• rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    It would be nice if liberals acknowledged that non-market housing exists, and the government is allowed to build it. Market rate housing will not help people if they can’t afford the market rate.

    • LostWon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is very important. There are multiple very good ways to handle this, but what the market would do if left to its own devices is to build a bunch of luxury houses and condos, and then do the classic classist blame-shift and say people who can’t afford it for “not working hard enough.” (Also, putting them in historically more affordable neighbourhoods will create further tensions.)

      • Dearche@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, this is dependent on the amount of land available to high density housing. Imagine if all low density housing zoning is immediately changed to high density zoning in each city?

        In the short term, of course you’ll get nothing but expensive condos for the wealthy. But as more and more of these lands are bought up and used for buildings that support at least ten times the population as before, the prices will eventually start to fall and the newer developments will start catering to less and less wealthy individuals and families.

        Of course, this does depend on development outpacing population increases, but that’s the point of making so much existing land be rezoned.

        • tempest@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It really depends on how you choose to define ‘wealthy’.

          Developers love to make 1BR 500 sqft condos as they are the most profitable. They make very few 3 bedroom / penthouse type condos which makes it very hard to raise a family in the cities where they favour these 1BR condos. Those 1BR condos still sell for 500k though, so like I said, it depends on how you define wealthy.

    • psvrh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nonsense. In the neoliberal world of today, government’s role is purely to protect property rights and divert public fund to the wealthy.

      • Dearche@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Neoliberal? I thought that was a conservative view?

        Oh wait, that’s why no matter who got elected these last few decades, things got worse.

        • tempest@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          some things worse, some things better

          Poverty levels have improved since 2015 for example.

  • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Historically, the federal government played a huge role in housing. Even just talking about it more can give a sense of urgency, helping to change the culture of complacency, which is the least a leader can do. I think this is more lack of will than a lack of power.