Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Most “I will buy your home” solicitation is from house-flippers.

There’s no shadowy conspiracy behind the housing crisis. Just demographic challenges, different levels of government working at cross-purposes, and politicians who don’t want to make tough or unpopular decisions.

I agree here. The specifics of how to make housing affordable can be argued, but being "affordable" necessarily means lower home values which means home owning voters are going to take a big kick in the nuts with regards to net worth so it makes it difficult to sell politically

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Firebot

It's been a fairly recent socialist talking point found in echo chamber subreddits like canadahousing. It has gained ground as a talking point as it became more prevalent and noticeable in the US, but there has been little indication that this is an actual problem in Canada at this time.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/rea...sing-1.6538087



A few years ago it was all about vacancy taxes and foreign buyer tax and bans, which of course did absolutely nothing to curb housing prices as they are red herrings.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professi...-canadians-act

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...lity-1.7058154

It's much more socially acceptable to hate on private firms and out of country buyers, than pointing out government policies such as bringing 1.2 million immigrants in a country in a year and the impact it would have on housing. Add to this high interest rates causing housing construction to go down at the same time after a few years of unchecked historically low rates causing a buying frenzy on top of an already frothy market and you have a manufactured affordability and housing crisis.

Private equity firms is simply the new socially hip thing to hate on as they can no longer hate on foreign buyers (the whole ban thing).

I can tell you one thing, the new government policy changes to allow 30 year amortization mortgages back for first time home owners is only going to exacerbate the crisis.

In the US there is almost no impact from the PE buying though. I was listening to a podcast about a month ago that went through this and it seemed like a convenient excuse, but not really what's happening.

I mean the reality is (in the US) is that there is a significant impact on supply of houses for sale because mortgage rates have risen so much. The joke is that for people who bought a starter home a few years ago, are realising that this is now their forever home because a move would entail losing that ~2.50% mortgage which is locked in for another ~25 years. That's far more impactful than PE.

Canada has a somewhat different system, so the impacts aren't quite the same, however we know that inventories are lower. So, prices have gone up substantially as a result. If/when interest rates are cut, that's not going to help the situation either as people are likely to dive in and buy houses.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I agree here. The specifics of how to make housing affordable can be argued, but being "affordable" necessarily means lower home values which means home owning voters are going to take a big kick in the nuts with regards to net worth so it makes it difficult to sell politically

I know, and that sucks, but the answer has been staring us in the face since the Thatcher Era.

England has had Council Estates and Communal housing since seemingly forever.

Government owned, built and operated housing. It sucks. But it provides inexpensive housing for low-income workers, seniors and immigrants that allows them to save money as they work to move to something better.

Its not ideal, but I simply do not see the free-market solving the housing crisis.

Its just not in their best interest.

And yes. There will be huge swathes of people from homeowners to construction, to builders and on and on and on....that will scream bloody murder.

But if someone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I agree here. The specifics of how to make housing affordable can be argued, but being "affordable" necessarily means lower home values which means home owning voters are going to take a big kick in the nuts with regards to net worth so it makes it difficult to sell politically

Sure, but there's probably enough demand and overheated markets to cool with a higher volume of progressive housing models in emerging neighborhoods, without nuking existing home values. For example, in Toronto, there's much potential in Vaughn, Richmond Hill and Markham to expand detached and semi-detached housing without cratering the values of places like Bridle Path-Sunnybrook-York Mills, Forest Hill or the Annex, especially with good services in place (and excellent public transit).

In other places like Etobicoke, there is some great potential to densify with taller condo developments and semi-detached housing in places along the Queensway, Mimico and Long Branch without touching the Kingsway or Sunnylea.

I think proper planning is the key here, done in consultation with all levels of government, the neighborhood, community leaders, and developers.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Nufy

Complete speculation...but would it be in the form of all those reverse mortgage commercials I keep seeing.

Or the random "I will buy your home" flyers that keep coming around.

I think it is happening...They are just hiding it well.

It's not happening.
The housing crisis has enough actual issues that making up boogie mans isn't necessary.

You get people posting that, a bunch of people thanking it thinking it's accurate; and no wonder politicians enact empty strategies just to win votes. People are so easily fooled into believing what they want to believe.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

I disagree that it’s a good first step. It’s a good last step. Doing it first continues to reinforce the idea that we don’t need to pay for our services. We can have American taxation and European services because ?????. It’s underpants gnome policy.

You can’t role out Pharmacare, Daycare, and Dental care and have 10% of people pay for it.

The Liberals are losing the next election, the least they could do is have the courage to sue what Mulruny did and make a broad based unpopular tax hike on the way out that the next party will promise to kill but won’t when they see the revenue in brings in.

I didn’t argue for taking one step and waiting. Calm down. First step, one step of many, one piece of a puzzle, whatever you want to call it. We’re saying the same thing unless you’re arguing there should be no progressive taxation or increases to “the rich.”

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I didn’t argue for taking one step and waiting. Calm down. First step, one step of many, one piece of a puzzle, whatever you want to call it. We’re saying the same thing unless you’re arguing there should be no progressive taxation or increases to “the rich.”

I suppose I am preemptively complaining of what I expect the Liberal Budget to contain of ONLY tax increases on people who liberals are willing to sacrifice the votes of.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's not happening.
The housing crisis has enough actual issues that making up boogie mans isn't necessary.

You get people posting that, a bunch of people thanking it thinking it's accurate; and no wonder politicians enact empty strategies just to win votes. People are so easily fooled into believing what they want to believe.

I dunno if you can just blanket dismiss it. Like, this:

Over 25 years, Canadian Apartment Properties REIT has grown from owning 2,900 apartment suites in Ontario to owning approximately 64,300 suites, townhomes and manufactured home community sites internationally as at December 31, 2023. We have expanded and diversified across Canada’s strongest urban growth markets, as well as into Europe, where we have been operating for over a decade. Our investment property portfolio has grown to approximately $16.5 billion as at December 31, 2023.

https://www.capreit.ca/


Now, they wouldn't be investing and paying out dividends to shareholders if there wasn't money to be made, and if they are making money, it's on the backs of renters, increasing their housing costs. You can argue the scale of it, but to dismiss it as not influencing housing prices is does not seem to logically follow. I'm prepared to be shown why I'm incorrect here, if you have a reasonable explanation.

[GGG]

But you also need rental housing to exist. The existence of a REIT is not the same as saying private equity is buying up all the housing increasing prices.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I dunno if you can just blanket dismiss it. Like, this:



https://www.capreit.ca/


Now, they wouldn't be investing and paying out dividends to shareholders if there wasn't money to be made, and if they are making money, it's on the backs of renters, increasing their housing costs. You can argue the scale of it, but to dismiss it as not influencing housing prices is does not seem to logically follow. I'm prepared to be shown why I'm incorrect here, if you have a reasonable explanation.

Well people renting properties (whether that's a REIT like you have here, PE or just citizens with multiple properties) are going to do so for a profit. Literally no one should be renting a property to people and making zero, unless you're talking about public housing. Even then, it should only be "losing" as much as the public housing authority can afford to lose.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Locke

I know, and that sucks, but the answer has been staring us in the face since the Thatcher Era.

England has had Council Estates and Communal housing since seemingly forever.

Government owned, built and operated housing. It sucks. But it provides inexpensive housing for low-income workers, seniors and immigrants that allows them to save money as they work to move to something better.

Its not ideal, but I simply do not see the free-market solving the housing crisis.

Its just not in their best interest.

And yes. There will be huge swathes of people from homeowners to construction, to builders and on and on and on....that will scream bloody murder.

But if someone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

The issue, as I see it, is that governments in Canada at all levels and of all ideology do not want to be in the business of operating anything. They will fund projects and invest in solutions but they have no interest in implementing anything and being solely responsible. Because of that we end up in situations with intermediaries who inevitably need to generate some sort of return and profit for their involvement which erodes the whole premise behind the projects (ie. affordable or low income housing becomes less affordable because of all the hands in the cookie jar.)

We joke a fair bit about how inefficient the government is when it comes to operating projects or assets but the other side of the coin is that handing things off leads to profiteering.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The issue, as I see it, is that governments in Canada at all levels and of all ideology do not want to be in the business of operating anything. They will fund projects and invest in solutions but they have no interest in implementing anything and being solely responsible. Because of that we end up in situations with intermediaries who inevitably need to generate some sort of return and profit for their involvement which erodes the whole premise behind the projects (ie. affordable or low income housing becomes less affordable because of all the hands in the cookie jar.)

We joke a fair bit about how inefficient the government is when it comes to operating projects or assets but the other side of the coin is that handing things off leads to profiteering.

You are absolutely right. On both counts.

But man...again, I dont see any other realistic option.

The Government doesnt want to 'run' housing estates?

Too goddamned bad.

They shouldnt have let it get to this point then.

[Ozy_Flame]

Let's let the people who want to run government like a business run these like a business

[fotze2]

That's why I abhor taxes being referred to as 'revenue'. It implies its something that you want to increase as a positive. Very business mindset that needs to be snuffed out.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by fotze2

That's why I abhor taxes being referred to as 'revenue'. It implies its something that you want to increase as a positive. Very business mindset that needs to be snuffed out.

Well the term 'Revenue' itself seems fine. Its just a descriptor of money brought in. Not like 'Profit.'

Again...if we want to solve the housing crisis we cannot think like Businesses. Governments should not be run like businesses because businesses require 'Profit.'

I could go on and on. But again, if someone has a better idea than Government owned and operated housing I am all ears.

Because if you subsidize cheap, low-income housing, wealthier people will buy it for cheap and rent it out for more. There has to be a water-break that prevents that from happening and theres only 1 institution that can do it.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Locke

You are absolutely right. On both counts.

But man...again, I dont see any other realistic option.

The Government doesnt want to 'run' housing estates?

Too goddamned bad.

They shouldnt have let it get to this point then.

I definitely agree that there are certain areas where the governments need to be operators for the public good. Some level of public housing needs to be provided and in other areas I think that the governments should be operating our airports and our telecom infrastructure as well as our power grids and probably even things like pipeline infrastructure and refineries and such.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Now I want to know who.

I mean it's probably pretty easy to figure out but on the other hand I don't want to explicitly say it as I don't want someone stalking me or showing up at my house.

Pretty sad that that's a fear that mods and posters have to deal with.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by photon

I mean it's probably pretty easy to figure out but on the other hand I don't want to explicitly say it as I don't want someone stalking me or showing up at my house.

Pretty sad that that's a fear that mods and posters have to deal with.

I dont know. I've never seen it.

The fact of the matter is that I run a business and anyone with even 2 seconds of inclination and google can find out who I am and where I work.

And yet here I remain. Making dark jokes.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by photon

It was a user that was banned more than a year ago (or maybe even 2).

They still send abusive emails constantly, register accounts like that constantly, etc.

At least confirming it was the correct decision.

I somehow missed this post. Was it that same loser who chased me away years ago?

I still have his email if anyone wants to send him your love.

plainswest@outlook.com

Giant weak loser puss.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I dunno if you can just blanket dismiss it. Like, this:



https://www.capreit.ca/


Now, they wouldn't be investing and paying out dividends to shareholders if there wasn't money to be made, and if they are making money, it's on the backs of renters, increasing their housing costs. You can argue the scale of it, but to dismiss it as not influencing housing prices is does not seem to logically follow. I'm prepared to be shown why I'm incorrect here, if you have a reasonable explanation.

It seemed pretty clear the poster I was quoting was talking about corporate buyers purchasing up large supply of individual listings that would otherwise sell to home owners.

What you're posting is purpose built rental buildings being owned by companies or trusts which is entirely different and 100% needed to have rental supply.