6 ms·

> Mr Chauvin said the designated encampments are born out of a realisation that the city has run out of options to immediately address its housing crisis. > Th

> Mr Chauvin said the designated encampments are born out of a realisation that the city has run out of options to immediately address its housing crisis. > The city is waiting for the provincial government to ramp up affordable housing construction. Nova Scotia has not built any new public housing units since 1995. "Has run out of options" = "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!" Western governments have just become NIMBY-entrenched. The whole culture and bureaucracy is designed to make building things expensive, painful, and time-consuming, and then we look around and wonder why we can't seem to build enough housing. The various regulations were mostly well intentioned, but we've obviously gone too far. If private companies are unable to provide more of a product even when demand is obvious and prices are high, something is very wrong. And yes, it would be great if governments could get off their asses and make housing themselves too.

beedeebeedee 2y ago
It's not just regulations to prevent new housing, it is corporate driven inflation on all goods as well as housing
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  It's mostly not the corporations in this case. I mean, there's the algorithmic price fixing that's a problem for sure, but if we had enough housing that would only be a minor issue. Price fixing is simply a much bigger problem any time regulations make it harder to get new entrants, new "disruptors". Plus, there's an avenue that avoids corporations entirely: public housing. But our local and state governments can't get off their asses long enough to actually address the problem directly, it's so much easier to either let people suffer or blame dastardly 'greedy landlords'. (Landlords are greedy of course, but that's not new, and they can only make their greed manifest to the extent that competition is limited)
guitarbill 2y ago
> Western governments have just become NIMBY-entrenched. The whole culture and bureaucracy is designed to make building things expensive, painful, and time-consuming, and then we look around and wonder why we can't seem to build enough housing. Time and time again, companies have shown they will cut corners to make money. Much regulation exists to prevent people from being injured or killed, or for other legitimate reasons. Let's at least start by acknowledging that. (Of course petty bureaucrats and regulation do exist.) > The various regulations were mostly well intentioned, but we've obviously gone too far. How is this obvious? By the fact there is not enough housing where people want to live, and too much housing in other less desirable places? In the Western world in general? In Canada? In the US? In specific areas of the US/Canada? > If private companies are unable to provide more of a product even when demand is obvious and prices are high, something is very wrong. Unable... or unwilling? There's a difference between affordable housing and available housing. And ways to fix that other than flooding the market with so much housing to force an overabundance. That's kind of wasteful, too. For example, allowing developers to pay a one-time fine if they don't provide any affordable options in a new huge apartment block is probably a poor strategy. I'm all for making things better. The "too much regulation" thing is just a bit too facile of an argument. In the US at least, there usually exist places where there is less regulation. Weirdly, people don't automatically move there.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  > And ways to fix that other than flooding the market with so much housing to force an overabundance. That's kind of wasteful, too. Why? People need to move, and a certain amount of transiently vacant units is necessary for migration to not disrupt local prices too much.
  - guitarbill 2y ago
    Sure, absolutely. But we've also seen that landlords/owners are sometimes happy to keep units vacant. Or just use RealPage. How many vacant units are required? And where? For what it's worth, I agree housing is nutty. But few desirable places have solved it. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in Europe. The "just build more" argument seems a bit simplistic. In an ideal world, it works. But we also wouldn't have villages dying in the country-side, and extremely expensive cities/metro-areas.
    - TulliusCicero 2y ago
      > How many vacant units are required? 7% vacancy rate is about the historical average for the US I think. Around there or a bit higher would probably be healthy. > And where? Supply needs to meet demand: we most need new housing where the economy is booming and jobs are being added. But you act like we need some federal authority to say, "okay guys, put housing HERE". That's totally unnecessary: if regulations are streamlined sufficiently, developers will build where demand exists. No central authority required. > But we also wouldn't have villages dying in the country-side, and extremely expensive cities/metro-areas. ??? I'm sorry, are you unaware that most jobs aren't remote or something? This is a very strange and simple thing to misunderstand.
      - guitarbill 2y ago
        > Supply needs to meet demand: we most need new housing where the economy is booming and jobs are being added. > But you act like we need some federal authority to say, "okay guys, put housing HERE". That's totally unnecessary: if regulations are streamlined sufficiently, developers will build where demand exists. No central authority required. Relax. I said no such thing. >> But we also wouldn't have villages dying in the country-side, and extremely expensive cities/metro-areas. > ??? > I'm sorry, are you unaware that most jobs aren't remote or something? This is a very strange and simple thing to misunderstand. I'm just going to quote this for posterity, noting that you cut off "In an ideal world, it works." on purpose. Let's keep things civil, and not try to misrepresent.

beedeebeedee 2y ago

It's not just regulations to prevent new housing, it is corporate driven inflation on all goods as well as housing

TulliusCicero 2y ago
It's mostly not the corporations in this case. I mean, there's the algorithmic price fixing that's a problem for sure, but if we had enough housing that would only be a minor issue. Price fixing is simply a much bigger problem any time regulations make it harder to get new entrants, new "disruptors". Plus, there's an avenue that avoids corporations entirely: public housing. But our local and state governments can't get off their asses long enough to actually address the problem directly, it's so much easier to either let people suffer or blame dastardly 'greedy landlords'. (Landlords are greedy of course, but that's not new, and they can only make their greed manifest to the extent that competition is limited)

guitarbill 2y ago

> Western governments have just become NIMBY-entrenched. The whole culture and bureaucracy is designed to make building things expensive, painful, and time-consuming, and then we look around and wonder why we can't seem to build enough housing. Time and time again, companies have shown they will cut corners to make money. Much regulation exists to prevent people from being injured or killed, or for other legitimate reasons. Let's at least start by acknowledging that. (Of course petty bureaucrats and regulation do exist.) > The various regulations were mostly well intentioned, but we've obviously gone too far. How is this obvious? By the fact there is not enough housing where people want to live, and too much housing in other less desirable places? In the Western world in general? In Canada? In the US? In specific areas of the US/Canada? > If private companies are unable to provide more of a product even when demand is obvious and prices are high, something is very wrong. Unable... or unwilling? There's a difference between affordable housing and available housing. And ways to fix that other than flooding the market with so much housing to force an overabundance. That's kind of wasteful, too. For example, allowing developers to pay a one-time fine if they don't provide any affordable options in a new huge apartment block is probably a poor strategy. I'm all for making things better. The "too much regulation" thing is just a bit too facile of an argument. In the US at least, there usually exist places where there is less regulation. Weirdly, people don't automatically move there.

rangestransform 2y ago
> And ways to fix that other than flooding the market with so much housing to force an overabundance. That's kind of wasteful, too. Why? People need to move, and a certain amount of transiently vacant units is necessary for migration to not disrupt local prices too much.
- guitarbill 2y ago
  Sure, absolutely. But we've also seen that landlords/owners are sometimes happy to keep units vacant. Or just use RealPage. How many vacant units are required? And where? For what it's worth, I agree housing is nutty. But few desirable places have solved it. Not in the US, not in Canada, not in Europe. The "just build more" argument seems a bit simplistic. In an ideal world, it works. But we also wouldn't have villages dying in the country-side, and extremely expensive cities/metro-areas.
  - TulliusCicero 2y ago
    > How many vacant units are required? 7% vacancy rate is about the historical average for the US I think. Around there or a bit higher would probably be healthy. > And where? Supply needs to meet demand: we most need new housing where the economy is booming and jobs are being added. But you act like we need some federal authority to say, "okay guys, put housing HERE". That's totally unnecessary: if regulations are streamlined sufficiently, developers will build where demand exists. No central authority required. > But we also wouldn't have villages dying in the country-side, and extremely expensive cities/metro-areas. ??? I'm sorry, are you unaware that most jobs aren't remote or something? This is a very strange and simple thing to misunderstand.
    - guitarbill 2y ago
      > Supply needs to meet demand: we most need new housing where the economy is booming and jobs are being added. > But you act like we need some federal authority to say, "okay guys, put housing HERE". That's totally unnecessary: if regulations are streamlined sufficiently, developers will build where demand exists. No central authority required. Relax. I said no such thing. >> But we also wouldn't have villages dying in the country-side, and extremely expensive cities/metro-areas. > ??? > I'm sorry, are you unaware that most jobs aren't remote or something? This is a very strange and simple thing to misunderstand. I'm just going to quote this for posterity, noting that you cut off "In an ideal world, it works." on purpose. Let's keep things civil, and not try to misrepresent.