What we need isn't thousands of detached single family homes, but hundreds of low and mid-rise buildings that each house dozens. There is no system in the world that'll make single detached homes viable for the entire population. Not to mention that suburbs cost the government more in taxes than they take in, whereas high density neighbourhoods with mixed use buildings are second in economic revenue to downtown cores while providing massive amounts of housing.

I work at a place that spends over a million a year in rent because it uses space from the mixed use first floor of a 30 floor condo. There's dozens of stores like mine that do the same in the area. Imagine how much property tax the city gets from this? How much money must pass through each and every store to be able to afford such rent? And how pretty much every store in the area is doing pretty well despite stores just a few blocks away are crumbling and dying off because there's almost no housing in the area unlike this neighbourhood.

People wanting detached homes is fine. But what about us that don't care about such things? Why don't we get an option for a small but low cost home?

The sad thing is that Canada is actually in one of the best places to make it's individual targets compared to most other countries. We're a rich nation with plentiful resources and all our needs are met domestically. Our major sources of greenhouse emissions are well known and clearly defined. They are also things that all have existing solutions to.

Even if complete elimination isn't possible, at least doing enough to reach our climate goals should've been easy. Heating and fossil fuel production account for more than 30% of our CO2 emissions, both things that could be replaced with electricity from clean sources like nuclear.

$300k for a house in downtown Tokyo on average. If they can do it simply by having good zoning laws, anybody can do it with a bit of real work.

Not to mention that Finland is known for having zero homeless thanks to public housing as well. Having a safe place to live is the first step to fixing up your life, as if you're always worried that your possessions can be taken the moment you look away or go do something, there's no way you can take the time to find a job.

Of course $7500 isn't nearly enough for pulling someone out of homelessness.

To be honest, I think it's far more efficient to give the homeless proper homes with locking doors and a respectable level of privacy as well as access to clean water and some sort of minimum level of food (like an infinite supply of rolled oats). It doesn't need to be a big home, even something little better than a capsule hotel room would be enough.

The homeless stay homeless because nobody can pull themselves together if they're constantly stressed trying to figure out how to even reach the next day. It's even worse when you don't have access to a shower to clean yourself up to be presentable enough to get through an interview at even the most unwanted jobs.

It's the single biggest reason why mental illness is so rampant amongst the homeless and few ever repair their lives.

The quality of potatoes feel like it's dropped quite a bit this year.

On top of that, corn's been pretty expensive lately too due to the US redirecting so much of it into biofuel.

On the other hand, mushrooms, vegetables, and fruits have been reasonably cheap, though a lot of the fruit haven't tasted very good.

What a waste of time. Who cares about the name of a street. People focus so much time, energy, and money (not to mention public time energy and money) on things that don't matter when we have real issues that need to be dealt with, and quickly.

How about getting some of the current transit projects fixed up so that they actually finish during our lifetimes? Or fix the housing crisis? Or deal with all the empty office space? This city has countless problems, many from neglect over the decades, and people think that changing the name of a damn street is more important.

People need an ego check.

For those people who are actually wishing for the bubble to burst, remember that's exactly what happened in 2008, and what happened back then. Literally the only people who won were the rich as they just bought out all the property that got severely discounted while other rich people got a massive payday from the government (aka regular Joe's tax dollars) for fucking up. And the bubble simply got restored because those rich people could afford to sit on unproductive products for a decade at a time because they knew that without a constantly increasing supply of housing, the prices will explode again because housing is a requirement, not a luxury.

And the losers was everybody who doesn't make 7 figures or more. People's retirements were crushed, their savings crushed, their existing lives crushed. And the economy was set back for years and inflation skyrocketed for a little while, which never came back down.

And in places where such housing bubbles really burst, Japan hasn't seen any growth for 30 years. They're still in what they all the Lost Generation, because they realized that calling it the Lost Decade was premature and it didn't end in 10 years. We're watching China's housing implode on itself right now with hundreds of thousands of people losing their entire investments and retirement savings. We're watching 80 year olds going back to work so that they don't starve to death while youth unemployment reaches levels so insane that they'll take a job that only pays under the table because the company can't afford to pay minimum wage!

You want a dystopia, you'll get it if the bubble bursts. You'll also get it if the bubble continues to inflate.

So the only solution is to slowly deflate the bubble by increasing housing construction so that it outpaces demand in a controlled manner until the prices come back down to something reasonable, then to continue keeping pace. And for that, we need the political will for both government subsidized housing and a overhaul of zoning laws to allow for mixed-use residential to replace all residential zoning.

Detached single family housing don't belong in major cities, and suburbs shouldn't be subsidized by the downtown core.

Seriously? Wasn't this Ford's idea? Wasn't this all Ford's decision? Wasn't this Ford who did everything? Isn't this about Ford doing political favours for his buddies in real-estate?

Sounds seriously like scapegoating.

A lot of people I know have noticed this. Not just in typical groceries, but in a lot of food products.

Usually they don't know what's going on, but I've heard plenty of complaints about the taste of things they buy. Even weird ones like one beer tasting like a cheaper brand.

I think it's not just the Liberals, but the Conservatives that are at fault. Neither parties have done much of anything when they were in power to help this and other significant stagnation issues over the least two or three decades.

At least for Toronto, the federal and provincial governments had to be punched in the sides to make public transit investments after being forgotten for most of a half century, and even then the new constructions are still quite inadequate and will require at least two more decades of consistent work before things reach a decent level, presuming that other areas don't get worse in the meantime.

It's unfair to just blame the Liberals. All our leading parties suck because they see themselves as invulnerable. They've gotten used to being an oligarchy, and the NPD is no longer scaring them, but instead have become a part of the oligarchy. Layton was great, Mulcair was okay, but Singh is just a puppy following Trudeau. Without someone new (it can be the Rhinoceros Party for all I care) getting a decent number of seats to become a legitimate threat to the oligarchy and make them actually move their asses for real and positive change, I think we're stuck with nothing but corrupt personal interests.

Any solution, no matter how perfect, will take years to implement and have a real effect on housing prices.

That said, it's either a half decade form now with a great policy, or several generations from now with bad policies, so don't give up the fight to have good housing within our lifetimes, as it will transcend elections.

I understand to a degree allowing an increase in pesticide use (though that'll seriously impact the water quality due to runoff), the only thing that the industry needs to do to reduce pesticide residue is to just spray the produce with water.

It's just a way to cheapen out the process at the expense of people's health. And I don't just mean the end shoppers', but also all the industry workers along the way. While I imagine the amount isn't a lot, but an increase in pesticide residue that makes it all the way through the supply chain increases how much the workers are exposed to as they handle the produce.