4 ms·

I agree that this is the root cause, and it remains a third rail in Canadian politics. The province of Ontario commissioned a "Housing Availability Task Force"

I agree that this is the root cause, and it remains a third rail in Canadian politics. The province of Ontario commissioned a "Housing Availability Task Force" to do a [report](https://www.ontario.ca/page/housing-affordability-task-force-report https://www.ontario.ca/page/housing-affordability-task-force...) spelling out the problem. They identified under-supply due to land use restrictions as the primary cause. The government ignored it and addressed secondary issues with lame bandaids in their June election platform. They are conservatives, this "foreign buyer ban" bandaid is put in place by liberals. NDP and Greens offer nothing different. A quadri-partisan consensus on ignoring the root cause. I do think there's another major cause - cheap money. It's fuelling a lot of the meteoric price growth and making the housing market even more of a wild speculative one, where all that matters is the carrying costs and not any underlying fundamentals. This one is more of a worldwide problem, and a small country like Canada cannot use monetary policy to bludgeon the housing market back into reality without bludgeoning the rest of the economy with it.

TimPC 5y ago
The recommendations of the committee reflect the fact that they had only one month to work in and as such severely limited the consultations they did. To take just one example of how ridiculous some of the conclusions are: They recommend forcing any municipality to accept 6 to 11 story buildings on any street that has a bus route regardless of whether that bus route actually reaches the building or not. This is a huge deal in Canada as many streets are absurdly long. Yonge Street for example is the longest street in the world and effectively transitions into a highway through rural areas. Still this policy says you could build an 11 story building without providing parking in any small township on Yonge Street because it has a bus or subway route while it's in Toronto.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  I think we have a philosophical difference here. You seem to accept the idea of centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level. I reject it. Yes, as you say, "this policy says you *could* build an 11 story building without providing parking in any small township on Yonge Street". The operative word is *could*. If there's market demand for it, you could and you absolutely should do it. If there isn't, you (the builder) won't build it, and you (the tenant) won't move in. If you focus urban planning on the big picture and allow the market to determine how many parking spots a building needs, or whether a single family neighbourhood makes any sense next to subway stops, the housing crisis will literally solve itself with private money. Instead, we keep floundering while entire generations of our under-30s struggle in precarious housing, because we are unwilling to adopt a different approach. 3/4 of discussions about 'housing affordability' at my city's council meetings are about money pits and bandaids such as airBnB bans and 'affordable housing' (can we build 30,000 units of it with taxpayer money? Didn't think so, let's move on). If you ignore the blah-blah and focus on actions, we the voters don't really want to solve this problem. If we did, we'd act on the obvious solution.
  - TimPC 5y ago
    I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions not in evidence. There is a big difference between "centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level" and overriding any ability for a municipality to assert what it feels is needed in a development. Negative externalities are a very real thing and allowing developers to have arbitrarily many of them at arbitrarily bad levels is not the only alternative to complete and total central planning. Believe it or not there are reasonable middle grounds that allow some influence on developments from central planning to limit negative externalities while also listening to market forces. My beliefs align somewhere in this middle ground.
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      >I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions not in evidence. There is a big difference between "centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level" and overriding any ability for a municipality to assert what it feels is needed in a development. Not really, if the municipality is in fact willing to centrally plan a city down to the micro-management level, and a different level of government wants to prevent it from happening. Some overriding is gonna have to happen here. >Negative externalities are a very real thing Indeed. Example: artificially embalming swathes of single-family neighbourhoods in time, right next to recently built public transit we're sinking billions into building. So let's not be selective about negative externalities and consider the ones created or exacerbated by NIMBY-driven urban planning, too. >allowing developers to have arbitrarily many of them at arbitrarily bad levels is not the only alternative to complete and total central planning. Believe it or not there are reasonable middle grounds that allow some influence on developments from central planning to limit negative externalities while also listening to market forces. My beliefs align somewhere in this middle ground. Sure. I too am somewhere between allowing toxic smelters next door to kindergartens and Soviet-style central planning where government owns all and builds all. Everyone's gonna align themselves somewhere in this middle ground between two contrived and straw-man extremes, all NIMBYs included. The whole debate is about where in this middle ground we ought to be. Forgive my skepticism, it's just that I've heard this middle-ground line often. And often, this is simply a rhetorical cop-out and a prelude to killing off any meaningful changes that allow for building the types of housing people want in places where they want it.

TimPC 5y ago

The recommendations of the committee reflect the fact that they had only one month to work in and as such severely limited the consultations they did. To take just one example of how ridiculous some of the conclusions are: They recommend forcing any municipality to accept 6 to 11 story buildings on any street that has a bus route regardless of whether that bus route actually reaches the building or not. This is a huge deal in Canada as many streets are absurdly long. Yonge Street for example is the longest street in the world and effectively transitions into a highway through rural areas. Still this policy says you could build an 11 story building without providing parking in any small township on Yonge Street because it has a bus or subway route while it's in Toronto.

kspacewalk2 5y ago
I think we have a philosophical difference here. You seem to accept the idea of centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level. I reject it. Yes, as you say, "this policy says you *could* build an 11 story building without providing parking in any small township on Yonge Street". The operative word is *could*. If there's market demand for it, you could and you absolutely should do it. If there isn't, you (the builder) won't build it, and you (the tenant) won't move in. If you focus urban planning on the big picture and allow the market to determine how many parking spots a building needs, or whether a single family neighbourhood makes any sense next to subway stops, the housing crisis will literally solve itself with private money. Instead, we keep floundering while entire generations of our under-30s struggle in precarious housing, because we are unwilling to adopt a different approach. 3/4 of discussions about 'housing affordability' at my city's council meetings are about money pits and bandaids such as airBnB bans and 'affordable housing' (can we build 30,000 units of it with taxpayer money? Didn't think so, let's move on). If you ignore the blah-blah and focus on actions, we the voters don't really want to solve this problem. If we did, we'd act on the obvious solution.
- TimPC 5y ago
  I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions not in evidence. There is a big difference between "centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level" and overriding any ability for a municipality to assert what it feels is needed in a development. Negative externalities are a very real thing and allowing developers to have arbitrarily many of them at arbitrarily bad levels is not the only alternative to complete and total central planning. Believe it or not there are reasonable middle grounds that allow some influence on developments from central planning to limit negative externalities while also listening to market forces. My beliefs align somewhere in this middle ground.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    >I think you are leaping to a lot of conclusions not in evidence. There is a big difference between "centrally planning a city down to the micro-management level" and overriding any ability for a municipality to assert what it feels is needed in a development. Not really, if the municipality is in fact willing to centrally plan a city down to the micro-management level, and a different level of government wants to prevent it from happening. Some overriding is gonna have to happen here. >Negative externalities are a very real thing Indeed. Example: artificially embalming swathes of single-family neighbourhoods in time, right next to recently built public transit we're sinking billions into building. So let's not be selective about negative externalities and consider the ones created or exacerbated by NIMBY-driven urban planning, too. >allowing developers to have arbitrarily many of them at arbitrarily bad levels is not the only alternative to complete and total central planning. Believe it or not there are reasonable middle grounds that allow some influence on developments from central planning to limit negative externalities while also listening to market forces. My beliefs align somewhere in this middle ground. Sure. I too am somewhere between allowing toxic smelters next door to kindergartens and Soviet-style central planning where government owns all and builds all. Everyone's gonna align themselves somewhere in this middle ground between two contrived and straw-man extremes, all NIMBYs included. The whole debate is about where in this middle ground we ought to be. Forgive my skepticism, it's just that I've heard this middle-ground line often. And often, this is simply a rhetorical cop-out and a prelude to killing off any meaningful changes that allow for building the types of housing people want in places where they want it.