Play the cards you have, and if you don’t like the cards you have, create new ones and play these.
The federal government has massive purchasing power. Use it. Even when it creates a deficit. I don’t believe there is a law that prevents the federal government from being a landlord. Flood the rental market with affordable housing, build starter homes that people can rent to buy. Turn federal lands and offices into housing. Let provinces sue the federal government as much as they like, the more lawsuits the better.
And then do the same thing with healthcare. Hire hundreds of doctors, pay them well and create family health care clinics in areas where people cannot get a family doctor. Create a federal crown corporation that runs clinics, under provincial rules, in areas where it is most needed. Create hospitals specializing in long wait list procedures and invite provinces to send their wait list patients to these clinics.
My main fear is that the Liberals are thinking too small. They need to think big. And then multiply this with 10.
Would someone tell me please how this "build housing" works? I see a lot of building going on, a few "affordable units for the disadvantaged" and yet when you enquire about it, the starting price is at least 450 to 500 for a tiny place with a condo fee or whatever that doesn't pay for anything of substance to the individual. So "build housing" means what? "subsidize" big builders and have them sell at cost (to whom) or pay for it all and sell to low-income buyers? what exactly does "build housing" mean please? Or is the answer elsewhere? Increase minimum wage? even that isn't going to get you into a condo at 450?
First would be changing zoning. Lots of places block all higher density construction. If a builder can only build a single house it only makes sense for them to build the highest value house possible. If they can build an eight-plex on the same site they’ll do that even if each one is only worth half as much.
Second is pushing down existing values. If there’s a big enough supply of shiny new $500k houses, the value of current $500k options goes down and becomes more affordable.
And, yes, there’s various subsidy options. Could be direct subsidies. Could be things like the government builds and sells at cost to qualifying new owners, with conditions preventing sale or rental for X years.
Interesting Ryan. So increase density. Not that desirable but I guess "an answer".
The cost of building seems to be 300 per sq ft (unsure) so a 1000 sq ft at 300K is affordable but not large enough for a family. Or should we lower our expectations?
Pushing down values (you would have to show me some examples, I have not found that to be true), good housing drives up prestige in the area and older homes keep their value in those areas.
The only way out I see is "government build" and gear it all to income. But then are we building "ghettos"? Perhaps it would work. How can we take the stigma out of "income-based" projects?
I see young professionals that want homes, in Toronto, that can't be had. They don't want "geared to income" they want to pay their way but I don't see an avenue for government intervention there. Too late, the speculators have been allowed to run rampant for too long. No one can earn enough at anything less than CEO level to afford a free standing home in big cities.
I should write to the next person that says "build housing" as if they know what they are talking about and ask directly "what exactly do you mean?" Surely they have an answer.
Good questions - once we determine for whom maybe the path gets clearer as to where and why there.
I guess there are two groups, low-income and average income, both want homes, which one is the government responsible for. I say responsible for low-income earners only. But then the issue of low-income is a big concern. Are we as taxpayers going to continue to subsidize the Walmarts of the world by taking care of their employees through our tax dollars.
“1000 sq ft at 300K is affordable but not large enough for a family.”
It used to be. Until the 1980s the typical “family home” was 1200-1500 sq ft, and they were raising larger families back then.
“Or should we lower our expectations?”
We can have any expectations we want, we just have to be willing to pay their actual cost. If our expectations are cheap 2500+ sq ft detached houses in neighborhoods with services, the reality is our property taxes probably need to double. And other taxes need to go up too.
If our expectations are efficient services and low taxes, the reality is that our future looks a lot like urban Europe. Lots of apartments and row houses.
There’s a Venn diagram that goes around where the three choices are “low taxes” “low density” and “good services”, but you can pick only two. Because all three can’t functionally coexist
Totally agree, and I would LOVE to live with the closeness in Europe, but I am not everyone. Additionally, though, those 1000 sq ft homes that families were quite happy in had basements and open spaces for kids to play etc. Thousand sq ft today gives you a stacked apartment style condo. Crowding can lead to disaster though when your values are that of North Americans, more, more, more is all I hear. Economic growth seems to be the main idea in our world, does it make any sense to just maintain for a while, while we bring ourselves and others up to a reasonable life style? (Not an economist-don't know these answers)
All that said, we agree. A whole shakeup is needed, broad broad shakeup that sees value in quality of life that is not attached to spending on life style but on well-rounded educated population with many amenities available to growing families that change as age comes but still contribute to health and well-being of PEOPLE.
Housing strategy NEEDED - but it is not going to house anyone who needs it "yesterday". I guess we have to START so I want to hear a political party's plan. Concrete plan with a shovel in the ground will make me vote for you! Government was supposed to be "for the people" - what happened?
Start the house building program the Provinces won't, it will piss the Premiers off but please the voters, who ultimately are more important to electoral success.
Oh dear. I'm one of those people who believe in respecting the law, including sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, that assigns jurisdiction over housing to the provinces. So I guess I'm a good example of Mr. Scrimshaw's target.
I agree that the housing crisis is critical. I also agree that the CPC will exploit it, without themselves having any better solution than the Liberals do.
But I think that, once you are willing to set aside laws, including the Constitution, because you don't like what they do, you have effectively joined the truckers' convoy. Maybe organize a march on Ottawa to get some action? Occupy the streets until you do?
I think there are legal ways for the federal government to get the provinces to move. One, which Mr. Scrimshaw referred to in passing, is bribery. That's how Canada's health care system got implemented, even though health is also clearly a provincial jurisdiction. That's how the Canada Health Act is enforced -- if a province doesn't conform, it loses transfer money. Just ask Alberta.
And remember, at the end of the day, the provincial Premiers have to face their voters too. Those voters won't forgive if the housing crisis isn't alleviated. So provincial and federal interests align. It's a question of sitting down together -- many, many times, unfortunately. But it's been done before. It can be done again.
Is there a law that prevents the federal government from being a landlord? Is there a law that prevents the government from being a corporation that provides healthcare under provincial rules?
The federal government has several crown corporations active in various areas. What is stopping them from creating healthcare and housing corporations?
The federal government can be a landlord when being a landlord is ancillary to carrying out its functions in its own jurisdiction. The best example is the military. The federal government does indeed operate army, air force and naval bases, including barracks and other accommodation. The federal government also possesses vast tracts of land, the vast majority of which is used for national parks. I suppose that land could be repurposed, but the political fallout would be intense. Finally, it is an open question whether Aboriginal (now Indigenous) lands fall under federal jurisdiction or are sovereign to the First Nation inhabiting them. Again, a delicate situation if the federal government wants to build housing for non-Indigenous people.
Apart from these cases, the federal government could construct and operate housing while subject to provincial authority. That would include existing zoning laws, as far as I know. Or it could ask the province/municipality to change the zoning laws, dangling lots of money as a bribe to do so. That's fiscal federalism at its finest.
As for health care, the federal government has operated military hospitals in the past, catering to soldiers on active duty, veterans, and MPs. But all that was phased out when the provinces established their own (provincial) systems. Also health care for Indigenous communities (a chest of medicines each year, the treaty said...).
I wonder if this is an example where not having any robust Liberal provincial representation is hurting them and limiting their options?
If they had one or two friendly nominally-on-the-same-team provincial governments there might be options to lean on them for aggressive provincially lead housing programs.
And if you have one or two provinces actually building a bunch of housing it gets much easier to say the conditions in the other provinces are not the Federal Government’s circus.
Interresting analysis but it's sad to see Polievre's misinformation and dinsfirmation replicated at one point. Trudeau and the liberals have never said the federal has no jurdiscition or role what so ever in housing. They said housing it not an aera of primary federal jurdiscution..
Arguing with people who are wilfullly ignorant about the facts of the situation is a losing position. They are determined not to understand bc it doesn't fit their narrative. Block and move on.
The problem is that when people are desperate they’ll support anyone who offers a fix. If Trudeau punts on this the CPC will run in a “we’ll fix housing” promise and will win easily. They won’t even need details or a plan. When your opponent ignores the issue even a promise wins by default.
Yes of course they won’t do anything once elected. So what? They’ll be in power.
I absolutely agree with you on this column. Enabling more housing to be built (particularly in our cities), and building more housing is absolutely necessary. Both subsidized housing and market-price housing. The experiment we have been running, of allowing NIMBY nonsense to drive our housing supply creation on a neighbourhood-level, has created this situation. How can any economy function properly if lower and middle income workers cannot afford to live anywhere near where they work?
i’m not really sure about ‘the Nimby problem’ .. at all - is it a ‘symptom or problem’ ?
I live in an overpopulated urban catastrophe with shootings, knifings, assaults, factional battles, hit & run & road rage, racism aplenty, migrants & homeless sleeping rough.. This socially crumbling megalopolis ain’t Banff, or Charlottetown, not Tofino or Bala, or Morden Manitoba, nor Old Quebec City.. ‘policing is a joke’, road closures daily for parades, & it takes nerves of steel to safely escape via ‘flow of traffic’ @ approx 145 MPH with angry tailgaters so close I can’t see their licence plate.. and same upon our return - I ‘long for a return’ in my Tandem Dump Truck with 10,000 lbs of ‘hot sand mix’ & flashing blue lights as damp snow descends.. rather than my Love’s Wondrous Mini Cooper on dry pavement 🦎🏴☠️
Play the cards you have, and if you don’t like the cards you have, create new ones and play these.
The federal government has massive purchasing power. Use it. Even when it creates a deficit. I don’t believe there is a law that prevents the federal government from being a landlord. Flood the rental market with affordable housing, build starter homes that people can rent to buy. Turn federal lands and offices into housing. Let provinces sue the federal government as much as they like, the more lawsuits the better.
And then do the same thing with healthcare. Hire hundreds of doctors, pay them well and create family health care clinics in areas where people cannot get a family doctor. Create a federal crown corporation that runs clinics, under provincial rules, in areas where it is most needed. Create hospitals specializing in long wait list procedures and invite provinces to send their wait list patients to these clinics.
My main fear is that the Liberals are thinking too small. They need to think big. And then multiply this with 10.
Would someone tell me please how this "build housing" works? I see a lot of building going on, a few "affordable units for the disadvantaged" and yet when you enquire about it, the starting price is at least 450 to 500 for a tiny place with a condo fee or whatever that doesn't pay for anything of substance to the individual. So "build housing" means what? "subsidize" big builders and have them sell at cost (to whom) or pay for it all and sell to low-income buyers? what exactly does "build housing" mean please? Or is the answer elsewhere? Increase minimum wage? even that isn't going to get you into a condo at 450?
There’s a few options.
First would be changing zoning. Lots of places block all higher density construction. If a builder can only build a single house it only makes sense for them to build the highest value house possible. If they can build an eight-plex on the same site they’ll do that even if each one is only worth half as much.
Second is pushing down existing values. If there’s a big enough supply of shiny new $500k houses, the value of current $500k options goes down and becomes more affordable.
And, yes, there’s various subsidy options. Could be direct subsidies. Could be things like the government builds and sells at cost to qualifying new owners, with conditions preventing sale or rental for X years.
Interesting Ryan. So increase density. Not that desirable but I guess "an answer".
The cost of building seems to be 300 per sq ft (unsure) so a 1000 sq ft at 300K is affordable but not large enough for a family. Or should we lower our expectations?
Pushing down values (you would have to show me some examples, I have not found that to be true), good housing drives up prestige in the area and older homes keep their value in those areas.
The only way out I see is "government build" and gear it all to income. But then are we building "ghettos"? Perhaps it would work. How can we take the stigma out of "income-based" projects?
I see young professionals that want homes, in Toronto, that can't be had. They don't want "geared to income" they want to pay their way but I don't see an avenue for government intervention there. Too late, the speculators have been allowed to run rampant for too long. No one can earn enough at anything less than CEO level to afford a free standing home in big cities.
I should write to the next person that says "build housing" as if they know what they are talking about and ask directly "what exactly do you mean?" Surely they have an answer.
My only questions are - build them for whom .. & where.. & why there ?
Good questions - once we determine for whom maybe the path gets clearer as to where and why there.
I guess there are two groups, low-income and average income, both want homes, which one is the government responsible for. I say responsible for low-income earners only. But then the issue of low-income is a big concern. Are we as taxpayers going to continue to subsidize the Walmarts of the world by taking care of their employees through our tax dollars.
“1000 sq ft at 300K is affordable but not large enough for a family.”
It used to be. Until the 1980s the typical “family home” was 1200-1500 sq ft, and they were raising larger families back then.
“Or should we lower our expectations?”
We can have any expectations we want, we just have to be willing to pay their actual cost. If our expectations are cheap 2500+ sq ft detached houses in neighborhoods with services, the reality is our property taxes probably need to double. And other taxes need to go up too.
If our expectations are efficient services and low taxes, the reality is that our future looks a lot like urban Europe. Lots of apartments and row houses.
There’s a Venn diagram that goes around where the three choices are “low taxes” “low density” and “good services”, but you can pick only two. Because all three can’t functionally coexist
Totally agree, and I would LOVE to live with the closeness in Europe, but I am not everyone. Additionally, though, those 1000 sq ft homes that families were quite happy in had basements and open spaces for kids to play etc. Thousand sq ft today gives you a stacked apartment style condo. Crowding can lead to disaster though when your values are that of North Americans, more, more, more is all I hear. Economic growth seems to be the main idea in our world, does it make any sense to just maintain for a while, while we bring ourselves and others up to a reasonable life style? (Not an economist-don't know these answers)
All that said, we agree. A whole shakeup is needed, broad broad shakeup that sees value in quality of life that is not attached to spending on life style but on well-rounded educated population with many amenities available to growing families that change as age comes but still contribute to health and well-being of PEOPLE.
Housing strategy NEEDED - but it is not going to house anyone who needs it "yesterday". I guess we have to START so I want to hear a political party's plan. Concrete plan with a shovel in the ground will make me vote for you! Government was supposed to be "for the people" - what happened?
Start the house building program the Provinces won't, it will piss the Premiers off but please the voters, who ultimately are more important to electoral success.
Oh dear. I'm one of those people who believe in respecting the law, including sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, that assigns jurisdiction over housing to the provinces. So I guess I'm a good example of Mr. Scrimshaw's target.
I agree that the housing crisis is critical. I also agree that the CPC will exploit it, without themselves having any better solution than the Liberals do.
But I think that, once you are willing to set aside laws, including the Constitution, because you don't like what they do, you have effectively joined the truckers' convoy. Maybe organize a march on Ottawa to get some action? Occupy the streets until you do?
I think there are legal ways for the federal government to get the provinces to move. One, which Mr. Scrimshaw referred to in passing, is bribery. That's how Canada's health care system got implemented, even though health is also clearly a provincial jurisdiction. That's how the Canada Health Act is enforced -- if a province doesn't conform, it loses transfer money. Just ask Alberta.
And remember, at the end of the day, the provincial Premiers have to face their voters too. Those voters won't forgive if the housing crisis isn't alleviated. So provincial and federal interests align. It's a question of sitting down together -- many, many times, unfortunately. But it's been done before. It can be done again.
Is there a law that prevents the federal government from being a landlord? Is there a law that prevents the government from being a corporation that provides healthcare under provincial rules?
The federal government has several crown corporations active in various areas. What is stopping them from creating healthcare and housing corporations?
The federal government can be a landlord when being a landlord is ancillary to carrying out its functions in its own jurisdiction. The best example is the military. The federal government does indeed operate army, air force and naval bases, including barracks and other accommodation. The federal government also possesses vast tracts of land, the vast majority of which is used for national parks. I suppose that land could be repurposed, but the political fallout would be intense. Finally, it is an open question whether Aboriginal (now Indigenous) lands fall under federal jurisdiction or are sovereign to the First Nation inhabiting them. Again, a delicate situation if the federal government wants to build housing for non-Indigenous people.
Apart from these cases, the federal government could construct and operate housing while subject to provincial authority. That would include existing zoning laws, as far as I know. Or it could ask the province/municipality to change the zoning laws, dangling lots of money as a bribe to do so. That's fiscal federalism at its finest.
As for health care, the federal government has operated military hospitals in the past, catering to soldiers on active duty, veterans, and MPs. But all that was phased out when the provinces established their own (provincial) systems. Also health care for Indigenous communities (a chest of medicines each year, the treaty said...).
I wonder if this is an example where not having any robust Liberal provincial representation is hurting them and limiting their options?
If they had one or two friendly nominally-on-the-same-team provincial governments there might be options to lean on them for aggressive provincially lead housing programs.
And if you have one or two provinces actually building a bunch of housing it gets much easier to say the conditions in the other provinces are not the Federal Government’s circus.
Interresting analysis but it's sad to see Polievre's misinformation and dinsfirmation replicated at one point. Trudeau and the liberals have never said the federal has no jurdiscition or role what so ever in housing. They said housing it not an aera of primary federal jurdiscution..
Arguing with people who are wilfullly ignorant about the facts of the situation is a losing position. They are determined not to understand bc it doesn't fit their narrative. Block and move on.
The problem is that when people are desperate they’ll support anyone who offers a fix. If Trudeau punts on this the CPC will run in a “we’ll fix housing” promise and will win easily. They won’t even need details or a plan. When your opponent ignores the issue even a promise wins by default.
Yes of course they won’t do anything once elected. So what? They’ll be in power.
here’s a great read from Stephanie Carvin.. 2-3 minutes.. she nails your premise in more detail.. and explains a lot of how it’s come about
https://www.mediatechdemocracy.com/all-work/polarization-and-ideologically-motivated-violent-extremism-in-canada-since-2015
FYI - ‘the Boss’ & I caught your excellent Radio appearance on NewsTalk 1010 Re Nate & Housing
She’s again, very impressed as I am.. as usual ! 🦎🏴☠️
I absolutely agree with you on this column. Enabling more housing to be built (particularly in our cities), and building more housing is absolutely necessary. Both subsidized housing and market-price housing. The experiment we have been running, of allowing NIMBY nonsense to drive our housing supply creation on a neighbourhood-level, has created this situation. How can any economy function properly if lower and middle income workers cannot afford to live anywhere near where they work?
Downsview airport has enough space to wipe out the Toronto waiting list for affordable housing.
i’m not really sure about ‘the Nimby problem’ .. at all - is it a ‘symptom or problem’ ?
I live in an overpopulated urban catastrophe with shootings, knifings, assaults, factional battles, hit & run & road rage, racism aplenty, migrants & homeless sleeping rough.. This socially crumbling megalopolis ain’t Banff, or Charlottetown, not Tofino or Bala, or Morden Manitoba, nor Old Quebec City.. ‘policing is a joke’, road closures daily for parades, & it takes nerves of steel to safely escape via ‘flow of traffic’ @ approx 145 MPH with angry tailgaters so close I can’t see their licence plate.. and same upon our return - I ‘long for a return’ in my Tandem Dump Truck with 10,000 lbs of ‘hot sand mix’ & flashing blue lights as damp snow descends.. rather than my Love’s Wondrous Mini Cooper on dry pavement 🦎🏴☠️