You are not only right, but foreshadowing the astroturfing all of that area is going to receive. Regulating real estate is the only answer and then we’ll talk about building more. We know this to be true:
Limit ownership to either you live on the property and 1 more house.
Corporations and all of its subsidiaries are only allowed owning for renting above a certain amount of people. For example, they couldn’t own a duplex, they could only own above a 10 unit rental or something. Not sure what that number would be.
Airbnb’s only allowed if the owners live on property and one more spot. No corporations unless they become a hotel and follow those regulations.
Corporations have lots of money and so a lot of people are told that it’s the “nimby’s” who aren’t letting things get built and that “Trickle Down Housing works!”. There is a slight chance Trickle Down Housing would work in 30 to 40 years, but regulating real estate is the fastest, easiest and best for the people who live there. So basically, the people who want more and more money.
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 think you’re probably right about the numbers, that’s definitely a discussion to be had. I originally said 30 on the units but there are units that I walk past a lot and they have about 10. I couldn’t see a small business owner owning that, but I guess they could.
Living in Seattle and watching it be demolished was hard to watch, I’ve accepted it now. We’re still fast becoming San Francisco where you have the rich and then no one to work there, it’s not a good situation. Regulating the corporations is the only way to begin truly fixing it, imo. All of the best cities in the world are becoming disneyland and nothing behind the curtain.
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.
The corporations that want to rent out the housing as airbnb’s and taking away rental units for the people who live and work there?
Or maybe the corporations that price fix their rental properties so that the rent never goes down like they did/do in Seattle?
Or maybe you’re talking about the condos in high rises that buy their way out of providing affordable housing and then won’t lower their rent, but rather keep it unrented so they can get a tax break or whatever?
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.
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.
Because in America that usually becomes a “place to put the poors” and becomes a place you can’t go to unless you’re one of them. Cabrini Green in Chicago started out as a wonderful thing to get people off the street and turned into a hell hole. It was also a great location that was rightfully torn down and became luxury condos. That is what America is.
How about co-op housing supply, for people who want to live in communities and not live in an investment?
Now you’re talking, I’ll add that to the list of awesome ideas.
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?
Because zoning is there for a reason and that is a developer’s dream request. They would put high rises filled with luxury condos next to your garage if they could. See Houston.
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.
That’s not the reason, lol. You might want to do some research on that.
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. 
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.
That’s absolutely not true, see the following neighborhoods: Fremont, Queen Anne, University, Capitol Hill, West Seattle, etc.
You’re obviously not reading anything I’m saying and promoting the buzzwords of the developer community so this is my last response to you.
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
You are not only right, but foreshadowing the astroturfing all of that area is going to receive. Regulating real estate is the only answer and then we’ll talk about building more. We know this to be true:
Those sound like better ideas to prioritize to me. Besides political machinations, what reasons are there not to implement those types of policies?
Corporations have lots of money and so a lot of people are told that it’s the “nimby’s” who aren’t letting things get built and that “Trickle Down Housing works!”. There is a slight chance Trickle Down Housing would work in 30 to 40 years, but regulating real estate is the fastest, easiest and best for the people who live there. So basically, the people who want more and more money.
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.
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 think you’re probably right about the numbers, that’s definitely a discussion to be had. I originally said 30 on the units but there are units that I walk past a lot and they have about 10. I couldn’t see a small business owner owning that, but I guess they could.
Living in Seattle and watching it be demolished was hard to watch, I’ve accepted it now. We’re still fast becoming San Francisco where you have the rich and then no one to work there, it’s not a good situation. Regulating the corporations is the only way to begin truly fixing it, imo. All of the best cities in the world are becoming disneyland and nothing behind the curtain.
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.
Don’t slow it down for who?
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.
Because in America that usually becomes a “place to put the poors” and becomes a place you can’t go to unless you’re one of them. Cabrini Green in Chicago started out as a wonderful thing to get people off the street and turned into a hell hole. It was also a great location that was rightfully torn down and became luxury condos. That is what America is.
Now you’re talking, I’ll add that to the list of awesome ideas.
Because zoning is there for a reason and that is a developer’s dream request. They would put high rises filled with luxury condos next to your garage if they could. See Houston.
That’s not the reason, lol. You might want to do some research on that.
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. 
That’s absolutely not true, see the following neighborhoods: Fremont, Queen Anne, University, Capitol Hill, West Seattle, etc.
You’re obviously not reading anything I’m saying and promoting the buzzwords of the developer community so this is my last response to you.
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.