In fairness, he does have a plan:
Quote:
- Require municipal governments of “severely unaffordable” big cities to increase homebuilding by 15% annually or have a portion of their federal funding withheld (municipalities with less than 500,000 people will be completely exempt) and bring in penalties for big city governments—those with over a half-million people—for egregious cases of NIMBYism and gatekeeping
- Grant municipalities $10,000 per home on all growth in their home building, paid out only after the units are built and occupied.
- Require municipalities seeking federal funds for major transit projects to pre-approve building permits for high-density housing and employment on all available land around stations.
- Sell sell off 15% of the federal government’s 37,000 buildings with covenants requiring they become affordable housing.
- Prevent the federal government from creating cash to fund government deficits. That will end the inflationary bubbles that the central bank has helped to create in the housing market.
|
https://www.pierre4pm.ca/poilievre_w...nd_build_homes
Now, is the plan any good? 1 is weird because it seems cities will get punished for market forces out of their control? Are they supposed to bribe home builders if financially it doesn't make sense, lest PP, uhm, fine them? It doesn't seem fully thought through.
2 doesn't even make sense. Is that a sentence we are supposed to understand? "per home on all growth in their home building". What? If he means on homes built in addition to some other number, how do you even measure this? YoY changes? I'm baffled.
3 Not the worst idea in the list.
4 There it is! Sell of federal properties. How many of these would actually make sense to convert to homes? Probably very very few.
5 is economic hogwash and more evidence he doesn't understated what he is taking about.