Federal Government & Politics II

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by thewave46

My view is that the NIMBY movement is dominated by those who wish to retain their neighbourhoods in amber, and are dominated by those who have power and wealth (i.e. existing homeowners).

Fine, no one should be forced out of their homes, but when Toronto-adjacent communities essentially regulate that neighbourhoods should be preserved forevermore because change is bad or somesuch, it's a swipe against everyone who has aspirations to a semblance of the lives their parents had. Especially since it imposes exactly no cost on those there and extreme burden on those who cannot afford to jump through the hoops.

This is what the article references, BTW

This is a societal problem when it becomes everywhere.

The Nimby problem is less about a group of people squawking and ensuring nothing gets done and more a procedure that ensures little gets built. The Nimby movement gets real legs in the 1970s when there is a real pressure to slow down production because it simply costs too much to make anything (the Oil Crisis) and the procedures used to cower away from the Oil Crisis have been fossilized into the development process.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by thewave46

My view is that the NIMBY movement is dominated by those who wish to retain their neighbourhoods in amber, and are dominated by those who have power and wealth (i.e. existing homeowners).

Fine, no one should be forced out of their homes, but when Toronto-adjacent communities essentially regulate that neighbourhoods should be preserved forevermore because change is bad or somesuch, it's a swipe against everyone who has aspirations to a semblance of the lives their parents had. Especially since it imposes exactly no cost on those there and extreme burden on those who cannot afford to jump through the hoops.

This is what the article references, BTW

This is a societal problem when it becomes everywhere.

I personally beleive that neighbourhoods should not be frozen in amber, but, there has to be some thoughtful mechanism available to allow review of proposals that come forth in order to make sure that they are appropriate for their surroundings. I would not personally be too stringent on the idea of replacing SFHs with small multiunit buildings as long as the character of the neighbourhood is preserved.

Obviously large apartment buildings have to be built somewhere, and, if the conditions are appropriate (nearby collector roads, adequate public transit, not building to the property line etc), then rezoning should be allowed to build tall.

One cannot be overtly obstructionist, especially given the current (JT inspired) crisis.

[thewave46]

Which is my point:

We can either have pro-growth and pro-development mentality (i.e. Current homeowners will have to live with their neighbourhoods changing and being developed more intensely)

Or,

Anti-growth and anti-development mentality (Keep the neighbourhood the same, but one has to pay more taxes because cheap calories/people influx growth isn't on the menu to make things easy)

We currently choose pro-growth and anti-development, because it poses no direct cost on politically dominant current owners and extreme cost on those upcoming. Fine, it worked when assets were cheaper, but the contradictions of said policy come to roost.

Everyone loves the 'I win, you lose' game if they're on the winning side. The losing side is getting larger and angrier though.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Which is my point:

We can either have pro-growth and pro-development mentality (i.e. Current homeowners will have to live with their neighbourhoods changing and being developed more intensely)

Or,

Anti-growth and anti-development mentality (Keep the neighbourhood the same, but one has to pay more taxes because cheap calories/people influx growth isn't on the menu to make things easy)

We currently choose pro-growth and anti-development, because it poses no direct cost on politically dominant current owners and extreme cost on those upcoming. Fine, it worked when assets were cheaper, but the contradictions of said policy come to roost.

Everyone loves the 'I win, you lose' game if they're on the winning side. The losing side is getting larger and angrier though.

Exactly, great summary.

Personally, I’ve often phrased it as “the Scheme creates winners and losers”. The people who benefit are way more likely to vote on e-day, of course. It’s the same idea…

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't disagree with anything you say. I would extend the idea to other non-means tested universal benefits too.

In theory, means testing is great, but in practice, “wealth” and “yearly taxable income” are very far from interchangeable in modern Canada, and the former is very mobile and tricky to try to tax.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

That particular post that you were responding to was made in reference to other people who have posted in the thread, who seem to feel that all senior citizens should, as a matter of civic duty, sell their suburban homes and move forthwith into a tiny condo in order to make room for younger and more deserving family units requiring the space. There is a lot of anger out there directed towards the baby boomer cohort.

Again, no one here has actually said this.

That a disproportionate share of the family-sized housing is occupied by single/emptynester seniors while families cram into little condos is a problem at a structural & policy level; not some personal moral failing on the part of Boomer homeowners. The only transgression is when those same homeowners (of any age, but let's be honest - there's a pretty stark generation gap on this particular issue) block new housing from being built.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ysis-1.7186852

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Which is my point:

We can either have pro-growth and pro-development mentality (i.e. Current homeowners will have to live with their neighbourhoods changing and being developed more intensely)

Or,

Anti-growth and anti-development mentality (Keep the neighbourhood the same, but one has to pay more taxes because cheap calories/people influx growth isn't on the menu to make things easy)

We currently choose pro-growth and anti-development, because it poses no direct cost on politically dominant current owners and extreme cost on those upcoming. Fine, it worked when assets were cheaper, but the contradictions of said policy come to roost.

Everyone loves the 'I win, you lose' game if they're on the winning side. The losing side is getting larger and angrier though.

How about measured (not anti, but not all-out “pro”) growth, pro development? Seems to me we are lacking nuances, both in this discussion and in society/politics these days.

Regarding the NIMBY tangent: As far as I’m concerned, we should be allowing building wherever there is adequate infrastructure to support it, or upgrading infrastructure (including transit options) where lacking. Neighbourhoods change and then become whatever they are, before they change again. While I believe that people should be able to live in their homes if they can afford them, there should be no guarantees that a multi unit won’t appear next door, or next block over, but don’t allow massive density increases without transportation support or adequate planning for retail nearby. Where I live, we are always about 20 - 30 years behind on transit/transportation development, and that was before the recent massive population increases. Housing was reasonably plentiful and cheap, and then suddenly it wasn’t.

But there has to be smarter ways of growing the economy than just bringing in more warm bodies without adequate housing. The growth economy mindset has always perplexed me in that there seems to be no thought to its direction or its eventual end state. Like the solution to keep your boat from sinking is to get a bigger bucket to bail with rather than repairing the hull. Let’s look at repairing the hull while planning to build a new and better boat. Not sure if JT, JS, or PP are the ones that I would want in charge of building this new boat, though.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I get it that you are talking about policy choices and that it is "nothing personal", but, in the end, policy decisions can and do have significant real world consequences that can feel very personal to the individuals involved. You cannot talk about the one without considering the other.

I also think we are taking about two very different things.

That particular post that you were responding to was made in reference to other people who have posted in the thread, who seem to feel that all senior citizens should, as a matter of civic duty, sell their suburban homes and move forthwith into a tiny condo in order to make room for younger and more deserving family units requiring the space. There is a lot of anger out there directed towards the baby boomer cohort.

My point is that there are myriad reasons why older people may not want to move. We are talking about a home that they have worked their life towards purchasing and making their own. This is a house they love, they are familiar with, and that they have made their own. There are tonnes of family memories in a family home. It is a place where children and their own families can congregate on holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas. It may be a home and a property large enough to accommodate hobbies such as gardening, woodworking or mechanical tinkering. It is much, much more than simply a house. It is a part of your personality.

In addition, the simple act of moving can be acutely stressful, especially if you have lived in this one place for 25 years or so. Downsizing, getting rid of belongings, packing and changing address information for mutliple services is a huge pain in the ass. You are leaving friends and neighbours that you may have known for decades. This is all very disruptive. Some people view such a project as an adventure. Other people can become very anxious and depressed. A life event such as this could be similar to a divorce or the death of a spouse. This is no exaggeration.

If a senior can afford to keep their home into retirement, I don't think anyone should begrudge them this. They should not be viewed as greedy. Their house is more than just an investment, it is a home. This is where they lived, and it is where they want to die.

Now, one could have arguments about government supports to allow seniors to age in place. Depending on your point of view, this could be a good thing or a bad thing. I am politically neutral on this. We do not have deferred property tax in NB.

Anyway, this is what my post was about. You seem to have conflated it to other things like OAS and CPP. My OAS is irrelevant to me. As I have pointed out before, it has been clawed back to within an inch of it's life, to the point where it is an honourarium worth maybe $100/month. I wasn't joking when I said it was equivalent to JT buying me a free restaurant meal once a month. My OAS is more of an insult that anything else, but, hey, the free meal does help sooth the pain over the capital gains changes just announced that will cost me tens of thousands of dollars. I feel JT owes me a free meal at least.

OAS is irrelevant to me. If I didn't recieve it, I would not miss it. CPP on the other hand is a pension plan that I have paid into. It is a mandatory plan that I had no say in. Since this is an actual pension, and not an income supplement, I would take great umbrage if it were ever to be taken away. CPP should not be touched.

A very sensible and empathetic post.

At this point I have reconciled that much of the posting here is the culmination of a lot of anger out there as people are feeling desperate. So, they see a senior in a big house, have read an article that shows seniors picketing against rezoning, hear some snide arsehole of a relative spewing some ignorant vitriol about the younger generations, feel the angst of an uncertain future and the bite of continually tightening finances, and the anger builds. It has to come out somewhere, and a stereotype based upon all of the above bad examples becomes a great outlet for this anger and resentment. Totally understandable.

For myself, I don't process negativity well, especially when it seems unfair or not in line with the reality that I see, but that's not what any of this is about. I'm also not a fan of the sanctimonious judgement floating around the perimeter, not unlike the air surrounding a porta-potty... unpleasant, but unavoidable. That's where I have to accept that this is where we are in history - perhaps sinking down into another low cycle as our parents and grandparents had to endure with depressions and world wars. None of it is pleasant or positive, but you have to wade through the crap to get to a better place, and there will be a lot of pain, anger and resentment along the way... and social media will help to make things that much worse.

I don't see any change in the near future, as I think things are only going to get worse before they get better. As mentioned previously, and to bring things back around to the thread topic, I hope people can realize the part that the federal government has played in this. A worldwide pandemic didn't help much either, but a government who seemed numb to the fact that bringing in millions of new residents per year, all who require housing that was already in short supply, should not be let off the hook. Before 2015, nobody imagined that it would come to this - like some bizarre social experiment where we take away something that's vital to life, and watch the people turn on each other as they switch to survival mode. And here we are.

Life's a bitch and then you die - that's not a new saying by any means, but it surely applies in these times.

[Truenorth00]

It's not just the housing situation. Again, OAS could hit $90B in 2030. These are problems among problems being piled on. The housing situation is just a piece of wider problem that is going to be hitting hard and fast over the coming years. Imagine the taxes and the service cuts young families will have to be bear at the same as the housing crisis.

[Hecate]

Great piece about the hypocrisy of the liberals when it comes to Palestinian supporters and defenders here in Canada occupying public spaces while chanting hateful racist and antisemitic slogans making communities and universities across Canada unsafe for Jewish Canadians.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/car...are-much-worse

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Great piece about the hypocrisy of the liberals when it comes to Palestinian supporters and defenders here in Canada occupying public spaces while chanting hateful racist and antisemitic slogans making communities and universities across Canada unsafe for Jewish Canadians.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/car...are-much-worse

Interesting editorial.

Not a federal liberal issue. Even the convoy in Ottawa was a municipal policing issue, with oversight from the city and province. Those that protested in Ottawa were prosecuted by provincial crown in a provincial court.

If the charter applies to universities or not, I think everyone involved in running a university would agree that having students express their views and free speech is fundamental to the values that a university is typically founded on and while there are limits they should be applied with caution. Hate speech would be one of those limits. As long as the are protesting the actions of the government of Israel and not calling for violence against anyone it should be tolerated.

Now that the international court is looking closely at the actions of both Hamas and Israel, I think we are going to see more of this. Netanyahu soon like Putin will have limited travel options. Even the head of the Israel military is starting to question the wisdom of the current strategy. Hopefully that is what is needed for the government of Israel to adopt a more disciplined approach. In short order these protests will disappear.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Justanothermember

Perhaps the term 'experienced' is preferred language in this circumstance, rather than just saying someone is 'old'.

Don`t worry, I`ve been called worse than "An old hand"

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not just the housing situation. Again, OAS could hit $90B in 2030. These are problems among problems being piled on. The housing situation is just a piece of wider problem that is going to be hitting hard and fast over the coming years. Imagine the taxes and the service cuts young families will have to be bear at the same as the housing crisis.

OAS could go away, but should be ramped down to give those who are depending on it time to make financial plans to live without it. I suspect that it wouldn’t make any difference for those of means, but it could be devastating for seniors at the lower end of the financial scale, who have no means of increasing their income.

I also wonder if it is eliminated, what percentage of the elderly will be forced to live in poverty and seek social assistance as a result. So still living on some form of government money, just from a different pot and administrative source.

I think that younger generations who are already struggling and have a terrible financial outlook already might be more in need of such assistance when they themselves become old. Lots to consider over and above the urge to rip off the bandage to make the itch feel better for awhile. But yeah, it’s time for a hard look at everything, including all the expensive social programs that the LPC love to spend our current and future tax money on.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Again, no one here has actually said this.

That a disproportionate share of the family-sized housing is occupied by single/emptynester seniors while families cram into little condos is a problem at a structural & policy level; not some personal moral failing on the part of Boomer homeowners. The only transgression is when those same homeowners (of any age, but let's be honest - there's a pretty stark generation gap on this particular issue) block new housing from being built.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ysis-1.7186852

To play devils advocate, flip side of this is how many Gen Xers, Millenials etc want their aged parents living with them? That’s what we used to do and many new Canadians still do it. But many ship them off to “senior living” instead and that requires equity built from their home ownership.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I think that younger generations who are already struggling and have a terrible financial outlook already might be more in need of such assistance when they themselves become old. Lots to consider over and above the urge to rip off the bandage to make the itch feel better for awhile. But yeah, it’s time for a hard look at everything, including all the expensive social programs that the LPC love to spend our current and future tax money on.

Requoted for absolute truth.

The Liberals are flinging money at any wall where they think it will stick, partly (a) to try and buy votes for the upcoming election , and partly (b) to ensure ongoing NDP support until the next election, and to ensure that Jagmeets pension is fully funded.

We cannot afford this profligate Liberal spending.

How about we (a) cancel all the recently introduced social programs in favour of making sure that pre-existing social programs are well funded, and, (b), cancel the OAS in favour of some form of federal guaranteed income program. I think such a system would be simpler to administer, require fewer civil servants, and, potentially more affordable.

I personally do not need the OAS, and would not miss it. I suspect there are many other Canadians out there who use OAS as mad money and vacation money rather than a source of funding for basic necessities. Let's get rid of the damned thing.

[casper]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Requoted for absolute truth.

The Liberals are flinging money at any wall where they think it will stick, partly (a) to try and buy votes for the upcoming election , and partly (b) to ensure ongoing NDP support until the next election, and to ensure that Jagmeets pension is fully funded.

We cannot afford this profligate Liberal spending.

How about we (a) cancel all the recently introduced social programs in favour of making sure that pre-existing social programs are well funded, and, (b), cancel the OAS in favour of some form of federal guaranteed income program. I think such a system would be simpler to administer, require fewer civil servants, and, potentially more affordable.

I personally do not need the OAS, and would not miss it. I suspect there are many other Canadians out there who use OAS as mad money and vacation money rather than a source of funding for basic necessities. Let's get rid of the damned thing.

Liberals are doing what has to happen in a parliamentary democracy. They are compromising and implementing part of the agenda of the other partners in the coalition. In this case the NDP. That means half measures at dental program and drug program.

While I think major changes to OAS is a non-starter with the NDP in the coalition government, it clearly is something that has to happen.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by casper

Interesting editorial.

Not a federal liberal issue. Even the convoy in Ottawa was a municipal policing issue, with oversight from the city and province. Those that protested in Ottawa were prosecuted by provincial crown in a provincial court.

If the charter applies to universities or not, I think everyone involved in running a university would agree that having students express their views and free speech is fundamental to the values that a university is typically founded on and while there are limits they should be applied with caution. Hate speech would be one of those limits. As long as the are protesting the actions of the government of Israel and not calling for violence against anyone it should be tolerated.

Now that the international court is looking closely at the actions of both Hamas and Israel, I think we are going to see more of this. Netanyahu soon like Putin will have limited travel options. Even the head of the Israel military is starting to question the wisdom of the current strategy. Hopefully that is what is needed for the government of Israel to adopt a more disciplined approach. In short order these protests will disappear.

To be fair, he said "liberal", not "Liberal".

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by casper

Liberals are doing what has to happen in a parliamentary democracy. They are compromising and implementing part of the agenda of the other partners in the coalition. In this case the NDP. That means half measures at dental program and drug program.

While I think major changes to OAS is a non-starter with the NDP in the coalition government, it clearly is something that has to happen.

It's a non-starter until after the next election, whoever forms government.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

To play devils advocate, flip side of this is how many Gen Xers, Millenials etc want their aged parents living with them? That’s what we used to do and many new Canadians still do it. But many ship them off to “senior living” instead and that requires equity built from their home ownership.

There will literally be no choice for most Millennials and Zoomers. The same generation that is screwing over younger families, also underfunded the elder care system. Is there any doubt they'll be demanding that their kids also take care of them when the time comes? This is exactly why I think the discussion on how to free up those resources needs to happen now. Not when it's an emergency and the only solution is another $30-50B program. OAS literally need to be halved and refocused exclusively on helping seniors stay out of poverty.

Also, CPP itself needs to be massively expanded to reduce future OAS burdens. The goal should be to at least provide the average working person with a pension that is above the poverty line to ensure that very little income supplementation is needed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

OAS could go away, but should be ramped down to give those who are depending on it time to make financial plans to live without it. I suspect that it wouldn’t make any difference for those of means, but it could be devastating for seniors at the lower end of the financial scale, who have no means of increasing their income.

I also wonder if it is eliminated, what percentage of the elderly will be forced to live in poverty and seek social assistance as a result. So still living on some form of government money, just from a different pot and administrative source.

I think that younger generations who are already struggling and have a terrible financial outlook already might be more in need of such assistance when they themselves become old. Lots to consider over and above the urge to rip off the bandage to make the itch feel better for awhile. But yeah, it’s time for a hard look at everything, including all the expensive social programs that the LPC love to spend our current and future tax money on.

Funny. All of the recent Liberal spending on new social spending COMBINED is projected to be less than OAS growth. Once again, Boomer self-interest Uber Alles. Fuck those kids and parents. Grandpa needs walking around money.

If you wonder why young folks are mad. It's this. OAS? Untouchable. But how dare the government push universal daycare and dental care? You know what is a Liberal policy that is super expensive and should be rolled back? The reversal of Harper's push to make OAS 67.