Isn’t that period exactly when developers stopped building new dedicated rental housing and put us into this hole we’re currently in?
The article states that CMHC saw no difference between rent controlled and non-rent controlled markets in rental starts, but ignores the fact that overall rental starts dropped.
Short term gains, for long term pain.
What we need is Land Value Taxes, short term pain for long term gain. Unfortunately there just aren’t enough people willing to vote away the current system.
We also need to fix our zoning laws. They prevent many different types of developments that could result in more units available and better revenue for our cities, so they stop getting bankrupted
See strongtowns.org and not just bikes comments on this issue like in this playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVaThat won’t hurt, but it won’t fix the issue. There are places with little to no zoning that have gone up in value just as fast as everywhere else.
Japan has practically zero zoning, and yet Tokyo is still more expensive per square foot than any Canadian city in terms of the core area and that’s with a population that’s in decline. They built tiny to keep things barely affordable, but theres no reason why Canada should need to go anywhere near that level of density with the amount of land we have even in just the reasonable parts of Canada.
There is only one mechanism that both reduces rent, and increases housing supply that I’ve heard of. Taxing the shit out of the land value (not the property value) a.k.a. Georgism.
The problem with this is that it WILL reduce the cost of housing which isn’t what our leaders actually want. They won’t say that part out loud though. This is because people want both affordable housing for our youth and people starting out, and they want retirees to be able to cash in on the value of their home.
You CAN’T have both things. If the market was flooded with $300k houses then the value of everyone’s house would plummet because why wouldn’t you just buy a $300K house instead of a $1M house?
I don’t know much about georgism, only that people who advocate for it online tend to present it as a silver bullet for too many things and that makes me suspicious that it’s snake oil. Like I don’t know the band, but the fans are kinda sketchy.
Totally fair. I think it’s just terribly unlikely to ever happen, and the ramifications aren’t really understood.
It amounts to wealth redistribution at the end of the day. Tax the land at a really high rate and redistribute the tax to everyone equally. This is precisely why it won’t take hold. Too many people have invested in land speculation (which is where most real estate investment profits come from) and it would tank a lot of peoples savings and retirement plans - but so would anything that delivers on affordable housing at scale.
So I at least don’t think it is a silver bullet. The obvious downside is that a lot of retirees who were counting on using the proceeds of selling their house to fund their retirement or end of life care would be absolutely fucked by it. Retirement homes are really expensive. It’s a choice though. We either decide to hurt the retirees who can’t work anymore, or put the pressure onto the youth and others starting out who have the ability to dig out of this mess.
When I bought my house I paid $330k for everything. Now the land alone is worth more than that. We’ll never see affordable houses again until the cost of land goes down, and Georgism is the only path to that I’ve heard of. I am not sure if this is something we should do or not.
Why are things like housing coops and other kinds of off-market housing (eg council housing) not a solution to affordable housing? Georgism to me sounds like too many hoops jumped to protect private ownership, when social/municipal/public ownership is a more straightforward solution.
And on the other end, Canada is big. There is still a lot of space to go off into the boonies and construct new transit oriented towns.
If done at massive scale then yes that would also work, but I don’t believe the Canadian government is willing to go there either. It would truly need to be a huge scale to be able to bring housing back to affordable levels.
I think that is a second best solution, but would take a huge investment from our government.
It would still tank a lot of people’s retirements, because at its core more affordable housing means people can sell their houses for a lot less.
At its root I think Georgism is actually quite socialist. You are effectively saying nobody really owns land anymore, but instead have to rent it from the state for the value that you would get if you rented out just the land.
Agreed on all counts. Additionally, living wages need to be paid with “casual” no hours jobs disincentivized (I.e. full benefits for all workers). Rent is more and more of people’s income, and it’s not solely because rent is rising although that is a giant part of the problem.
Still, I’d ultimately want decommidification, but literally anything that will actually ease the problem is good in the meantime.
Pretty sure they did say that out loud though.
I’ve heard them say it, but then quickly walk it back with phrases like how of course they are for affordable housing.
Note that this isn’t a liberal, conservative or even NDP or PPC thing. I haven’t heard ANY of them propose anything that would actually make housing affordable at scale.
If you’re heard any different please point me to it.
I voted liberal, so I was just depressed to hear those words from the new housing minister.
No party has proposed an actual plan to bring in affordable housing though. Everyone in power is invested in realestate.
Ha, yes I heard plans that I believe would actively make it worse from the Cons and PPC, and plans that I believe will have a marginal positive impact, but won’t address the problem from the Libs and NDP. Reducing the cost of housing by 1-2% or even 5% isn’t going to make $1M house suddenly affordable.
Ahhh, that’s why NYC is a bastion of affordability…
and San Francisco
I also love that someone downvoted you for pointing put how this has worked out for others. “Boo this person and their flagrant use of facts! That’s not nice!”
@Sunshine@lemmy.ca You’re on fire today!
Anyone who is evidence-based as opposed to ideology based needs only to look at every single jurisdiction where rent controls have been enacted, to become a vociferous opponent to rent controls.
Rent
Controls
Do
Not
Work.Not over the long term, and definitely not for new tenants.
@Sunshine The problem with rent control is that it rewards incumbent renters at the expense of new renters. This is not a point that can be seriously debated. However, the housing market, especially over many decades, is influenced by more than one factor, and it’s difficult to separate out the effects. I am extremely skeptical of rent controls; however, there is certainly a case to be made for some regulation of the rental market, in the same way that we regularly regulate public utilities.
@Sunshine In my jurisdiction, there are effectively no real protections for tenants. Landlords can unilaterally raise rents by any amount without limit, with every lease renewal. My landlord has raised my rent every year for the past 3 years, now, and the housing market is so tight that there are no realistic alternatives for non-wealthy people. In a society where most people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, a 90 day notice is all it takes to evict for no cause.
