy of flooding the market will fail if we don’t manage to build enough houses.
What other effective solutions are being explored by the government? Let’s platform those.
The government isn’t really exploring other options.
Trudeau (to his credit) talked about limiting capital gains exemptions over 250k (which could take some money out of housing), but the Liberals, CPC, and NDP allowed that to die.
There hasn’t been talk of a tax on home sales over a certain value.
There hasn’t been serious talk of cracking down on money laundering or mortgage fraud.
The Liberal and CPC have both talked about limiting municipal regulations as a way for developers to (somehow) build cheaper buildings.
Part of the problem is traditional suburban zoning tends to be too expensive in the long run for cities to maintain due to lots of infrastructure and low density for taxation. Moving away from prioritizing suburbia and focusing government efforts more on density could spur the changes we need and build more homes from the government investment. It could add more housing while minimizing the additional infrastructure costs the city has to take on to accommodate the housing.