2 ms·

I don't see housing as something that really needs innovation. We historically solved the problem; in the 1980s rough sleeping in Canada was at levels you see

by retrac 2y ago

I don't see housing as something that really needs innovation. We historically solved the problem; in the 1980s rough sleeping in Canada was at levels you see in like Finland today -- estimates for Toronto were a couple hundred individuals (so like 10% the rate today). What's fascinating to me is everyone seems to know and agree what would help (loosen zoning, increase welfare) and there's broad popular support for these (increasing disability polls at like 85% yes) and political parties sometimes campaign on these - yet because of the way politics works in Canada with three levels of government - it runs into deadlock and never materializes. Public drug insurance coverage is a similar story. The ruling party campaigned on it and 90% of the population wants it and yet the political system seems unable to realize what everyone wants. Americans will sympathize with that circumstance, I imagine. We need constitutional reform honestly but it'll never happen because the mechanism to pass such an amendment is just as paper-jammed.

gruez 2y ago
Sounds like the actual issue is that everyone agrees that "something" needs to be done, but can't agree on the details, so it flames out when it comes to the implementation stage. Your proposal for "constitutional reform" mirrors this. What "constitutional reform" would solve this? Moving to a unitary system?
- retrac 2y ago
  Canadian federalism relies on an interworking of government levels. To use an example, criminal law is written federally, the prosecutors are funded and run provincially, the superior courts are run provincially but the federal government appoints the judges. It's a nice idea but as you say when we run into governments with different views on how to realize things, it can result in a log-jam. I don't think anything as dramatic as a unitary state is needed; just make healthcare and housing the sole jurisdiction of either the feds or the provinces. The current system of joint funding seems to have caused a game of jurisdictional hot potato.
- morkalork 2y ago
  I'm not sure of the specifics but there are domains of responsibility split between the levels, one example is the healthcare system. Healthcare is a provincial responsibility and the federal government is not allowed to overstep or interfere on how its run, however significant funding for it comes from the federal government so there's some weird disconnects where money is prodivded for one aspect and used for another by the province. Would it take a constitutional change to address this problem? If so, then it will never be fixed.
- tokioyoyo 2y ago
  It’s not true thar people agree on it though. Housing is expensive, we could bring it down, but bringing it down would crush our economy, so we don’t do it. Supermajority of people also own their homes, and if you bought in the last 10 years for some incredibly high price, you wouldn't want your investment to go down. For homeless people it’s tough, and a good chunk of people got severely desensitized in the last 20 years. So they’ve become an after thought, and people are pushing for “out of sight out of mind” policies. Can’t really blame them either.

by retrac 2y ago

gruez 2y ago

Sounds like the actual issue is that everyone agrees that "something" needs to be done, but can't agree on the details, so it flames out when it comes to the implementation stage. Your proposal for "constitutional reform" mirrors this. What "constitutional reform" would solve this? Moving to a unitary system?

retrac 2y ago
Canadian federalism relies on an interworking of government levels. To use an example, criminal law is written federally, the prosecutors are funded and run provincially, the superior courts are run provincially but the federal government appoints the judges. It's a nice idea but as you say when we run into governments with different views on how to realize things, it can result in a log-jam. I don't think anything as dramatic as a unitary state is needed; just make healthcare and housing the sole jurisdiction of either the feds or the provinces. The current system of joint funding seems to have caused a game of jurisdictional hot potato.
morkalork 2y ago
I'm not sure of the specifics but there are domains of responsibility split between the levels, one example is the healthcare system. Healthcare is a provincial responsibility and the federal government is not allowed to overstep or interfere on how its run, however significant funding for it comes from the federal government so there's some weird disconnects where money is prodivded for one aspect and used for another by the province. Would it take a constitutional change to address this problem? If so, then it will never be fixed.
tokioyoyo 2y ago
It’s not true thar people agree on it though. Housing is expensive, we could bring it down, but bringing it down would crush our economy, so we don’t do it. Supermajority of people also own their homes, and if you bought in the last 10 years for some incredibly high price, you wouldn't want your investment to go down. For homeless people it’s tough, and a good chunk of people got severely desensitized in the last 20 years. So they’ve become an after thought, and people are pushing for “out of sight out of mind” policies. Can’t really blame them either.