Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper
This is beyond stupid. The housing crisis isn't one of square footage. It's one of affordability. Taking a million plus dollar single family house and spending another a half a million to turn it into multi-family is well above the threshold of the people living in our parks turned tent cities.
The much wealthier federal government taking over the costs of refugees (including Trump refugees) from cities would open up municipal funds to build more spaces. The federal government is also in a better position to incentivize refugees to freely locate to cities with surplus housing opening up existing housing to homeless, local residents. That's more of a solution to get a roof over the heads of Torontonians. It's a difficult discussion most want to forget and my fear that it will eventually lead to a Trump level isolationist shift from the current, bleeding heart libtard. We are taking much better care of visitors seeking refuge than we are of our own. Everyone under duress should receive the same high standard regardless of their nationality (providing they are from a country in strife and not escaping ICE south of the border)
|
Disparaging the politics of the majority of Canadians who are obviously to your political left does you no favours and persuades no one of anything you have to say.
Try to being polite.
Lose the hyperbole; then perhaps an intelligent discussion of issues can be had.
Clearly the proposal above, whether one likes or dislikes it in general, is not a solution in terms of housing the homeless/deeply impoverished.
But you do realize there is a large group in Toronto that are housed.....but expend over 45% of their income on housing, because the market is out of balance.
This is true of both rental and ownership tenure.
The above, at scale, is arguably one solution that may help take the edge off Toronto's prices.
Many other, and perhaps better solutions will also need to be employed.
Shaving $100 per month or even $250 per month off rent or mortgage costs will certainly not house those whom those costs are a factor of 5 too high.
But they will nonetheless ease the burden on some in the middle class; and there may be some knock-on effects to lower-rent apartments should vacancy rates rise to greater than 2%.
An entry-level apartment at $1200 per month instead of $1400 per month would help many.
Its not enough, just one option.
PS, for what its worth..............I'm not terribly keen the design of this proposal.
I just think your critique is more than a bit problematic.