The thrust of it is that the federal government would withhold funding to municipalities unless they meet certain home-building targets.
Critics worry that this will accelerate suburban sprawl in order to meet quotas. There are some provisions regarding rental housing and transit infrastructure, but with unrealistic time/budgeting constraints.
At the risk of suggesting violence, I must say, he has a very ‘punchable’ face.
Oh, it’s grounded in reality all right. However, his reality doesn’t involve fixing the housing crisis - it will be more about prolonging it to hurt the vulnerable and continue his grift.
It’s definitely a “plan” but it’s far from a solution.
Fewer homes are built -> municipality receives less money -> municipality can’t afford to build out infrastructure like water, sewers, and roads because they can barely afford to maintain the existing stuff -> even fewer homes are built. My cat can figure that out, so either PP is dumber than my cat (possible), or his goal isn’t what he claims it is (likely).
I’ve said this before, but coming up with no ideas of your own except to crack your whip at other people until they do something is bad McDonald’s manager level of leadership. Housing is an issue country wide, expecting municipalities to each individually come with solutions for you instead of developing a country wide strategy is going to lead to extremely uneven results at best. Most likely it’s going to be a disaster everywhere because municipalities don’t have the power to deal with root causes like land speculation the way the federal and provincial governments do.
I also would bet money that if municipalities start getting homes built in ways the Conservatives don’t like, like public housing, they will be punished for that as well.
Canada is the second-largest country in the world by land area. There’s no reason we should have a housing crisis, yet we do. The answer is to build more houses. A LOT more. And that will make all the other issues go away.
Yes, even those hated real estate speculators. They’ll stop investing in real estate when the value of their investments goes down because of oversupply.
We should also be looking to incentivize investment in the stock market. When people invest their money in unproductive real estate instead of productive stocks and bonds it makes the economy sick. It leads away from innovation and employment and towards unproductive rent-seeking, AKA Neo-feudalism.
To be fair, yes, Canada has the second-largest land mass on the planet. ~90% or more of that landmass is largely inhospitable for larger communities though, whether it’s the Canadian Shield and the fact we can’t grow any crops on that or dig through tough rocks, the Tundra and Arctic (where it is way too cold to grow anything, much less settle), vast distances of forests - it is a lot tougher to build infrastructure in most of Canada, leaving it pretty much to the places already with larger population sizes. And even then, most people are still choosing to go to the three cities and immediate outlying areas where the most economic influence and possible social connections are - Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal.
It would seem deceiving, given how large Canada is, but there are very few places outside of those major metro centres where people want to live, or can even live comfortable lives and be productive. Honestly, given how little good land is available in Canada, it would make far more sense to cut down on suburban developments and focus on higher-density, transit-minded communities. Single-family homes are way too inefficient for what we actually need, and having politicians and citizens who demonize quadplexes and other high density options do not help at all.
Even if you take only 10% of Canada’s land area, that still exceeds the land area of 160 other countries in the world, including many with far larger populations such as Pakistan (6x the population of Canada with less than 9% of the area). By the way, Pakistan is a highly mountainous country with more than half of its area covered by uninhabitable mountain ranges and deserts.
You didn’t address my points about investing at all. I think there’s a pretty good case to be made that governments are fighting against the construction of new subdivisions in order to protect the property values of existing single family homes. It’s not about stigma, it’s about the fact that too much of the upper middle class’s wealth is tied up in real estate and the government is terrified of jeopardizing that!
And even then, most people are still choosing to go to the three cities and immediate outlying areas where the most economic influence and possible social connections are - Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal.
This is the real issue. Having grown up in a dot on the map in the middle of the Ontario boreal forest on the arctic watershed side of the Shield, I can tell you that it isn’t all that much harder to build infrastructure there than it is further south (sometimes takes a little longer because of longer winters, that’s all). It isn’t even horrible land agriculturally as long as you take the shorter growing season into account when you’re choosing what to plant. So more of the land is usable than you might think. However, people want to go to the places where people already are.
Conservative promises unrealistic and using bullying tactics? Who would have thought.
Their developer supporters must be salivating at the thought of building more single family houses though, which solves the housing/affordability crisis about as well as building bigger roads solves traffic congestion.