this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
111 points (96.6% liked)
Canada
7106 readers
395 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Regions
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social & Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It seems to me that increasing supply alone is not going to cut it. Are there not a bunch of financial groups with nearly bottomless wallets that enable them to afford to buy up any amount of property to rent or flip at any price they want, even if it means some properties sit on the market empty for a long time? This government policy seems analogous to having people with $100 dollars sitting at a no-limit poker table with a bunch of billionaires who can afford to endlessly put you all in on every bet, so they always bet more than you have and then the government comes in and says they will allow for more games to be played. Wouldn’t the policy be pointless if you don’t also limit the number of games the wealthy players can play?
I think personal ownership can go higher than just two properties without problems. The issue isn't everybody owning five properties, but a small handful owning thousands.
Following that, limiting corporations' ownership is definitely a top priority. Only owning housing with 30 units or more would probably help a lot. 10 units is just too little I think, as that's just a conjoined townhouse, which can easily be personally owned and operated. 30 is more like a really small low rise.
AirBnB is definitely an issue as well, and is probably the hardest to regulate. Though definitely not the hardest to pass (that's the corporations one). I'm not sure what can be done with it, as there's already laws in place regarding hotels. Maybe force the company to register all BnB locations to a government database in real time? Though with enough housing, I think this will be an insignificant issue. Especially combined with the other changes. BnBing a spare room is quite a different thing compared to an entire unit/house on a permanent basis.
I like the idea of progressively higher taxes. Second house might have a modestly higher tax, but the third will be a steep increase and it only gets higher from there. Anyone who truly wants/needs multiple homes can have em, but they're gonna pay through the teeth for them (which we can invest into building more homes).
We have such a shortage that IMO any extra home ownership is a problem. But it's the kind of problem that I don't think is a concern if they pay sufficient taxes on it. It's the kind of problem that we can largely throw money at to fix.
Personally, I have no issues with things like summer homes, or having a second property you rent out for some money on the side.
The first is typically somewhere that having property is purely a luxury rather than a neccessity, so as long as it's not being done in another large city or something, it's not that much of a big deal. Especially so if the government isn't on the hook for utilities.
For the latter, as long as the number of properties being rent out, and that the renting is done properly, it's not a big deal either. The government already has regulations on rentals anyways, though I do wonder how well they're enforced. Either way, while I do agree that excesses here is an issue, one or two properties utilized like this isn't a problem, even if thousands of people do it in a single city.
Please no, don’t stop building supply until we get the demand side just right. We also massively lack supply, with the lowest housing per capita in the G7. It takes years to build supply. It’s insane that people want to slow that down!
When are people going to understand it’s both? What makes housing such a “good investment” is that we don’t build enough of it for the people we have. Investors aren’t snatching up affordable housing in rural Arkansas because they have way more supply. We should absolutely deal with investors, make their lives miserable, but we ALSO need supply.
How about non-market housing supply, like the spacious comfortable middle class condos that Scandinavian countries provide? Vienna is also a model for government owned housing.
How about co-op housing supply, for people who want to live in communities and not live in an investment?
How about we free up zoning like they do in Japan, where you can buy a spacious new detached SFH in the middle of Tokyo for a fraction of the price of Toronto?
Do you know why the last housing bubble popped in Canada? Because we had a massive oversupply of condos and homes relative to demand. Being against supply is absolutely delusional.
It’s because public housing in the US is a ghetto to segregate poor people and undesirables. On the Scandinavian model, non-market and market housing are mixed together. Rich and poor live next to each other. These are highly successful.
Are you a NIMBY? Our zoning is horrible. It is mathematically impossible to reach our climate goals if we maintain the terrible zoning laws that we have.
You also totally misunderstand why we build tall expensive towers. It’s BECAUSE we don’t allow middle density in SFH areas. Please read about the “missing middle”. Both tall towers and SFH are symptoms of the same disease.
You might want to actually read about the last housing bubble. When the bubble finally burst, people couldn’t sell their homes and vacancies were high. That’s also why the government stopped building non-market housing. They thought we had built too much. 
If you think all the tenets of good urbanism from the academic and progressive community are just “buzzwords of the developer community”, then you are in the grips of an ideological NIMBYism.
Low supply is an empirical fact. Vacancies are low throughout the country, and we have less housing per capita than almost all of our peers. Views like yours do not take the lack of housing seriously enough.
Out of interest, what impact do you think zoning regulations play in all this? @PeleSpirit, care to comment as well?
Zoning plays an enormous role. The Lower Mainland is one of the densest regions in Canada, and it has a fraction of the density of virtually all European countries, even mountainous and rural Switzerland. Our urban planning is sprawly and terrible.
Even ignoring housing supply, if you want walkable livable cities, low transportation costs, low environmental impact, and high quality of life, then we should seriously rethink our zoning and urban planning. The consensus on here against more supply, which is also against better zoning and more density, is seriously mind boggling.
Interesting. I was thinking that if there were more openness to mixing zoning for housing and commercial then this would make room to put in housing in the dense areas you were talking about.
Those sound like better ideas to prioritize to me. Besides political machinations, what reasons are there not to implement those types of policies?
Everyone who is making money by not implementing these policies is peeling off some of it to keep the policies that make them the money in place.
Supply and demand control prices. Period. Adding supply will only fail to control prices if demand keeps rising. And if buyer demand keeps rising to keep up with prices? It would suck, but there's actually a silver lining to that: Rent goes down then.
Remember, now that we're punishing vacant units, every investment unit must be rented out. So as the investors make a mad dash to build and buy our endlessly-rising housing units, more and more inventory gets dumped onto the rental market.
Now, there's obvious downsides to this story, I'm not going to pretend the "own nothing and be happy" end is ideal. But it's better than the "own nothing and live in a fucking tent" ending.
No, market failures exist. It’s not all supply and demand. The cartoon economic world of libertarians is not reality.
That said, we do have a supply problem. Vacancy is essentially zero in Canadian cities, and that’s not true in more affordable housing markets like the US or Japan.
Huh? Supply and demand is an observation of human behaviour. Market failure is equally observable through the supply and demand lens.
Well obviously you also need to increase demand. Without that, most Canadians will remain out of the market. The hope is that more home options will encourage increased demand.