If he, for example, offer money for provinces to create laws to lock-out Rich people and corporations from houses listed under 1 million, he would be lambasted as meddling in provincial affairs.
To be fair, that’s a pretty lambastable policy idea. In the least the fed govt could be providing funding incentives to municipalities for housing. Only if your poles are absolute inaction and poor policy is it a lose/lose situation.
We see what happens in healthcare: the provinces have their hands out, the feds eventually cough up money, some provinces use it for healthcare, others pocket it and cut provincial taxes. Rince and repeat.
The feds could remove the tax credits on home ownership for houses over a certain price.
There would be a strong incentive to build less expensive housing if mortgage interest wasn’t tax deductible and sellers had to pay capital gains on the full sale priceprofit of the sale.
Edit: I worded that badly. Sellers should pay capital gains taxes on the profit of the sale, not the sale price. Thanks to u/TemporaryBoyfriend for pointing that out.
I’m not sure what tools there are that I’m comfortable with federal government using. Housing seems to me to be largely Municipal problem, but Canada is also a pretty unique place. We have tons of under served communities outside our large cities that could use an influx of industry and citizens.
My fear is that federal housing could end up being like the projects in the US back in the seventies. You also have to convince people that townhouses or apartments are able to support expansion of families.
“An essential part of life in Canada, is living in Canada. Having a place to live cannot become a luxury and economic bargaining chip for the wealthy. It’s a necessity and a cornerstone of the dignity and pride we have in the prosperity of our nation - that when we aspire to our highest ideals, everybody in this country has a seat at the table. This inclusiveness is what makes us who we are. That’s why my government has an extensive action plan for housing, which includes comprehensive liaison projects with all the provinces and cities of this country to make sure that the federal government is doing everything it can to secure the basic human need of housing, and that it is something that is never out of reach for any of our citizens.”
Trudeau is not wrong that housing is primarily a provincial responsibility. That said, he is telling a half truth because the federal government absolutely used to fund social housing and no longer does. What I definitely do not want to see is different levels of government bickering about responsibility while this hugely important issue remains unfixed.
I feel like the article doesn’t address my point very well, though. It uses relative terms like ‘more’ and ‘grown’ to suggest the federal government is taking on a greater role, but it’s measuring from a time where it was doing the least. If the federal government wanted to involve itself in housing it could re-implement the policy is had from the 40’s through the 80’s and directly fund the building of social housing.
Unfortunately since the pervasiveness of neoliberal thought from the Mulroney/Thatcher/Reagan era on, the federal government only likes to act through gaming the system with tax incentives rather than directly making and executing a plan. Every new development has to be created through the filter of making a private entity a profit and we’re all suffering from the end results of that philosophy now.
This is basically true, however, since ratification of the constitution, the feds are more limited in their ability to intrude into provincial jurisdiction.
federal government absolutely used to fund social housing and no longer does.
What are the chances of the provinces accepting the funding again, though? They kicked and screamed just to accept a paltry sum for subsidized childcare. This would be a lot bigger deal than that.
Particularly if you believe the provinces are purposefully creating the situation, as many do.
They’re not taxing the wealthy enough to a) pay for the services we need, and b) stop cash hoarding and (literal) rentier capitalism run rampant. They could raise taxes (income, estate, transfers in- and out of the country) and they could use that money, given to the provinces and municipalities, to invest in public housing at scale.
But they don’t want to, because it would expensive and it would require bold, interventionist economic policy, both of which neoliberal governments don’t do–partly because we’re two generations into policymakers that don’t even think this way, and also because they’re absolutely terrified of any blowback.
So yes, they’re responsible for quite a bit. The provinces and cities own a lot of this two, but all three levels have enough neoliberal orthodoxy and political cowardice to share.
Luxury tax on second/third/etc. homes would be federal jurisdiction, no? Would make it easier to keep track of someone with homes inmultirple provinces anyway.
Close-to-cause solutions have to start at municipalities. Yes, provinces and federal government can help, but municipalities can solve things quicker.
If I had full control in a large city:
Primary mass transit would be expanded to increase the feasible housing areas
Building permit offices and zoning authorities would get a complete overhaul, drastically increasing multi-unit housing in preference to single-family dwellings
A graduated zoning system would be put in place so multi-unit housing was radically increased near mass transit (near 100% of permits). If people want single-family homes, they would have to live further away from transit.
Downtown cores would increase pedestrian-only areas
Tax rates for single-family homes would be increased substantially while condos and townhomes would be seriously reduced.
Basically, make single-family homes less appealing for a variety of reasons.
Yes, provinces and federal government can help, but municipalities can solve things quicker.
Municipalities are a creation of the province. Everything municipalities can do, so can the province. With that, the province can actually get things done quicker here as they can force the changes across the entire province at the same time.
Primary mass transit would be expanded to increase the feasible housing areas
It’s pretty clear that access to mass transit increases the value of homes, sharply. Removing access to mass transit would be the quickest way to see housing nosedive back to affordable levels. Housing has become much more expensive because living in them has improved dramatically over the past couple of decades. Expansion and advancement of mass transit systems is one of features that has contributed to that improved livability. It is a truism that desirable things are more expensive than undesirable things.
The primary cause is that we’ve put a lot of focus on making life, in large cities in particular, around those houses much more livable.
We like to talk about how cheap those city homes were 50+ years ago, allowing you to buy them for a song, but do you remember how awful cities were back then? They were industrial, crime-ridden nightmares. Homes were cheap because nobody wanted them.
Things have changed dramatically over the past 10-20 years. The messy industry has mostly left, often replaced with businesses which provide enjoyable actives (restaurants, shopping, entertainment, etc.). We’ve made great strides in reducing car dependance, improving mass transit and cycling options. Crime has plummeted. The list goes on and on.
AirBNBs, etc. have come into existence for the same reason: People today actually want to be there. That is your primary cause. Desirable things are more expensive than undesirable things. That’s the way it goes.
It’s primarily the municipalities as this is a supply and demand issue, they have the power to end single family exclusionary zoning, incentivize and fast-track new developments to start gently densifying into missing middle townhouses and multiplexes, but don’t because they worry about losing the vote from older generation NIMBY’S. So a lot of cities and towns are waiting for the province or feds to do that for them so they don’t have to take the blame.
What the province and feds can work on the cities really can’t is funding more public housing/co-op’s which is also desperately needed. But as soon as we start creating more supply the cost and demand will go down.
The province can pass domestic speculation taxes. Municipalities are hamstrung in this thanks to the province. The province limits what municipalities can do. The province needs to do more.
Municipalities are a creation of the province, so the province has the same power as municipalities. As this is reported to be a province-wide issue (in most provinces, at least), it does seem like a place for the province to step in.
While I agree that it’s the municipal responsibility to actually get the zoning laws and passing new developments, it’s also the responsibilities of the governments higher up to do something when the lower governments are starting to fuck around.
I imagine that the provincial government is within its rights to force the change of zoning laws so that single residentiary zones no longer exclude townhouses and multiplexes. A simple change that’ll have radical effects in the long term, though admittedly limited effects in the short term.
Both governments are able to simply purchase land and build what the hell they want on them as well. Government subsidized housing doesn’t have to mean that the government has to subsidize the rent, but instead just subsidize the land sale and force multiplexes and low-rise apartments to be built on them.
It’s a brute force method that’ll piss off certain groups, but it’ll make others shower them with praise as the basics of living become affordable.
The provincial government can also pass legislation to stop domestic speculation. If we are being real here we have Canadians doing this to other Canadians. It needs to be stopped. We need to build more AND prevent domestic speculators from buying it all up and sell the stock their currently sitting on.
The only way to stop speculation is either price fixing, or to make sure that there’s enough supply that market forces won’t bring any notable profit to those who treat land like an investment. The first one’s definitely the one that’s not going to help, as it doesn’t address the issue of a lack of housing, but it’s basically the one we’re getting with how subsidized housing is done right now.
Honest, if it’s possible for there to be a law that states the government is required to build and expand high density housing every time the prices go above something like 30% minimum wage, it would be a solid solution. Either that, or the housing bubble crashes so hard that everybody who invested in housing basically loses their entire life savings, like how it’s going on in China right now.
There is also the option of simply making housing something people don’t want to own again. It worked for most of human history. Turn our cities back to how they looked 50-60 years ago and you’ll scare the people away from owning homes pretty quickly. That is easily within the hands of municipal/provincial governments.
Can you explain? From what I know, the reason why housing wasn’t a big issue 60 years ago was because they actually made enough homes so prices were low and pretty much anybody could afford one with 3-5 years’ wages.
end single family exclusionary zoning, incentivize and fast-track new developments to start gently densifying into missing middle townhouses and multiplexes
Why do we even need to do this? The population didn’t magically triple in the last 5 years. We should not have run out of housing this fast, so where did it all go?
Because its a limitation of personal property rights and freedom. Why can’t I as a property owner turn my single family home into a ground level cafe/bakery with 4 units above if I have the capital? It’s a government overstep that limits our supply, artificially increasing demand and cost, and gets in the way of entrepreneurship. Having relative freedom over property usage was only something recently taken away in the last 80 or so years due to racist white flight to the suburbs.
While populations hasn’t tripled in the last 5 or so years, we are experiencing growth pains that investors and speculators are taking advantage of limited supply, and relying on the fact we will have limited supply for some time to come as long as the zoning stays as the status quo.
Cramming people into tiny apartments is not a solution to this problem. Clawing back all the property that’s been gobbled up by “investors” over the last few years, and then selling it at a reasonable price to people who will actually live in it, is a solution to this problem.
And spare me your complaints about “entrepreneurship” and “government overstep”. There’s nothing innovative about house hoarding and rent seeking.
Every working family should have the ability to own a house with a yard for the kids to play in, as my family did when I was young. That’s the minimum acceptable standard of living for a developed nation. Not being packed like sardines into tiny apartments. This is not the Soviet Union.
Then why did real estate prices skyrocket only in the last few years? Why do they affect multi-family housing equally? I’m paying nearly USD2000 per month for one apartment in a building with dozens. 15 years ago, I paid only USD725 per month for a larger apartment in the same area.
Land scarcity is not the problem. It’s a distraction from the problem, no doubt perpetuated by the people causing the problem. Stop letting them deceive you.
And no, there’s nothing comfortable about living under the tyrannical whims of a building manager and not being able to let your pets roam outside. That is a dramatic decrease in quality of life, it is not necessary, and it is not acceptable.
I’m so tired of the provincial and federal governments doing this dance. Sure it’s a provincial responsibility, just like healthcare. But we have several provinces who are actively making things worse. If the feds are going to stand around and let it happen, they might as well be complicit in it.
They used to fund public housing. Ban corporate home ownership, and introduce taxes to make owning multiple homes unprofitable. Then fix our tax brackets so I don’t pay basically the same rate as someone making 10x what I do.
The worst part is there are already places that tax homes beyond the primary home, and the data showed it did exactly what you would expect. All levels of government have failed entire generations over this. it’s insane to me.
Is this property your primary residence? No? Pay more municipal tax.
Is this an income property? Pay more tax to the province to be earmarked for low income housing.
Did you earn a profit on your income property this year? Tax that income at the highest income tax rate.
Is the property owned by a provincially incorporated company? Profits are taxed at the highest corporate rate.
Is the corporation owned by someone who cannot be proven to be a citizen of Canada? Pay federal tax.
I’m just some idiot on the internet, and I can solve this problem by taxing the shit out of behaviour that hurts citizens. Why can’t people in positions of authority do this? Because it’s counter to their interests. Go look at CPC’s PP – where did his double-digit millions of net worth come from?
But we have several provinces who are actively making things worse. If the feds are going to stand around and let it happen
The fed can’t make them better, for the very same reason as when toxic populist trash parties are voted in again they can’t make the rest of us worse. The protection that keeps us from a user-pay hell unfortunately keeps them from actual housing improvements.
The feds have made homes an investment with preferential tax treatment. Screw that. If you’re making over 250k on the sale of your house you can pay full capital gains on the rest of your profit.
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
It’s loose/loose
If he does nothing, he’s evil.
If he, for example, offer money for provinces to create laws to lock-out Rich people and corporations from houses listed under 1 million, he would be lambasted as meddling in provincial affairs.
To be fair, that’s a pretty lambastable policy idea. In the least the fed govt could be providing funding incentives to municipalities for housing. Only if your poles are absolute inaction and poor policy is it a lose/lose situation.
We see what happens in healthcare: the provinces have their hands out, the feds eventually cough up money, some provinces use it for healthcare, others pocket it and cut provincial taxes. Rince and repeat.
The feds could remove the tax credits on home ownership for houses over a certain price.
There would be a strong incentive to build less expensive housing if mortgage interest wasn’t tax deductible and sellers had to pay capital gains on the full
sale priceprofit of the sale.Edit: I worded that badly. Sellers should pay capital gains taxes on the profit of the sale, not the sale price. Thanks to u/TemporaryBoyfriend for pointing that out.
Then it’s just a flat rate tax, not a tax on the ‘gain’ of the ‘capital’.
You’re right, I phrased that wrong. It should be capital gains on the profit.
I’m not sure what tools there are that I’m comfortable with federal government using. Housing seems to me to be largely Municipal problem, but Canada is also a pretty unique place. We have tons of under served communities outside our large cities that could use an influx of industry and citizens.
My fear is that federal housing could end up being like the projects in the US back in the seventies. You also have to convince people that townhouses or apartments are able to support expansion of families.
“An essential part of life in Canada, is living in Canada. Having a place to live cannot become a luxury and economic bargaining chip for the wealthy. It’s a necessity and a cornerstone of the dignity and pride we have in the prosperity of our nation - that when we aspire to our highest ideals, everybody in this country has a seat at the table. This inclusiveness is what makes us who we are. That’s why my government has an extensive action plan for housing, which includes comprehensive liaison projects with all the provinces and cities of this country to make sure that the federal government is doing everything it can to secure the basic human need of housing, and that it is something that is never out of reach for any of our citizens.”
-No Canadian politician ever
Trudeau is not wrong that housing is primarily a provincial responsibility. That said, he is telling a half truth because the federal government absolutely used to fund social housing and no longer does. What I definitely do not want to see is different levels of government bickering about responsibility while this hugely important issue remains unfixed.
deleted by creator
I feel like the article doesn’t address my point very well, though. It uses relative terms like ‘more’ and ‘grown’ to suggest the federal government is taking on a greater role, but it’s measuring from a time where it was doing the least. If the federal government wanted to involve itself in housing it could re-implement the policy is had from the 40’s through the 80’s and directly fund the building of social housing.
Unfortunately since the pervasiveness of neoliberal thought from the Mulroney/Thatcher/Reagan era on, the federal government only likes to act through gaming the system with tax incentives rather than directly making and executing a plan. Every new development has to be created through the filter of making a private entity a profit and we’re all suffering from the end results of that philosophy now.
This is basically true, however, since ratification of the constitution, the feds are more limited in their ability to intrude into provincial jurisdiction.
deleted by creator
What are the chances of the provinces accepting the funding again, though? They kicked and screamed just to accept a paltry sum for subsidized childcare. This would be a lot bigger deal than that.
Particularly if you believe the provinces are purposefully creating the situation, as many do.
They’re not taxing the wealthy enough to a) pay for the services we need, and b) stop cash hoarding and (literal) rentier capitalism run rampant. They could raise taxes (income, estate, transfers in- and out of the country) and they could use that money, given to the provinces and municipalities, to invest in public housing at scale.
But they don’t want to, because it would expensive and it would require bold, interventionist economic policy, both of which neoliberal governments don’t do–partly because we’re two generations into policymakers that don’t even think this way, and also because they’re absolutely terrified of any blowback.
So yes, they’re responsible for quite a bit. The provinces and cities own a lot of this two, but all three levels have enough neoliberal orthodoxy and political cowardice to share.
Luxury tax on second/third/etc. homes would be federal jurisdiction, no? Would make it easier to keep track of someone with homes inmultirple provinces anyway.
Close-to-cause solutions have to start at municipalities. Yes, provinces and federal government can help, but municipalities can solve things quicker.
If I had full control in a large city:
Basically, make single-family homes less appealing for a variety of reasons.
Municipalities are a creation of the province. Everything municipalities can do, so can the province. With that, the province can actually get things done quicker here as they can force the changes across the entire province at the same time.
It’s pretty clear that access to mass transit increases the value of homes, sharply. Removing access to mass transit would be the quickest way to see housing nosedive back to affordable levels. Housing has become much more expensive because living in them has improved dramatically over the past couple of decades. Expansion and advancement of mass transit systems is one of features that has contributed to that improved livability. It is a truism that desirable things are more expensive than undesirable things.
My city politicians are really excited and animated about these exact topics, however I’ll be dead by the time they’re completed.
Wait, it wasn’t the Feds who created the RRSP home buyers plan? The first time home buyers savings account?
Both of which will raise demand and drive prices higher…
How about the favourable tax conditions around homes? Not the Feds?
They’re just lying, plain and simple.
Nope. Supply/Demand. They enabled people to buy into a market they couldn’t otherwise afford, but they’re not the primary cause of it.
You’ll want to direct your ire to the speculators, the Air B&Bers the buy-to-rent-to-buy-to-rent folks. THOSE are your primary causes.
The primary cause is that we’ve put a lot of focus on making life, in large cities in particular, around those houses much more livable.
We like to talk about how cheap those city homes were 50+ years ago, allowing you to buy them for a song, but do you remember how awful cities were back then? They were industrial, crime-ridden nightmares. Homes were cheap because nobody wanted them.
Things have changed dramatically over the past 10-20 years. The messy industry has mostly left, often replaced with businesses which provide enjoyable actives (restaurants, shopping, entertainment, etc.). We’ve made great strides in reducing car dependance, improving mass transit and cycling options. Crime has plummeted. The list goes on and on.
AirBNBs, etc. have come into existence for the same reason: People today actually want to be there. That is your primary cause. Desirable things are more expensive than undesirable things. That’s the way it goes.
It’s primarily the municipalities as this is a supply and demand issue, they have the power to end single family exclusionary zoning, incentivize and fast-track new developments to start gently densifying into missing middle townhouses and multiplexes, but don’t because they worry about losing the vote from older generation NIMBY’S. So a lot of cities and towns are waiting for the province or feds to do that for them so they don’t have to take the blame.
What the province and feds can work on the cities really can’t is funding more public housing/co-op’s which is also desperately needed. But as soon as we start creating more supply the cost and demand will go down.
The province can pass domestic speculation taxes. Municipalities are hamstrung in this thanks to the province. The province limits what municipalities can do. The province needs to do more.
Municipalities are a creation of the province, so the province has the same power as municipalities. As this is reported to be a province-wide issue (in most provinces, at least), it does seem like a place for the province to step in.
While I agree that it’s the municipal responsibility to actually get the zoning laws and passing new developments, it’s also the responsibilities of the governments higher up to do something when the lower governments are starting to fuck around.
I imagine that the provincial government is within its rights to force the change of zoning laws so that single residentiary zones no longer exclude townhouses and multiplexes. A simple change that’ll have radical effects in the long term, though admittedly limited effects in the short term.
Both governments are able to simply purchase land and build what the hell they want on them as well. Government subsidized housing doesn’t have to mean that the government has to subsidize the rent, but instead just subsidize the land sale and force multiplexes and low-rise apartments to be built on them.
It’s a brute force method that’ll piss off certain groups, but it’ll make others shower them with praise as the basics of living become affordable.
The provincial government can also pass legislation to stop domestic speculation. If we are being real here we have Canadians doing this to other Canadians. It needs to be stopped. We need to build more AND prevent domestic speculators from buying it all up and sell the stock their currently sitting on.
The only way to stop speculation is either price fixing, or to make sure that there’s enough supply that market forces won’t bring any notable profit to those who treat land like an investment. The first one’s definitely the one that’s not going to help, as it doesn’t address the issue of a lack of housing, but it’s basically the one we’re getting with how subsidized housing is done right now.
Honest, if it’s possible for there to be a law that states the government is required to build and expand high density housing every time the prices go above something like 30% minimum wage, it would be a solid solution. Either that, or the housing bubble crashes so hard that everybody who invested in housing basically loses their entire life savings, like how it’s going on in China right now.
There is also the option of simply making housing something people don’t want to own again. It worked for most of human history. Turn our cities back to how they looked 50-60 years ago and you’ll scare the people away from owning homes pretty quickly. That is easily within the hands of municipal/provincial governments.
Can you explain? From what I know, the reason why housing wasn’t a big issue 60 years ago was because they actually made enough homes so prices were low and pretty much anybody could afford one with 3-5 years’ wages.
Why do we even need to do this? The population didn’t magically triple in the last 5 years. We should not have run out of housing this fast, so where did it all go?
Because its a limitation of personal property rights and freedom. Why can’t I as a property owner turn my single family home into a ground level cafe/bakery with 4 units above if I have the capital? It’s a government overstep that limits our supply, artificially increasing demand and cost, and gets in the way of entrepreneurship. Having relative freedom over property usage was only something recently taken away in the last 80 or so years due to racist white flight to the suburbs.
While populations hasn’t tripled in the last 5 or so years, we are experiencing growth pains that investors and speculators are taking advantage of limited supply, and relying on the fact we will have limited supply for some time to come as long as the zoning stays as the status quo.
Cramming people into tiny apartments is not a solution to this problem. Clawing back all the property that’s been gobbled up by “investors” over the last few years, and then selling it at a reasonable price to people who will actually live in it, is a solution to this problem.
And spare me your complaints about “entrepreneurship” and “government overstep”. There’s nothing innovative about house hoarding and rent seeking.
Every working family should have the ability to own a house with a yard for the kids to play in, as my family did when I was young. That’s the minimum acceptable standard of living for a developed nation. Not being packed like sardines into tiny apartments. This is not the Soviet Union.
We can’t keep bulldozing farm land and natural ecosystems to build tax payer subsidized, non eco friendly single family suburban homes anymore. Families can live and do live very comfortably in missing middle sub 6 story low rise duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and multiplexes. All of which can be built up on existing property at the will and freedom of property owners. https://www.canadianarchitect.com/editorial-finding-the-missing-middle/
Then why did real estate prices skyrocket only in the last few years? Why do they affect multi-family housing equally? I’m paying nearly USD2000 per month for one apartment in a building with dozens. 15 years ago, I paid only USD725 per month for a larger apartment in the same area.
Land scarcity is not the problem. It’s a distraction from the problem, no doubt perpetuated by the people causing the problem. Stop letting them deceive you.
And no, there’s nothing comfortable about living under the tyrannical whims of a building manager and not being able to let your pets roam outside. That is a dramatic decrease in quality of life, it is not necessary, and it is not acceptable.
I’m so tired of the provincial and federal governments doing this dance. Sure it’s a provincial responsibility, just like healthcare. But we have several provinces who are actively making things worse. If the feds are going to stand around and let it happen, they might as well be complicit in it.
They used to fund public housing. Ban corporate home ownership, and introduce taxes to make owning multiple homes unprofitable. Then fix our tax brackets so I don’t pay basically the same rate as someone making 10x what I do.
The worst part is there are already places that tax homes beyond the primary home, and the data showed it did exactly what you would expect. All levels of government have failed entire generations over this. it’s insane to me.
It should be taxed at all three levels…
Is this property your primary residence? No? Pay more municipal tax.
Is this an income property? Pay more tax to the province to be earmarked for low income housing.
Did you earn a profit on your income property this year? Tax that income at the highest income tax rate.
Is the property owned by a provincially incorporated company? Profits are taxed at the highest corporate rate.
Is the corporation owned by someone who cannot be proven to be a citizen of Canada? Pay federal tax.
I’m just some idiot on the internet, and I can solve this problem by taxing the shit out of behaviour that hurts citizens. Why can’t people in positions of authority do this? Because it’s counter to their interests. Go look at CPC’s PP – where did his double-digit millions of net worth come from?
This is the way.
The fed can’t make them better, for the very same reason as when toxic populist trash parties are voted in again they can’t make the rest of us worse. The protection that keeps us from a user-pay hell unfortunately keeps them from actual housing improvements.
The feds have made homes an investment with preferential tax treatment. Screw that. If you’re making over 250k on the sale of your house you can pay full capital gains on the rest of your profit.
Even the fucking USA only exempts a capped amount from capital gains.