Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Trudeau is fully fluent but he doesn’t sound native. There is something slightly artificial or stilted when he speaks French that is hard to pinpoint. But that’s also his personality in general.

JT only sounds normal when he's letting it rip on someone (making like his dad), the rest of the time he definitely a bit awkward/stilted. He's no Ron DeSantis though.

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by ecbin

JT only sounds normal when he's letting it rip on someone (making like his dad), the rest of the time he definitely a bit awkward/stilted. He's no Ron DeSantis though.

I think he'd actually be more likable if he just let it rip more often instead of the jilted, stuttery diplomacy he's more known for.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I was under the impression that he grew up speaking French at home with his French Canadian parents making him both a Francophone and a native speaker, but from what I read his French fluency is a little bit worse than Trudeau's (who apparently doesn't come across as fully fluent either).

In retrospect, based off of friends of mine who grew up speaking their family language at home but nowhere else, yeah they probably don't come across as native speakers either.

As long as it's enough to get him through the door in Quebec though, what more does he need?

Sounding like a native francophone isn't necessarily the main factor in making it in Quebec.

Jack Layton didn't sound like a native French speaker in any way and he led the NDP to an Orange Wave in Quebec.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Sounding like a native francophone isn't necessarily the main factor in making it in Quebec.

Jack Layton didn't sound like a native French speaker in any way and he led the NDP to an Orange Wave in Quebec.

Didn't Jack Layton actually have a rough but pretty intelligible Quebecois accent? He was an Anglo-Quebecer after all, not unlike JT himself. I was under the impression that the orange wave in Quebec was somewhat ascribed to Layton's impressive performance in the French language debates.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by teriyaki

I think he'd actually be more likable if he just let it rip more often instead of the jilted, stuttery diplomacy he's more known for.

I think we may see that in a campaign vs. PP. PP is good at dishing out prepared rage bait, but not responding in the moment. He reverts to talking points all the time.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Didn't Jack Layton actually have a rough but pretty intelligible Quebecois accent? He was an Anglo-Quebecer after all, not unlike JT himself. I was under the impression that the orange wave in Quebec was somewhat ascribed to Layton's impressive performance in the French language debates.

Jack Layton had a very strong anglo accent but used Québécois pronunciation and slang terms occasionally.

Justin Trudeau is way closer to sounding like a native francophone Québécois than Layton was, even if not quite there.

Layton did perform well in the French language debate (and also in a watershed appearance on the talk show Tout le monde en parle) but it was far from being just about his accent.

All of the people we've been discussing (Layton, Trudeau, Poilievre, Harper) are perfectly intelligible to francophone ears BTW.

[Sheba]

Somewhat back on track...

Under pressure to respond to widespread concerns about the cost of living and faced with questions about his leadership, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced new measures Thursday aimed at rising housing and grocery prices.

Trudeau's announcement came at the conclusion of a Liberal caucus meeting in London, Ont. that included what one minister called a "robust" discussion of the government's challenges and sagging political fortunes.

Flanked by the entire Liberal caucus, Trudeau said the federal government would remove the GST from the construction of new rental apartments to spur new development. The Liberals also will now require municipalities to repeal or amend exclusionary zoning policies in order to access the government's housing accelerator fund.

...

On Wednesday in London, Ont., Trudeau announced that the city had become the first in Canada to reach a deal with his government under the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which was announced in the 2022 federal budget.

The deal will see London get $74 million in exchange for the city's agreement to pursue a series of measures, including a change to local zoning rules that should make it easier to build more rental units.

...

[chowhou]

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/09/26/bc-housing-supply-act-targets/

B.C. Housing Supply Act targets announced for 10 municipalities

Months after the B.C. government first identified six municipalities in which it wanted to see more homes built, the province has set housing targets for those cities — and four others.

Per the Housing Supply Act, the province says 10 municipalities across the Lower Mainland and parts of Vancouver Island will have to meet these targets.

To start, Abbotsford, Delta, Kamloops, the District of North Vancouver, District of Oak Bay, Port Moody, District of Saanich, Vancouver, Victoria, and West Vancouver have been identified as communities “with the greatest need” for housing.

The targets for each are as follows:

City of Abbotsford: 7,240 housing units
City of Delta: 3,607 housing units
City of Kamloops: 4,236 housing units
District North Vancouver: 2,838 housing units
District of Oak Bay: 664 housing units
City of Port Moody: 1,694 housing units
District of Saanich: 4,610 housing units
City of Vancouver: 28,900 housing units
City of Victoria: 4,902 housing units
District of West Vancouver: 1,432 housing units

The targets represent net new units, and must be built within five years, the B.C. government says.

“The housing targets put forward by the Province mark a 38 per cent increase in overall housing to be Ministry of Housing built in these communities over what was projected to have been created based on historic trends,” the province added in a release Tuesday.

In an effort to help local governments meet their targets, the B.C. government says it’s providing municipalities with “resources to speed up approval processes.” Those resources include $10 million to continue implementing the Development Approvals Process Review, as well as accelerated and streamlined permitting processes.

“We will work with them to deliver these housing targets. We’re not going to announce the target and just leave them to their own devices. We’re going to work with them every step of the way,” Premier David Eby said Tuesday.

“I can say the vast majority of cities are there. The vast majority of cities are ready to go. I am very grateful to those that are taking on this additional responsibility and we’ll be there to support them.”

The B.C. government says it will evaluate progress after six months, and then every year after. The province says the Housing Supply Act does include compliance options that can be enforced “as a last resort” should local governments not meet their targets.

“If they’re struggling to meet those targets we’ll identify why and we’ll address it. But to start on day one and say, ‘We’re not able to meet those targets because X’ is not going to be an answer,” Eby said.

“It is absolutely vital that we are approaching this in the spirit of cooperation, in the spirit of let’s get this done together. The goals, the targets, were set in partnership with the cities — sitting down with them. What’s realistic? What can we actually deliver? Nobody wants failure here. Everybody wants success and we’re going to keep pushing in that direction. We’re going to support each other to get this done.”

Along with their individual targets, the municipalities have also been given housing target guidelines which outline “a recommended number of units by size,” how many units should be rentals, how many of those should be below-market, and whether they should include on-site supports.

“These guidelines include more than 16,800 below-market rentals,” the province explains, adding the overall analysis looked at not just meeting current demand but also that which will come with population growth over the next five years.

Another eight to 10 municipalities for which targets will be set are expected to be announced later this year.

The Housing Supply Act was passed in November 2022.

[chowhou]

In related news...

https://twitter.com/SeanFraserMP/status/1706772691049464203

In light of a proposed development cost charge increase by Metro Van, I‘ve postponed today’s announcement of Housing Accelerator Fund deals with 2 cities who are members of the Metro Van board.

We’re studying the impacts of this proposal and I hope to have more to say soon.

[GenWhy?]

Best news is if most cities continue their status quo completions with small improvements they'll all mostly meet the targets.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

In related news...

https://twitter.com/SeanFraserMP/status/1706772691049464203

It's Surrey and Burnaby. It's not clear if they'll get any Accelerator funds now.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

In related news...

https://twitter.com/SeanFraserMP/status/1706772691049464203

Awesome, because a government based thousand of kilometres away really knows what’s best for Metro Vancouver.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Awesome, because a government based thousand of kilometres away really knows what’s best for Metro Vancouver.

Metro Van needs to read the room, now is not the time to dramatically increase building costs with taxes and fees.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Metro Van needs to read the room, now is not the time to dramatically increase building costs with taxes and fees.

They're proposing increased fees. The alternative is raising property taxes. If we're going to build more housing, then we need bigger sewers, more water treatment plants, etc. Either the existing population pay for them, or the developers adding the extra housing pay. Not building the necessary infrastructure isn't really an option. (Unless the federal government are offering more money for infrastructure).

[madog222]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Metro Van needs to read the room, now is not the time to dramatically increase building costs with taxes and fees.

Metro Vancouver doesn't have a choice, Iona and Lions Gate are already non-compliant with federal regulations.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Changing City

They're proposing increased fees. The alternative is raising property taxes. If we're going to build more housing, then we need bigger sewers, more water treatment plants, etc. Either the existing population pay for them, or the developers adding the extra housing pay. Not building the necessary infrastructure isn't really an option. (Unless the federal government are offering more money for infrastructure).

What they are proposing is reallocating fees from existing residents to new construction.

"On April 28, the Metro board will decide whether developers, including those building new homes, will cover almost 100 per cent of the ballooning cost of water and sewage, the most expensive infrastructure, as part of Metro's 2024-2028 Financial Plan.

Currently there is an 82.5 per cent development fee on sewage infrastructure costs and Metro's new water infrastructure fee will be 50 per cent of related costs.

The change means ”that 99 per cent of the cost of system expansion is covered by development cost charges rather than water sales to water district members or liquid waste services levies to sewerage and drainage district members,” explained Jennifer Saltman, a communication specialist with Metro Vancouver."

Just more of the usual, 'I've got mine, pull up the ladder' policies that are destroying the country, the Feds are right to call them out on this. As if, if there was no new development, costs for sewer improvements and other infrastructure programs would disappear.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GMD

What they are proposing is reallocating fees from existing residents to new construction.

"On April 28, the Metro board will decide whether developers, including those building new homes, will cover almost 100 per cent of the ballooning cost of water and sewage, the most expensive infrastructure, as part of Metro's 2024-2028 Financial Plan.

Currently there is an 82.5 per cent development fee on sewage infrastructure costs and Metro's new water infrastructure fee will be 50 per cent of related costs.

The change means ”that 99 per cent of the cost of system expansion is covered by development cost charges rather than water sales to water district members or liquid waste services levies to sewerage and drainage district members,” explained Jennifer Saltman, a communication specialist with Metro Vancouver."

Just more of the usual, 'I've got mine, pull up the ladder' policies that are destroying the country, the Feds are right to call them out on this. As if, if there was no new development, costs for sewer improvements and other infrastructure programs would disappear.

The cost of upgrading the existing systems will be covered from the existing taxes. They're not reducing, or replacing any existing property taxes, just trying to stop them rising even more. As you quoted, the article you linked to says the additional fees are related to system expansion. If new development wasn't being built, the Metro sewer and water system wouldn't be expanded. So unless developers pay more, existing taxpayers will have to subsidize the new development, as they have in the recent past.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Awesome, because a government based thousand of kilometres away really knows what’s best for Metro Vancouver.

Shouldn't you be happy that the federal government is withholding funding? After all, they don't know what's best for Metro Vancouver, why would they try to meddle in our affairs!

Can always count on you to have the worst takes possible.

Originally Posted by Changing City

The cost of upgrading the existing systems will be covered from the existing taxes. They're not reducing, or replacing any existing property taxes, just trying to stop them rising even more. As you quoted, the article you linked to says the additional fees are related to system expansion. If new development wasn't being built, the Metro sewer and water system wouldn't be expanded. So unless developers pay more, existing taxpayers will have to subsidize the new development, as they have in the recent past.

This is just semantics, fact of the matter is the cost burden is being moved from existing homeowners to new homeowners.

The more I look into it, the worse this policy looks. When you shift your infrastructure improvement budget to depend purely on new developments it seems like a recipe for disaster.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by madog222

Metro Vancouver doesn't have a choice, Iona and Lions Gate are already non-compliant with federal regulations.

Interesting, I think we found out who should pay the bill.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Shouldn't you be happy that the federal government is withholding funding? After all, they don't know what's best for Metro Vancouver, why would they try to meddle in our affairs!

Can always count on you to have the worst takes possible.

As usual, that makes zero sense. You have a federal government forcing an expanding population on municipalities all over the country, yet they now seemingly want to punish those cities for trying to expand the infrastructure to cope with it. If the useless Fraser is so concerned than write a cheque to MetroVancouver to cover the upgrade costs. After all, his partner in incompetence, Chrystia Freeland, just magically "unlocked" $20 billion to underwrite residential mortgages.