Carney wants big government to get into housing – a major risk to taxpayers
Carney wants big government to get into housing – a major risk to taxpayers
As always, the Fraser Institute is shitting on ideas that could help the 99%, and saying government should rEmOvE ReD tApE.
I really want this to work. But the announcements I've seen for the building plan only address the supply side and ignore the problems on the demand side: people who own houses are able to pump up the cost of new houses; tax law encourages Canadians to treat their primary residence as an investment; real estate is used for money laundering (at least in some jurisdictions); mortgage fraud is a thing (at least in some jurisdictions); renovictions are used to pump the cost of rentals; and rent caps aren't available in many jurisdictions.
Anyhow, here's hoping the investing in modular housing succeeds, rezoning somehow lowers prices, and the feds are able to push housing starts to the moon.
Fuck the Fraser Institute. Right-wing spew.
The bias in this is just revolting. I get that it's "opinion", but they've made no attempt at having a terribly balanced one.
Canada's housing sector has been following the Fraser Institute's advice for decades now, and the result has been exactly as many predicted. Carney's right: it's time for the state to get back into building because the private sector has failed to do the job.
Unfortunately, this reads more like a financial instrument rather than what I would argue Canada needs: a housing agency that actually builds the houses rather than simply funds and directs construction. Regardless, in the wreckage that free market capitalism has wrought on housing, this is the sort of thing that takes a lot of time and money get up to speed. You needs skilled labour, industry connections, reputation, and experience building in various climates, and you just can't create that out of the blue. I'm pleased to hear that they're moving in the right direction.
I agree with all of your statements, but
The bias in this is just revolting. I get that it's "opinion", but they've made no attempt at having a terribly balanced one.
They have a point of view. I don't agree with it, and it ignores the pain that the housing crisis is inflicting on Canadians, but it makes no sense to expect them to parrot talking points they don't agree with.
I'm not asking them to parrot talking points, but ignoring reality doesn't do anyone any favours. It's like writing from a perspective that the world is flat and talking like only fools would think that a spherical planet worldview is rational. Their perspective is demonstrably flawed, but rather than approaching the issue on the facts, they've just blasted this project from a ideological perspective. It's a bad article and the Globe & Mail should feel bad about publishing it.
You know what else is a major risk to tax payers? Rampant homelessness.
That's just an externality.
It's riskier, but Carney's got 20 years experience in managing financial risk. It's a bet I'm willing to take, since incentives to private developers have only gotten us so far. High risk high reward and all, and you can't get anything big done if you don't think big.
Fraser Institute: "But what if, we could get tax breaks for the rich and disguise it as nation-building? Hohohoho, delightfully devilish, Fraser."
Totally. Something is better than nothing.
But there's a political risk that needs to be addressed quickly: many Canadians are getting priced out of their homes now, while others are unable to save for retirement. They see older Canadians making out like bandits on primary residences they bought 10+ years ago and they're justifiably angry.
These people are probably going to vote Conservative in the next election if they don't see an improvement.
It's unclear if the current LPC plan will provide housing relief within four years.
Well, the liberal plan is already including a chunk of red tape removal -- the criticism is more about having a large public institution overtly shifting market trends, especially as the intention appears to have it be both lender, and builder. They're right to note that there's potential conflicts, and that govt programs typically aren't about 'efficiency' in terms of service delivery.
My napkin math is terrible, and the different amounts noted for different programs is a bit unclear to me in terms of what amounts the govt intends to invest directly by building housing vs how much its just going to try and subsidize builders.
From what I've seen, it mostly seems to be subsidies - either providing low(er) interest loans or investing in prefab housing.
They also talk about paying private builders to create affordable housing, but I'm not clear who would own those buildings, who would get to live in them, or how much they would cost.
There are a lot of unknowns, and (as far as I've seen) the only timeline is building 500k houses a year by 2035. If that's really the timeline, I doubt it will change the minds of young Canadians who are getting gouged on housing.
Yeah, it all seems really wobbly. Like one of their notes related to using public lands for building initiatives, though it wasn't clear if that just means .... like selling off the parks in Vancouver to developers, or government-subsidized planned neighbourhoods around smaller towns to try and spread our population out (praying that jobs would somehow follow), or what.
I admit, if I could find a way to move to a more remote location, that still had necessities like medical services, and I'd get a functional, easy to maintain, eco friendly / eco resilient type of detached property, I'd be interested.... the costs on that sort of thing are really quite high though. And shaving like $50k off the top of that cost isn't really gonna do much to help with affordability, when you're talking about housing costing millions.