News   Apr 03, 2020
 5.9K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.5K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

And yet people blame the feds, so, thems the breaks.
People blame the Feds for pumping up population growth. They should blame the Feds for enabling excessive capital to flow into housing:
  • allowing high LTV mortgages
  • extending amortizations
  • allowing unrealized real estate gains to be used as down payments on additional real estate purchases
  • allowing CHMC to grow
  • not cracking down on money laundered through real estate
Evading their own jurisdiction by interfering in that of others is classic Canadian government policy
 
People blame the Feds for pumping up population growth. They should blame the Feds for enabling excessive capital to flow into housing:
  • allowing high LTV mortgages
  • extending amortizations
  • allowing unrealized real estate gains to be used as down payments on additional real estate purchases
  • allowing CHMC to grow
  • not cracking down on money laundered through real estate
Evading their own jurisdiction by interfering in that of others is classic Canadian government policy
I'm not supportive of the current federal government but people definitely blame them for housing costs, irrespective of the immigration issue. You could say the things you've listed is to help people buy houses without interfering in zoning or other policies that allow the supply side to increase. Clearly that was bad policy and instead of changing financial rules to help people meet the increased prices, they should've worked on increasing supply to maintain prices that correlated to income.
 
they should've worked on increasing supply to maintain prices that correlated to income.
The issue is, unless they're building housing I don't see how else the feds, staying in their jurisdiction, help supply. They are doing some stuff on federal lands? They could throw a bunch of money at non-profits?
 
The issue is, unless they're building housing I don't see how else the feds, staying in their jurisdiction, help supply. They are doing some stuff on federal lands? They could throw a bunch of money at non-profits?
My point was they should've started tying federal funds to zoning and housing long ago. Is that really outside their jurisdiction? I'd argue if there is federal funds involved in building a transit line, a sports centre, etc. it is perfectly reasonable to ask for changes that help their priorities. If this had happened earlier, Calgary would've been a beneficiary of additional federal funding.
 
My point was they should've started tying federal funds to zoning and housing long ago. Is that really outside their jurisdiction? I'd argue if there is federal funds involved in building a transit line, a sports centre, etc. it is perfectly reasonable to ask for changes that help their priorities. If this had happened earlier, Calgary would've been a beneficiary of additional federal funding.
It is smart for them to say sure, we'll fund this but only if you do X, Y, and Z for housing. Imagine a debate about Glenmore Landing, 2501 Richmond, and Trellis that included the element that if we don't do this as a council, the feds will not fund more buses for Calgary Transit.
 
It is smart for them to say sure, we'll fund this but only if you do X, Y, and Z for housing. Imagine a debate about Glenmore Landing, 2501 Richmond, and Trellis that included the element that if we don't do this as a council, the feds will not fund more buses for Calgary Transit.
The feds won't fund many buses for Calgary Transit regardless of City policy, yet they will fund buses for the TTC even if Toronto does not take on NIMBYs.
 
Reduce demand
How do you expect any government (LPC, CPC) to do this?

Personally, I don't expect either to have reduced immigration to any amount that would reduce demand.

I'll make a partisan statement rather than skirt around it and say I would expect conservative governments in Ottawa and Edmonton to not increase people's wages (real and minimum wages); reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund universities, where people go to increase their earning potential; reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund healthcare so people either get sick or cannot be as healthy as they can be and miss out on wages, to go back to my first point; reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund childcare that means someone has to stay home with kids, or people make the choice not to have kids (eventually leading to underfunded government because there is no tax base); reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. And the bolder keeps rolling down hill, you get what I'm saying. So I think there are definitely ways to reduce demand for housing but those don't seem to work well with other modern priorities.

The feds won't fund many buses for Calgary Transit regardless of City policy, yet they will fund buses for the TTC even if Toronto does not take on NIMBYs.
Yeah, your comments never have anything to do with the governing party... We were talking in hypothetical terms about how the federal government could adjust their funding for city priorities based on housing policy. As far as I know they don't do this. But yeah Calgary Good Toronto Bad.
 
How do you expect any government (LPC, CPC) to do this?

Personally, I don't expect either to have reduced immigration to any amount that would reduce demand.

I'll make a partisan statement rather than skirt around it and say I would expect conservative governments in Ottawa and Edmonton to not increase people's wages (real and minimum wages); reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund universities, where people go to increase their earning potential; reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund healthcare so people either get sick or cannot be as healthy as they can be and miss out on wages, to go back to my first point; reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. Underfund childcare that means someone has to stay home with kids, or people make the choice not to have kids (eventually leading to underfunded government because there is no tax base); reducing housing demand because people cannot afford homes. And the bolder keeps rolling down hill, you get what I'm saying. So I think there are definitely ways to reduce demand for housing but those don't seem to work well with other modern priorities.


Yeah, your comments never have anything to do with the governing party... We were talking in hypothetical terms about how the federal government could adjust their funding for city priorities based on housing policy. As far as I know they don't do this. But yeah Calgary Good Toronto Bad.
Federal spending or hiring in Calgary does not change electoral outcomes. Federal spending or hiring in Toronto, and most of Canada, does. Regardless of party in charge.

The Feds could reduce demand for housing by reducing the capital entering the housing market. If, for example, CHMC would only insure the first $250K of a mortgage or if down payments couldn't be sourced from HELOC's or reverse mortgages, more buyers would balk at high prices and prices would come down.

Part of Canada's productivity challenge is that it allocates too much capital to unproductive assets like housing.
 
CHMC would only insure the first $250K of a mortgage or if down payments couldn't be sourced from HELOC's or reverse mortgages
Appreciate the reply, I would maybe raise this a little higher than $250k as the average home is much more than that. Otherwise, I agree the ability to get large sums of cash for little risk should eliminated. I don't even think a reduction in prices would be necessary a plateau of home prices would do unbelievable things.
 
The feds won't fund many buses for Calgary Transit regardless of City policy, yet they will fund buses for the TTC even if Toronto does not take on NIMBYs.
I'm no fan of the feds but this is just false... there's federal funding all throughout the province.


It is smart for them to say sure, we'll fund this but only if you do X, Y, and Z for housing. Imagine a debate about Glenmore Landing, 2501 Richmond, and Trellis that included the element that if we don't do this as a council, the feds will not fund more buses for Calgary Transit.
I'm fully supportive of this all throughout the funding scheme. Same with the city council. Communities that are YIMBY should be given more funds for public infrastructure improvements. There's a system design required here but if residents can see tangible benefits from new housing, the NIMBY attitude would decrease dramatically.
 
if residents can see tangible benefits from new housing, the NIMBY attitude would decrease dramatically.
This would take coordination between councillors and sometimes a long memory to institute. However, leaving services as they are in areas that constantly use the argument that they don't want things to change is exactly what they want. So if you're on council, you'd have a good argument for not improving services in the NIMBY neighbourhoods or streets.

For example, a street in Altadore is getting a couple infills, they have been fighting them tooth and nail, yet this street just got curb extensions. No infills, no curb extensions. No infills, no more frequent bus service., etc.
 
Looking around the neighbourhood...

Looks like a mixed-use 5 over 1 going in across the street from Central Memorial High School.

1741979292373.png

  • a mixed-use development comprising of commercial and residential dwelling units in street-oriented buildings with either commercial or residential uses at street level;
  • a maximum building height of 24 metres, about six storeys
If this gets approved that is very interesting. There is nothing like this around here. Precedent setting. It is actually a great location as there is the 13 that goes right by here which gets you downtown and to MRU. The Max Yellow is also close by as well as the 7. This is what I am talking about above, if this gets approved 50th Ave should get the bike lane extended to MRU.
 
I'd like to see a 50 Ave bridge (transit/active modes) over the Elbow with a bus line that goes from MRU to a new 50 Ave red line station. Unlikely, I know.
 

Back
Top