Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's not all that relevant though, because those exact houses which lack those amenities still exist, and they're often extremely expensive still.

The examples I used in the post that Cliff linked are exactly that. They are houses that my grandparents owned and I know for a fact that they are in essentially the same condition as they were when they bought them (1,300-1,500 square feet, 3 small bedrooms, 1 bath, no garage, minor updates to maintain the condition but no real upgrades/retrofits, etc.) yet they're worth $1.5-2M.

If modern house sizes were driving unaffordability, then the existing stock from the '50s and '60s would would be affordable, but by and large they're not. And that's because land value is driving prices in cities. And I don't even know that there's anything policy-wise that can be done about that. As cities grow, land is going to become more valuable. But we can't just pretend that there isn't a fundamental difference between now and then.

You’re in Vancouver, right? That’s a very atypical place when it comes to housing. You can find a house like you describe in Calgary for $600k in a neighbourhood like Fairview.

The underlying issue is the concentration of economic activity in major cities, and sky-rocketing population growth rates in those cities*. Neither are trends most Canadians want, and it’s unclear how they can readily be addressed by public policy.

* Vienna is often lauded as a model city for affordable housing. Pretty easy to provide affordable housing in a city that grew from 1.6 million in 1950 to 1.8 million in 2020. A lot harder in a city like Vancouver, that in the same span grew from 600k to 3 million.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure it's preferences so much as people got spoiled with homes with way more than what is necessary(bonus room!) and they think they require all this indoor space to survive. People made do back then because it was what they could afford. Bigger homes cost more. And now people say they can't afford a home, but what they really mean is they can't afford all the space they think they are entitled to, not what they need to get by. "Good enough" isn't a term a lot of people are comfortable with.

You can tell this is the case because people think they require a garage for their vehicles, but end up filling it with junk they never use. So they don't actually need the garage or the junk, but they feel it's necessary to have.

So many days when I'm walking my kids to school, we'll pass a house that has their garage open, and it's full of junk. Meanwhile they have a BMW or Mercedes parked out front, how is hoarding a bunch of junk in your garage more important that protecting the 2nd most valuable asset you have?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, the last time we had a Conservative government Harper announced a switch to community mailboxes from door to door delivery. The transition was in progress when he lost the election, and the Liberals immediately cancelled it when they came to power.

It doesn't seem like voting Conservative has caused this problem to me.

You're right.

Obviously the move from door to door delivery to community mailboxes is one of those issues that the Liberals acted on to win votes. It being something that enough people were pissed off about.

There are good and reasonable arguments to be made for moving mail to community mailboxes. However, the biggest problem seemed to be where they decided to put them.

As I recall, the place where these boxes ended up in communities often caused a certain amount of controversy. The problem was they were unattractive visually i.e. "eyesores", negatively affected nearby house prices, attracted extra traffic, and were security risks. And when people tried to campaign against them they were ignored.

IMO it's one of those issues where the majority of people consider the benefits, of door to door mail, overrides the extra cost to subsidize the post office in order to keep it economically viable.

[Ped]

Those reasons sound pretty NIMBY. I've seen a lot of neighbourhoods, and community mailboxes certainly don't seem to be affecting home prices Extra traffic? Of people that live there? Really? I don't know anyone who thought a neighbourhood was ugly because of community mailboxes. Security risk? For real? More of a risk than a mailbox on your property?


Ridiculous.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Ped

Those reasons sound pretty NIMBY. I've seen a lot of neighbourhoods, and community mailboxes certainly don't seem to be affecting home prices Extra traffic? Of people that live there? Really? I don't know anyone who thought a neighbourhood was ugly because of community mailboxes. Security risk? For real? More of a risk than a mailbox on your property?


Ridiculous.

All you young guys think you're making a better world. But it's more ****ed up than it has ever been.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

All you young guys think you're making a better world. But it's more ****ed up than it has ever been.

lmao that post from a community mail box discussion? You might be old but you need to grow up

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

You're right.

Obviously the move from door to door delivery to community mailboxes is one of those issues that the Liberals acted on to win votes. It being something that enough people were pissed off about.

There are good and reasonable arguments to be made for moving mail to community mailboxes. However, the biggest problem seemed to be where they decided to put them.

As I recall, the place where these boxes ended up in communities often caused a certain amount of controversy. The problem was they were unattractive visually i.e. "eyesores", negatively affected nearby house prices, attracted extra traffic, and were security risks. And when people tried to campaign against them they were ignored.

IMO it's one of those issues where the majority of people consider the benefits, of door to door mail, overrides the extra cost to subsidize the post office in order to keep it economically viable.

So what you are saying is you would like the current 10-12 million houses getting community mailboxes rather than household service to be switched over and you’d be willing to pay $100 or so in additional taxes to make this happen?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what you are saying is you would like the current 10-12 million houses getting community mailboxes rather than household service to be switched over and you’d be willing to pay $100 or so in additional taxes to make this happen?

I want to keep the post workers gainfully employed, and providing a service that I value, and am more than willing to pay for in taxes.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what you are saying is you would like the current 10-12 million houses getting community mailboxes rather than household service to be switched over and you’d be willing to pay $100 or so in additional taxes to make this happen?

Yeah.the current system where a more-or-less randomly selected set of neighbourhoods get door-to-door service and the other half gets community boxes seems insane.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I want to keep the post workers gainfully employed, and providing a service that I value, and am more than willing to pay for in taxes.

If they used the savings to improve their parcel pricing/service they could probably add enough parcel volume to keep everyone employed. There is lots of demand for parcel delivery for e-commerce reasons.

It would also be great for small businesses as it would make it easier to compete with Amazon.

[Fuzz]

I think younger Canadians may be underestimating just how attached to mail old people are. Flamesfever has opened my eyes. I am now aware. I still don't care.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

…….Northeast……..

Good point, in the NW that'd be 850k.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Yeah.the current system where a more-or-less randomly selected set of neighbourhoods get door-to-door service and the other half gets community boxes seems insane.

And they just so happen to be wealthier neighborhoods

[WideReceiver]

I believe door-to-door delivery should be ended. We’d be happy to collect mail for the elderly couple next door to us from the community box when they’re no longer able to do so themselves. Others can do the same, or pay for a Purolator-style system.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think younger Canadians may be underestimating just how attached to mail old people are. Flamesfever has opened my eyes. I am now aware. I still don't care.

I have a friend in his 60s who’s about as far left they come (he has an I [heart] [alberta] [hammer-and-sickle] t-shirt and only votes for the NDP because there’s nobody viable to the left of them). When it comes to privatization and the threat it poses to public services, his number one issue is mail delivery. He regards home mail delivery as an essential public service, and its removal in the face of market pressure as a craven surrender of the public good to the pitiless mandates of the market.

[curves2000]

There are a lot of reasons why we have housing affordability crisis in Canada but a lot of people look it only one sided. It's more of a salary/income problem. If you want to find a $900 a month, 1 bedroom apartment in a larger city, good luck. $4000/month? You can find one in 4 minutes. I used to be a bus boy at a well known steakhouse in Calgary making really good money as a 16 year old. $100-150+ a night cash + wage. On a full time basis I would have been able to afford a single family home in Calgary and pay the mortgage/expenses. I actually bought my first home at 19 (2004) in Marda Loop as a rental but that was from some earlier savings as I had worked since I was a kid.

A lot of families years ago were able to buy single family homes in nice areas for effectively annual salaried wages equal to maybe 1-3 years. Someone making $100k isn't buying a single family home for $100k-300k. This delay puts people behind the 8 ball so to speak.

There is also the expense side of the income statement and that is also where people in 2025 really differ from generations ago. People may disagree with my statements but that doesn't mean they are not true. It's become VERY VERY easy to spend money that people just do not have or should not spend. Credit cards, lines of credit, homeowners credit lines. Debit cards, no cash, e-transfers, leased cars. Amazon, online shopping, food delivery apps all the time. Corporations have gotten really really savvy with extracting more and more dollars from people from everything. Replacement cycles are short, nothing lasts, nobody repairs, fast fashion, throw away culture, planned obsolesces. Maint/repair on some things costing a fortune. There is a whole host of death by a thousand cuts that is happening that is kind of bankrupting the middle class.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I have a friend in his 60s who’s about as far left they come (he has an I [heart] [alberta] [hammer-and-sickle] t-shirt and only votes for the NDP because there’s nobody viable to the left of them). When it comes to privatization and the threat it poses to public services, his number one issue is mail delivery. He regards home mail delivery as an essential public service, and its removal in the face of market pressure as a craven surrender of the public good to the pitiless mandates of the market.

It's fine to have principles, but it's also OK to adjust them as the world changes. Back when Harper was switching from home delivery, I was against it. I'm also one of the fortunate ones who got the info about our new community box, then the election happened and now I still get mail at my door. But now? I get mail so rarely the daily stuff would be the first thing to cut. Twice a week would be fine. Which means I'd check my community one once or twice a week. Also fine. So I'm not nearly as attached to door service as before. Times changed.

But perhaps there are still situations I'm not aware of that may make it far more important for some, and I'd be fine if they had their own special delivery, too.

I also use a "no flyers" sign that works perfectly well, and I honestly don't understand why people put up with the garbage if they don't want it. I'll look for an online flyer when I'm ready, thank you.

[Locke]

Heres a way to compromise! Why not at every community box they include recycling and garbage receptacles?

That way people can check their mail and immediately toss the crap away and then make the posties haul it away! They can double as garbage men! That way single-pay for multiple jobs?

Or...make the Garbage men posties?!? While the truck is dumping the trash the driver can hop out and deliver the mail!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ped

Those reasons sound pretty NIMBY. I've seen a lot of neighbourhoods, and community mailboxes certainly don't seem to be affecting home prices Extra traffic? Of people that live there? Really? I don't know anyone who thought a neighbourhood was ugly because of community mailboxes. Security risk? For real? More of a risk than a mailbox on your property?


Ridiculous.

After seeing how ignorant people are with the community mailbox, I wouldn’t want it on my property. People don’t want the flyers and junk mail, so they stuff them into the slot, or just drop them. People are incredibly inconsiderate, and while that’s not specific to these mailboxes, I can see why people don’t want them attached to their property.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

All you young guys think you're making a better world. But it's more ****ed up than it has ever been.

Ok Boomer