Quote:
Originally Posted by activeStick
Why?
|
Because considering the alternatives, home ownership is the one that actually benefits citizens. What are the alternatives?
Large scale rental communities? So you have a population with zero control over their housing, or the market factors controlling their expenses with zero long term benefit for those expenses, who are beholden to the whim of the landlord. But hey, at least the largest regional employers of these massive rental communities can make sure their wages are enough to cover rent, as long as the employees work 40+ hours a week but low enough to keep any locals from handing down wealth to their next generation, lest the cycle of serfdom be broke.
Except it’s even worse than serfdom. At least those guys at least had some access to fresh food, and were less likely to be uprooted because the lords found someone who would toil nearly as hard for a half pound of wheat a month less.
Call me a crazy commie, I’d rather Canadian cities were full of people who worked for control and investment of their own lives and futures, building vibrant communities where rentals were
an option for those who it made sense, not BlackStone backed developers strategically building to maximize profit with modern day ghettos subsidized by those very same renters who have been locked out of their former neighbourhoods.
If you oppose the notion that hope ownership should be attainable (note, no one said a right), then it must be one of two thing:
You feel that real estate is an investment vehicle first and foremost, and you have no problem with a pay to play proposition. Odds this just happens to coincide with hundreds of thousands of capital miraculously finding its way into your hands because of nothing but dumb luck (read, having a job in 1970 and buying a house as a given); or,
You’re so god damn bitter at your inability that you don’t want anyone else to. Spite, nothing more.
If there’s a third choice, I’d love to hear it.