Federal Government & Politics II

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So you honestly think shoveling money at private developers will "solve the housing crisis"?

You honestly think they are just writing checks to public developers?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by someone123

If the real estate industry is overheated, it's too large a share of GDP, and tons of private money is pouring into housing while rents are skyrocketing, doesn't it follow that government spending in that area will be relatively ineffective?

Housing construction costs are high so 9-figure investments won't move the needle much. $115M cannot build 40,000 housing units or even majorly impact the incentives around building 40,000 units. It's only $2,875 per unit. And 40,000 units isn't even a big fraction of what's required to house a portion of annual nonpermanent residents who are moving here.

I think the federal government's main levers are to do with managing demand (credit supply and money injected into the economy, etc.), migration (skilled who can build housing vs. other), and maybe cutting back red tape through carrot and stick initiatives aimed at provinces and municipalities. Their track record in those areas isn't great as far as promoting affordable housing goes.

As far as I've read so far from the information available, the money directed towards the City of Vancouver is not directly building homes. It's to revamp the City's system. But not a lot of info out right now and I might be a bit off, and some of that money might be towards City funded or constructed social housing.

[GlassCity]

The funding that Vancouver received today was from the Housing Accelerator Fund, a national program run by the CMHC in which local governments are given funding in exchange for making pro-development reforms with the general intent of boosting housing supply and therefore improving housing availability and affordability.

Local governments had to apply to this program (hundreds across the country did), and as part of the application had to include a number of initiatives (5 for rural/small/Indigenous communities, 7 for urban communities) to help boost supply i.e. allowing fourplexes on all lots, eliminating parking requirements, etc. They've been (very slowly) gradually announcing the winning cities, and Vancouver today was the 11th.

The amount of funding is tied to the amount of net additional housing that would be produced due to the reforms. It's a 3-year program, so if your local government would've typically expected 1,000 homes to be built over that time frame under the status quo but, after bringing in the reforms would project 1,200, the money you get would be calculated on a per-home basis for those 200 extra homes. CMHC reviews the applications and calculations and the local governments (ostensibly) with the best scores for increasing future housing supply get the money.

The money is very flexible - you can basically use it for anything that supports increased population, like hard infrastructure, community facilities, and more affordable housing. But it's the city's choice - it's not the feds saying here's some money to spend on this and that. It's a carrot, an incentive, for cities to open themselves up to more housing, giving them both some political cover to do it as well as just having an extra X million bucks to add to a capital budget.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Agree we don't have the hormones, but supply management is most of the reason milk and cheese is expensive in Canada. And it's hard to get imported cheeses because of that protectionism.

We get poultry, beef, and fish direct from the farmer/fisherman almost exclusively.

I have found cheese to be cheaper in Canada lately compared to South of the border. Milk is still cheaper there but as previously mentioned no supply management and different qualify standards allow for it to be cheaper. The cheese selection there often sucks in your standard grocery store. You certainly don't find stuff like the cool Quebec cheeses available here.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The funding that Vancouver received today was from the Housing Accelerator Fund, a national program run by the CMHC in which local governments are given funding in exchange for making pro-development reforms with the general intent of boosting housing supply and therefore improving housing availability and affordability.

Local governments had to apply to this program (hundreds across the country did), and as part of the application had to include a number of initiatives (5 for rural/small/Indigenous communities, 7 for urban communities) to help boost supply i.e. allowing fourplexes on all lots, eliminating parking requirements, etc. They've been (very slowly) gradually announcing the winning cities, and Vancouver today was the 11th.

The money is very flexible - you can basically use it for anything that supports increased population, like hard infrastructure, community facilities, and more affordable housing. But it's the city's choice - it's not the feds saying here's some money to spend on this and that. It's a carrot, an incentive, for cities to open themselves up to more housing, giving them both some political cover to do it as well as just having an extra X million bucks to add to a capital budget.

So basically it’s not guaranteed to produce any housing. Brilliant.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This just reinforces what I said a few pages back...........we are heading into a spring election.

The NDP are rising and most significantly are doing so in Toronto & Montreal. They have no seats currently anywhere in the GTA and only one in Montreal. Now they are looking at 4 in Toronto, 3 in Montreal, and becoming more competitive in many other parts of Southern Ontario where currently they only have 3 seats. Even some of the Ottawa seats are now up for grabs. This gives the NDP a chance of rebuilding it's urban core vote.

As I said earlier, the Tories have basically plateaued. Their current support is very solid and has been at about 40% for nearly 6 months but conversely they seem to have little further room to gain. They have gotten that support from disenfranchised Liberals but the rest of those Liberals will not vote for PP no matter what and hence are moving over to the NDP and BQ in Quebec.

Now that the NDP have gotten all their social program goodies and they are rising in the polls and are potentially in Official Opposition territory, they will strike while the iron is hot and bring down the government at the next budget which is a confidence vote. They have nothing to gain by backing this government and everything to lose by being the party that keeps this incredibly disliked gov't in office.

Trudeau's days are numbered and I for one will be happy to see the back of him.

It's going to have to be a huge collapse in Liberal support if the NDP is to gain seats. Right now in Ontario I don't see the NDP making gains. Jagmeet Singh doesn't offer much of an alternative from the Trudeau government. I see Trudeau stepping down next year if his polling numbers remain low and a new LPC leader would make predictions more difficult.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Agree we don't have the hormones, but supply management is most of the reason milk and cheese is expensive in Canada. And it's hard to get imported cheeses because of that protectionism.

We get poultry, beef, and fish direct from the farmer/fisherman almost exclusively.

Supply management moderately increases prices overall in exchange for more stability in pricing (not that dissimilar to how rent control impacts rent prices), but the biggest problem with the supply management system isn't necessarily the costs, it's that it strongly discourages innovation, severely limits product selection, and turns dairy farming into a medieval-style hereditary privilege due to the extremely high barrier for entry until the quota system.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So basically it’s not guaranteed to produce any housing. Brilliant.

I should've mentioned too that the amount of funding is tied to the amount of net additional housing that would be produced due to the reforms. It's a 3-year program, so if your local government would've typically expected 1,000 homes to be built over that time frame under the status quo but, after bringing in the reforms would project 1,200, the money you get would be calculated on a per-home basis for those 200 extra homes. CMHC reviews the applications and calculations and the local governments (ostensibly) with the best scores for increasing future housing supply get the money.

I think it's a good program. It'll continue to improve supply far beyond the 3-year timeframe and targets the only thing local governments can control to let that happen - openness to density and development. The only way to really guarantee housing production is to subsidize projects directly, which is obviously happening separately too.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I should've mentioned too that the amount of funding is tied to the amount of net additional housing that would be produced due to the reforms. It's a 3-year program, so if your local government would've typically expected 1,000 homes to be built over that time frame under the status quo but, after bringing in the reforms would project 1,200, the money you get would be calculated on a per-home basis for those 200 extra homes. CMHC reviews the applications and calculations and the local governments (ostensibly) with the best scores for increasing future housing supply get the money.

I think it's a good program. It'll continue to improve supply far beyond the 3-year timeframe and targets the only thing local governments can control to let that happen - openness to density and development. The only way to really guarantee housing production is to subsidize projects directly, which is obviously happening separately too.

Sure but at the end of the day the money doesn't go towards building homes directly. Hence it won't really move the dial.

Nobody's mentioned but as the G&M pointed out this a climb down by the Libs who cancelled a previous announcement when MetroVancouver proposed increased development fees to cover the cost of servicing new housing. Those fee increases are still going ahead so the federal hissyfit was for nothing.

[Loco101]

I just listened to an American radio show that talked about housing issues in many part of the U.S. and especially urban areas. All of the issues were pretty much exactly the same as in Canada. And there are a number of other countries dealing with the same thing. Immigrants are needed to help with building yet there is not enough housing for immigrants. Some have suggested large mobile home parks as being the solution or small homes on tiny lots. I think that would be the most efficient solution. Anybody else have any ideas?

[niwell]

Most effective municipal funding programs allow municipalities to allocate the funds as they see fit. See OMPF in Ontario. It's a much more efficient way of doing things overall given the way municipal budgeting works.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I have found cheese to be cheaper in Canada lately compared to South of the border. Milk is still cheaper there but as previously mentioned no supply management and different qualify standards allow for it to be cheaper. The cheese selection there often sucks in your standard grocery store. You certainly don't find stuff like the cool Quebec cheeses available here.

What? This is just wrong. I don't know where you are shopping but a good US supermarket has tariff free access to all the worlds cheeses. You can even buy a Canadian boutique cheeses at a Trader Joe's in California much less than the cost in Montreal.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sure but at the end of the day the money doesn't go towards building homes directly. Hence it won't really move the dial.

Nobody's mentioned but as the G&M pointed out this a climb down by the Libs who cancelled a previous announcement when MetroVancouver proposed increased development fees to cover the cost of servicing new housing. Those fee increases are still going ahead so the federal hissyfit was for nothing.

I don't agree that "it won't really move the dial". Of course directly subsidizing/constructing new housing is the only way to guarantee an increase in supply, but it doesn't mean it's the only legitimate housing policy and that no other initiatives are worthwhile.

Regarding the Metro Vancouver DCCs, I wouldn't call it a climb-down as they've always said it'll result in a renegotiation rather than a canceling of any Metro Vancouver municipality approvals, so presumably that's reflected in the amount Vancouver got, or the initiatives they were required to commit to? Either way though, it definitely is weird - it was Burnaby and Surrey they originally postponed to consider the effects of the DCC increase, but there's no announcement on those two and meanwhile Vancouver gets their approval.

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I just listened to an American radio show that talked about housing issues in many part of the U.S. and especially urban areas. All of the issues were pretty much exactly the same as in Canada. And there are a number of other countries dealing with the same thing. Immigrants are needed to help with building yet there is not enough housing for immigrants. Some have suggested large mobile home parks as being the solution or small homes on tiny lots. I think that would be the most efficient solution. Anybody else have any ideas?

America's housing issues is due to a lack of supply as there was too much fear to invest in housing development in the decade following the 08-09 crash. Their prices are still half that of Canada's as they have sainer immigration numbers even when accounting for illegal migrants to that of Canada. Experts are forecasting Canadian housing prices to skyrocket this summer when interest rates are lowered.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by thurmas

America's housing issues is due to a lack of supply as there was too much fear to invest in housing development in the decade following the 08-09 crash. Their prices are still half that of Canada's as they have sainer immigration numbers even when accounting for illegal migrants to that of Canada. Experts are forecasting Canadian housing prices to skyrocket this summer when interest rates are lowered.

Yes, and there was a huge institutional investor buying spree of homes in the USA following the Great Recession. Action to prevent that here are as usual, going to be too late.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It's going to have to be a huge collapse in Liberal support if the NDP is to gain seats. Right now in Ontario I don't see the NDP making gains. Jagmeet Singh doesn't offer much of an alternative from the Trudeau government. I see Trudeau stepping down next year if his polling numbers remain low and a new LPC leader would make predictions more difficult.

The polls are certainly suggesting a huge collapse in support.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

What? This is just wrong. I don't know where you are shopping but a good US supermarket has tariff free access to all the worlds cheeses. You can even buy a Canadian boutique cheeses at a Trader Joe's in California much less than the cost in Montreal.

I've never been to a Trader Joe's which as far as I've seen are only located in large population centres. I've only shopped at regular grocery stores in the states.

How would Quebec cheese be cheaper in California? I know that food is cheaper to produce in Canada right now but I don't see how it would sell for less there. What do you consider to be Canadian boutique cheeses?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The polls are certainly suggesting a huge collapse in support.

At the moment the polls definitely show a big loss in support but something to look at in the undecided number which has been at around 20% in many polls. In the last election campaign the CPC had a pretty good lead in the polls for the first half and many were predicting a CPC majority or at least a victory. But the undecideds went heavily LPC when they made up their minds. The thing to watch is if it will happen again. We should only know once we get to a couple weeks before the next election date.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by thurmas

America's housing issues is due to a lack of supply as there was too much fear to invest in housing development in the decade following the 08-09 crash. Their prices are still half that of Canada's as they have sainer immigration numbers even when accounting for illegal migrants to that of Canada. Experts are forecasting Canadian housing prices to skyrocket this summer when interest rates are lowered.

The average house price in Canada according to CREA in November 2023 is:

CAD $646,134.00

Source: https://www.crea.ca/housing-market-s...nal-price-map/

The average house price in the United States according to the U.S. Census Bureau for 2023 is USD $499,450.00 which converts to CAD $ 668,174.20 (conversion of 1 US dollar equals 1.34 CDN dollars)

Source: https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/average-home-prices/

So the average house price is slightly higher in the U.S. but in actually pretty equal.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I've never been to a Trader Joe's which as far as I've seen are only located in large population centres. I've only shopped at regular grocery stores in the states.

How would Quebec cheese be cheaper in California? I know that food is cheaper to produce in Canada right now but I don't see how it would sell for less there. What do you consider to be Canadian boutique cheeses?

I mean in Canada you can also go to Freshco and pay half as much as Sobey's for the same products.

Cheese along with Chicken and Eggs are Supply managed in Canada. In US they pay world prices. When we sell our cheese in the US or Europe they need to charge world prices. We don't export Chicken or Eggs but Cheese has a small export market. If we eliminated supply management we would likely increase our exports as costs fell dramatically without the need to borrow millions for quota.