|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 21 2019 12:02 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. This is really bad. I hope these guys get kicked out in the next election. If you provide additional funding without increasing the housing supply, all that will happen is the housing prices will go up... on the very people you are trying to help out. That is people who were not in the market, suddenly enter into the market with this government equity. We need to increase the housing supply... but that mostly at the muncipal level where you run into the 'not in my backyard,' anti-development mentality. We need some sort of new coalition of pro-development, environmentalists and low-income housing people-centred around high density mixed residential-commercial. (It'd probably anger those three groups instead, but theoretically mixed residential-commercial, high density- hits some major points for all- increase supply, so housing prices go down for low income. Work and living quarters can be in same building, which is really great fight against transportation pollution, but at least high density encourages mass transit which is better for the environment- it's one of the few things my much more environmentally conscious brother and I agree on... but you always have to fight NIMBA) But I don't know if any of it can be solved at the federal level. Or maybe I'm wrong. A lot of the red tape and increased costs for builders comes from the provincial government, but zoning is municipal is it not? Don't really know what the federal government can do.
tie federal funding of projects (like UBC skytrain extension) with changes in municipal zoning restrictions or something like that (maybe they already do this i dunno)
millennials overtook the boomers as the largest voting block anyways and they're going to want dense zoning
|
|
|
Just to back up what you're saying Jimmi, we just had a vote to replace our current MP in my riding for his party on the 19th (he's retiring) and I think I was one of the youngest ones there aside from the small kids that parents brought with them and I'm 28 so... if the actual election parallels that I see no reason why any politician will care about what the 18-30 year olds want.
Obviously there can be a lot of factors in that, maybe I was just there during the hour of voting where not a lot of young people showed up, maybe my riding has more old people in general, but it's still surprising to see people think of me as the young voter when I'm almost 30 
|
On March 22 2019 02:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 01:52 Rebs wrote:On March 21 2019 22:16 JimmiC wrote:On March 21 2019 12:02 Falling wrote:The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. This is really bad. I hope these guys get kicked out in the next election. If you provide additional funding without increasing the housing supply, all that will happen is the housing prices will go up... on the very people you are trying to help out. That is people who were not in the market, suddenly enter into the market with this government equity. We need to increase the housing supply... but that mostly at the muncipal level where you run into the 'not in my backyard,' anti-development mentality. We need some sort of new coalition of pro-development, environmentalists and low-income housing people-centred around high density mixed residential-commercial. (It'd probably anger those three groups instead, but theoretically mixed residential-commercial, high density- hits some major points for all- increase supply, so housing prices go down for low income. Work and living quarters can be in same building, which is really great fight against transportation pollution, but at least high density encourages mass transit which is better for the environment- it's one of the few things my much more environmentally conscious brother and I agree on... but you always have to fight NIMBA) But I don't know if any of it can be solved at the federal level. Or maybe I'm wrong. A lot of the red tape and increased costs for builders comes from the provincial government, but zoning is municipal is it not? Don't really know what the federal government can do. Zoning is municipal. And it is shitty because every (most) city knows they need more densification. But every time you try to zone for it the public gets mad and city counselors back down. So you get more a more sprawl, which is bad for house prices but also way more expensive for all the city services including things like transit which with more densification you could provide a better service at less cost. I'm like you outside of some rule from the Feds on minimum desnification so that it would just happen, but I think the feds are also to scared of the vote implications. Trying to do things that everyone knows is good, but they don't want in their neighborhood is a pain. The densification (?) in TO is in full swing, but home buyers for many good reasons dont want to invest in apartments or atleast there is a slow down there. I work right across Wilson Station past Yorkdale, my office overlooks the 401 and Allen Rd. When I started working here about three years ago. The 3 story building I work in was the only building in sight. There are 5 Apartment complexes going up anywhere the light touches. within a space that had crickets chirping here in the middle of the day Its still a hot market, its just stop exploding out of control it was the last few years.) On March 21 2019 14:22 RvB wrote:On March 20 2019 13:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 20 2019 13:31 CorsairHero wrote:
The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. ya, good point. i'd like to see the Feds alter RRSP rules and allow mortgage interest to be tax deductible. If they change RRSP rules correctly it can be revenue neutral for the feds while making home ownership more affordable. Mortgage interest rate deduction is an aweful idea. People will simply take a higher mortgage. You'll have more money chasing the same supply which increases prices. It's what blew up the Dutch housing market. In addition it's extremely regressive since rich people have more income against which to deduct and buy more expensive houses. Like falling said the only real solution is to build more houses. I agree, this is a terrible idea. Its a complete popularity play. The problem is that in places Millennial really want to live there are no houses, well there are but even with the Govt throwing their lot in, any normal millennial is complete priced out of anything attached or a semi within the more desirable places in the GTA. So now you will have Millenials buying homes they dont realllyyy want because they can and then probably not be able to suffer them later. I dont mind personally its a nudge in the direction of a crash that might benefit me personally. But Its going to suck for alottttt of people. There is some in some areas like TO and Van where there really isn't the land to make the suburbs. But in smaller cities it is a much bigger fight. And I bet you would still be surprised by the resistance to it in the bigger cities as well.
Oh absolutely, There is plenty of fight here. The rich White demographic doesnt want it happening. Just North of where I live the Rosedale, Casa Loma area starts. Plenty of space for densification + Show Spoiler +(I feel like this isnt a word I should get used to using, but it works. Thanks Jimmi!)
But then you have people like this.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/08/28/margaret-atwood-joins-fellow-annex-residents-to-fight-condo-project.html
|
|
|
On March 21 2019 06:11 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2019 00:05 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Regarding the Vancouver Rape Crisis Shelter: the City of Vancouver's decision runs counter to several BC provincial court decisions in the 2000s. These decisions backed the Crisis Centre's definition/criteria of who could enter the Crisis Centre and who could not. https://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/discrimination-against-women-name-inclusion-statement-vancouver-rape-relief-and-wome"our entitlement to serve women who are born female was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2003, by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2005 and by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007" WARNING: Vague Generality Incoming: We are seeing the "sanctuary cities" that openly flaunt federal and provincial//state laws. We are seeing "Gun Sanctuary" areas that again openly flaunt/ignore federal or state laws. Now we have the City of Vancouver making a decision that runs counter to provincial court decisions. This is an interesting, growing trend in both the US and Canadian political landscape. That is , Cities/Local areas acting like "City-States". I'll need more time to think about these things to figure out whether i think the trend is "good' or "bad" though. I read through that, I have some issues with that statement A) No one is saying the Crisis Center should be close down. Its just pulling public funding from the City if I understand correctly. Im not familiar with the specifics but isnt the City within its rights to pursue its own definition and based on that cut funding if they believe that the center is not acting in accordance with what it determines to be inclusive? I see the problem here ofcourse. Its not fair to the women who ARE being served to not be properly served because of the City's action. So there is a bit of a catch 22 here. B) They claim the cutting of funding is discriminatory. Based on my previous point that may be a legally valid claim I am not an expert. But it seems counter intuitive to accuse someone of being discriminatory for setting a criteria of "inclusiveness". C)The rest of it can be summarized as essentially a laundry list to make clear what services they provide and how essential they are, and the types of issues particularly related to violence women face.. Which again is fair. But then also go on to acknowledge that the people they are refusing to serve have valid claims to the same assistance.
"8. We have no doubt that people whose behaviour is not consistent with the patriarchal socially imposed definition of manhood or womanhood, including transgender people, suffer discrimination and violence. Transgender people deserve and must live in safety and have the equal rights and opportunities that are promised to us all. When it comes to our services, we have a collective commitment to see to the safety anyone who calls our crisis line, including transgender people.."
But then offer nothing beyond that. Its just a dead end statement and then they return to their laundry list of do-gooding. Just with the reminder that the services are for "born females only". Its kinda counter intuitive, we want to be able to restrict services/aid based on our definitions, but you cant do the same to us.
This Rape Crisis Centre has some very specific laser focused political initiatives. As long as this Rape Crisis Centre is getting money from multiple levels of government they'll have to react to each governments' edicts. If they want to push their very specific political agendas as far forward as possible they'll have to rely on private funding only... meh.
|
On March 22 2019 06:29 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 02:08 JimmiC wrote:On March 22 2019 01:52 Rebs wrote:On March 21 2019 22:16 JimmiC wrote:On March 21 2019 12:02 Falling wrote:The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. This is really bad. I hope these guys get kicked out in the next election. If you provide additional funding without increasing the housing supply, all that will happen is the housing prices will go up... on the very people you are trying to help out. That is people who were not in the market, suddenly enter into the market with this government equity. We need to increase the housing supply... but that mostly at the muncipal level where you run into the 'not in my backyard,' anti-development mentality. We need some sort of new coalition of pro-development, environmentalists and low-income housing people-centred around high density mixed residential-commercial. (It'd probably anger those three groups instead, but theoretically mixed residential-commercial, high density- hits some major points for all- increase supply, so housing prices go down for low income. Work and living quarters can be in same building, which is really great fight against transportation pollution, but at least high density encourages mass transit which is better for the environment- it's one of the few things my much more environmentally conscious brother and I agree on... but you always have to fight NIMBA) But I don't know if any of it can be solved at the federal level. Or maybe I'm wrong. A lot of the red tape and increased costs for builders comes from the provincial government, but zoning is municipal is it not? Don't really know what the federal government can do. Zoning is municipal. And it is shitty because every (most) city knows they need more densification. But every time you try to zone for it the public gets mad and city counselors back down. So you get more a more sprawl, which is bad for house prices but also way more expensive for all the city services including things like transit which with more densification you could provide a better service at less cost. I'm like you outside of some rule from the Feds on minimum desnification so that it would just happen, but I think the feds are also to scared of the vote implications. Trying to do things that everyone knows is good, but they don't want in their neighborhood is a pain. The densification (?) in TO is in full swing, but home buyers for many good reasons dont want to invest in apartments or atleast there is a slow down there. I work right across Wilson Station past Yorkdale, my office overlooks the 401 and Allen Rd. When I started working here about three years ago. The 3 story building I work in was the only building in sight. There are 5 Apartment complexes going up anywhere the light touches. within a space that had crickets chirping here in the middle of the day Its still a hot market, its just stop exploding out of control it was the last few years.) On March 21 2019 14:22 RvB wrote:On March 20 2019 13:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 20 2019 13:31 CorsairHero wrote:
The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. ya, good point. i'd like to see the Feds alter RRSP rules and allow mortgage interest to be tax deductible. If they change RRSP rules correctly it can be revenue neutral for the feds while making home ownership more affordable. Mortgage interest rate deduction is an aweful idea. People will simply take a higher mortgage. You'll have more money chasing the same supply which increases prices. It's what blew up the Dutch housing market. In addition it's extremely regressive since rich people have more income against which to deduct and buy more expensive houses. Like falling said the only real solution is to build more houses. I agree, this is a terrible idea. Its a complete popularity play. The problem is that in places Millennial really want to live there are no houses, well there are but even with the Govt throwing their lot in, any normal millennial is complete priced out of anything attached or a semi within the more desirable places in the GTA. So now you will have Millenials buying homes they dont realllyyy want because they can and then probably not be able to suffer them later. I dont mind personally its a nudge in the direction of a crash that might benefit me personally. But Its going to suck for alottttt of people. There is some in some areas like TO and Van where there really isn't the land to make the suburbs. But in smaller cities it is a much bigger fight. And I bet you would still be surprised by the resistance to it in the bigger cities as well. Oh absolutely, There is plenty of fight here. The rich White demographic doesnt want it happening. Just North of where I live the Rosedale, Casa Loma area starts. Plenty of space for densification + Show Spoiler +(I feel like this isnt a word I should get used to using, but it works. Thanks Jimmi!) and pretty much the only way for the downtown sprawl to go (unless they started building in the river. But then you have people like this. https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/08/28/margaret-atwood-joins-fellow-annex-residents-to-fight-condo-project.html
I don't think it has anything to do with white people or rich people.
We live in Canada that has so much available area to expand to.
I like that Calgary has 1.2 million people and is larger than New York area wise, why do you want to cram people so close when you have so much area. Instead of having 2 cities per province and a rural wasteland and farms in the 3 inner provinces, actually encourage developing some of those communities... The government needs to step in and offer some incentives there.
When I lived with my parents, they wanted a quiet community, surrounded by like minded people. Bringing some low cost condos that will attract Syrian refugees, and ruin the little town feeling by building an 8 story building is a big no go. Absolutely the residents can fight it, they've invested themselves more into the area than anyone.
I decided to try a different type of life, and am living in the very heart of Edmonton now. I'm all for building a new condo in my area, it will bring new young ambitious people, rather than the area slowly dying due to retirees living in these older condos.
And I think it's fine and more efficient for communities to sort by people type a little bit. There's only so many strip malls at my parents place, I'd rather not have too many Indian food markets, Cash Moneys, etc there... And rather have a European Deli, some local pizza place, sushi, etc. Sure, maybe for society as a whole, being a bit more integrated culturally would be better, but don't push people excessively.
My ex gf is Chinese, her parents don't want to learn English, so if they want to live in a community where there's lots of Chinese stores and they receive a lot of their mail in Mandarin, let them.
Anyway, older cities sometimes have shitty planning for transportation because they had no expectation to get that big, but new areas that we build out we can plan for this and make commutes manageable. For example in Calgary I can be on a road going 110km/h in 5 minutes from downtown, and can get from any point in the city to another within 40 minutes without traffic. Edmonton is something different completely, where downtown feels like driving in the middle of Rome compared to Calgary. Older city without that planning.
I think that new cities that are built intelligently, with similar suburban compositions can easily sustain 3 million people, after that, just build new cities. Looking at a map of the US vs Canada is depressing, US has cities everywhere, and pretty small ones, but at least in Western Canada, its either gigantic city, a borderline city of 10-20k people, or a rural community of 300-2000.
|
|
|
On March 22 2019 23:14 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 06:29 Rebs wrote:On March 22 2019 02:08 JimmiC wrote:On March 22 2019 01:52 Rebs wrote:On March 21 2019 22:16 JimmiC wrote:On March 21 2019 12:02 Falling wrote:The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. This is really bad. I hope these guys get kicked out in the next election. If you provide additional funding without increasing the housing supply, all that will happen is the housing prices will go up... on the very people you are trying to help out. That is people who were not in the market, suddenly enter into the market with this government equity. We need to increase the housing supply... but that mostly at the muncipal level where you run into the 'not in my backyard,' anti-development mentality. We need some sort of new coalition of pro-development, environmentalists and low-income housing people-centred around high density mixed residential-commercial. (It'd probably anger those three groups instead, but theoretically mixed residential-commercial, high density- hits some major points for all- increase supply, so housing prices go down for low income. Work and living quarters can be in same building, which is really great fight against transportation pollution, but at least high density encourages mass transit which is better for the environment- it's one of the few things my much more environmentally conscious brother and I agree on... but you always have to fight NIMBA) But I don't know if any of it can be solved at the federal level. Or maybe I'm wrong. A lot of the red tape and increased costs for builders comes from the provincial government, but zoning is municipal is it not? Don't really know what the federal government can do. Zoning is municipal. And it is shitty because every (most) city knows they need more densification. But every time you try to zone for it the public gets mad and city counselors back down. So you get more a more sprawl, which is bad for house prices but also way more expensive for all the city services including things like transit which with more densification you could provide a better service at less cost. I'm like you outside of some rule from the Feds on minimum desnification so that it would just happen, but I think the feds are also to scared of the vote implications. Trying to do things that everyone knows is good, but they don't want in their neighborhood is a pain. The densification (?) in TO is in full swing, but home buyers for many good reasons dont want to invest in apartments or atleast there is a slow down there. I work right across Wilson Station past Yorkdale, my office overlooks the 401 and Allen Rd. When I started working here about three years ago. The 3 story building I work in was the only building in sight. There are 5 Apartment complexes going up anywhere the light touches. within a space that had crickets chirping here in the middle of the day Its still a hot market, its just stop exploding out of control it was the last few years.) On March 21 2019 14:22 RvB wrote:On March 20 2019 13:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 20 2019 13:31 CorsairHero wrote:
The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. ya, good point. i'd like to see the Feds alter RRSP rules and allow mortgage interest to be tax deductible. If they change RRSP rules correctly it can be revenue neutral for the feds while making home ownership more affordable. Mortgage interest rate deduction is an aweful idea. People will simply take a higher mortgage. You'll have more money chasing the same supply which increases prices. It's what blew up the Dutch housing market. In addition it's extremely regressive since rich people have more income against which to deduct and buy more expensive houses. Like falling said the only real solution is to build more houses. I agree, this is a terrible idea. Its a complete popularity play. The problem is that in places Millennial really want to live there are no houses, well there are but even with the Govt throwing their lot in, any normal millennial is complete priced out of anything attached or a semi within the more desirable places in the GTA. So now you will have Millenials buying homes they dont realllyyy want because they can and then probably not be able to suffer them later. I dont mind personally its a nudge in the direction of a crash that might benefit me personally. But Its going to suck for alottttt of people. There is some in some areas like TO and Van where there really isn't the land to make the suburbs. But in smaller cities it is a much bigger fight. And I bet you would still be surprised by the resistance to it in the bigger cities as well. Oh absolutely, There is plenty of fight here. The rich White demographic doesnt want it happening. Just North of where I live the Rosedale, Casa Loma area starts. Plenty of space for densification + Show Spoiler +(I feel like this isnt a word I should get used to using, but it works. Thanks Jimmi!) and pretty much the only way for the downtown sprawl to go (unless they started building in the river. But then you have people like this. https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/08/28/margaret-atwood-joins-fellow-annex-residents-to-fight-condo-project.html I don't think it has anything to do with white people or rich people. We live in Canada that has so much available area to expand to. I like that Calgary has 1.2 million people and is larger than New York area wise, why do you want to cram people so close when you have so much area. Instead of having 2 cities per province and a rural wasteland and farms in the 3 inner provinces, actually encourage developing some of those communities... The government needs to step in and offer some incentives there. When I lived with my parents, they wanted a quiet community, surrounded by like minded people. Bringing some low cost condos that will attract Syrian refugees, and ruin the little town feeling by building an 8 story building is a big no go. Absolutely the residents can fight it, they've invested themselves more into the area than anyone. I decided to try a different type of life, and am living in the very heart of Edmonton now. I'm all for building a new condo in my area, it will bring new young ambitious people, rather than the area slowly dying due to retirees living in these older condos. And I think it's fine and more efficient for communities to sort by people type a little bit. There's only so many strip malls at my parents place, I'd rather not have too many Indian food markets, Cash Moneys, etc there... And rather have a European Deli, some local pizza place, sushi, etc. Sure, maybe for society as a whole, being a bit more integrated culturally would be better, but don't push people excessively. My ex gf is Chinese, her parents don't want to learn English, so if they want to live in a community where there's lots of Chinese stores and they receive a lot of their mail in Mandarin, let them. Anyway, older cities sometimes have shitty planning for transportation because they had no expectation to get that big, but new areas that we build out we can plan for this and make commutes manageable. For example in Calgary I can be on a road going 110km/h in 5 minutes from downtown, and can get from any point in the city to another within 40 minutes without traffic. Edmonton is something different completely, where downtown feels like driving in the middle of Rome compared to Calgary. Older city without that planning. I think that new cities that are built intelligently, with similar suburban compositions can easily sustain 3 million people, after that, just build new cities. Looking at a map of the US vs Canada is depressing, US has cities everywhere, and pretty small ones, but at least in Western Canada, its either gigantic city, a borderline city of 10-20k people, or a rural community of 300-2000.
It doesnt have anything to do with Rich white people. The point I was making was that they are the only ones capable of sitting in the heart of major City and still tell everyone to fuck off.
I have no particular concern for whatever backwater no where people are living there lives will remain relatively undisturbed.
And the reason people are cramming is because those City hubs are more desirable. Thats how it works. The Govt cant do much here. You cant just say "hey Govt" offer incentives so that Millenials dont want to live in Downtown instead of Pickering, or Whitby. How do you know the Govt hasnt been trying either ?
Nor do I care that communities compartmentalize. Thats totally fine I dont see how that has absolutely anything to do with the point I am making regarding the ability of one demographic to shutdown progress for the conceivable common good because their life is a bit more uncomfortable. Meanwhile all of the other communities are happy to accept it and adjust.
|
On March 22 2019 23:22 JimmiC wrote:
The thing people don't think about is how expensive those suburbs are to run for the city. It is more expensive to pick up trash, waste water, electric, transit and so on. Not to mention those awesome roads you speak of both super expensive to build and to maintain also the snow removal in the winter.
Building up instead of out is in a cities best interest. Or they should have property tax get more and more expensive the further you go out to try to make it make more sense.
I think people do consider the property tax, at least I do. And yup, it costs money, and it's reflected in the property tax when I pay around $2500/year, but if it's what people value spending money, so be it. I think prices in utilities reflect the cost well, and for a half million dollar home here, it's around $250 for gas/water/waste/electricity imo not bad.
And who is the city? Since if you mean the individuals, then no, it's not in the best interest of all individuals. Sure, in some theoretical cost analysis it might be, but fuck it, I'd rather pay more and have a couple 15 km^2 parks smack middle of the city like Calgary does.
Maybe it means I can't go on such a fancy vacation, but I appreciate having a certain atmosphere where I live. Little things like fences not allowed to be over a certain height, two houses next to each other can't be the same color, etc. are small things, but it makes it pleasant to live.
Combining the rich and poor together (its easy to differentiate rich and poor, but that's more a correlation, it stems from different values mainly, planning vs erratic behavior, etc) is a shit solution that is uncomfortable for everyone. I agree that fairness needs to be balanced a bit, as being born in a bad community and having a really bad school isn't good. I just view city districts as friend groups, you can choose who you're friends with, so you should have choice where to live... Not have a teacher come to you and tell you that you need at least one white person in a friend group.
|
|
|
On March 22 2019 23:30 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 23:14 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 22 2019 06:29 Rebs wrote:On March 22 2019 02:08 JimmiC wrote:On March 22 2019 01:52 Rebs wrote:On March 21 2019 22:16 JimmiC wrote:On March 21 2019 12:02 Falling wrote:The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. This is really bad. I hope these guys get kicked out in the next election. If you provide additional funding without increasing the housing supply, all that will happen is the housing prices will go up... on the very people you are trying to help out. That is people who were not in the market, suddenly enter into the market with this government equity. We need to increase the housing supply... but that mostly at the muncipal level where you run into the 'not in my backyard,' anti-development mentality. We need some sort of new coalition of pro-development, environmentalists and low-income housing people-centred around high density mixed residential-commercial. (It'd probably anger those three groups instead, but theoretically mixed residential-commercial, high density- hits some major points for all- increase supply, so housing prices go down for low income. Work and living quarters can be in same building, which is really great fight against transportation pollution, but at least high density encourages mass transit which is better for the environment- it's one of the few things my much more environmentally conscious brother and I agree on... but you always have to fight NIMBA) But I don't know if any of it can be solved at the federal level. Or maybe I'm wrong. A lot of the red tape and increased costs for builders comes from the provincial government, but zoning is municipal is it not? Don't really know what the federal government can do. Zoning is municipal. And it is shitty because every (most) city knows they need more densification. But every time you try to zone for it the public gets mad and city counselors back down. So you get more a more sprawl, which is bad for house prices but also way more expensive for all the city services including things like transit which with more densification you could provide a better service at less cost. I'm like you outside of some rule from the Feds on minimum desnification so that it would just happen, but I think the feds are also to scared of the vote implications. Trying to do things that everyone knows is good, but they don't want in their neighborhood is a pain. The densification (?) in TO is in full swing, but home buyers for many good reasons dont want to invest in apartments or atleast there is a slow down there. I work right across Wilson Station past Yorkdale, my office overlooks the 401 and Allen Rd. When I started working here about three years ago. The 3 story building I work in was the only building in sight. There are 5 Apartment complexes going up anywhere the light touches. within a space that had crickets chirping here in the middle of the day Its still a hot market, its just stop exploding out of control it was the last few years.) On March 21 2019 14:22 RvB wrote:On March 20 2019 13:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 20 2019 13:31 CorsairHero wrote:
The government taking an equity position in real estate seems to be a bad idea because it's only going to raise the cost of housing at the bottom and it increases exposure to tax payers when the gravy train ends. ya, good point. i'd like to see the Feds alter RRSP rules and allow mortgage interest to be tax deductible. If they change RRSP rules correctly it can be revenue neutral for the feds while making home ownership more affordable. Mortgage interest rate deduction is an aweful idea. People will simply take a higher mortgage. You'll have more money chasing the same supply which increases prices. It's what blew up the Dutch housing market. In addition it's extremely regressive since rich people have more income against which to deduct and buy more expensive houses. Like falling said the only real solution is to build more houses. I agree, this is a terrible idea. Its a complete popularity play. The problem is that in places Millennial really want to live there are no houses, well there are but even with the Govt throwing their lot in, any normal millennial is complete priced out of anything attached or a semi within the more desirable places in the GTA. So now you will have Millenials buying homes they dont realllyyy want because they can and then probably not be able to suffer them later. I dont mind personally its a nudge in the direction of a crash that might benefit me personally. But Its going to suck for alottttt of people. There is some in some areas like TO and Van where there really isn't the land to make the suburbs. But in smaller cities it is a much bigger fight. And I bet you would still be surprised by the resistance to it in the bigger cities as well. Oh absolutely, There is plenty of fight here. The rich White demographic doesnt want it happening. Just North of where I live the Rosedale, Casa Loma area starts. Plenty of space for densification + Show Spoiler +(I feel like this isnt a word I should get used to using, but it works. Thanks Jimmi!) and pretty much the only way for the downtown sprawl to go (unless they started building in the river. But then you have people like this. https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/08/28/margaret-atwood-joins-fellow-annex-residents-to-fight-condo-project.html I don't think it has anything to do with white people or rich people. We live in Canada that has so much available area to expand to. I like that Calgary has 1.2 million people and is larger than New York area wise, why do you want to cram people so close when you have so much area. Instead of having 2 cities per province and a rural wasteland and farms in the 3 inner provinces, actually encourage developing some of those communities... The government needs to step in and offer some incentives there. When I lived with my parents, they wanted a quiet community, surrounded by like minded people. Bringing some low cost condos that will attract Syrian refugees, and ruin the little town feeling by building an 8 story building is a big no go. Absolutely the residents can fight it, they've invested themselves more into the area than anyone. I decided to try a different type of life, and am living in the very heart of Edmonton now. I'm all for building a new condo in my area, it will bring new young ambitious people, rather than the area slowly dying due to retirees living in these older condos. And I think it's fine and more efficient for communities to sort by people type a little bit. There's only so many strip malls at my parents place, I'd rather not have too many Indian food markets, Cash Moneys, etc there... And rather have a European Deli, some local pizza place, sushi, etc. Sure, maybe for society as a whole, being a bit more integrated culturally would be better, but don't push people excessively. My ex gf is Chinese, her parents don't want to learn English, so if they want to live in a community where there's lots of Chinese stores and they receive a lot of their mail in Mandarin, let them. Anyway, older cities sometimes have shitty planning for transportation because they had no expectation to get that big, but new areas that we build out we can plan for this and make commutes manageable. For example in Calgary I can be on a road going 110km/h in 5 minutes from downtown, and can get from any point in the city to another within 40 minutes without traffic. Edmonton is something different completely, where downtown feels like driving in the middle of Rome compared to Calgary. Older city without that planning. I think that new cities that are built intelligently, with similar suburban compositions can easily sustain 3 million people, after that, just build new cities. Looking at a map of the US vs Canada is depressing, US has cities everywhere, and pretty small ones, but at least in Western Canada, its either gigantic city, a borderline city of 10-20k people, or a rural community of 300-2000. It doesnt have anything to do with Rich white people. The point I was making was that they are the only ones capable of sitting in the heart of major City and still tell everyone to fuck off. I have no particular concern for whatever backwater no where people are living there lives will remain relatively undisturbed. And the reason people are cramming is because those City hubs are more desirable. Thats how it works. The Govt cant do much here. You cant just say "hey Govt" offer incentives so that Millenials dont want to live in Downtown instead of Pickering, or Whitby. How do you know the Govt hasnt been trying either ? Nor do I care that communities compartmentalize. Thats totally fine I dont see how that has absolutely anything to do with the points I am making.
Actually I think corporate tax breaks for certain areas. If it encourages the industry to come, the area will get built out, and it just builds on itself. I haven't seen much incentive to build other cities out.
If you cities are more desirable, then supply and demand is just doing their thing. Making large cities less desirable once they reach a certain size, and the ones who don't value the lifestyle enough can do something else.
Some people just act so entitled. You have people who have been living somewhere for 40 years, and somebody thinks they can just come in and say what should be done with the community, without knowing anything about it, all because in theory, more housing means cheaper housing, and making cities dense is good. That kind of logic is absurd to me, and gets me fuming.
My parents community recently approved some high end condos in one small area in the community next to us, and my parents want to move there as it's less to maintain as they get older. In this situation, it's good, because some of there stores became obsolete after houses got torn down to build a couple malls nearby, plus the buildings there offered a lot of businesses that technology made obsolete in the last 10 years, so fairly little was lost.
However there's going to be some issues too, so I understand why some people are against it, but the community met up, discussed and made small adjustments (making one a little smaller and building more underground parking), talk to our Ward councillor, etc. That's the right way of doing things, start from the people who live there, not the ones who potentially might.
|
On March 23 2019 00:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 00:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 22 2019 23:22 JimmiC wrote:
The thing people don't think about is how expensive those suburbs are to run for the city. It is more expensive to pick up trash, waste water, electric, transit and so on. Not to mention those awesome roads you speak of both super expensive to build and to maintain also the snow removal in the winter.
Building up instead of out is in a cities best interest. Or they should have property tax get more and more expensive the further you go out to try to make it make more sense. I think people do consider the property tax, at least I do. And yup, it costs money, and it's reflected in the property tax when I pay around $2500/year, but if it's what people value spending money, so be it. I think prices in utilities reflect the cost well, and for a half million dollar home here, it's around $250 for gas/water/waste/electricity imo not bad. And who is the city? Since if you mean the individuals, then no, it's not in the best interest of all individuals. Sure, in some theoretical cost analysis it might be, but fuck it, I'd rather pay more and have a couple 15 km^2 parks smack middle of the city like Calgary does. Maybe it means I can't go on such a fancy vacation, but I appreciate having a certain atmosphere where I live. Little things like fences not allowed to be over a certain height, two houses next to each other can't be the same color, etc. are small things, but it makes it pleasant to live. Combining the rich and poor together (its easy to differentiate rich and poor, but that's more a correlation, it stems from different values mainly, planning vs erratic behavior, etc) is a shit solution that is uncomfortable for everyone. I agree that fairness needs to be balanced a bit, as being born in a bad community and having a really bad school isn't good. I just view city districts as friend groups, you can choose who you're friends with, so you should have choice where to live... Not have a teacher come to you and tell you that you need at least one white person in a friend group. What I mean is that it is far more expensive for the city to service the houses far out than the inner. Property taxes are based on Value, but instead should be a mix of value and proximity. I'm not suggesting getting rid of parks, as they provide many benefits. I'm just pointing out that sprawl is bloody expensive and often those costs are not properly planned for.
Oh I see, my bad. Actually I'm not sure how the costs work out. I would have thought that economies of scale would do its thing on a lot of it. City twice as big, build two wastewater treatment plants, need another landfill, allocate some new space. Cost of planning a city twice the size shouldn't double, right? I suppose certain things that start from a central source would be more expensive, because it's farther from that point to the new area, but most things you can just duplicate. And for example, if a city is twice as big, maybe you don't need 2x the firetrucks, because you need a base amount for some gigantic fire, once every 5 years, but the odds of two of those happening at once are so small, so you wouldn't need as large of a reserve crew.
Anyway, I have no research on this, but outside of building a 2nd downtown (which is the big concern with big cities, transportation time), the marginal costs shouldn't really increase much for most things in my head.
|
|
|
On March 23 2019 00:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 00:24 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 23 2019 00:12 JimmiC wrote:On March 23 2019 00:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:On March 22 2019 23:22 JimmiC wrote:
The thing people don't think about is how expensive those suburbs are to run for the city. It is more expensive to pick up trash, waste water, electric, transit and so on. Not to mention those awesome roads you speak of both super expensive to build and to maintain also the snow removal in the winter.
Building up instead of out is in a cities best interest. Or they should have property tax get more and more expensive the further you go out to try to make it make more sense. I think people do consider the property tax, at least I do. And yup, it costs money, and it's reflected in the property tax when I pay around $2500/year, but if it's what people value spending money, so be it. I think prices in utilities reflect the cost well, and for a half million dollar home here, it's around $250 for gas/water/waste/electricity imo not bad. And who is the city? Since if you mean the individuals, then no, it's not in the best interest of all individuals. Sure, in some theoretical cost analysis it might be, but fuck it, I'd rather pay more and have a couple 15 km^2 parks smack middle of the city like Calgary does. Maybe it means I can't go on such a fancy vacation, but I appreciate having a certain atmosphere where I live. Little things like fences not allowed to be over a certain height, two houses next to each other can't be the same color, etc. are small things, but it makes it pleasant to live. Combining the rich and poor together (its easy to differentiate rich and poor, but that's more a correlation, it stems from different values mainly, planning vs erratic behavior, etc) is a shit solution that is uncomfortable for everyone. I agree that fairness needs to be balanced a bit, as being born in a bad community and having a really bad school isn't good. I just view city districts as friend groups, you can choose who you're friends with, so you should have choice where to live... Not have a teacher come to you and tell you that you need at least one white person in a friend group. What I mean is that it is far more expensive for the city to service the houses far out than the inner. Property taxes are based on Value, but instead should be a mix of value and proximity. I'm not suggesting getting rid of parks, as they provide many benefits. I'm just pointing out that sprawl is bloody expensive and often those costs are not properly planned for. Oh I see, my bad. Actually I'm not sure how the costs work out. I would have thought that economies of scale would do its thing on a lot of it. City twice as big, build two wastewater treatment plants, need another landfill, allocate some new space. Cost of planning a city twice the size shouldn't double, right? I suppose certain things that start from a central source would be more expensive, because it's farther from that point to the new area, but most things you can just duplicate. And for example, if a city is twice as big, maybe you don't need 2x the firetrucks, because you need a base amount for some gigantic fire, once every 5 years, but the odds of two of those happening at once are so small, so you wouldn't need as large of a reserve crew. Anyway, I have no research on this, but outside of building a 2nd downtown (which is the big concern with big cities, transportation time), the marginal costs shouldn't really increase much for most things in my head. They increase lots. Exponentially in fact. Your cost savings are in density. Take Garbage for example, if you have 1000 people in one building and you pick up the garbage you can do so with an overhead truck one tip of the large bin. If you had 250 homes each with 4 people inside you have to do 250 picks. Same goes for the utilities not just the install but also the maintenance. Your transit if very expensive because you have to cover the whole city, but then underutilized because it takes so long so you don't have the riders to make it as efficient as you would like. It is way cheaper to add more trains than add more track for example. Urban sprawl creates a lot of problems for the city to deal with and because of they way we do taxing and peoples love of owning their own home (mine included), we basically encourage it.
I agree with you there 100%, but the way you worded your post it reads as identical houses to the rest of the city being built are more expensive. But if the population and area of the city doubled, with density remaining the same, the costs would roughly double, maybe be a little cheaper, hard to say as there's competing variables.
With what you're saying now, I'm in agreement. You talked about proximity and outer houses vs the inner ones, nothing of density, hence the confusion.
|
On March 07 2019 23:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Elizabeth May impressed the hell out of me. I'll never vote for the Green Party , however, I suspect her performance during this kerfuffle has won her some votes. she is a bad ass. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1628740
https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/18/jagmeet-singh-must-keep-an-eye-on-the-strengthening-green-party.html
In last month’s Outremont byelection, Elizabeth May’s candidate finished ahead of the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. In the province that currently accounts for the largest number of NDP MPs, the most recent Léger Marketing poll pegged the Green party at 9 per cent, two points ahead of the NDP.
Will the NDP lose a substantial amount of their base to the Green Party this election? The NDP might be fighting a war on 2 front lines this election.
On March 20 2019 18:31 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2019 07:09 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2019 06:56 SK.Testie wrote:
The complete lack of ability to answer straightforward questions has done far more damage to the discourse. A leading question? Of course, what's wrong with a leading question? All conversations have leading questions because no conversation is just one paragraph or two of the 'correct' opinion. You must stand for your ideas and see them put into practice. Does the person in that video belong in a women's shelter if "she" says she has been raped.
Yes or no.
There is no discourse here. You are a bad faith actor who is attempting to extract effort out of others in the discussion through your low effort posting and use of a youtube video to make a substantive argument. You also employ the typical leading rhetorical structure of a bad faith actor while skipping key parts of a discussion to jump to your conclusion. You question posits that all transgender individuals are mentally ill to the point of needing to be place in an institution and then demands I agree or disagree. You skipped the part where I agreed that being transgender was a mental illness or even making an argument that it was. This is because you know that is the weakest part of you argument and one you have no ability to prove. So you skip it and attempt to simply assume it is fact, and challenge me to defendant that seriously mentally ill people shouldn't be institutionalized(you also skip any argument about institutionalization, but that is another discussion). So before you whine about the discourse, understand that folks here are on to these bullshit tactics and won't put up with them. So argue in good faith or continue to be treated like the troll from that 2009 video by Hotbid. what you did there is called psychological projection: Show nested quote +Projection is the psychological phenomenon where someone denies some aspect of their behavior or attitudes and assumes instead that others are doing or thinking so. It is usually seen as the externalisation of a person's negative traits, placing blame on an outside force such as the environment, a government, a society or other people. Projection can also extend to philosophy and knowledge. This occurs when a person or small group of people assume that everyone else is working with the same ideas and/or information that they are. . because ... -you question posits that all transgender individuals are mentally ill to the point of needing to be place in an institution- is fabrication pertaining to -this individual belongs in a women's shelter- which is singular, and -a mental ward perhaps- which is obviously an opinion and not a factual claim. also this, ?, at the end of that sentence is indicative of an interrogative sentence/phrase and not a declarative one. it asks for a reply, a rebuttal, a counter, a proof, an alternative ... etc from you. how are you a lawyer?; that's reading basic text to me. at best, for you in here, the proverb it takes one to know one applies, and at worst, you are it(the troll, the bad faither, the bullshit tactics) and he isn't(yet).
you make some insightful points.
|
|
|
I must say, the whole phone recording thing has sure changed people's opinion of the whole thing. Even among some Conservative supporters I know, the news that she recorded a phone call without telling the other person has soured their opinion of JWR. She is now basically never going to be trusted to talk about any in-depth issue over the phone, and that hurts her chances of continuing in politics. What party would want a person that seems to assume everyone is against her and will record phone calls and collect evidence to use against people should things not go her way? Reading that she was angry that she was being moved off being AG makes it seem even more so like this is a case of her retaliating for them not giving her what she wanted.
I read the transcript of the call on CBC, and I didn't see anything new that hadn't already been said, and if anything it reinforced what Michael Wernick said when he was questioned. Wernick made it clear multiple times that everything was up to her and she was ultimately in control and to decide what tools she had available to use. He also didn't think it was out of line to warn her about the potential job loss.
She also seemed quite hostile in parts of the call and seemed as though she was reading far more into what was going on than anyone else was.
I think the following line and the discussion around it is actually fairly damning for her if anything: "They'll tell you that they haven't received a copy of it". She also keeps trying to lead him on with stuff like "Bit worried about what?" Knowing that she was recording the call, it almost seemed like she was trying to get him to say something out of line to catch it in the recording. That seems pretty shitty for a person to do, triply so for the Attorney General to do.
|
Still though, Trudeaus toast and so are the liberals.
Turns out going apeshit on diversity and strong minded people to important positions that wont budge from their view is a bad idea. Governance requires atleast some degree of agreeableness and compromise and also biting the bullet in some cases. Based on all the things I know, and how SNC was behaving criminal action would probably have effected the people running Lavalin to blow it up, they certainly threatened to. And there was nothing stopping them from it.
The common good argument is legit.
I understand where JWR was coming from, my god I do, the last thing you want is precedents with companies holding shit hostage like this, but the better approach is to bite the bullet and affect legislation to stop it.
Making an example of people and causing suffering elsewhere is just not worth it. Ive said this before but there is literally no Govt on the planet who wouldnt do what the PMO was doing. So Im good with the whole
At the end of the day yes competence and diversity are important but you still want to appoint people who align with your values and are pragmatic enough to accept certain things. Failing to to do so is on Trudeau.
I dont think either party was particularly wrong. Both had merits to their actions (initially anyway). But the shitshow they produced has totally wrecked them and I dont even think its hit the fan yet.
Also there is a fair bit of arrogance here from Trudeau on not anticipating the repercussions, when you did get a strong minded person who already pushed back against you and instead of moving them laterally he demoted her. What did he think she was going to do after resisting on the Lavalin thing and then getting punted.
That recording though. Wow... you just dont do that. Wernick kinda comes out like the guy thats uncomfortable lol and totally invalidates that she was having this conversation in good faith.
|
It's tough to say ultimately. The polls have indicated the Liberals are now behind the Conservatives, but we're still months off an election, and nobody has even started talking about their platform yet. This seems like it's mostly the end of this scandal so there is a chance it could ultimately blow over, especially if the Liberals announce something big to counter it like the pipeline or something similar. They do need to do something to get past it though or they will probably be in trouble.
Keep in mind last election polls swung heavily. At one point it looked like the NDP was going to get 40% of votes and have a majority. Then a month later they were in distant last place while the Liberals and Conservatives were neck and neck for the last month or two leading up to the election.
Also don't forget that ABC is still a big thing among people who don't like the Conservatives, and with and with an NDP as weak as the current iteration is, the ABC folks will likely be voting Liberal this time around.
Also, Scheer seems like a paper tiger. He does well when he attacks, but the second he has to address anything or defend his actions, he seems to completely fall apart. The town hall where someone started referencing conspiracy theories and he went along with it then denied hearing that part of the question looked pretty bad for him, and his handling of press questions since then has made it seem like he isn't comfortable when asked about the more, uh, far rightward group of people that support the Conservatives.
The PPC will also be an interesting factor. They did horrid in the Quebec bielection but in BC they managed 11% of votes, mostly at the cost of the Conservatives. Seeing Raitt and others basically threatening with "A vote for the PPC is a vote for Trudeau" suggests that the Conservatives are perhaps getting concerned. The PPC doesn't have to steal a lot of their votes to cause them to lose. Even a small percent of votes would be enough to swing things in some cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
