Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

The #1 debt item in this country is housing. Something the government controls a fair amount of influence over. Multiple governments have let this run rampant for election reasons. In the end it screws everyone over except those receiving inheritance (oh wait government will take 50% of that, which is conflict of interest but another matter)

So to just say irresponsible spending is the reason for so many Canadians barely meeting ends is simplistic. If I was a 20 something in Vancouver or Toronto Who bought a house I probably strongly disagree my problems are my own making.

The government absolutely owns this. Not in whole but in major part. Their interests have caused huge equality problems in Canada (despite their claims to close that gap)

I don’t think it’s as easy as you make it out to be. The government can’t just magically control housing prices. But even if you think they could, there’s a whole other issue. Say a house costs $1m in Toronto and we want prices to be ~$400k for affordability. That’s a 60% decline. What politician gets elected when an enormous swath of would-be voters just had their largest investment drop that far? No politician is actually going to do that.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

The #1 debt item in this country is housing. Something the government controls a fair amount of influence over. Multiple governments have let this run rampant for election reasons. In the end it screws everyone over except those receiving inheritance (oh wait government will take 50% of that, which is conflict of interest but another matter)

So to just say irresponsible spending is the reason for so many Canadians barely meeting ends is simplistic. If I was a 20 something in Vancouver or Toronto Who bought a house I probably strongly disagree my problems are my own making.

The government absolutely owns this. Not in whole but in major part. Their interests have caused huge equality problems in Canada (despite their claims to close that gap)

I must not be understanding what you’re meaning.

Developers are private companies.
Builders are private companies.
Building materials are provided by private companies.
Realtors are private companies.
Banks, mortgage companies, mortgage brokers are private companies.
Real estate companies are private or public (stock market) companies.
Real estate investors are private.
Government sets and regulates building code.
Government approves where houses, condos, apartments, can be built.
Bank of Canada (not really government, certainly not private) sets minimum interest rate.

Are you saying that those government regulations are not sufficient in controlling the private market, and additional regulations are needed?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Muta

As someone who went through business school and the required finance and accounting courses, as well as economics courses.... not sure in the slightest why money management isn't a core, mandatory subject for kids starting right in elementary school. Maybe it's because the banks don't want educated, financially literate people; might dig into their profits.

I’m not sure how effective money management courses are at instilling discipline and habits of deferred gratification. I know intelligent people who are terrible with money, and it’s not because they don’t understand compound interest or how a TFSA works.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I must not be understanding what you’re meaning.

Developers are private companies.
Builders are private companies.
Building materials are provided by private companies.
Realtors are private companies.
Banks, mortgage companies, mortgage brokers are private companies.
Real estate companies are private or public (stock market) companies.
Real estate investors are private.
Government sets and regulates building code.
Government approves where houses, condos, apartments, can be built.
Bank of Canada (not really government, certainly not private) sets minimum interest rate.

Are you saying that those government regulations are not sufficient in controlling the private market, and additional regulations are needed?

You know you can't just build a house anywhere you want.

The biggest argument is the red tape, permits, zoning, etc

Usually the red tape in ensured to keep housing down in locations that the politicians own property to keep the supply low and value high

There is an infinite amount of affordable housing in Canada. It is just not in places people want (or can't for employment reasons) to live

[blender]

There is a bunch of misinformation being thrown around here about the cost of housing. It is not artificially high right now. I build homes for a living and I can tell you that the actual cost to build has gone up significantly in the last few years. Everything costs more right now than it did pre-pandemic. Any type of correction will need to work its way through the industry at all levels before there is an actual reduction in cost. It can (and probably will) happen, but the notion that it can be effected with any singular mechanism is misguided.

From a political standpoint, expecting any leader to simply be able to enact a policy that will correct this is naive, just as it is naive to simply blame our current government for it. Good policy will certainly help stabilize the market, but there is no silver bullet solution.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You know you can't just build a house anywhere you want.

The biggest argument is the red tape, permits, zoning, etc

Usually the red tape in ensured to keep housing down in locations that the politicians own property to keep the supply low and value high

There is an infinite amount of affordable housing in Canada. It is just not in places people want (or can't for employment reasons) to live

Not sure what you mean by this as there is simply not. Housing is more than just plunking down a house on a piece of land. There needs to roads and services, curbs, gutters, drainage, etc. Some cities have a very limited amount of land left that is suitable to build on due to geography. The further you build away from the center, the more expensive it gets.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You know you can't just build a house anywhere you want.

The biggest argument is the red tape, permits, zoning, etc

Usually the red tape in ensured to keep housing down in locations that the politicians own property to keep the supply low and value high

There is an infinite amount of affordable housing in Canada. It is just not in places people want (or can't for employment reasons) to live

The bolded is complete BS. How has the red tape survived multiple rounds/generations of politicians? They all own land (false) and all in the same places (false)?

If there isn’t demand for houses due to no jobs in that area, isn’t that the free market at play and not regulations?

There are many other factors to consider, not just having four walls and a roof. Have to consider water and sewer capacities, transportation, electricity and other utilities, etc. These all factor into where housing can be built, where people would choose to live, and at what price. This is primarily market driven and not government driven, otherwise there wouldn’t be such disparities in population densities across the country.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blender

There is a bunch of misinformation being thrown around here about the cost of housing. It is not artificially high right now. I build homes for a living and I can tell you that the actual cost to build has gone up significantly in the last few years. Everything costs more right now than it did pre-pandemic. Any type of correction will need to work its way through the industry at all levels before there is an actual reduction in cost. It can (and probably will) happen, but the notion that it can be effected with any singular mechanism is misguided.

From a political standpoint, expecting any leader to simply be able to enact a policy that will correct this is naive, just as it is naive to simply blame our current government for it. Good policy will certainly help stabilize the market, but there is no silver bullet solution.

I think the cost of resale homes is too high because of the market.

Cost of new builds is in line with what it costs to build, and I'm not seeing that coming down anytime soon either.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the cost of resale homes is too high because of the market.

Cost of new builds is in line with what it costs to build, and I'm not seeing that coming down anytime soon either.

But they aren't separate things. If building new costs more, than that obviously pulls up the value of existing homes.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think the cost of resale homes is too high because of the market.

Also Realtor fees are ####ing stupid high.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by blender

Not sure what you mean by this as there is simply not. Housing is more than just plunking down a house on a piece of land. There needs to roads and services, curbs, gutters, drainage, etc. Some cities have a very limited amount of land left that is suitable to build on due to geography. The further you build away from the center, the more expensive it gets.

Housing prices are higher the further you get from the city center? Well that's a new one !

Infrastructure costs may be higher to run a road further (debatable as usually that's a straight line and easy to do) but land cost is exponentially lower.

There's a reason the further you get from Calgary's city center- and every major Canadian city - the cheaper the houses are

[gasman]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

The #1 debt item in this country is housing. Something the government controls a fair amount of influence over. Multiple governments have let this run rampant for election reasons. In the end it screws everyone over except those receiving inheritance (oh wait government will take 50% of that, which is conflict of interest but another matter)

So to just say irresponsible spending is the reason for so many Canadians barely meeting ends is simplistic. If I was a 20 something in Vancouver or Toronto Who bought a house I probably strongly disagree my problems are my own making.

The government absolutely owns this. Not in whole but in major part. Their interests have caused huge equality problems in Canada (despite their claims to close that gap)

Please Elaborate - There is no inheritance tax in Canada and you don't report it as income, so what exactly are they taking 50% of?

The estate would dispose of assets at the time of death, but that would be normally taxed but not at 50%...

[blender]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Housing prices are higher the further you get from the city center? Well that's a new one !

Infrastructure costs may be higher to run a road further (debatable as usually that's a straight line and easy to do) but land cost is exponentially lower.

There's a reason the further you get from Calgary's city center- and every major Canadian city - the cheaper the houses are

There's a difference between existing houses for sale and building a new house. If the subdivision is in and serviced, fine, but as a means to significantly increase supply, building in the hinterlands isn't viable. That is what I thought you were arguing, so if I missed your point, apologies.

Also, Calgary is one example of a place that is surrounded by land suitable for building, but that doesn't exist in places like Toronto, Lower Mainland, etc. Not comparable.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by blender

There's a difference between existing houses for sale and building a new house. If the subdivision is in and serviced, fine, but as a means to significantly increase supply, building in the hinterlands isn't viable. That is what I thought you were arguing, so if I missed your point, apologies.

Also, Calgary is one example of a place that is surrounded by land suitable for building, but that doesn't exist in places like Toronto, Lower Mainland, etc. Not comparable.

Toronto and the lower mainland both have huge amounts of green zone/agricultural reserve land on their outskirts that would almost instantly develop into a huge amount of new housing supply if the government restrictions on that change were removed.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

You know you can't just build a house anywhere you want.

The biggest argument is the red tape, permits, zoning, etc

Usually the red tape in ensured to keep housing down in locations that the politicians own property to keep the supply low and value high

There is an infinite amount of affordable housing in Canada. It is just not in places people want (or can't for employment reasons) to live

so you want to get rid of zoning?

We could change Calgary's zoning laws. As of right now, the vast majority of it is single family housing - we simply can't build missing middle housing in a majority of the city.

Bunk can probably describe how hard it would be for counsel to say "we are turning Elbow Park/Mount Pleasant/etc. into mixed use"

Moreover, many of these established neighborhoods maintain restrictive covenants on the properties that limit what can be built there. That isnt government controlled, thats civil law.

Moreover, there are several areas where getting a new house (bigger) house built or multifamily housing can be brought to court to try to get it stopped.

So many of the problems with red tape are simply NIMBYs - or as our friend PP would call them: gatekeepers.

The only issue is that these gatekeepers are his likely voters

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Toronto and the lower mainland both have huge amounts of green zone/agricultural reserve land on their outskirts that would almost instantly develop into a huge amount of new housing supply if the government restrictions on that change were removed.

It is being eaten up all the time in the GTA and has only contributed to pricing increasing as (IMO) investors snap up new builds before real people can even look at them. The investors look to multiply their money during build (invest small deposit and sell for market rate) instead of a real family being able to buy at the lower pre-build price. Instead of a family being able to buy a house for $500-800k, they must pay the post build $1.2-2.0m+ prices. More supply won’t necessarily help, unless there are restrictions on who can buy (etc) - more red tape, not less.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Toronto and the lower mainland both have huge amounts of green zone/agricultural reserve land on their outskirts that would almost instantly develop into a huge amount of new housing supply if the government restrictions on that change were removed.

Sure. But that’s some of the richest agricultural land in the country.

It’s still not clear to me why we’ve decided economic activity in an enormous country of 38 million people should be concentrated in two or three megacities. With the technology we have today, shouldn’t geographical proximity to other workers matter less and less?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sure. But that’s some of the richest agricultural land in the country.

It’s still not clear to me why we’ve decided economic activity in an enormous country of 38 million people should be concentrated in two or three megacities. With the technology we have today, shouldn’t geographical proximity to other workers matter less and less?

I think some of the reasons are:

1. Immigrants tend to go to city centers to be close to their own ethnic group.

2. City administrators have plans to increase the density of the inner cores.

3. The central neighborhoods are in high demand in order to reduce their commute, and to gain access to services and entertainment.

However, with the pandemic and technology, I think this is beginning to change to some degree. I see large groups of immigrants moving into my hometown, 100 miles from Toronto, and taking over large recently built neighborhoods.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sure. But that’s some of the richest agricultural land in the country.

It’s still not clear to me why we’ve decided economic activity in an enormous country of 38 million people should be concentrated in two or three megacities. With the technology we have today, shouldn’t geographical proximity to other workers matter less and less?

Agree 100%

Wouldn't it make sense to try to make places like Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Lethbridge, Moncton, etc. more attractive to live in? Wouldn't that in turn make housing more affordable in Toronto and Vancouver?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Agree 100%

Wouldn't it make sense to try to make places like Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Lethbridge, Moncton, etc. more attractive to live in? Wouldn't that in turn make housing more affordable in Toronto and Vancouver?

Back to my original statement - there’s ton of room for affordable housing - people just don’t want to live there !