Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

[DougB]

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

 

[trtcttc]

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.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

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?

 

[darwink]

They could throw a bunch of money at non-profits?

They did, and then 50% was unspent as municipalities kept turning down proposals.

 

[trtcttc]

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.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

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.

 

[DougB]

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?

Reduce demand

 

[DougB]

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.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

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.

 

[DougB]

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.