|
|
|
People blame the Feds for pumping up population growth. They should blame the Feds for enabling excessive capital to flow into housing:
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.
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?
They did, and then 50% was unspent as municipalities kept turning down proposals.
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.
Reduce demand
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.
How do you expect any government (LPC, CPC) to do this?
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.
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.
I'm no fan of the feds but this is just false... there's federal funding all throughout the province.
discoverairdrie.com
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.
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.
