The change from private ownership to government sponsored living is the destruction of a primary pillar of Canadian society. It is not a coincidence the socialist idea that providing cheap money for rental is somehow more beneficial than providing the same cheap money for home ownership. Imagine providing home owners with 1% mortgages fixed for 10 years and a 50 yer amortization and then allowing these same home owners to deduct the interest from their taxable income. Same amount of government money support, but different outcome. It's all about government control.
Reducing the cost of living, healthcare, education, and public transportation makes an economy more competitive.
Those that dream to become landlords at the expense of somebody else and then get fat on that are ultimately just parasites that hate a more collectivist spirit that lifts all the boats.
The classic liberal mantra of "free markets" from the 19th century refered to markets free of the rent excised by landlords, nothing else.
Comparing Apples to Oranges. Vienna is stable and low-growth. It had a city proper population of 2 million in 1910. It has a legacy of pre WW1 housing stock paid off centuries ago, that zero Canadian cities can compare to. For comparison, in 1910 Vancouver only had 100,000 residents and Calgary had 40,000. It’s a completely different base scenario, and anyone who cherry picks “Vienna” as the solution, is either oblivious to the vast differences in growth+construction over the last century, or is simply pushing a socialist worldview. Often both.
The Feds did provide housing in the 1970s, when we had high growth and there was no problem, what are you talking about.
Also, Austria has received a lot of immigrants lately, so it is not that stable, low growth.
The purchasing that was doen in the beggining, in Vienna, btw 1923 - 1933, when the basis of the stock was created, was done to provide afordable housing. Which stopped some people to get rich from squizing the renters.
Nothing wrong with a socialist view. But I can see the murderous eyes of those that wish to get rich on others' work. That right to get rich is not a god given right. As Jesus said, he came to bring back the Year of the Lord... and not to have the sins forgiven, but the debts forgiven. This is exactly why he was killed. And this is my reference to the muredrous eyes.
As part of the support for rental housing, is there any policy on the type of homes being supported suitable for families with multiple bedrooms? Building more studio and one bedroom postage stamps may not be particularly helpful given Canada's demographic challenges.
According to the city of Vancouver's own estimates, they're short about a quarter of the housing that we need - in other words, about 100,000 homes. There's a similar estimate from Jens von Bergmann and Nathan Lauster. So I wouldn't be too worried about an oversupply of rental housing. The challenge is going to be figuring out how to bring down costs, which set a floor on how low rents can go before homebuilding stops. https://morehousing.substack.com/p/recap
The big advantage of purpose-built rental housing, owned by an institution like a pension fund or REIT, is that it provides secure housing (unlike renting a condo or basement suite from an individual landlord), without having to be rich enough to own.
The change from private ownership to government sponsored living is the destruction of a primary pillar of Canadian society. It is not a coincidence the socialist idea that providing cheap money for rental is somehow more beneficial than providing the same cheap money for home ownership. Imagine providing home owners with 1% mortgages fixed for 10 years and a 50 yer amortization and then allowing these same home owners to deduct the interest from their taxable income. Same amount of government money support, but different outcome. It's all about government control.
Bullshit.
Vienna provides the living example of the counterargument.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city
Reducing the cost of living, healthcare, education, and public transportation makes an economy more competitive.
Those that dream to become landlords at the expense of somebody else and then get fat on that are ultimately just parasites that hate a more collectivist spirit that lifts all the boats.
The classic liberal mantra of "free markets" from the 19th century refered to markets free of the rent excised by landlords, nothing else.
Comparing Apples to Oranges. Vienna is stable and low-growth. It had a city proper population of 2 million in 1910. It has a legacy of pre WW1 housing stock paid off centuries ago, that zero Canadian cities can compare to. For comparison, in 1910 Vancouver only had 100,000 residents and Calgary had 40,000. It’s a completely different base scenario, and anyone who cherry picks “Vienna” as the solution, is either oblivious to the vast differences in growth+construction over the last century, or is simply pushing a socialist worldview. Often both.
The Feds did provide housing in the 1970s, when we had high growth and there was no problem, what are you talking about.
Also, Austria has received a lot of immigrants lately, so it is not that stable, low growth.
The purchasing that was doen in the beggining, in Vienna, btw 1923 - 1933, when the basis of the stock was created, was done to provide afordable housing. Which stopped some people to get rich from squizing the renters.
Nothing wrong with a socialist view. But I can see the murderous eyes of those that wish to get rich on others' work. That right to get rich is not a god given right. As Jesus said, he came to bring back the Year of the Lord... and not to have the sins forgiven, but the debts forgiven. This is exactly why he was killed. And this is my reference to the muredrous eyes.
As part of the support for rental housing, is there any policy on the type of homes being supported suitable for families with multiple bedrooms? Building more studio and one bedroom postage stamps may not be particularly helpful given Canada's demographic challenges.
According to the city of Vancouver's own estimates, they're short about a quarter of the housing that we need - in other words, about 100,000 homes. There's a similar estimate from Jens von Bergmann and Nathan Lauster. So I wouldn't be too worried about an oversupply of rental housing. The challenge is going to be figuring out how to bring down costs, which set a floor on how low rents can go before homebuilding stops. https://morehousing.substack.com/p/recap
The big advantage of purpose-built rental housing, owned by an institution like a pension fund or REIT, is that it provides secure housing (unlike renting a condo or basement suite from an individual landlord), without having to be rich enough to own.
I thought the federal government brought in accelerated depreciation for new purpose-built rental housing (10%/year for 10 years, instead of 4%/year for 25 years) back in Budget 2024? https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/alt-format/pdf/housing-logement/housing-plan-logement-en.pdf#page=4