urbanclient
Active Member
The poor see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires? It doesn't matter if they will benefit today. What matters is they might benefit tomorrow.
Last edited:
|
|
|
- Thread starter animatronic
- Start date
The poor see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires? It doesn't matter if they will benefit today. What matters is they might benefit tomorrow.
evandyk
Senior Member
"Doug Ford is making that big house in Brampton cheaper!" is all they see and hear.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Families don't want to buy shoe-box condos, however. So those one-bedrooms or studio shoe-boxes will remain unsold.Pre-budget announcement by the Ford gov't than in conjunction with the Feds, sales tax will now be waived on all new home purchases (not limited to first time buyers), and the relief extended, in full to $1.5M purchases, and phased out above that.
Ontario Newsroom
news.ontario.ca
From the above:
View attachment 724391
View attachment 724392
View attachment 724394
****
Three Words:
1) Dumb
2 and 3) Moral Hazard
Absurd. This is literally going to cost the treasuring billions to give a $130,000 subsidy to someone who can otherwise afford a 1.5M residence.
For simplicity's sake if every beneficiary got the max, this would help 17,000 upper middle income and wealthy people buy a home.
For the same money, we could cash-finance 3,000 new rent-geared-to-income units, 2,000 for singles, 1,000 for families and and house 5,000 people who are currently in shelters.
Instead, we're going to go further in to debt, to help the already affluent and housed.
evandyk
Senior Member
They'll sell at some point, if even to these guys. They'll be on the rental market, since there's still healthy rental demand in Toronto.
www.thestar.com
Nobody wants to buy these new condos — but this company wants to spend $1.3 billion on them. Here’s why
Toronto-based High Art Capital’s new fund is looking to convert the condos to long-term rentals, delivering roughly 2,200 units in the near term, the firm says.
www.thestar.com
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
Graduation ceremonies should steer clear of 'divisive or contentious issues,' says provincial memo
‘Ceremonies are expected to remain focused solely on recognizing student achievement,’ memo says
Ontario’s education minister is telling school boards to ensure their upcoming graduation ceremonies don’t express any “political views” or “engage in divisive or contentious issues of any kind,” according to an internal memo obtained by CBC News.
The memo, signed by Education Minister Paul Calandra and addressed to educators and school board staff, warns failure by school boards to meet those expectations “poses a real risk to student well-being.”
“I will not hesitate to consider every tool available to me in the Education Act to ensure that students are always put first,” Calandra's memo said.
“At minimum, boards must ensure that staff are held to the same standards expected of students,” the memo said.
Asked why the letter was sent to educators and staff, Emma Testani, press secretary for Calandra’s office, said “the letter speaks for itself.”
Last year, a high school student in Ottawa was told to stay home after making pro-Palestinian remarks in her graduation speech.
Some students voice concerns
Jayden Deskes, a Grade 12 student from Hamilton who was attending a protest against OSAP cuts outside of Queen's Park Tuesday, said the memo is concerning.
"I’m an Indigenous student [and] my mom is beading my grad cap. I’m worried that might be something that’s seen as divisive or political,” said Deskes.
“I’m worried that students won’t be able to represent what their own culture would be … that might [impact] a lot of social justice groups within schools.”
Aowyn Savage, also a Grade 12 student from Hamilton who attended the protest, called the memo "suppressive of young voices."
"I think it’s a way to make it so that people can’t talk about their political opinions and share what they believe.”
Liezel Navarrete, a Grade 12 student at Father Michael McGivney Catholic Academy in Markham, said the memo's message is "devastating."
"What this is implying is that if you are a student speaking at your graduation ... if you have something that's important to you [to say], you're not allowed to say it," Navarrete told CBC Radio's Here and Now Tuesday.
"If you're a valedictorian and you're representing your class, you're not able to represent the student perspective that you all collectively feel if you're also, at the same time, being told that what you feel is not what you should say out loud."
Letter is 'out of touch': education union
Martha Hradowy, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), called Calandra's letter "out of touch."
"Teachers and education workers do not need lectures from the Minister about professionalism," she said in a written statement.
"They demonstrate it every day through the time, care and effort they put into making milestones like graduation ceremonies meaningful for students and families."
Dan MacLean, the TDSB trustee for Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, said the memo's language was "harsh."
"Staff are well aware of their responsibilities to be professional and apolitical," he said.
MacLean also said that given the Ontario government's recent changes to OSAP and student protests in response to them, the government "may be a little more concerned with what the students may have to say."
In a statement posted on social media, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) said the memo "ignores the realities of students' lived experiences."
"Educators are highly trained professionals committed to student well-being, equity, and human rights and do not require heavy-handed directives to uphold these values," the statement said.
The memo also comes after a new Ontario law gave the education minister more power to take over school boards.
A total of eight school boards are currently under provincial supervision, according to the provincial government's website.
nightstreak
Senior Member
Doug's really hitting his autocratic stride.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH breeeeath HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
Well, the army is controlled by the federal government so he won't be able to send the literal army. But man if Crombie runs in Mississauga, what a shitshow that will be... Parrish and Crombie already HATE each other, and clearly Ford is egging that beef on... *sigh* get me off this ride!
PL1
Senior Member
His contempt for municipalities and politicians is disgusting
guavadelic
Active Member
The commentary/analysis on this has been that this measure would make more construction financially feasible and increase housing starts, thus increasing housing supply and put a dent on housing affordability challenges for the middle class.
urbanclient
Active Member
Yes, but that sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors for what will ultimately be a demand-side subsidy. Without diving into edge cases, I think most of us understand this to have little impact on supply. Housing supply tends to be inelastic in Ontario, i.e. builders can't build more homes quickly in response to increased demand.
"[...] The extra government money was absorbed into higher home prices almost immediately. [...] Giving people money pushes up home prices if you can’t build more housing."
https://opencouncil.ca/demand-side-housing-policies/
Canada already has a much higher percentage of the workforce in construction than the US. It's hard to see how more workers can go into construction to boost housing supply, not to mention capital and cost constraints.
The real solution is supply-side policy change, and somehow solving the inefficiency problem plaguing Canadian industries:
"Labour productivity growth, measured as real gross output per worker, declined by a cumulative 37.3% from 2001 to 2023—an average decrease of 2.1% per year—in the residential construction industry."
Labour productivity actually decreased from 2001 to 2023. Policies favouring a race to the bottom for cheap labour tend to harm long-term productivity.
Last edited:
zang
Senior Member
Just you watch, the number of new units will actually decrease, new home prices will go up to just below the $1.5m mark, and REITs will buy up at least half of the units.
Construction companies have spent the last decade gaming the market and pushing up prices by intentionally stifling supply.
We cannot rely on private money to do what’s in the best interests of the public. They will always do whatever will make their wallets fatter.
Municipalities (because Carney and Ford governments aren’t likely to do it) need to form construction crews and start building homes in the public interest and sell them at cost.
Add full prohibitions on corporate and landlord ownership as well as no resale for let’s say 10 years, outside of provable financial hardship and only to be sold then back to the municipality at the original price + the delta of inflation. New homes, strictly for those who aren’t going to try and turn a profit from them.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Let me say two things in response to that.
1) I agree with @urbanclient above.
2) Horses$#t
(not laying that on you, just on the claim by others)
It may stimulate some construction at the margins; but the potential supply bump, at the outer margins is not enough to put longer downward pressure on prices.
When you look at the dates to which this applies..........its meant to soak up existing glut, and bale investors and developers out in some measure.
The assured dates to which this applies ensures it will do little to nothing for new starts. But if we took the most optimistic view....It represents a supply boost that might have downward pressure of ~5% attached.
But it really isn't meant to do that, its meant to put a floor under existing prices, if not push them up a bit !
Still, if you got lucky, you get a 5% short-term discount in raw price..........fine, that benefit will flow entirely to the relatively well off and do nothing for the unhoused/homeless, the underhoused (accommodation smaller than needed, or poorly situated to match budget) or those truly cut out of the housing market.
Assuming a 4-year distribution of new units. Your maximum bump to supply is ~12,000 units per year and change {I think quite a bit less)
But that assumes no existing stock qualifies. My superficial read suggests that it would, if it hasn't been previously occupied/sold.
****
From: https://news.ontario.ca/assets/files/20260325/2eefe6f1395d191fdd2d4192e7bc685f.pdf
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Superstar
...why do I always get the feeling that's really saying, "Views that don't support the sitting government are political. Views that are supportive however are A-okay"?
christiesplits
Senior Member
Budget Day in Ontario.
The full PDF of the budget is here: https://budget.ontario.ca/2025/pdf/2025-ontario-budget-en.pdf
The full PDF of the budget is here: https://budget.ontario.ca/2025/pdf/2025-ontario-budget-en.pdf
81-717
Active Member
^Why does the document mention investing $758M for Line 2 as if it's only being done now, when it's supposed to be old news at this point, with the province having pitched in the 758M back in 2023/2024, and the Feds (finally) last year?