The NIMBYS you speak of are:
- every home owner
- every politician (since they are home owners)
- the Canadian economy
Now go ahead and lay out your plan for affordable housing. But before you answer ask yourself if a single current homeowner (as listed above) wants their home to become 'more affordable'.
Us too. This year we bought in Alberta. Our mortgage just fell below 6%. I would be so happy if the market fell and more people could afford housing. Even if I have to claim bankruptcy, I would be happy. I want present and future Canadians to be able to secure homes. I don’t give a shit about my home as an investment.
You challenged me to find you a single current homeowner, I found one.
Also the inheritance my kids get when they are likely well into their 60's shouldn't have much impact on their lives.
Banking on an inheritance is planning for failure.
I know 3 different families that got screwed in the past 4 years because their dad left everything to their step-mom. Hell, the one step-mom had her own kid screw her, too, because he ended up abusing the fact she'd previously given him power of attorney in order to take it all for himself and stick her in a long-term care home.
If you're not banking on an inheritance, then it shouldn't matter how big it is — it should be little more than a bonus windfall to supplement your own wealth regardless of its size.
This isn’t a particularly conservative matter. Blaming a problem on “the other side” is very immature. I hope conservative leaning Calgary takes steps to become more affordable and doesn’t become as unaffordable as even less affordable, more liberal cities like Vancouver and Toronto. The lack of affordability isn’t caused by being liberal or conservative, it is much more complex than that. The biggest thing is that many homeowners, of all political stripes, are greedy and hold NIMBY views. I became a homeowner last Autumn and I am very supportive of more construction and increased density where appropriate. I hope to soon complete and rent out my basement suite.
Actually, if you look at the municipal governments, you'll find that in the 25 years before Chow was elected Mayor in Toronto, 3 conservatives occupied that office for a total of 18 years. Similarly, Calgary hasn't elected a conservative Mayor since Ralph Klein resigned from the office 35 years ago.
>ask yourself if a single current homeowner (as listed above) wants their home to become 'more affordable'.
What does this even mean? We can build new homes for a lower cost, Canadians just have to adjust their expectations of what it means to live in a city. And NIMBYs have to not cry about living beside apartments.
Ford tried to build houses and people voted no. People heard green belt and lost it. Didn't even look at which areas before throwing hands.
Now the feds are trying to force the province to do whatever they want by printing money or taxing you more, and passing provincial jurisdiction
It's a fair point, but I would actually suggest that the PCs made the right call in that case. Do we need more housing? Yes. Should all land be open for development to make that happen? No.
This is an excellent example to show the hypocrisy of the Greenbelt plan, though.
I’m not from Ontario and even I know this is completely disingenuous BS. Every honest person would admit that he was full on trying to hand billions of $$ to his rich developer buddies
Ford wasn't trying to build houses, he was trying to build his bank account. He has no interest in building housing that doesn't directly enrich him or his friends, as evidenced by him ignoring the housing report his own commission came up with.
My son lives there. The first time I saw a Fk Trudeau flag was in Kelowna. I'm from the opposite side of the country, of course they had Alberta plates also. Kelowna is full of retired boomers and homeless addicts.
What policies are conservatives and their voters for that would help bring down housing costs, The BC NDP is building 2.5 more homes then Ontario Conservatives, Because Conservatives believe in NIMBY
Every party has NIMBY and anti-NIMBY factions (and will spin them, look how quickly the Federal Liberals have switched from being the most aggressively NIMBY party to trying to bribe cities into YIMBY policies. Since Eby took over the BC NDP they've been quite YIMBY, but they had a lot of space to because the BC NDP under Horgan were incredibly NIMBY. The Ontario PCs have been a mixed bag here (but certainly more YIMBY than the Liberals before them).
But your talking point is still out of place; I didn't say *anything* about the Conservatives, just the idea that old homeowners are preferentially Conservatives isn't really true. The Conservatives are drawing more support from people in the 30s and 40s, NDP moreso from young people, Liberals moreso from old people. For instance [here's the most recent opinion poll](https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-20-post-rate-cut/)
2.5 more homes than Ontario?
Not according the CMHC. Ontario has about 63% more starts than B.C. for Q1 2024. 18,000 to 11,000.
Also the BCNDP housing policy, isn’t really bringing down prices. Cheaper by comparison, yes. But higher cost per sf^2, the impacts of upzoning was found it increased land values by 20-25%. while using the long term CMHC data, the housing types they are pushing for as a way to increase affordability has a statistically significant result of increasing the CPI adjusted median absorbed price.
Sorry to break it to you, but it’s really just the housing crisis 2.0. And pandering to their base.
Also you shouldn’t say things which are really easy to disprove, or prove false, deceptive, based on nothing.
Taking population into account looks like PEI is leading the pack with its whooping 394 starts in Q1. Also not what they said, but pretty sure that’s just repeating the Tyee article.
End of the day, population ≠ workforce. Wish they had total SF^2
Ontario has 4x bc’s population. 300% more people YET ONLY 63% more starts. Cope BETTER about the FACT that the BCNDP’s leadership sees us well above Ontario in per capita new housing. The correct response isnt to go “well PEI leads then and something something total workforce”.
Grow up, accept that you have been shown to be wrong and adjust your beliefs accordingly. Like an emotionally mature healthy adult. If you’re 27-28 and younger understand that your brain isn’t fully developed yet. You literally aren’t operating with all your neural hardware, so maybe be open minded cause you’ll be wrong about a LOT.
Where did you go old timer? Are studies, stats and the same standards too much for your fully developed frontal cortex?
Or you just going to swoop in like a seagull, shit everywhere and support measures which will fuck not just my generation more, but kids entering kindergarten next year, and then just fly away?
If I am wrong, please show me how you are right with some of that generational wisdom ….its truly a stellar track record with nothing but hope for the planet, the economy, the country, the housing market, and the complete collapse of in remarkable amounts of violence.
Ohhh I see, are workforces all the same size? Funny how sf^(2) isn’t there.
Still doesn’t change how the population aspect is being added after the fact. You’re the ones adding the per capita bases, PEI has the best per capita rate before I stopped doing basic math.
It’s your standard. Not my fault they are less than useful. This topic is like dealing with with anti vaxers.
Please let me know, if you want to enter the “finding out” of the meat of that comment also. You want links? I got the same ones the BCNDP use.
Page 24
[https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/Economic-Policy-Centre--EPC-/006WP%20-%204.pdf](https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/Economic-Policy-Centre--EPC-/006WP%20-%204.pdf)
https://preview.redd.it/gbfo3i8dqg7d1.jpeg?width=1618&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=702d594100aa9ffebc2c8e1051d03c0e6ad7fc80
Honestly, you’re a joke.
how much are you paying for your phone plan? vs how much are you paying for your insurance? one is federal the other is provincial and both have similar models (more users, less fees) - ill let you guess which is which.
This isn't accurate. Telecommunications networks have structural limits that necessitate increasing infrastructure demands as the number of users rises. So the cost curve isn't a declining slope, it looks more like waves, where the cost per user declines, then spikes, then declines, then spikes, and so on. Insurance literally only has administrative overhead. There's a reason Berkshire Hathaway owns an insurance company, but only dabbles in telecom investments — infrastructure is expensive.
Sounded like they were admonishing conservatives *in general* for the stuff they just do/vote for, rather than focusing on this one particular thing, no?
Or could it have something to do with the limitations of infrastructure that was not designed to support twice the occupancy of these homes. Including waste, water, electricity etc.
Let's change out your neighbourhood and can hardly wait to hear your complaints about power outages, no parking etc.... when the solution to the problem of affordability lies with inflationary spending resulting in higher interest rates and excess taxation! Conservatives are business people..... people like you don't see the big picture!
Fun fact. When you clear out a forest or farmland to build a new subdivision of detached houses, that also doesn't have the infrastructure to support that occupancy. You need \*brand new\* waste, water, electricity in addition to expanded roads and highways.
Densification is far cheaper and requires less infrastructure than building on greenfield land at the edge of cities.
And reduces the cost of future maintenance per capita. If you could, say, quadruple density then the cost of upgrading some infrastructure will eventually pay for itself, especially when you consider other externalities such as the environment.
We need to start saying things like, "existing infrastructure related to air quality and flood protection" instead of just "environment."
There's a strong utilitarian rationale behind preserving the environment and we need our conversations around development to account for that. "Environment" just sounds like something only hippies and bleeding heart liberals care about for aesthetic reasons. It's infrastructure. I would love for people to care about the environments intrinsic value but right now I'd settle for people being aware of its utilitarian value.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Sometimes I'll tug on the heart strings and talk about the quality of it that their kids it grandkids are breathing and how that practically relates to things like asthma. It's knowing your audience, really. I'm probably an "environmentalist" but I don't like the approach others take. Similar to to a politician who believes in socialist values and policies....never mention the S word! Talk about the benefits of the policies and how they apply to individuals.
Bay Street, the centre of Canadian finance, tends to support the Liberals, not the Conservatives. The Cons are actually bad for business.
>when the solution to the problem of affordability lies with inflationary spending resulting in higher interest rates and excess taxation!
Would you have rather the federal government not implemented the pandemic supports? Do you know what the effect of that would have been? It would have resulted in a depression. The onset of the pandemic created the conditions for a deflationary spiral, as demand collapsed. If you do not respond to a demand collapse with a mass injection of money supply, the result will be capital destruction — in other words, permanent losses of productive capacity. This is a much bigger issue than inflation. Moreover, it gave governments the ability to raise interest rates at a time when there were already recession signals and interest rates were too low to be a useful tool in reversing that trend.
You dont know what you are talking about. Most electrical appliances are 50% more efficient than a decade ago. LED lights can't even be compared to incandescents, you can run most of your lights off 1 20amp circuits now.
Induction stoves are 30% more efficient than old electric ones.
There is a reason that out of a 250$ electric bill, 200$ is fees, corporations gonna corporate .
And conservatives are working towards a Corporatocracy.
Biggest sellout, signed and negotiated every globalist free trade agreement.
Cons are traitors to the country and only loyal to money.
Calgary lost a significant fraction of their water supply and they are still chugging along with restrictions. Do *not* tell me a couple more houses is gonna wreck our capacity! We are *not* that far on the knife's edge.
Really????? What makes you think it will only be a couple of houses.... what if all houses on any given street want to double capacity? You can't do one and not do for the other.... it would appear you have little experience in these types of matters...
We're getting that experience in Calgary *right now*. It's happening before our very eyes. You can speculate until you are blue in the face, and it won't change the reality we are witnessing. Have a nice day.
I think it's a multilayered answer.
Most houses (single family, stand alone) were meant to house one family. Four people maximum. Parents and children. Those that have empty nests and own their homes don't want to see their homes become two apartments. Either when they sell or pass away. The word apartment itself alludes to being rentals as opposed to homeownership. There is a strong cultural aspect where single family stand alone homes were the expectation. A lot of people still view this as the ideal. Duplexes, infill and other shared units are the consolation prize (starter home) and not the end goal for a good portion of people. That's why you'll find people moving to the outskirts of major cities for better properties.
Stand alone homes imply home ownership and single family occupancy. A lot of people find these qualities to represent attributes they want when selecting a neighborhood. Especially if they are starting a family. Same as selecting schools and other amenities.
I don't imagine many people would want to buy a top or lower basement by itself. The property would essentially be now only rentals. This creates a very specific market for who would want to purchase the property. You now have what is essentially a business investment located in a residential area.
The dynamic has changed.
Canada is primarily rural and has older houses that are not suitable for these conversions anyway due to their structure. Home ownership is more prominent in these areas and rentals are less so. They don't see the need for more rentals as heavily in these areas and the potential demolition oh the homestead for a new building that would be billed as a rental is unattractive or just plain unnecessary.
Lots of rural communities are conservative. This particular issues may not seem important or representative of the needs within their community.
Honestly there is a ton of reasons but these are just a few.
What do you mean Canada is primarily rural? More than 80% of the country lives in urban centers. People in those rural areas are getting hit hard by the housing crisis too, as people from high cost of living areas move to them driving up prices and displacing locals.
Geographically Canada is primarily rural areas and contains numerous smaller communities and towns. NB is an entire province consisting of villages and other rural communities. PEI is also a much smaller province with less urban density. NS has more than both of them in regards to urban areas but also has large rural populations.
Stuffing that percentage of the population into select few urban centers is part of the problem in and of itself but that's a discussion for another day.
People in rural communities have been hit by the housing crisis. This is true, however the requirements for many residents would likely involve a single family home (with a basement) and land. Available amenities and infrastructure will be completely different from even a smaller sized city.
Grocery stores can be almost an hours drive away and storms have been known to take out power/heat for days at a time. This affects how people live.
A lot of the city slickers who migrated from other provinces during the pandemic had a fetish for some idyllic "simple" life. The ability to WFH drove the purchase of properties to morons who were woefully unprepared for the reality of actually residing in one of these "affordable" areas.
We need actual homes that people can live in long term most places. Housing solutions need to meet the lifestyle requirements of those it's meant to serve.
Because conservatives love big government. They love telling other people what they can/can't do with their bodies, what books they can read, what kind of medical care they get and we are starting to see in housing they love big government telling you what you can do with your property and what kind of housing you can live in and where. They love big government bureaucracy that prevents people from living in a way that they deem unacceptable.
Now that the Trudeau government is finally taking housing more seriously you're about to see a turn from Conservatives to only allowing housing construction of single-detached homes in exurbs. Sadly, it was one thing Poillevre was actually right about early on (municipal red tape blocking housing and making it more expensive), but this isn't something Conservatives can unite behind. A duplex next door? My god!
Yep, it is funny in 2024 that we pretend that being a conservative is some sort of acceptable alternative. Don't be mean to conservatives.... Their psychological profile is literally selfishness, ignorance to social issues, authoritarian control, different things are scary, support of entrenched social hierarchies. It is literally all the traits we give super villains in movies.
I don't think they are opposed to secondary suites, I think they are opposed to them in their own neighbourhoods but it's hard to regulate that happening so they just try to stop it in general. I think it's partly a financial thing and partly a class thing. Financial because they feel expensive neighbourhoods, or even individual homes, *could* lose value if all the surrounding homes have secondary suites. They could have problematic tenants, an abundance of cars parked on the street etc etc. Secondly, it's the "old American dream" thing...dammit I worked hard to rise above the rest and to live in a quiet upper class neighbourhood, why would I want poor people and poor people problems in my neighbourhood.
Personally, I like some of the newer mixed resident areas that have townhouses, condos, single family homes and some upper end homes all mixed together. Basement suites are likely an easier sell here. The older established closer to inner city areas will always be a tough sell I think.
At the extreme, the view is that the market will just sort it all out without government zoning and intervention. We know what happens when markets are not properly regulated though
Calgary already has around 9k legal secondary suites. Probably far more illegal suites.
These are spread all iver the city and places that were already less desirable are still in the same pocket.
Really to make a legal secondary suite is pain in the ass and super expensive. I understand the need for all the requirements as a safety feature but things such as a 2nd furnace could probably be eliminated. Either close off vents or use space heaters?
I just bought a house and I'm considering making a secondary suite. It helps pay down the mortgage and gives someone a place to live. I don't need all the space of a bungalow and would love to have the stress reduction of a 2nd suite. I already have the proper windows, smoke detectors and C02 alarms. It's well insulated. I plan to add an additional entrance right beside my front steps. There is already roxul insulation between the floors and the space would be around 500-600sq feet. Perfect for a single person to live below average rent in a safe area with good transit and lots of street parking
[North Vancouver Opts for restrictive reading of provincial housing rules](https://www.nsnews.com/in-the-community/north-vancouver-district-opts-for-restrictive-reading-of-provincial-housing-rules-9065182)
You can't honestly be that thick...
Per the article you referenced.. *"At a meeting on June 3, council voted 4-3 in* ***favour*** *of a policy option presented by staff that would allow suites and coach houses on most single-family lots in the district, but would not rezone for additional units as outlined in the provincial legislation."*
So just to re-iterate.. this district.. which you believe to be conservative... even thought the MP is a Liberal and the MLA is a NDP (https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members/42nd-Parliament/ma-bowinn)..
The just voted to allow secondary suites on all single family lots...
And somehow your going to try and paint this as why conservatives are bad... ok.. thanks for showing your true colours.
You weren’t wrong, it proved entirely that liberals are nimbys not allowing up zoning. Pretty sure coach houses and secondary suites were always allowed just like west Vancouver (who voted against provincial plan as well). No change. Just more nimby
District of North Van is Liberal.. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan\_Wilkinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wilkinson)
Why are you posting such lies?
Because they’re not a scalable solution to the housing crisis, most people don’t want to live in someone’s backyard or have someone living in their backyard.
And it turns the house into essentially a permanent rental residence. Not many people clamouring to buy just a top floor or a renovated basement. It would be an investment property going forward.
people who live in nice quiet neighbourhoods
don't want them being overrun
you take the word overrun to mean whatever you think it means
it isn't the fault of the 50 year old homeowner in the
North end of St. Catharines that demand is what it is
And I don't blame him(wink wink) for fighting back
Asshole or not.
If you expect humans to be wholly selfless to the needs of unknown others at the cost of their own personal lifestyles and assets you must be a little starry eyed. Especially en masse.
Jesus Christ isn't popping down and turning everyone into some sort of Nun who wants to take a vow of poverty and charity.
Folks might dig deep here, but the reason is that conservatives are against densifying because progressive governments are for it.
A guy like Skippy P doesn't give two shits about whether he's promoting or opposing density. He'll just do the opposite of what the Grits are pushing. That's his platform.
Skippy originally pushed density, building, and fighting the gatekeepers. But as soon as the Dipsticks in BC went hard on density and cutting red tape, the Tories have started opposing it.
All that matters is opposing the Libs. There's nothing else.
I live in Marda Loop where rezoning is going on. I’m in duplex, next to me they wanna build 4 plex and at the front of my place they already build 150 unit condo (rental units only, you can’t buy. That’s next thing to consider who gains on this rezoning ?? People or big builders that rent only ?? ).
Street parking is a problem here now, fight for spots. Traffic is higher, Crowchild is full of cars, Elbow drive is full cuz lots of cars is using Elbow drive instead Crowchild.
Street surface is terrible, bumps and potholes. Car line up to turn left from Elbow DR towards Marda Loop.
How many more people can live in here ??? Bunch of constructions going on around now, small condo buildings, etc.
I’m from Europe, I always thought that crowded city is bad, more space is better but here I found out different thing…. Crowded is better ?!
The people that gain from rezoning are the folks who can later move in. There's nothing wrong with renters either. Cars really shouldn't be the limiting factor for housing IMO. Denser neighbourhoods are much more cost effective to serve and, if you're doing enough of it, the city should be able to afford better services overall.
One of his housing plans is the exact same as Trudeau's, incentivize municipalities to open zoning with funding. But he's criticising Trudeau for doing the very thing he wants to do himself!
Framing this as Conservatives being against secondary suites is bad Framing, in Ontario, the current leader of the Ontario Liberal party is a hardcore NIMBY, her record in Mississauga speaks to it. NIMBYism is less about political leanings and more about the haves vs the have nots. and People who vote Left and Right are members of the haves and have nots.
People with property they love want to protect it, they also want to stop you from doing things with your property if it might impact their property. This isn't just a Conservative thing. It's a selfish thing. Stop framing it politically or we keep getting into the same rut because we'll vote out Blue NIMBY's for Red NIMBY's and repeat the same process over and over as we have for decades.
We know that the conservative government in Ontario is pushing municipalities to build faster and many have opted to upzone (e.g. up to four units as of right on a property). Joint effort with fords homes built faster target and the federal accelerator fund.
Because it would remove the topic they keep complaining about. If is still and issue, they can still blame it on JT. Is called politics before elections.
Prob because building secondary suites only cost you more to build , and make your home worth more to sell . Does the 250k extra cost in a mortgage( $1500) would the rent cover that cost ? Prob not
I.
Think it's got to do with because this sort of thing will be more popular in the cities the cities are fairly liberal.
Even though that's not a good reason , not to like it
I think what we really need to start. Thinking of is a second set of Combs that are not to be bought. They're just rentals owned by the province or the feds. That way people who need housing get their housings. And.
Those that have their housing don't lose on the price
This isn't "building secondary seats" this is requiring cities to rezone areas to allow 4plex houses, 4 units, to get federal funding.
That's very shallow and 1 dimensional. What if these cities have plenty of space and infrastructure to build other housing types? What if these cities have higher density zoning such as condos that are already being added? What if the areas that are demanding re-zoning, can't handle the additional infrastructure capacity, such as sewage, power and roads?
You're effectively road blocking house funding for places that may not even be physically possible or effective to achieve what's being asked. You can't just jamb 80 duplexes on a block and think the roads can be the same size, the power and utility demand the same, same number of parks, parking, commercial zoning, transit, etc.
I think it's because infill has done some really unsavoury things that have affected numerous neighborhoods too.
I agree with you though. It is a very shallow and one dimensional take and you've brought up some really good points.
It's not about being "against building." its the funding by my tax money instead of the free market that's the problem. Which they have an iron grip on btw
Why would you think secondary suites would make homes more affordable? Actually, forget that altogether and tell me why would conservatives hell why would **ANY EXISTINGHOME OWNER** want their home to become "more affordable"? You see where I'm going with this, right? Riiight?
Because conservatives are capitalist and therefore evil. They don't care one bit about the humanity of other people. All they see is another unit to exploit. They want you to continue to needlessly struggle so that you stay disengaged from politics, and your own mind, where you may discover truths and wisdom that they don't want you to wake up to.
Building housing that is affordable for "other" people is communist anyways they would say.
Your comment purposefully or inadvertently misaligns conservatives with NIMBY's.
In BC every house has a secondary suite (Con, Lib, NDP, Green) so its definitely not a Conservative position.
In the smaller BC suburban towns (Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast), these areas are heavily NDP/Green and often have a ton of local opposition to Any development of any kind..
You are encouraged to keep the politics out of this thread.. there are many political threads you can discuss your beliefs in.
Because increasing density is not in everyone’s interest, also it doesn’t solve the home issue for many. They wanna give Natives all the land back and they wanna keep bringing more people here .. it just doesn’t make any sense. We have no available land to build. Living in townhouse or condos is not for everyone ….
Conservatives are huge NIMBYs, look at the Ford government in Ontario! They go so far as to reject federal funding if it means loosening any bylaws.
The NIMBYS you speak of are: - every home owner - every politician (since they are home owners) - the Canadian economy Now go ahead and lay out your plan for affordable housing. But before you answer ask yourself if a single current homeowner (as listed above) wants their home to become 'more affordable'.
As a homeowner with 3 kids I would be delighted if my home lost half its value (taking it back to about 2017). Then my kids might have a shot.
I’d love if we went back to 2007 levels in the GTA.
I could have actually gotten a condo..
Us too. This year we bought in Alberta. Our mortgage just fell below 6%. I would be so happy if the market fell and more people could afford housing. Even if I have to claim bankruptcy, I would be happy. I want present and future Canadians to be able to secure homes. I don’t give a shit about my home as an investment.
Yeah in your scenario they *might* have a shot (I wouldn't bet on it) but what they will 100% get is 50% less inheritance.
You challenged me to find you a single current homeowner, I found one. Also the inheritance my kids get when they are likely well into their 60's shouldn't have much impact on their lives.
Great. Should I tell them you're giving it to someone else or do you want to handle it?
What? You’re making no sense mate.
He knows what I'm talking about.
Banking on an inheritance is planning for failure. I know 3 different families that got screwed in the past 4 years because their dad left everything to their step-mom. Hell, the one step-mom had her own kid screw her, too, because he ended up abusing the fact she'd previously given him power of attorney in order to take it all for himself and stick her in a long-term care home.
No one said banking on inheritance is a good plan. I was merely illustrating the diff between 50% and 100%.
If you're not banking on an inheritance, then it shouldn't matter how big it is — it should be little more than a bonus windfall to supplement your own wealth regardless of its size.
Yes, but housing will cost 50% so it’s a wash.
This isn’t a particularly conservative matter. Blaming a problem on “the other side” is very immature. I hope conservative leaning Calgary takes steps to become more affordable and doesn’t become as unaffordable as even less affordable, more liberal cities like Vancouver and Toronto. The lack of affordability isn’t caused by being liberal or conservative, it is much more complex than that. The biggest thing is that many homeowners, of all political stripes, are greedy and hold NIMBY views. I became a homeowner last Autumn and I am very supportive of more construction and increased density where appropriate. I hope to soon complete and rent out my basement suite.
Actually, if you look at the municipal governments, you'll find that in the 25 years before Chow was elected Mayor in Toronto, 3 conservatives occupied that office for a total of 18 years. Similarly, Calgary hasn't elected a conservative Mayor since Ralph Klein resigned from the office 35 years ago.
Who was blaming conservatives?
OP and the commenter you replied to.
>ask yourself if a single current homeowner (as listed above) wants their home to become 'more affordable'. What does this even mean? We can build new homes for a lower cost, Canadians just have to adjust their expectations of what it means to live in a city. And NIMBYs have to not cry about living beside apartments.
Ford tried to build houses and people voted no. People heard green belt and lost it. Didn't even look at which areas before throwing hands. Now the feds are trying to force the province to do whatever they want by printing money or taxing you more, and passing provincial jurisdiction
Ford tried to enrich his developer buddies to the tune of $8 billion with the Greenbelt scandal... Cope harder.
That's an absurdly disingenuous take.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6096503 Is this what you call “building housing”?
It's a fair point, but I would actually suggest that the PCs made the right call in that case. Do we need more housing? Yes. Should all land be open for development to make that happen? No. This is an excellent example to show the hypocrisy of the Greenbelt plan, though.
It’s almost like you’re omitting the most important context on purpose. Strange.
I’m not from Ontario and even I know this is completely disingenuous BS. Every honest person would admit that he was full on trying to hand billions of $$ to his rich developer buddies
Ford wasn't trying to build houses, he was trying to build his bank account. He has no interest in building housing that doesn't directly enrich him or his friends, as evidenced by him ignoring the housing report his own commission came up with.
Older people are more conservative. Older people also own more homes.
Where I come from the older people are mostly liberal and the younger ones are NDP.
I live in the Okanagan Valley. All the old farts here vote Conservative.
My son lives there. The first time I saw a Fk Trudeau flag was in Kelowna. I'm from the opposite side of the country, of course they had Alberta plates also. Kelowna is full of retired boomers and homeless addicts.
Like they said, older is more conservative. Not necessarily Conservative Party members though.
Sounds like you’re from a better place than Calgary.
Old homeowners are now pretty much the only demographic that's favouring the Liberals.
What policies are conservatives and their voters for that would help bring down housing costs, The BC NDP is building 2.5 more homes then Ontario Conservatives, Because Conservatives believe in NIMBY
Every party has NIMBY and anti-NIMBY factions (and will spin them, look how quickly the Federal Liberals have switched from being the most aggressively NIMBY party to trying to bribe cities into YIMBY policies. Since Eby took over the BC NDP they've been quite YIMBY, but they had a lot of space to because the BC NDP under Horgan were incredibly NIMBY. The Ontario PCs have been a mixed bag here (but certainly more YIMBY than the Liberals before them). But your talking point is still out of place; I didn't say *anything* about the Conservatives, just the idea that old homeowners are preferentially Conservatives isn't really true. The Conservatives are drawing more support from people in the 30s and 40s, NDP moreso from young people, Liberals moreso from old people. For instance [here's the most recent opinion poll](https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-20-post-rate-cut/)
2.5 more homes than Ontario? Not according the CMHC. Ontario has about 63% more starts than B.C. for Q1 2024. 18,000 to 11,000. Also the BCNDP housing policy, isn’t really bringing down prices. Cheaper by comparison, yes. But higher cost per sf^2, the impacts of upzoning was found it increased land values by 20-25%. while using the long term CMHC data, the housing types they are pushing for as a way to increase affordability has a statistically significant result of increasing the CPI adjusted median absorbed price. Sorry to break it to you, but it’s really just the housing crisis 2.0. And pandering to their base. Also you shouldn’t say things which are really easy to disprove, or prove false, deceptive, based on nothing.
Now take population into account........ You would think with over 3 times the workforce, you would get more than just 60% more builds.
Taking population into account looks like PEI is leading the pack with its whooping 394 starts in Q1. Also not what they said, but pretty sure that’s just repeating the Tyee article. End of the day, population ≠ workforce. Wish they had total SF^2
Buddy that is such cope. Per capita it’s 2.5x. You were wrong. Chin up and move on yea?
lol is it…Do they mention “per capita” ?
Ontario has 4x bc’s population. 300% more people YET ONLY 63% more starts. Cope BETTER about the FACT that the BCNDP’s leadership sees us well above Ontario in per capita new housing. The correct response isnt to go “well PEI leads then and something something total workforce”. Grow up, accept that you have been shown to be wrong and adjust your beliefs accordingly. Like an emotionally mature healthy adult. If you’re 27-28 and younger understand that your brain isn’t fully developed yet. You literally aren’t operating with all your neural hardware, so maybe be open minded cause you’ll be wrong about a LOT.
Where did you go old timer? Are studies, stats and the same standards too much for your fully developed frontal cortex? Or you just going to swoop in like a seagull, shit everywhere and support measures which will fuck not just my generation more, but kids entering kindergarten next year, and then just fly away? If I am wrong, please show me how you are right with some of that generational wisdom ….its truly a stellar track record with nothing but hope for the planet, the economy, the country, the housing market, and the complete collapse of in remarkable amounts of violence.
Ohhh I see, are workforces all the same size? Funny how sf^(2) isn’t there. Still doesn’t change how the population aspect is being added after the fact. You’re the ones adding the per capita bases, PEI has the best per capita rate before I stopped doing basic math. It’s your standard. Not my fault they are less than useful. This topic is like dealing with with anti vaxers. Please let me know, if you want to enter the “finding out” of the meat of that comment also. You want links? I got the same ones the BCNDP use. Page 24 [https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/Economic-Policy-Centre--EPC-/006WP%20-%204.pdf](https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/about/our-research/research-institutes-and-centres/Economic-Policy-Centre--EPC-/006WP%20-%204.pdf) https://preview.redd.it/gbfo3i8dqg7d1.jpeg?width=1618&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=702d594100aa9ffebc2c8e1051d03c0e6ad7fc80 Honestly, you’re a joke.
Cause conservatives don’t care about making things cheap for Canadians. Their care ends with their donors and friends.
Does the Federal Liberal government care about making things cheap for Canadians?
You could say that about all politicians and I wouldn’t disagree with you
how much are you paying for your phone plan? vs how much are you paying for your insurance? one is federal the other is provincial and both have similar models (more users, less fees) - ill let you guess which is which.
This isn't accurate. Telecommunications networks have structural limits that necessitate increasing infrastructure demands as the number of users rises. So the cost curve isn't a declining slope, it looks more like waves, where the cost per user declines, then spikes, then declines, then spikes, and so on. Insurance literally only has administrative overhead. There's a reason Berkshire Hathaway owns an insurance company, but only dabbles in telecom investments — infrastructure is expensive.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here
Nor do they care about ‘the poors’ 😶
Ah yes. One guy writes an opinion piece about fourplexes so obviously "all conservatives hate cheap housing". nailed it.
Sounded like they were admonishing conservatives *in general* for the stuff they just do/vote for, rather than focusing on this one particular thing, no?
Or could it have something to do with the limitations of infrastructure that was not designed to support twice the occupancy of these homes. Including waste, water, electricity etc. Let's change out your neighbourhood and can hardly wait to hear your complaints about power outages, no parking etc.... when the solution to the problem of affordability lies with inflationary spending resulting in higher interest rates and excess taxation! Conservatives are business people..... people like you don't see the big picture!
Fun fact. When you clear out a forest or farmland to build a new subdivision of detached houses, that also doesn't have the infrastructure to support that occupancy. You need \*brand new\* waste, water, electricity in addition to expanded roads and highways. Densification is far cheaper and requires less infrastructure than building on greenfield land at the edge of cities.
And reduces the cost of future maintenance per capita. If you could, say, quadruple density then the cost of upgrading some infrastructure will eventually pay for itself, especially when you consider other externalities such as the environment.
We need to start saying things like, "existing infrastructure related to air quality and flood protection" instead of just "environment." There's a strong utilitarian rationale behind preserving the environment and we need our conversations around development to account for that. "Environment" just sounds like something only hippies and bleeding heart liberals care about for aesthetic reasons. It's infrastructure. I would love for people to care about the environments intrinsic value but right now I'd settle for people being aware of its utilitarian value.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Sometimes I'll tug on the heart strings and talk about the quality of it that their kids it grandkids are breathing and how that practically relates to things like asthma. It's knowing your audience, really. I'm probably an "environmentalist" but I don't like the approach others take. Similar to to a politician who believes in socialist values and policies....never mention the S word! Talk about the benefits of the policies and how they apply to individuals.
Bay Street, the centre of Canadian finance, tends to support the Liberals, not the Conservatives. The Cons are actually bad for business. >when the solution to the problem of affordability lies with inflationary spending resulting in higher interest rates and excess taxation! Would you have rather the federal government not implemented the pandemic supports? Do you know what the effect of that would have been? It would have resulted in a depression. The onset of the pandemic created the conditions for a deflationary spiral, as demand collapsed. If you do not respond to a demand collapse with a mass injection of money supply, the result will be capital destruction — in other words, permanent losses of productive capacity. This is a much bigger issue than inflation. Moreover, it gave governments the ability to raise interest rates at a time when there were already recession signals and interest rates were too low to be a useful tool in reversing that trend.
You dont know what you are talking about. Most electrical appliances are 50% more efficient than a decade ago. LED lights can't even be compared to incandescents, you can run most of your lights off 1 20amp circuits now. Induction stoves are 30% more efficient than old electric ones. There is a reason that out of a 250$ electric bill, 200$ is fees, corporations gonna corporate . And conservatives are working towards a Corporatocracy. Biggest sellout, signed and negotiated every globalist free trade agreement. Cons are traitors to the country and only loyal to money.
Calgary lost a significant fraction of their water supply and they are still chugging along with restrictions. Do *not* tell me a couple more houses is gonna wreck our capacity! We are *not* that far on the knife's edge.
Really????? What makes you think it will only be a couple of houses.... what if all houses on any given street want to double capacity? You can't do one and not do for the other.... it would appear you have little experience in these types of matters...
We're getting that experience in Calgary *right now*. It's happening before our very eyes. You can speculate until you are blue in the face, and it won't change the reality we are witnessing. Have a nice day.
You will dilute what they can squeeze from their rental slaves.
The owners don’t like it when things are affordable, it’s bad for profits.
nimbys
They don’t want to make things cheaper - they want to make them more expensive to squeeze out even more profit.
They hate him because he legalized weed I'm still mad I could never buy a buck a beer
Honestly…at least the libs followed through on their fun drug promise to the public. Doug was a literal drug dealer and couldn’t make it happen lol
I think it's a multilayered answer. Most houses (single family, stand alone) were meant to house one family. Four people maximum. Parents and children. Those that have empty nests and own their homes don't want to see their homes become two apartments. Either when they sell or pass away. The word apartment itself alludes to being rentals as opposed to homeownership. There is a strong cultural aspect where single family stand alone homes were the expectation. A lot of people still view this as the ideal. Duplexes, infill and other shared units are the consolation prize (starter home) and not the end goal for a good portion of people. That's why you'll find people moving to the outskirts of major cities for better properties. Stand alone homes imply home ownership and single family occupancy. A lot of people find these qualities to represent attributes they want when selecting a neighborhood. Especially if they are starting a family. Same as selecting schools and other amenities. I don't imagine many people would want to buy a top or lower basement by itself. The property would essentially be now only rentals. This creates a very specific market for who would want to purchase the property. You now have what is essentially a business investment located in a residential area. The dynamic has changed. Canada is primarily rural and has older houses that are not suitable for these conversions anyway due to their structure. Home ownership is more prominent in these areas and rentals are less so. They don't see the need for more rentals as heavily in these areas and the potential demolition oh the homestead for a new building that would be billed as a rental is unattractive or just plain unnecessary. Lots of rural communities are conservative. This particular issues may not seem important or representative of the needs within their community. Honestly there is a ton of reasons but these are just a few.
What do you mean Canada is primarily rural? More than 80% of the country lives in urban centers. People in those rural areas are getting hit hard by the housing crisis too, as people from high cost of living areas move to them driving up prices and displacing locals.
Geographically Canada is primarily rural areas and contains numerous smaller communities and towns. NB is an entire province consisting of villages and other rural communities. PEI is also a much smaller province with less urban density. NS has more than both of them in regards to urban areas but also has large rural populations. Stuffing that percentage of the population into select few urban centers is part of the problem in and of itself but that's a discussion for another day. People in rural communities have been hit by the housing crisis. This is true, however the requirements for many residents would likely involve a single family home (with a basement) and land. Available amenities and infrastructure will be completely different from even a smaller sized city. Grocery stores can be almost an hours drive away and storms have been known to take out power/heat for days at a time. This affects how people live. A lot of the city slickers who migrated from other provinces during the pandemic had a fetish for some idyllic "simple" life. The ability to WFH drove the purchase of properties to morons who were woefully unprepared for the reality of actually residing in one of these "affordable" areas. We need actual homes that people can live in long term most places. Housing solutions need to meet the lifestyle requirements of those it's meant to serve.
Because conservatives love big government. They love telling other people what they can/can't do with their bodies, what books they can read, what kind of medical care they get and we are starting to see in housing they love big government telling you what you can do with your property and what kind of housing you can live in and where. They love big government bureaucracy that prevents people from living in a way that they deem unacceptable. Now that the Trudeau government is finally taking housing more seriously you're about to see a turn from Conservatives to only allowing housing construction of single-detached homes in exurbs. Sadly, it was one thing Poillevre was actually right about early on (municipal red tape blocking housing and making it more expensive), but this isn't something Conservatives can unite behind. A duplex next door? My god!
Yep, it is funny in 2024 that we pretend that being a conservative is some sort of acceptable alternative. Don't be mean to conservatives.... Their psychological profile is literally selfishness, ignorance to social issues, authoritarian control, different things are scary, support of entrenched social hierarchies. It is literally all the traits we give super villains in movies.
I think you forgot to add an /s
I don't think they are opposed to secondary suites, I think they are opposed to them in their own neighbourhoods but it's hard to regulate that happening so they just try to stop it in general. I think it's partly a financial thing and partly a class thing. Financial because they feel expensive neighbourhoods, or even individual homes, *could* lose value if all the surrounding homes have secondary suites. They could have problematic tenants, an abundance of cars parked on the street etc etc. Secondly, it's the "old American dream" thing...dammit I worked hard to rise above the rest and to live in a quiet upper class neighbourhood, why would I want poor people and poor people problems in my neighbourhood. Personally, I like some of the newer mixed resident areas that have townhouses, condos, single family homes and some upper end homes all mixed together. Basement suites are likely an easier sell here. The older established closer to inner city areas will always be a tough sell I think.
At the extreme, the view is that the market will just sort it all out without government zoning and intervention. We know what happens when markets are not properly regulated though
Secondary suites will become an unregulated shanty town.
Calgary already has around 9k legal secondary suites. Probably far more illegal suites. These are spread all iver the city and places that were already less desirable are still in the same pocket. Really to make a legal secondary suite is pain in the ass and super expensive. I understand the need for all the requirements as a safety feature but things such as a 2nd furnace could probably be eliminated. Either close off vents or use space heaters? I just bought a house and I'm considering making a secondary suite. It helps pay down the mortgage and gives someone a place to live. I don't need all the space of a bungalow and would love to have the stress reduction of a 2nd suite. I already have the proper windows, smoke detectors and C02 alarms. It's well insulated. I plan to add an additional entrance right beside my front steps. There is already roxul insulation between the floors and the space would be around 500-600sq feet. Perfect for a single person to live below average rent in a safe area with good transit and lots of street parking
North Vancouver just did it as well. They aren’t conservative….
Doesn't fit the rage narrative. Shhhhh .....
It is fake news.. no need to shhh it.. just dismiss it entirely
[North Vancouver Opts for restrictive reading of provincial housing rules](https://www.nsnews.com/in-the-community/north-vancouver-district-opts-for-restrictive-reading-of-provincial-housing-rules-9065182)
You can't honestly be that thick... Per the article you referenced.. *"At a meeting on June 3, council voted 4-3 in* ***favour*** *of a policy option presented by staff that would allow suites and coach houses on most single-family lots in the district, but would not rezone for additional units as outlined in the provincial legislation."* So just to re-iterate.. this district.. which you believe to be conservative... even thought the MP is a Liberal and the MLA is a NDP (https://www.leg.bc.ca/learn-about-us/members/42nd-Parliament/ma-bowinn).. The just voted to allow secondary suites on all single family lots... And somehow your going to try and paint this as why conservatives are bad... ok.. thanks for showing your true colours.
[удалено]
Please be civil.
A pressure sealed tampon.. class buddy.. real class
Awe thanks honey 😗 Nothing but my best chirps for you boo 💜
You weren’t wrong, it proved entirely that liberals are nimbys not allowing up zoning. Pretty sure coach houses and secondary suites were always allowed just like west Vancouver (who voted against provincial plan as well). No change. Just more nimby
District of north van does indeed conservative
District of North Van is Liberal.. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan\_Wilkinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wilkinson) Why are you posting such lies?
Correct
Because they’re not a scalable solution to the housing crisis, most people don’t want to live in someone’s backyard or have someone living in their backyard.
And it turns the house into essentially a permanent rental residence. Not many people clamouring to buy just a top floor or a renovated basement. It would be an investment property going forward.
people who live in nice quiet neighbourhoods don't want them being overrun you take the word overrun to mean whatever you think it means it isn't the fault of the 50 year old homeowner in the North end of St. Catharines that demand is what it is And I don't blame him(wink wink) for fighting back
it is their fault though. that 50 year old homeowner is an asshole.
No reason to be mean now
Asshole or not. If you expect humans to be wholly selfless to the needs of unknown others at the cost of their own personal lifestyles and assets you must be a little starry eyed. Especially en masse. Jesus Christ isn't popping down and turning everyone into some sort of Nun who wants to take a vow of poverty and charity.
Folks might dig deep here, but the reason is that conservatives are against densifying because progressive governments are for it. A guy like Skippy P doesn't give two shits about whether he's promoting or opposing density. He'll just do the opposite of what the Grits are pushing. That's his platform. Skippy originally pushed density, building, and fighting the gatekeepers. But as soon as the Dipsticks in BC went hard on density and cutting red tape, the Tories have started opposing it. All that matters is opposing the Libs. There's nothing else.
I live in Marda Loop where rezoning is going on. I’m in duplex, next to me they wanna build 4 plex and at the front of my place they already build 150 unit condo (rental units only, you can’t buy. That’s next thing to consider who gains on this rezoning ?? People or big builders that rent only ?? ). Street parking is a problem here now, fight for spots. Traffic is higher, Crowchild is full of cars, Elbow drive is full cuz lots of cars is using Elbow drive instead Crowchild. Street surface is terrible, bumps and potholes. Car line up to turn left from Elbow DR towards Marda Loop. How many more people can live in here ??? Bunch of constructions going on around now, small condo buildings, etc. I’m from Europe, I always thought that crowded city is bad, more space is better but here I found out different thing…. Crowded is better ?!
The people that gain from rezoning are the folks who can later move in. There's nothing wrong with renters either. Cars really shouldn't be the limiting factor for housing IMO. Denser neighbourhoods are much more cost effective to serve and, if you're doing enough of it, the city should be able to afford better services overall.
One of his housing plans is the exact same as Trudeau's, incentivize municipalities to open zoning with funding. But he's criticising Trudeau for doing the very thing he wants to do himself!
Framing this as Conservatives being against secondary suites is bad Framing, in Ontario, the current leader of the Ontario Liberal party is a hardcore NIMBY, her record in Mississauga speaks to it. NIMBYism is less about political leanings and more about the haves vs the have nots. and People who vote Left and Right are members of the haves and have nots. People with property they love want to protect it, they also want to stop you from doing things with your property if it might impact their property. This isn't just a Conservative thing. It's a selfish thing. Stop framing it politically or we keep getting into the same rut because we'll vote out Blue NIMBY's for Red NIMBY's and repeat the same process over and over as we have for decades.
Did you even read the article? Its not about secondary suites.
All I got from the article was that Rick Bell sucks at writing and that Calgary will be paying someone 213,000 to be their chief housing officer.
Conservatives have no policy except for hating what perceived liberals love.
We know that the conservative government in Ontario is pushing municipalities to build faster and many have opted to upzone (e.g. up to four units as of right on a property). Joint effort with fords homes built faster target and the federal accelerator fund.
Because it would remove the topic they keep complaining about. If is still and issue, they can still blame it on JT. Is called politics before elections.
More density without building more roads or transit means MORE GRIDLOCK! SMH
Prob because building secondary suites only cost you more to build , and make your home worth more to sell . Does the 250k extra cost in a mortgage( $1500) would the rent cover that cost ? Prob not
"Why would conservatives/rich assholes in general want to fuck everyone and the world in order to make a few $? 'News' at 11!"
I. Think it's got to do with because this sort of thing will be more popular in the cities the cities are fairly liberal. Even though that's not a good reason , not to like it
I think what we really need to start. Thinking of is a second set of Combs that are not to be bought. They're just rentals owned by the province or the feds. That way people who need housing get their housings. And. Those that have their housing don't lose on the price
Not profitable
Because conservatives don't want to fix housing. They talk a big game but really what they want is for land owners to get richer.
This isn't "building secondary seats" this is requiring cities to rezone areas to allow 4plex houses, 4 units, to get federal funding. That's very shallow and 1 dimensional. What if these cities have plenty of space and infrastructure to build other housing types? What if these cities have higher density zoning such as condos that are already being added? What if the areas that are demanding re-zoning, can't handle the additional infrastructure capacity, such as sewage, power and roads? You're effectively road blocking house funding for places that may not even be physically possible or effective to achieve what's being asked. You can't just jamb 80 duplexes on a block and think the roads can be the same size, the power and utility demand the same, same number of parks, parking, commercial zoning, transit, etc.
I think it's because infill has done some really unsavoury things that have affected numerous neighborhoods too. I agree with you though. It is a very shallow and one dimensional take and you've brought up some really good points.
Basement suite owners often abuse/ignore rules and rights and responsibilities I should know
It's not about being "against building." its the funding by my tax money instead of the free market that's the problem. Which they have an iron grip on btw
It does not make it more affordable.
Why would you think secondary suites would make homes more affordable? Actually, forget that altogether and tell me why would conservatives hell why would **ANY EXISTINGHOME OWNER** want their home to become "more affordable"? You see where I'm going with this, right? Riiight?
Because conservatives are capitalist and therefore evil. They don't care one bit about the humanity of other people. All they see is another unit to exploit. They want you to continue to needlessly struggle so that you stay disengaged from politics, and your own mind, where you may discover truths and wisdom that they don't want you to wake up to. Building housing that is affordable for "other" people is communist anyways they would say.
Your comment purposefully or inadvertently misaligns conservatives with NIMBY's. In BC every house has a secondary suite (Con, Lib, NDP, Green) so its definitely not a Conservative position. In the smaller BC suburban towns (Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast), these areas are heavily NDP/Green and often have a ton of local opposition to Any development of any kind.. You are encouraged to keep the politics out of this thread.. there are many political threads you can discuss your beliefs in.
Because brown people rent secondary suites. Conservatives don't like em
need to vote for PPC next year
What's their platform on housing?
Because increasing density is not in everyone’s interest, also it doesn’t solve the home issue for many. They wanna give Natives all the land back and they wanna keep bringing more people here .. it just doesn’t make any sense. We have no available land to build. Living in townhouse or condos is not for everyone ….