Submitting for this truly astonishing quote:

" Landlords in Quebec, however, feel they need to catch up to other provinces as Quebec is still one of the most affordable places to live in the country, said Jean-Olivier Reed, a spokesperson for the Quebec Landlord Association (APQ)."

  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    Social housing can never be the true solution. The government doesn’t have enough money to make it have an impact. Even in cities in Europe that have 30-40% social housing, they are still having housing crisis situations where people can’t move, people wait years to affordable units, and private housing is still astronomically expensive.

    There is a proper fix, but it destroys almost all of the equity in the existing housing market which means voters will never go for it. Far too many people still own houses and would lose hundreds of thousands or even millions.

    So instead we get this pandering shit, and prices will continue to rise for the next few decades.

    • acargitz@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      In the real world there are no single “true solutions”. More social housing is needed. Capping speculation is needed. Taxing empty houses is needed. Building new dense and walkable neighbourhoods is needed. Carefully deflating the bubble to free up capital to productive investments is needed. Retrofitting existing buildings is needed. Housing coops are needed. All these things are needed.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Start The War on Landlords. Declare the housing crisis a national security threat, build housing till every landlord commits suicide.

        Stop bending the knee to the for profit house building corporations. Stop protecting the status quo because it doesn’t work for everyone. Stop making excuses for this way of life that has only been around for not even a thousand years yet. Stop acting like how things are are inevitable.

        AND, electoral reform. I distinctly remember Canadians being promised electoral reform! Where the fuck is it? How about you get to vote for a kick in the nuts or a kick in the face? Sound fair? No? What’s wrong YOU HAVE A CHOICE! Feeling free yet?

        Welcome to earth, Where money is made up and the rules doesn’t matter.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        And here I thought the answer was to light rental properties on fire until it was too expensive to insure them and all of the landleeches ended up in squalor?

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        None of those are solutions. They’re all Band-Aids. No matter how much you do any of those things you proposed, prices will continue to climb.

        Not a single developed country has managed to rein in prices, no matter what tactics they’ve tried. There are places with all of those suggestions, and still… expensive housing.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Building more density in well-designed, walkable neighbourhoods is absolutely part of the answer.

          We need to make it so that there are about as many homes as people who need homes. Right now the numbers are wildly out of wack. The reason prices won’t go down is because the government is resistant to opening the floodgates of density (as you said, because too many of their constituents are homeowners).

          If we just abolished single family zoning and said anyone can build dense housing anywhere that is residentially zoned, we’d have affordable housing within a few years. Zoning is an artificial bottleneck on the supply of housing. Imagine if every shitty carbrained suburb suddenly could house 2x or 3x as many people! But then of course we would need to make them a bit less carbrained by introducing more walkability, better public transit, and more mixed use. That can all be done gradually by relaxing zoning restrictions.

          • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is just objectively false.

            Japan didn’t have single family zoning, anyone could build dense housing anywhere residential in any of the major cities and they absolutely did, and yet it was never affordable. They have massively walkable cities, with great public transportation, and yet… not affordable unless you want to live in a 100 square foot closet that most north Americans couldn’t even fit through the door on.

            A bunch of US cities have no zoning and are still not affordable.

            Zoning is a slight bottleneck, but it’s not even close to the core problem.

            I’m not saying don’t change the zoning, go ahead, but expecting things to become affordable in a few years is an absolute pipe dream.

            BC just did it, and developers are just shit talking the policy saying it doesn’t change anything.

        • acargitz@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          There are places that cap real estate speculation? And also are shifting equity away from real estate and towards the productive parts of the economy? While also promoting social housing and coops and building new walkable neighborhoods? Like all of those things at once? Where is that social-democratic utopia?

            • acargitz@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Explain why the real estate sector in a small island city-state is comparable in any way to that in the country with the second largest landmass in the world.

              • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                Because 99% of the Canada landmass is rural, and a city is a city.

                Also, last time I checked, Montreal (the first city mentioned in the article) is an island.

                • acargitz@lemmy.caOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Singapore is 735.2 sq km and has a density of 7,804/sq km.

                  The Montreal metropolitan area is 4,258.31 sq km and has a density of 1,007.85/sq km.

                  I don’t know if 1% of Canada is urban. But assuming it is, and assuming that it is impossible to grow that 1% of the 9,093,507 sq km that make up the country (a ludicrous assumption that one), that is still 90,935.1 sq km.

                  Your comparison is just plain irrelevant and wrong.

                  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Your comparison has no relevance. What does total available landmass have to do with anything related to the policies in question?

          • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’m championing land value taxes, but they won’t pass until ownership rates drop another 20-30 percent over the next 20-30 years.

            Honestly, the best option for my children (who are still quite young) right now is for me to try to make it worse faster so that we can make such a radical change sooner.