I think you might be overthinking the downsides for Poilievre and the Federal Conservatives. I think this is a move that’s all upside for them. They get to be seen as “doing something”, but even if the changes go through it’s the city council that will get 99% of the blowback.
Is there anything more Canadian Politics than one level of government taking credit when another level does something good, but offloading the blame when it goes wrong?
And, one more comment, Lisa. Your use of Buffalo Springfield's lyrics betrays / displays your "vintage." And mine, too, because I immediately recognized the lyric and then name of the song. A good hook to start the column, today.
Would love some comments on the position this puts Patrick Poilievre (Pierre's brother) in. Patrick is an aid (and former campaign manager) for Dan McLean one of the conservative councillors that is so opposed to multi-family dwellings.
Assuming the federal Conservatives win the next election, I think the conservative solution is for municipal and federal conservatives to come together and promote more sprawl much to the chagrin of their new younger supporters. Limits on outward expansion of the city are the real "gates" these politicians want to take down. It protects the interests of the inner-city donor class, developer friendly, and keeps everyone car/fossil fuel dependent. The question for younger voters is whether they'll exchange an affordable home is worth a two hour commute?
That’s a fine solution for Calgary, assuming you don’t care about sustainability, but it won’t fly in the areas with the greatest housing pressure. When you start talking about places in BC or Ontario many of the municipalities are geographically constrained.
Vancouver is geographically constrained, Toronto is only constrained because of policy. But they are already large than what most people would prefer in terms of commute,
I have yet to see any policy issue where the CPC approach is anything other than vague performance art. This “gatekeeper” nonsense offers them cover in that the hard decisions lie in some other jurisdiction. The actual reality of loosening zoning and permitting regulations is a landmine that the conservatives will be the first to run from.
This is completely wrong. Read Atchison's letter. Council had two ways out of this in which they could have pretending to do something while achieving nothing or worse. First, Sonya Sharp's poison pill. Atchison cuts that down. Second, by approving every recommendation except for the two that count--changing baseline zoning and parking minimums. Atchison points out that these are the policy changes that matter.
Is anyone considering the variable of AirBnB and what its impact has been on the housing market, both in terms of availability and cost? Asking for a friend.
To channel many people, "I want my cake and to eat it, too! I want, I want, I want .... to keep the status quo."
But, that is not realistic. So, it seems to me that either we restrict / reduce / eliminate / etc. housing demand or we meet it. [Ignoring that great Canadian "compromise" of doing nothing.] In other words, fewer people (young folk, immigrants, etc., etc.) will reduce demand and therefore upward pressure on pricing. If we do not plan to reduce people who create demand then we must increase the supply of housing. Simple, no? Simple to say but to implement solutions is, of course, complex. So, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
I am "of an age" as they say, so my supposed predilection is to retain the status quo but, truthfully, the status quo is not an option; only change is a realistic option. Painful change, really. My wife and I own our own home - lucky us! - and one of our adult children and family own their home - lucky them! Our other adult child and family do not own a home and have no realistic possibility of doing so. As a result, we have started on the path to change our home to a multi-generation home with the hope that our daughter and family can move in and take over.
Is that a solution for everyone? Absolutely not, but I cannot fix everything for everyone so I will work with trying to fix what I can influence. As must we all in our own way.
Really, we have to recognize that lack of sufficient, proper housing is a real, real problem before any solution can conceivably be found. Unfortunately, too many people are stuck with, "I want my cake and eat it, too. I want, I want, I want .... to keep the status quo."
We're in a similar situation.....with 6 grandchildren to help educate and house. Keeps me up at night imagining what it must be like for many young people, without grandparents close by who have resisted the urges of CHIP to chip away at the grandchildren's security....in favour of a five planet lifestyle into their 80's.
We do choose the circus too often........over the community of families.
The housing crisis we face is a complex one, and won't be solved by PP and his promises of restoring affordability by scraping the carbon tax and demonizing Trudeau.
It likely requires a lot of new, out of the box thinking. For starters, why would be allow foreign investors to buy into our housing needs? Are we a banana republic dependent on rich cats from abroad?
And what about net 0? Building particle board leaking sieves in need of fossil fuel heating in the winter and cooling in the summer has to be the essence of short term thinking. If we furthermore build them with the larger footprint current housing has....we are dreaming a nostalgic dream. Future citizens need liveable spaces....not McMansions....and those spaces should be designed to use less energy, and last at least a century.
And sure, lots of people will be renters for life. But what about rent to own schemes where cities and municipalities put local taxes to use providing for local wage earners? No one should be subject to the whims of an over leveraged landlord or would be entreproner as they approach their golden years. By that time, a person's home should be secure.
We've recently seen articles about net 0 homes being built in parts of Canada....but we could ramp those experiments up. In one article, the cost of monthly utilities had been reduced to under $100...which is the kind of housing that makes sense to me.
PP and his back to some glorious past ideas aren't ideas at all. Housing has to be a right, because it is a necessity. We need to have a lot more conversations about how we build that housing....in a variety of ways to be sure, but in a variety of ways that serve the needs of our variety of citizens.
The mythical 'free market' has created a lot of unfree people...time perhaps to kick that fantasy to the curb, and consider how we might build for diverse communities of people.....young and old.
Real prosperity is likely something quite different from imaginary Profit...but for the last few decades, the profit motive has trumped human sized real solutions.
Love your analogy! Damn! Rock 'n Roll! This tune has many verses with the course still on repeat - we need more housing. Were the solution as simplistic as the PP 'Bring-it-home' rock band suggests, more housing would already be under construction across the country. But - like most action/reaction efforts in today's world, the reality is more complex. I think an orchestra is required. The conductor would need to work at making good music - not out-of-tune noise. Everyone playing from the same music sheet.
I think you might be overthinking the downsides for Poilievre and the Federal Conservatives. I think this is a move that’s all upside for them. They get to be seen as “doing something”, but even if the changes go through it’s the city council that will get 99% of the blowback.
Is there anything more Canadian Politics than one level of government taking credit when another level does something good, but offloading the blame when it goes wrong?
And, one more comment, Lisa. Your use of Buffalo Springfield's lyrics betrays / displays your "vintage." And mine, too, because I immediately recognized the lyric and then name of the song. A good hook to start the column, today.
The urban home owning Conservatives stand to reap large capital gains when they surrender their houses to developers.
Would love some comments on the position this puts Patrick Poilievre (Pierre's brother) in. Patrick is an aid (and former campaign manager) for Dan McLean one of the conservative councillors that is so opposed to multi-family dwellings.
ooh - that's an interesting question!!
Assuming the federal Conservatives win the next election, I think the conservative solution is for municipal and federal conservatives to come together and promote more sprawl much to the chagrin of their new younger supporters. Limits on outward expansion of the city are the real "gates" these politicians want to take down. It protects the interests of the inner-city donor class, developer friendly, and keeps everyone car/fossil fuel dependent. The question for younger voters is whether they'll exchange an affordable home is worth a two hour commute?
That’s a fine solution for Calgary, assuming you don’t care about sustainability, but it won’t fly in the areas with the greatest housing pressure. When you start talking about places in BC or Ontario many of the municipalities are geographically constrained.
Vancouver is geographically constrained, Toronto is only constrained because of policy. But they are already large than what most people would prefer in terms of commute,
I have yet to see any policy issue where the CPC approach is anything other than vague performance art. This “gatekeeper” nonsense offers them cover in that the hard decisions lie in some other jurisdiction. The actual reality of loosening zoning and permitting regulations is a landmine that the conservatives will be the first to run from.
This is completely wrong. Read Atchison's letter. Council had two ways out of this in which they could have pretending to do something while achieving nothing or worse. First, Sonya Sharp's poison pill. Atchison cuts that down. Second, by approving every recommendation except for the two that count--changing baseline zoning and parking minimums. Atchison points out that these are the policy changes that matter.
Is anyone considering the variable of AirBnB and what its impact has been on the housing market, both in terms of availability and cost? Asking for a friend.
To channel many people, "I want my cake and to eat it, too! I want, I want, I want .... to keep the status quo."
But, that is not realistic. So, it seems to me that either we restrict / reduce / eliminate / etc. housing demand or we meet it. [Ignoring that great Canadian "compromise" of doing nothing.] In other words, fewer people (young folk, immigrants, etc., etc.) will reduce demand and therefore upward pressure on pricing. If we do not plan to reduce people who create demand then we must increase the supply of housing. Simple, no? Simple to say but to implement solutions is, of course, complex. So, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
I am "of an age" as they say, so my supposed predilection is to retain the status quo but, truthfully, the status quo is not an option; only change is a realistic option. Painful change, really. My wife and I own our own home - lucky us! - and one of our adult children and family own their home - lucky them! Our other adult child and family do not own a home and have no realistic possibility of doing so. As a result, we have started on the path to change our home to a multi-generation home with the hope that our daughter and family can move in and take over.
Is that a solution for everyone? Absolutely not, but I cannot fix everything for everyone so I will work with trying to fix what I can influence. As must we all in our own way.
Really, we have to recognize that lack of sufficient, proper housing is a real, real problem before any solution can conceivably be found. Unfortunately, too many people are stuck with, "I want my cake and eat it, too. I want, I want, I want .... to keep the status quo."
We're in a similar situation.....with 6 grandchildren to help educate and house. Keeps me up at night imagining what it must be like for many young people, without grandparents close by who have resisted the urges of CHIP to chip away at the grandchildren's security....in favour of a five planet lifestyle into their 80's.
We do choose the circus too often........over the community of families.
The housing crisis we face is a complex one, and won't be solved by PP and his promises of restoring affordability by scraping the carbon tax and demonizing Trudeau.
It likely requires a lot of new, out of the box thinking. For starters, why would be allow foreign investors to buy into our housing needs? Are we a banana republic dependent on rich cats from abroad?
And what about net 0? Building particle board leaking sieves in need of fossil fuel heating in the winter and cooling in the summer has to be the essence of short term thinking. If we furthermore build them with the larger footprint current housing has....we are dreaming a nostalgic dream. Future citizens need liveable spaces....not McMansions....and those spaces should be designed to use less energy, and last at least a century.
And sure, lots of people will be renters for life. But what about rent to own schemes where cities and municipalities put local taxes to use providing for local wage earners? No one should be subject to the whims of an over leveraged landlord or would be entreproner as they approach their golden years. By that time, a person's home should be secure.
We've recently seen articles about net 0 homes being built in parts of Canada....but we could ramp those experiments up. In one article, the cost of monthly utilities had been reduced to under $100...which is the kind of housing that makes sense to me.
PP and his back to some glorious past ideas aren't ideas at all. Housing has to be a right, because it is a necessity. We need to have a lot more conversations about how we build that housing....in a variety of ways to be sure, but in a variety of ways that serve the needs of our variety of citizens.
The mythical 'free market' has created a lot of unfree people...time perhaps to kick that fantasy to the curb, and consider how we might build for diverse communities of people.....young and old.
Real prosperity is likely something quite different from imaginary Profit...but for the last few decades, the profit motive has trumped human sized real solutions.
“”a violation of the social contract.” (Guy I was chatting with in the dog park, Spring 2023).” - love this
Love your analogy! Damn! Rock 'n Roll! This tune has many verses with the course still on repeat - we need more housing. Were the solution as simplistic as the PP 'Bring-it-home' rock band suggests, more housing would already be under construction across the country. But - like most action/reaction efforts in today's world, the reality is more complex. I think an orchestra is required. The conductor would need to work at making good music - not out-of-tune noise. Everyone playing from the same music sheet.
Definitely going to be humming Buffalo Springfield to myself all day.. Guess you could say something is differently happening (in my head).
I am not sure how eliminating min parking requirements is a good thing. Most folks, renters & owners, aren’t keen on free for all parking.
.. lotta gaps, nay leaps o faith in that 2nd paragraph ..
had no idea all those Canadians are swelling like attila’s hordes across Canada
or are you really talking about Calgary.. with an upwardly capable cohort
positioned to capitalize on an opportunity and/or even a Housing Trend..
But in the bitter end & the holy ascension of Herr Pierre ..
(smartest nicest most cuddly wuzzily nice dreamboat multimillionaire ?)
Pickering/Toronto/Brampton/Mississauga/Oakville.. ad infinitum
Vancouver, Calgary, Quebec City, Montreal, Edmonton, Regina, Halifax..
you see where this is going..
One might easily trim the fat off ‘sweeping generalities’
especially when highly motivated qualified buyers are involved
it’s not as if aren’t ‘somewhere already’.. know they need more
and are hunters of such Housing
Toronto’s sorry ass grim reality.. diseased over populated megalopolis
reminds of the Fall Of Rome - a la ‘The Upside Of Down’ - Thomas Homer-Dixon