94
submitted 11 months ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/canada@lemmy.ca
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] justhach@lemmy.world 50 points 11 months ago

Just a reminder that when given the choice of building afforable housing or paying a fine, every single developer in Montreal elected to pay a fine.

Developers. Can. Not. Be. Counted. On. To. Fix. The. Housing. Crisis.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 30 points 11 months ago

How does the saying go? Something like For the rich, fines are just part of the cost of doing business

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago

If the fine is less than the profit then it’s the cost of doing business

[-] psvrh@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

If the fine is tax-deductible, it's even better!

[-] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

This isn't necessarily that bad, I think the city just wasn't ready to step in and build them themselves with the funds.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Where's the logic in that?

Houses are like cars. When you build an expensive house (or car) for someone who is rich, they leave a lower-cost used home (or car) behind, available to be filled by someone who is not so well off. The more 'unaffordable' homes you build, the more affordable homes come onto the market when the people leave their old home to move into the new home.

But the fine means that developers have to limit themselves to only the most profitable houses, which means the still pretty profitable houses, but not attractive enough once the fine is paid, go by the wayside. And, therefore, fewer affordable homes come onto the market.

Was council trying to make housing even less accessible?

[-] LeafOnTheWind@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Ah yes, trickle down house-enomics.

[-] nik282000@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Not enough people say this, fuck Regan!

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Regan? What? Are you struggling to spell (Will) Rogers? It is he who coined 'trickle down economics' – as a joke – and it was in reference to Hoover. Regan enters the picture nowhere. He has no connection to trickle down, housing in Montreal, or anything to do with Canada at all.

[-] nik282000@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Ronald Reagan's economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics" by opponents, included large tax cuts and were characterized as trickle-down economics.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Characterized by who? Trickle down economics isn't an actual thing, just a joke that made fun of Hoover's engineering background making him familiar with water tricking down, but not realizing that money 'trickles up'.

[-] LeafOnTheWind@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Trickle down economics was not a joke to Reagan (publicly anyway). His plan called for massive tax cuts to the rich so their growth would "trickle down" to everyone else through more jobs from business expansion.

A remarkably stupid idea that has only worked out for the rich...

[-] Kichae@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

Yes, of course! If we just build luxury housing for the rich, the rich will just vacate their current luxury housing (for the rich), which will open it up for someone else! Who will be able to afford luxury housing (for the rich).

This is the thinking of someone who's never struggled to pay a bill in their life.

[-] HLB217@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Houses are like cars. When you build an expensive house (or car) for someone who is rich, they leave a lower-cost used home (or car) behind, available to be filled by someone who is not so well off.

Except they hang on to the lower cost used home and rent it out at extortionate prices to help pay for the expensive house.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago

Keep those prices high so low-density shit is phased out.

Now ensure it's harder to insure a word building against fire.

Now give a tax break that encourages the recycling of land-hoarder bungalows into shared space with high-density housing. Tax break increases with proxity to rail transit.

Now increase property tax to penalize hoarded ornamental (not agricultural) land.

That's a good start.

[-] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago

Tax fucking speculators like the tons of Canadians that continue to fuck over other Canadians.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

If this were happening under Poilievre instead of Trudeau then he would take away funding from municipalities. That would show these developers

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

I mean I hate Poilievre but he's not wrong there. Municipalities are a big part of the reason they're not building.

I follow my local municipal gov't closely. They talk a good game about housing, but their actions speak louder. A developer wanted to build two huge towers on a parking lot, next to an existing huge tower of the same size. City staff said no, 39 storeys is too tall for the urban core of Hamilton, 4 storeys is too tall for a pedestal.

A charity wanted to convert an underused park into a tiny-home homeless shelter. City council said no.

Before the pandemic, developers wanted to sprawl out more suburbia. City council ran a referendum. The public said no.

Now, you can disagree with any of those three solutions -- personally I strongly hate building more suburban sprawl. But if you block all 3, the evidence shows you just don't want housing, regardless of what you say.

At every turn, municpal governments say "yes, we want more housing, but not this housing".

Interest rates have jumped, which means buildings aren't as profitable to make. The way to get back some of that profitability is to make them bigger. If a 10 storey building won't best the cost of the loans taken to build it under the new lending conditions, a 20 storey building probably will. And the municipality says "no".

I hate Poilievre. I care about trans people. I care about climate change. But he's the only one talking about giving city governments the ball-busting they deserve.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

He absolutely is wrong there; municipalities can’t reach housing targets if they only get funding after reaching them

He also wants those targets to increase by 15% every year

And having municipalities no longer able to support their current populations isn’t going to entice them to bring in more people

His housing plan also gets rid of transit because municipalities have to have an undisclosed (read the bill) amount of occupied high density housing at every stop. People use transit to get to work/stores/entertainment not to get from apartment block to apartment block

The whole point of his bill/policy is to have unreasonable asks so he can get rid of funding. I don’t think anyone is dumb enough to think it will accomplish anything

As for Hamilton the developer was told to amend their proposal but didn’t submit it until after the deadline

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

He absolutely is wrong there; municipalities can’t reach housing targets if they only get funding after reaching them

Municipalities can absolutely reach housing targets, they just have to stop saying "no" to infill developers. The Hamilton example is not spurious - the only reason it's going through this multi-year delay is because the building is too tall and needs to get a variance for being too tall.

The concept of "too tall for downtown Hamilton" is absurd on its face. Cities should have amended their official plans years ago and streamlined approvals for large, high-density infill developments. They choose not to. So they must be forced to do so.

It's not just reptilian amoral for-profit developers facing this, it's the heroic affordable housing builders too. You'll hear the same complaints from Housing Now TO and Jen Keesmaat.

Watch this video presentation at Toronto City Hall by Mark Richardson of Housing Now:

https://mastodon.social/@Pxtl/110300343308877005 (yes, that is my mastodon)

"$20 billion dollar intersection in Forest Hill; somebody said that should be a 7-storey and 70-unit building in 2018. How...where did that number come from? Somebody picked that number. Because it "conformed to the current planning policy for Forest Hill"

he explains it very clearly: the housing crisis is a self-inflicted wound caused by municipal governments. He and his org have an endless list of buildings they want to construct, and they're being told "no" by city hall.

Want to increase units by 15% per year? Stop saying no.

I know it's creepy to see somebody defend home-builders, since most developers are crooks. You know why most developers are crooks? Because municipal governments made building housing a crime.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Okay, let’s take Ford’s target of 1.5m over 10 years or 150 000 a year

Next year it would be 172500, followed by 198375, followed by 228131 and so on

As we know it’s illegal for municipalities to operate in the red. So how high are your property taxes going to be to accommodate that when the city loses funding to cover those costs because they don’t make it

A realistic solution for other levels of government to intervene would be to build housing on land that they own

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

Interest rate spikes killed a lot of projects, and municipal stonewalling keeps the developers riding a pretty thin edge of profitability. These are for-profit businesses, of course when the loan repayments are going to eliminate all profit, they're going to back off on their plans.

Imagine you're planning a building - you design a massively profitable but huge building, but then years of bickering with city hall shrinks the building and raises your carrying costs until it's just a modest win. Still fine. You get the permits and then interest rates jump. Now if you go forwards, the project will be deep in the red. The city won't let you go back to your original huge form of the project without another multi-year fight.

If you sit on it until interest rates go down again, you're not building. If you get started on a new application for a more profitable building, you're not building.

You don't have to listen to the dead-eyed mobbed-up reptiles of the for-profit housing industry to see this, listen to progressive affordable housing builders like Jen Keesmaat or Housing Now TO and they'll tell you the same thing.

[-] Rocket@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

As long as the price keeps falling,

Why would you develop new housing?

If a job paid $80,000 per year in 2022 and now only pays $65,000 per year, and is likely to only pay $50,000 by next year, are you going to be rushing to develop your skills in that field?

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Inflation and the Bank of Canada's response to it, has been the main reason for the slowdown, according to David Macdonald, a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

Canada could need upwards of 3.5 million new homes built by the end of the decade, according to Aled ab Iorwerth, deputy chief economist with the CMHC.

He says Canada is nowhere near on track to meet that goal, and that means most Canadians, particularly those in major cities, will continue to struggle to afford housing.

"It's not only that the construction cost goes up, it's not only that the rates are up, it's not only that people can't afford their daily food and shelter – it is the fact that the government has not figured out how to streamline the process (to approve developments)."

The federal government recently waived the GST/HST on the construction of rental housing in Canada, prompting some developers to say they would add thousands of units in the coming years.

But Shaun Hildebrand, president of Urbanation, a consulting and research firm that focuses on condo and rental markets in Ontario, disagrees.


The original article contains 819 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Unfortunate to see from the developers.

[-] healthetank@lemmy.ca -4 points 11 months ago

Developers costs go up if they try to make houses faster- increased labour costs by increased demands, plus decreased housing costs when they go to sell.

Why would they make homes faster?

[-] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Why would buyer king sell more burgers?

this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
94 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

7106 readers
237 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