News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

First off, TCHC and its predecessors (City Home and MTHA) became a very large landlord and supplier of housing from post WWII through the late 70s; its a concscious choice, since then, that we have shifted away from that model; and that homelessness has rocketed upwards, because the private market cannot meet the needs of those on Social Assistance or even working minimum wage jobs.

Homelessness skyrocketing is a rather recent problem. There was way less homelessness and fewer tent cities before COVID. And that has come largely because of shortages in housing and skyrocketing rents, driven by the surge in immigration and higher interest rates.


The math just doesn't work; the public sector needs to be the provider of low income housing, unless, we're going to triple assistance rates and raise the minimum wage by at least 50%.

The former seems more likely than the latter; though I'd be content enough to support the latter. (phased-in and with some targeted relief for the most affected industries)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We are never going back to the 70s and fixating on this is just avoidance of other solutions, all for the sake of ideology.

Our market used to provide housing for those that were marginal. That's what all those cheap and crappy motels did all through the 80s, 90s and even 00s. Yeah, they weren't officially housing. But they were better than tents.

Also, the fixation on homelessness is also another real problem for the left. We see both the Liberals and NDP talk about homelessness a lot. But the public is focused on housing affordability, mostly for the middle and working class, not as much on homelessnes. If you only (or mostly) care about the homeless or those on welfare that tells people you don't care about their housing situation until they become homeless or end up on welfare. Not a great message.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. We are never going back to the 70s and fixating on this is just avoidance of other solutions, all for the sake of ideology.

I'm not a partisan or an ideologue, I'm a pragmatist. The Vienna model of public housing is self-sustaining, and it costs less per person to house people than any market-driven solution in North American.

It is therefore the best choice.

I'm not looking backwards, we never employed the Vienna model in the past, we built segregated rent-geared-to-income housing for the most part; with some notable exceptions in co-ops.

The Vienna model is very much similar to co-ops, but the construction of new units is driven by a state enterprise.

All funded out of a housing tax that is essentially similar to the Land Transfer Tax here. But where Toronto puts those funds in general revenues, Vienna allocates them directly to new, mixed-income, self-sustaining housing, where the market rents subsidize the affordable and deeply affordable rents.

Also, the fixation on homelessness is also another real problem for the left. We see both the Liberals and NDP talk about homelessness a lot. But the public is focused on housing affordability, mostly for the middle and working class, not as much on homelessnes. If you only (or mostly) care about the homeless or those on welfare that tells people you don't care about their housing situation until they become homeless or end up on welfare. Not a great message.

I care about broader housing affordability and did not argue against solutions that address that market; only that there is a role for the public sector in seeing that people who will never afford market rents are also housed.

I've discussed extensively (as have you) the need to drop, significantly the number of TFWs and Foreign Students in Canada as one key step to see middle-class rents and ownership costs begin to recede.

Beyond that, I favour outlawing the short-term rental industry entirely (as other jurisdictions are doing with BC moving in that direction), as this would quickly return thousands of units to the rental market.

I've also advocated an end to pre-construction sales for condos, as this would instantly shift the market in favour of purpose-built rental, and away from investor boxes, and a return 1970s-style CMHC-financed new rental construction in exchange for certain affordability targets, which could be broad ( all units at or below 85% of current market rent in exchange for a huge break on interest costs), with that number secured for a period of time (ie. 25 years); or it could more niche, 25% of units to be available at 50% of market rent for the same period.

On ownership, the industry simply cannot exceed the rate of construction of the last few years for the foreseeable future; the labour shortages and even management expertise are too thinly spread as it is.

I am for measures that will mitigate that with time, but with tens of thousands of trades set to retire in the next 5-7 years, we'll be lucky to hold even.

Beyond that, eventually, interest rate relief will play a role.

Some discussion needs to be had about outlawing variable rate mortgages, and mortgages that don't secure an interest rate for at least 5 years, unless the loan can be fully paid off in less. Many countries do not allow this type of financing for the obvious reason that its too easy for people to get under water, and that can be quite destabilizing.

****

We also need to raise lower-middle and middle income wages, this is addressed both by raising minimum wage and by curtailing labour supply in many sectors. (notably from TFWs and Foreign students).
 
I'm not a partisan or an ideologue, I'm a pragmatist.

You might see yourself this way. But let's be honest. Have you ever seen a statist solution you didn't support? Even in this current discussion, you jumped right to lack of public housing and completely forgot about the massive immigrant surge. If every solution you prefer generally falls into the same corner, that's an ideological POV whether you're willing to admit it or not. And it's alright. We all have our biases, formed by our own experiences.

I care about broader housing affordability and did not argue against solutions that address that market; only that there is a role for the public sector in seeing that people who will never afford market rents are also housed.

I don't doubt that you care about affordability. But in an article about Parisien social housing, which serves well beyond those who would be homeless, your lead concern was homelessness. I see this same instinct routinely across NDP and Liberal discourse. And it's going to get them destroyed in the next election. Put it this way, it's kinda like when some conservatives talk about public transit being exclusively for the poor and infirm. You know that's out of touch with reality.
 
Europe's latest large-scale climate initiative which seemed like a sure thing to pass just days ago is apparently now shelved indefinitely.


This, on the heels of massive protests by farmers; the key move then being that Hungary changed its vote. (to against).

While this was not a vote on carbon tax, as such, it does mirror that issue in some respect.
 
Simon Harris has been confirmed as the new leader of Irish political party Fine Gael, paving the way for the 37-year-old to become Ireland's youngest taoiseach (prime minister).

Mr Harris, an Irish government minister, was the only candidate to seek the party leadership.

He is replacing Leo Varadkar, who announced on Wednesday he was stepping down as party leader and taoiseach.

 
This, on the heels of massive protests by farmers; the key move then being that Hungary changed its vote. (to against).

I am not surprised about this.

Outside Budapest, the Hungarian economy is driven by manufacturing and agriculture. Go anywhere in Budapest and you will find stands selling locally grown fruits and vegetables.

When I was in Tarnok (A village just outside Budapest) just last year there were shops with baskets of potatoes, melons and other vegetables out front.

The point I am making is that changes not benefitting farmers is a hard sell there.
 
Hungary has been a massive winner in the transition to EVs. Surprising they wouldn't want to continue the pressure on others with climate policy.
 
Hungary has been a massive winner in the transition to EVs. Surprising they wouldn't want to continue the pressure on others with climate policy.

It was a very comprehensive bill/strategy beyond emissions. It was looking at requiring up to 20% natural area in each country, which would mean re-wilding farmland in many cases.

Not sure if that impacts Hungary in particular, but a lot of the opposition came from farmers.
 

Back
Top