8 ms·

ive lost all faith in my own country. there is no leadership, no rules, no regulation. UN called Canada a "modern serfdom with slavery"

stonethrowaway 2y ago
Wait till you find out what they did with the natives. And then there was no one left to speak for you.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deisteve 2y ago
  I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread.
  - voisin 2y ago
    I think the poster is saying that a society that is fine both perpetrating and turning a blind eye toward the kinds of atrocities (I don’t think I am exaggerating with this word choices) toward the indigenous population for decades, is also going to be the kind of society that is callous at best about the plight of the average working Joe. This is a country built for the elites and there is zero compassion for anyone else unless they serve those elites.
    - b112 2y ago
      What a horrible, horrible rendition of events, predicated upon misinterpreted actions. Modern Canada has not turned a "blind eye". I accept absolutely no blame, none, nada for a single thing any ancestor of mine has done. None. I am not responsible for anything my ancestors have done. The federal goverments covering multiple parties over the last few decades have poured money into settlements, investigating claims, resolving issues. I agree with settling claims if there was a contract, otherwise not. All over the planet, in every single country that exists, people are on "other people's land". There is not a single place free of this, anywhere. You only need go back far enough to discover "someone else was here". It should be noted that this also holds true for virtually all natives in Canada today. All took land from prior waves of settlers, and all warred against one another for land and resources. To somehow claim or believe that no war, to strife, to taking of others land occurred before that "horrible horrible white man" showed up is a fist full of lies. In terms of "atrocities", there has never been "mass graves" found in Canada, ever. Please differentiate between "suspected" and "we've validated that suspicion". It should be noted that for mass graves, there are federal funds given to native communities to investigate any such claims, millions being spent this very moment, yet again -- never, ever been found. The issues with the church abusing natives in the past is a sad, and indeed horrible event. Yet one must view this in the optics of ALL societies at this time. It was done with an intent to help, not hurt. Again, it was wrong, but the motive was not intended as such. And to put this in perspective, look at what happened to white Canadian children placed in the care of the church. Ever hear of priests raping young boys? Of orphanages beating young children? This happened to white people as well, and while none of it was right, to native or to white, my point is that it happened to us too. And if you think that's it, Google the "home children". An example being that my great-great grandfather died during WWI, resulting in his wife and children being without a provider. Mores being as they were back then, this meant the wife had two choices, put the children up for adoption, as they would all starve otherwise, and then remarry -- for no man would take another's children back then. This is how war heroes were treated in the early 20th. Thanks for your life, your wife and children are now screwed. Thus my grandfather was eventually shipped out indentured, which is on the edge of slavery, to Canada from the UK. My greatuncle was shipped to Australia. My great-aunts, unknown. To this day we have no idea where our family is in the world, or even if they survived. Some home children were treated atrociously, starving conditions, raped, beat, and more. To run meant the law would catch you and bring you back. My grandfather was "lucky", in that he was only worked 18 hours a day as a youth, and being a farm he had food. But that farmer bought my grandfather's contract, and had him until 18. You may say "So what", but my point here is this was the world of the time. And you may say that Canada is a horrible country, but from my perspective screw you. Look at the world today, where more than 1/2 of it are committing acts that are far, far more barbarous than anything done 100+ years ago in Canada. And for the last decades we've been working towards resolution. Canada is not perfect, but it a light of glowing enlightenment compared to the rest of the world. I'm sure you're going to come back with "But, this happened!" and yes some of it likely did. But is it happening today? Are you seriously trying to claim people aren't aware today? Are you seriously trying to say the billions upon billions spent in the last few decades aren't an attempt to try to fix things?
      - deisteve 2y ago
        I mean the parent is trying to justify the current situation in canada by bringing up aboriginals centuries ago seems clearly ideological Definitely not what the rest of us are discussing.
        voisin 2y ago
        I’ll reply to both of you. To be clear, this isn’t something that happened way back in the past “centuries ago”. The last residential school was closed in 1997 and there were many open in the 90s. Canada turned a blind eye to things occurring in our lifetimes, and continues to today with respect to the living conditions on reserves (e.g. poisoned water). Huge portions of our country are built on unceded land. My point wasn’t to litigate whether everyone’s history includes atrocities. My point is that a government that allowed these things to happen very recently is not the type of government that has the average person (who has as little voice as indigenous people on a reserve) in mind when making policy. Our government is beholden to corporate interests and elites. Not sure why you are defending that.
        b112 2y ago
        residential school was closed in 1997 and there were many open in the 90s. Yes, but were the acts of that church run school system, the same as the acts exhibited in the 1600s? The 1800s? NO. In fact, there was a realization that the schools had issues, that there was wrongness in the schools, as far back in the 1950s, when legislation was passed to allow natives to attend in the standard school system. The federal government stepped in, and in the 60s took direct control of the school system, seeking to rectify things. Schools were closed in the 70s, lots of them, and many were given to control of native groups. The point is, context is important. Were the schools you cite in the 90s treating natives as they were treated 100, 200 years before. NO. No one is saying that the school system was a good idea by modern ideals. This is, in fact, why it was shut down. However, trying to equate how the school system performed in the 90s, to how it performed 100 years prior, is absurd. There have been issues with water all over Canada in rural communities, not just native communities. My own town had issues with local well water for decades, until we finally built a water treatment plant. Successive federal governments have dealt with these issues on reservation, and I 100% agree that this is an issue. Yet at the same time, we have some chiefs redirecting, or just personally stealing funds marked for local communities. Natives are human beings after all, and so corruption exists here too, and the systems of checks and balances to force some accountability in governmental operations in Canada, don't apply to Native communities. And of course, if the federal government attempts to step in, simply to force accountability, people howl at the "power grab". I have little care of 'unceded' land, unless there is a historical treaty stating otherwise. You may wonder why I say that? Well as I stated in my initial reply, this is how the world is. Every single piece of land on the planet has people on unceded land. The very use of the term is absurd. Natives, before a single white man arrived, were on unceded land, for they took their land from people here before them. Natives were not the first North Americans. I can look at any piece of land on Europe, and it is unceded. Taken. Back to the main point, and back to Canada, it is absolutely not beholden to corporate interests and elites. Claiming so, ignores what each government has done in detail, perhaps focusing only on the mistakes made, and not on the good each government has done. So I am not defending your incorrect view of Canada and of history, and of modern Canada, but instead I am defending my view of Canada. An imperfect nation, as all are, but as I said in a prior comment, better than most, if not all. One of the largest issues I see is, everyone has a weird view of the world, in which the culture and beliefs, and traditions of natives would remain unchanged for half a millennium. Yet, let's enact a little thought experiment. What would have happened if, for example, Europeans arrived in the new world, but instead did not settle here? But at the same time, enacted in open trade with native communities, and open contact. Well an entirely European free North America would have had its culture evolve. Technological progress would have seeped in, that is unless there is an assertion that natives have no mind for science, technology, the capacity to build things? And what of trade? Various native tribes and nations warred with one another, Europeans were not required to cause this. Obviously, some would seek to trade furs for guns, yes? And with the right tools, building settlements could aid in defense. We don't really need to look too hard here, for every culture across the entire planet, including many cultures in the Americas build settlements. And speaking of culture, none of the traditions cited and spoken of today by natives would be unchanged, unvarnished the the steps of time, should natives have controlled North America. Wars would cause the elimination of some tribes and cultures. Cultural ideas would have spread between communities. As technological advances occurred, culture would have changed. My point in all of this is, it is of great disservice to presume that natives would not change the world around them, ever. That they would not change over time. That no native group, or community would expand and its culture supplant others. This happened all through the Americas, just take a look at the Mayans. Yet the modern dialog is ... what? That natives would be living today, precisely as they did in the 1500s? Absolutely untrue.
    - deisteve 2y ago
      seems like a stretch to me. i didnt massacre the natives i wasnt even around back then
markus_zhang 2y ago
I'm worried about hospitals and infrastructures too. Sigh.
- deisteve 2y ago
  Same. It's completed flooded. I know ppl won't even allow the remotest criticism of immigration on HN but trust me Canadians are fed up with the huge surge from India. I've even heard people lament saying they miss Chinese international students who would spend a lot of money, creating jobs but these new Indian "students" just show up at food banks taking everything, overcrowding homes, taking advantage of government benefits, jobs meant for new graduates, nepotism, just DDOSing the whole Canadian infrastructure as a whole is the popular opinion. I don't know what to do about it and neither do the politicians. I'm not exactly thrilled to be importing this many people from India, a country which I frankly don't have any interest or passion for. Everyday I just long to be away from it all but tough to do that when you rely on payment from one location.
  - spitfire 2y ago
    Import Ukrainians instead?
    - steve_adams_86 2y ago
      There are a lot of Ukrainians in Canada (multi-generation families as well as recent immigrants).
      - spitfire 2y ago
        Sorry, I should have said “Import more Ukrainians “. For exactly the reasons you mention. They’ll fit right in.
        deisteve 2y ago
        ex) Eastern european Canadians vs Irish Canadians vs British Canadians vs French Canadian. Totally different vibes and even culture event though they look similar. color of skin isnt the issue, its who contributes to taxes and society in balance so as many surface areas can be served without anyone feeling left out singapore's multiculturalism works but why doesnt Japan's?
ChumpGPT 2y ago
If you can get out, get out. A lot of Americans complain how shitty they got it, For Canadians it is like heaven here. You can actually buy a house in a major city and afford nice things and earn a decent salary. This is not possible in the majority of Canadian cities. Canada is a great place to visit but it is a shitty place to work and live, unless your parents own a house and have a couple of rentals (in Vancouver or Toronto) that you're going to inherit. Even 100k salary in Toronto is poverty these days, I don't know how people do it anymore. Private industry pays like shit and unless your a Gov Employee it's just tough. -ExPat...never coming back.....
- kredd 2y ago
  Eh, half of my family is in the US, and I honestly think it’s not much worse here other than buying a house. That being said, it really sucks for new grads and younger people.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deisteve 2y ago
  Honestly its tough. I apply to American jobs but they minute they find out I am Canadian they will pass on my application even jobs I overqualified for. Can confirm 100k salary in Vancouver is nothing. Even 200k I wasn't saving money. What makes me angry is learning 1/4 jobs in Canada is a government job. Taxes, housing, society (I don't even feel like I live in Canada sometimes). I don't know what other options there are. It's quite bleak and living in Canada takes a toll on your mental health. I envy you...
  - markus_zhang 2y ago
    Vancouver housing is crazy. I think Montreal is the only one of the three that still have affordable housing, albeit not 100% sure. But you should be fine with a 100K salary at least. However, QC has its own issues, infrastructure and hospital waiting time are pretty bad.
pjkundert 2y ago
There’s plenty of regulation. It’s caused several builders I know to close their businesses. Congratulations! Sometimes, evidently, you get what you vote for?
shiroiushi 2y ago
>ive lost all faith in my own country. there is no leadership, no rules, no regulation. There most certainly is regulation, and that's why housing prices are so high. If you got rid of the regulation, builders would build new housing. It's like this all across Western nations now: they can't build new housing in the needed quantity because of zoning regulations.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  “because of zoning regulations” seems so vague. Is there a concrete example of what particular regulations are stopping building and how they are doing it? I know people in the construction business and they aren’t hurting for work. In fact they are constantly working to the point where I can’t even hire them to do small repair jobs on my own home. Nobody will even bother to pick up the phone for less than $10,000, there’s so much building going on. And this is California, the most notorious place for (hand wavey) “regulations.”
  - topher515 2y ago
    There are many well intentioned regulations that end up restricting the housing supply by making it more expensive to build. Some of them definitely sound good (and are good?), but collectively have done a lot of bad. Note the important point here that these don’t “stop building” but rather simply make it more expensive or more time consuming. Increased time is essentially equivalent to increased cost since you must pay lawyers and employees and so forth as time increases. - minimum parking requirements - single family zoning restrictions - height restrictions - environmental reviews - historical preservation review - local input on many/most decisions There is a whole universe of stuff written around this topic. You can Google around for it with the topic of “YIMBY” or “housing abundance” or similar. A good entry point can be: https://new.yimbyaction.org/top-resources/ https://new.yimbyaction.org/top-resources/ Also read Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein as they have been harping on about housing abundance for many years.
  - strongpigeon 2y ago
    What I know is mostly from Seattle, but applies in most places: - Usage Restriction. Seattle is famous for having the highest percentage of land zone exclusively for single family housing. This puts a hard limit to how much can be built. - Parking Minimum. These can drive construction costs a lot, so much that a lot of projects can't be build profitably. - Endless "Environmental" review processes. While these do sound good in theory, they have (at least in Seattle) very rarely been used to actually protect the environment. They're typically used by NIMBYs to slow down and delay projects forever so that developers abandon. There is a lot more, but those are some of the main things people talk about when they point to "zoning regulations".
emeril 2y ago
don't move to the US or most any other country in the world canada is better than most

stonethrowaway 2y ago

Wait till you find out what they did with the natives. And then there was no one left to speak for you.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deisteve 2y ago
I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread.
- voisin 2y ago
  I think the poster is saying that a society that is fine both perpetrating and turning a blind eye toward the kinds of atrocities (I don’t think I am exaggerating with this word choices) toward the indigenous population for decades, is also going to be the kind of society that is callous at best about the plight of the average working Joe. This is a country built for the elites and there is zero compassion for anyone else unless they serve those elites.
  - b112 2y ago
    What a horrible, horrible rendition of events, predicated upon misinterpreted actions. Modern Canada has not turned a "blind eye". I accept absolutely no blame, none, nada for a single thing any ancestor of mine has done. None. I am not responsible for anything my ancestors have done. The federal goverments covering multiple parties over the last few decades have poured money into settlements, investigating claims, resolving issues. I agree with settling claims if there was a contract, otherwise not. All over the planet, in every single country that exists, people are on "other people's land". There is not a single place free of this, anywhere. You only need go back far enough to discover "someone else was here". It should be noted that this also holds true for virtually all natives in Canada today. All took land from prior waves of settlers, and all warred against one another for land and resources. To somehow claim or believe that no war, to strife, to taking of others land occurred before that "horrible horrible white man" showed up is a fist full of lies. In terms of "atrocities", there has never been "mass graves" found in Canada, ever. Please differentiate between "suspected" and "we've validated that suspicion". It should be noted that for mass graves, there are federal funds given to native communities to investigate any such claims, millions being spent this very moment, yet again -- never, ever been found. The issues with the church abusing natives in the past is a sad, and indeed horrible event. Yet one must view this in the optics of ALL societies at this time. It was done with an intent to help, not hurt. Again, it was wrong, but the motive was not intended as such. And to put this in perspective, look at what happened to white Canadian children placed in the care of the church. Ever hear of priests raping young boys? Of orphanages beating young children? This happened to white people as well, and while none of it was right, to native or to white, my point is that it happened to us too. And if you think that's it, Google the "home children". An example being that my great-great grandfather died during WWI, resulting in his wife and children being without a provider. Mores being as they were back then, this meant the wife had two choices, put the children up for adoption, as they would all starve otherwise, and then remarry -- for no man would take another's children back then. This is how war heroes were treated in the early 20th. Thanks for your life, your wife and children are now screwed. Thus my grandfather was eventually shipped out indentured, which is on the edge of slavery, to Canada from the UK. My greatuncle was shipped to Australia. My great-aunts, unknown. To this day we have no idea where our family is in the world, or even if they survived. Some home children were treated atrociously, starving conditions, raped, beat, and more. To run meant the law would catch you and bring you back. My grandfather was "lucky", in that he was only worked 18 hours a day as a youth, and being a farm he had food. But that farmer bought my grandfather's contract, and had him until 18. You may say "So what", but my point here is this was the world of the time. And you may say that Canada is a horrible country, but from my perspective screw you. Look at the world today, where more than 1/2 of it are committing acts that are far, far more barbarous than anything done 100+ years ago in Canada. And for the last decades we've been working towards resolution. Canada is not perfect, but it a light of glowing enlightenment compared to the rest of the world. I'm sure you're going to come back with "But, this happened!" and yes some of it likely did. But is it happening today? Are you seriously trying to claim people aren't aware today? Are you seriously trying to say the billions upon billions spent in the last few decades aren't an attempt to try to fix things?
    - deisteve 2y ago
      I mean the parent is trying to justify the current situation in canada by bringing up aboriginals centuries ago seems clearly ideological Definitely not what the rest of us are discussing.
      - voisin 2y ago
        I’ll reply to both of you. To be clear, this isn’t something that happened way back in the past “centuries ago”. The last residential school was closed in 1997 and there were many open in the 90s. Canada turned a blind eye to things occurring in our lifetimes, and continues to today with respect to the living conditions on reserves (e.g. poisoned water). Huge portions of our country are built on unceded land. My point wasn’t to litigate whether everyone’s history includes atrocities. My point is that a government that allowed these things to happen very recently is not the type of government that has the average person (who has as little voice as indigenous people on a reserve) in mind when making policy. Our government is beholden to corporate interests and elites. Not sure why you are defending that.
        b112 2y ago
        residential school was closed in 1997 and there were many open in the 90s. Yes, but were the acts of that church run school system, the same as the acts exhibited in the 1600s? The 1800s? NO. In fact, there was a realization that the schools had issues, that there was wrongness in the schools, as far back in the 1950s, when legislation was passed to allow natives to attend in the standard school system. The federal government stepped in, and in the 60s took direct control of the school system, seeking to rectify things. Schools were closed in the 70s, lots of them, and many were given to control of native groups. The point is, context is important. Were the schools you cite in the 90s treating natives as they were treated 100, 200 years before. NO. No one is saying that the school system was a good idea by modern ideals. This is, in fact, why it was shut down. However, trying to equate how the school system performed in the 90s, to how it performed 100 years prior, is absurd. There have been issues with water all over Canada in rural communities, not just native communities. My own town had issues with local well water for decades, until we finally built a water treatment plant. Successive federal governments have dealt with these issues on reservation, and I 100% agree that this is an issue. Yet at the same time, we have some chiefs redirecting, or just personally stealing funds marked for local communities. Natives are human beings after all, and so corruption exists here too, and the systems of checks and balances to force some accountability in governmental operations in Canada, don't apply to Native communities. And of course, if the federal government attempts to step in, simply to force accountability, people howl at the "power grab". I have little care of 'unceded' land, unless there is a historical treaty stating otherwise. You may wonder why I say that? Well as I stated in my initial reply, this is how the world is. Every single piece of land on the planet has people on unceded land. The very use of the term is absurd. Natives, before a single white man arrived, were on unceded land, for they took their land from people here before them. Natives were not the first North Americans. I can look at any piece of land on Europe, and it is unceded. Taken. Back to the main point, and back to Canada, it is absolutely not beholden to corporate interests and elites. Claiming so, ignores what each government has done in detail, perhaps focusing only on the mistakes made, and not on the good each government has done. So I am not defending your incorrect view of Canada and of history, and of modern Canada, but instead I am defending my view of Canada. An imperfect nation, as all are, but as I said in a prior comment, better than most, if not all. One of the largest issues I see is, everyone has a weird view of the world, in which the culture and beliefs, and traditions of natives would remain unchanged for half a millennium. Yet, let's enact a little thought experiment. What would have happened if, for example, Europeans arrived in the new world, but instead did not settle here? But at the same time, enacted in open trade with native communities, and open contact. Well an entirely European free North America would have had its culture evolve. Technological progress would have seeped in, that is unless there is an assertion that natives have no mind for science, technology, the capacity to build things? And what of trade? Various native tribes and nations warred with one another, Europeans were not required to cause this. Obviously, some would seek to trade furs for guns, yes? And with the right tools, building settlements could aid in defense. We don't really need to look too hard here, for every culture across the entire planet, including many cultures in the Americas build settlements. And speaking of culture, none of the traditions cited and spoken of today by natives would be unchanged, unvarnished the the steps of time, should natives have controlled North America. Wars would cause the elimination of some tribes and cultures. Cultural ideas would have spread between communities. As technological advances occurred, culture would have changed. My point in all of this is, it is of great disservice to presume that natives would not change the world around them, ever. That they would not change over time. That no native group, or community would expand and its culture supplant others. This happened all through the Americas, just take a look at the Mayans. Yet the modern dialog is ... what? That natives would be living today, precisely as they did in the 1500s? Absolutely untrue.
  - deisteve 2y ago
    seems like a stretch to me. i didnt massacre the natives i wasnt even around back then

markus_zhang 2y ago

I'm worried about hospitals and infrastructures too. Sigh.

deisteve 2y ago
Same. It's completed flooded. I know ppl won't even allow the remotest criticism of immigration on HN but trust me Canadians are fed up with the huge surge from India. I've even heard people lament saying they miss Chinese international students who would spend a lot of money, creating jobs but these new Indian "students" just show up at food banks taking everything, overcrowding homes, taking advantage of government benefits, jobs meant for new graduates, nepotism, just DDOSing the whole Canadian infrastructure as a whole is the popular opinion. I don't know what to do about it and neither do the politicians. I'm not exactly thrilled to be importing this many people from India, a country which I frankly don't have any interest or passion for. Everyday I just long to be away from it all but tough to do that when you rely on payment from one location.
- spitfire 2y ago
  Import Ukrainians instead?
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    There are a lot of Ukrainians in Canada (multi-generation families as well as recent immigrants).
    - spitfire 2y ago
      Sorry, I should have said “Import more Ukrainians “. For exactly the reasons you mention. They’ll fit right in.
      - deisteve 2y ago
        ex) Eastern european Canadians vs Irish Canadians vs British Canadians vs French Canadian. Totally different vibes and even culture event though they look similar. color of skin isnt the issue, its who contributes to taxes and society in balance so as many surface areas can be served without anyone feeling left out singapore's multiculturalism works but why doesnt Japan's?

ChumpGPT 2y ago

If you can get out, get out. A lot of Americans complain how shitty they got it, For Canadians it is like heaven here. You can actually buy a house in a major city and afford nice things and earn a decent salary. This is not possible in the majority of Canadian cities. Canada is a great place to visit but it is a shitty place to work and live, unless your parents own a house and have a couple of rentals (in Vancouver or Toronto) that you're going to inherit. Even 100k salary in Toronto is poverty these days, I don't know how people do it anymore. Private industry pays like shit and unless your a Gov Employee it's just tough. -ExPat...never coming back.....

kredd 2y ago
Eh, half of my family is in the US, and I honestly think it’s not much worse here other than buying a house. That being said, it really sucks for new grads and younger people.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deisteve 2y ago
Honestly its tough. I apply to American jobs but they minute they find out I am Canadian they will pass on my application even jobs I overqualified for. Can confirm 100k salary in Vancouver is nothing. Even 200k I wasn't saving money. What makes me angry is learning 1/4 jobs in Canada is a government job. Taxes, housing, society (I don't even feel like I live in Canada sometimes). I don't know what other options there are. It's quite bleak and living in Canada takes a toll on your mental health. I envy you...
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  Vancouver housing is crazy. I think Montreal is the only one of the three that still have affordable housing, albeit not 100% sure. But you should be fine with a 100K salary at least. However, QC has its own issues, infrastructure and hospital waiting time are pretty bad.

pjkundert 2y ago

There’s plenty of regulation. It’s caused several builders I know to close their businesses. Congratulations! Sometimes, evidently, you get what you vote for?

shiroiushi 2y ago

>ive lost all faith in my own country. there is no leadership, no rules, no regulation. There most certainly is regulation, and that's why housing prices are so high. If you got rid of the regulation, builders would build new housing. It's like this all across Western nations now: they can't build new housing in the needed quantity because of zoning regulations.

ryandrake 2y ago
“because of zoning regulations” seems so vague. Is there a concrete example of what particular regulations are stopping building and how they are doing it? I know people in the construction business and they aren’t hurting for work. In fact they are constantly working to the point where I can’t even hire them to do small repair jobs on my own home. Nobody will even bother to pick up the phone for less than $10,000, there’s so much building going on. And this is California, the most notorious place for (hand wavey) “regulations.”
- topher515 2y ago
  There are many well intentioned regulations that end up restricting the housing supply by making it more expensive to build. Some of them definitely sound good (and are good?), but collectively have done a lot of bad. Note the important point here that these don’t “stop building” but rather simply make it more expensive or more time consuming. Increased time is essentially equivalent to increased cost since you must pay lawyers and employees and so forth as time increases. - minimum parking requirements - single family zoning restrictions - height restrictions - environmental reviews - historical preservation review - local input on many/most decisions There is a whole universe of stuff written around this topic. You can Google around for it with the topic of “YIMBY” or “housing abundance” or similar. A good entry point can be: https://new.yimbyaction.org/top-resources/ https://new.yimbyaction.org/top-resources/ Also read Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein as they have been harping on about housing abundance for many years.
- strongpigeon 2y ago
  What I know is mostly from Seattle, but applies in most places: - Usage Restriction. Seattle is famous for having the highest percentage of land zone exclusively for single family housing. This puts a hard limit to how much can be built. - Parking Minimum. These can drive construction costs a lot, so much that a lot of projects can't be build profitably. - Endless "Environmental" review processes. While these do sound good in theory, they have (at least in Seattle) very rarely been used to actually protect the environment. They're typically used by NIMBYs to slow down and delay projects forever so that developers abandon. There is a lot more, but those are some of the main things people talk about when they point to "zoning regulations".

emeril 2y ago

don't move to the US or most any other country in the world canada is better than most