this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
107 points (97.3% liked)

Canada

7273 readers
244 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

We need:

-limit 1 house per family

-serious rent control

-4-storey apartments built owned by the public and cooperatives

-Stronger renter protections

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 27 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

-Aggressive tax on empty properties/units

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Vacant House Taxes have been tried throughout Canada and are generally ineffective. They are just a distraction.

The main reason why they don't work is fairly obvious: Why would someone own property to keep it vacant?

Sure, there are some people with vacation homes, or second homes where they frequently visit (heck, I might have to get an apartment where my office is located now we're being forced to return to the office). Oh the Urbanity has a great video where they point out the vast majority of "Vacant Homes" are either students who don't permanently live there, in the process of a move, under renovation, etc.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Thankfully, off of Lemmy people seem to get this, and we're all talking construction and rezoning now.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think people who think about housing critically get it, but unfortunately I don't think most Canadians get this, either on or off Lemmy. It's too easy to see "1.3 Million Vacant Houses" and think that's a solution for the Housing Crisis.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not used to having less political bullshit here, but I guess it could be regional.

At the federal level they're mostly doing tax breaks for potential owners, and subsidies for builders.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Aggressive and escalating.

The longer you leave a residential property vacant, the higher the tax rate becomes.

Speculating on residential housing needs to become costly - more expensive than making it livable and available for people to live there.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org -2 points 3 weeks ago

Government can do this tomorrow but it will never happen.

These regime whores who will NEVER do a policy that hurts their owners.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago

I think we also need to discount and ease new construction - NIMBY bullshit shouldn't be allowed to prevent densification and we either need direct subsidies or material subsidies of construction materials.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago

When new builds are all mcmansions from developers with deep, unethical, ties to politicians it doesn't really help much either.

Looking at you Doug Ford.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can you explain what you mean by

-limit 1 house per family

Many of the times I've heard this sentiment, it's been to either ban Mom&Pop landlords, or ban rental houses completely. These options seem to benefit potential homeowners by screwing over renters. I'm not sure if you mean something different?

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"apartments built by thr public or coops" is right there. Don't look at a package proposal and treat each part of it as unrelated or judge it in a vacuum.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I am fully supportive of public housing and coops, but that doesn't explain how a "limit 1 house per family" rule would work or what it's intending to achieve. If you or @Sunshine@lemmy.ca want to expand on that you can even explain it in the context of a whole system, I'm happy to hear it. I am a policy wonk and just want to understand this proposal.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You're probably just going to get flamed here. Most political people (and activists for that matter) are not policy wonks.

They're probably thinking a ban on landlords, as currently legally defined, basically.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a lot of 4-story apartments, since that's the main thing that will actually get built under this scheme. I guess it worked okay in the USSR, but Soviet citizens definitely did complain about the lack of other options for living arrangement.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

as much as your typical canadian city subreddit complains about homeless encampments?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

Probably not - social criticism had to be subtle or the KGB would have words with you. The theme makes it's way into various works of art, though, like Enjoy Your Bath.