Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[djmk]

A new report on the housing crisis was released this weak. See link below


https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cae...pdf?1692060486

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The Libs are going to lose power next election due to this issue. You’d think they’d want to put more effort into saving themselves. The Cons will dupe voters into thinking they are the alternative, but they aren’t offering anything better.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'll put this in the "better late than never" file. Their re-election ship may have already sailed, but this is a move in the right direction.

I dunno about that. Sure, JT's been about as useful as screen doors on a submarine, but the Cons aren't making any headway in the cities, and Polly Oliver's toxic to anybody who isn't a convoy nut, so he's probably safe for one more election.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'll put this in the "better late than never" file. Their re-election ship may have already sailed, but this is a move in the right direction.

Is it? Or is it just another piece of political theatre? Let’s not forget they came to power in 2015 saying they would tackle housing unaffordability and what do we have eight years later?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is it? Or is it just another piece of political theatre? Let’s not forget they came to power in 2015 saying they would tackle housing unaffordability and what do we have eight years later?

So as the only likely alternative government would be a conservative one, what's your thinking on their recent policy on housing. Do you prefer their political theatre?

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So as the only likely alternative government would be a conservative one, what's your thinking on their recent policy on housing. Do you prefer their political theatre?

Pretty hilarious considering they have zero jurisdiction to do many of this

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So as the only likely alternative government would be a conservative one, what's your thinking on their recent policy on housing. Do you prefer their political theatre?

They couldn't be any worse in terms of the "results" Trudeau has gotten.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by whatnext

They couldn't be any worse in terms of the "results" Trudeau has gotten.

That's definitely untrue. There is plenty they could do that would be worse.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

That's definitely untrue. There is plenty they could do that would be worse.

Oh really? Worse than what was called on Bloomberg today the largest housing bubble of all time?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh really? Worse than what was called on Bloomberg today the largest housing bubble of all time?

Might I direct you to your own 13 year old thread?

Yes it can be worse, it takes dumb populist thinking to believe that different must be better. Different can always be worse.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So as the only likely alternative government would be a conservative one, what's your thinking on their recent policy on housing. Do you prefer their political theatre?

I've never read that before and that reads very interestingly from a Conservative Party. Almost seems like a 180. I don't want to get into the politics of it, but just musing that the angle in that release is.. interesting.

Like I hate folks that live in big cities trying to keep them stuck in amber but this seems very "Big Government knows best" un a tinge of undemocratic:

"Impose a NIMBY penalty on big city gatekeepers for egregious cases of NIMBYism. We will empower residents to file complaints about NIMBYism with the federal infrastructure department. When complaints are well-founded, we will withhold infrastructure dollars until municipalities remove the blockage and allow homebuilding to take place. "

They're essentially saying voters in local elections and their representatives can get stuffed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

They're effectively blackmailing cities to do things that most of them are already doing anyway. I guess this is great for less-scrupulous developers?

Not sure who the Cons are pandering to here, because most urban voters don't like them no matter what, and the outer suburbs who make up their base hate this kind of government overreach.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They're effectively blackmailing cities to do things that most of them are already doing anyway. I guess this is great for less-scrupulous developers?

Not sure who the Cons are pandering to here, because most urban voters don't like them no matter what, and the outer suburbs who make up their base hate this kind of government overreach.

I guess if you frame it as pushing the "urban" part of a city to build more and suburban conservative voters sit cozy with little change in their areas then this plan makes sense for the Party.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I've never read that before and that reads very interestingly from a Conservative Party. Almost seems like a 180. I don't want to get into the politics of it, but just musing that the angle in that release is.. interesting.

Like I hate folks that live in big cities trying to keep them stuck in amber but this seems very "Big Government knows best" un a tinge of undemocratic:

"Impose a NIMBY penalty on big city gatekeepers for egregious cases of NIMBYism. We will empower residents to file complaints about NIMBYism with the federal infrastructure department. When complaints are well-founded, we will withhold infrastructure dollars until municipalities remove the blockage and allow homebuilding to take place. "

They're essentially saying voters in local elections and their representatives can get stuffed.

they are also saying that residents can rat other other residents if perceived to be a NIMBY.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by djmk

they are also saying that residents can rat other other residents if perceived to be a NIMBY.

Ya I'll take BC's Housing Supply Act and it's carrot and club approach over that CPC press release that has "fire" City staff (essentially) in the title.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by djmk

they are also saying that residents can rat other other residents if perceived to be a NIMBY.

It's the 'barbaric cultural practices' hotline all over again

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by mcj

It's the 'barbaric cultural practices' hotline all over again

Except here the "barbarians" write into the City and leave their name for the public record already for you

[Changing City]

I found it interesting that they're specifically referencing that "Senakw, a First Nation housing development with 6,000 homes was held up by NIMBYs because they thought it was too dense and didn’t have adequate parking."

Now who commented here about how it would be a disaster without more parking?

It's a very odd take on policy, because while it might seem attract some of the 'can't afford $1m' voters, it would seem to alienate a lot of the traditional Conservative base. (And it seemed to me that most of what they say is either total nonsense, wouldn't make a difference, or could backfire spectacularly).

[dreambrother808]

The NDP platform doesn’t seem very effective either though. They’ve added cash for renters but the BC NDP version is a mere dent in the problem.

They’re all (rightfully) scared of impacting the economic dependence on real estate.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

[...] it would seem to alienate a lot of the traditional Conservative base. (And it seemed to me that most of what they say is either total nonsense, wouldn't make a difference, or could backfire spectacularly).

The traditional rural/prairie conservative base is locked in and isn't going anywhere. This is a push for the suburban vote.

[Migrant_Coconut]

And since suburban YIMBYs will likely be repulsed by everything else the Cons stand for, they're really just shooting themselves in the foot.

State housing. Whoever makes that pitch gets all the YIMBY votes for the next twenty years.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I guess if you frame it as pushing the "urban" part of a city to build more and suburban conservative voters sit cozy with little change in their areas then this plan makes sense for the Party.

Maybe, but that's like voting for the Leopards Eating Voters' Faces Party and hoping the leopards will eat "their" faces instead.