Population and Housing

[danbrotherston]

This is a real issue for me. I honestly feel like some people want to punish developers for building high rise condos and so they only demand affordable homes from them and not in low-rise subdivisions. I watch a lot of council meetings, and I can't think of a time that 'affordable units' have come in related to subdivisions, but it comes up at most/all of the condo proposals.

That is weird. Why are only highrises required to contribute to affordable housing?

But on the other hand, why are only developers — in other words, those who are already trying to make more housing — taxed to contribute to affordable housing? The general rule is to tax what you don’t want and subsidize what you do (but be smart about it, because otherwise the outcome will not be good). We want housing, so why do we tax it with a requirement to contribute to affordable housing?

Maybe the government should just build affordable housing according to public requirements.

Of course, we should also see what happens if we allow 4 story small apartments in all residential zones as of right. I have a sneaking suspicion that in times of high rents you would see more small building projects happening.

Also, reform the Residential Tenancies Act so that non-paying tenants can be removed faster. If there are people who genuinely can’t pay the government should deal with their situation, not whatever hapless landlord happens to be unlucky enough to end up with them in their property. This is how it words with groceries — Zehr’s isn’t expected to just allow certain people to shoplift groceries from their store every week.

Define "genuinely can't pay". Nobody would choose to be homeless if they have money sitting in the bank that would enable them not to be homeless. I doubt very much there is anyone who chooses not to pay their rent who has the immediate financial ability to do so.

There are certainly lots of people who could pay rent instead of say...their phone bill, or grocery bill, or their prescription. But now you are making a judgment call, is a person "genuinely unable to pay" only if they are choosing between medicine and rent, but not if they are paying a phone bill? What if they are looking for a job, and need a phone number? Maybe now it's only if they have a budget phone...

As soon as we try to make judgment about what others should be spending their money on, things get very messy very quickly. I have made my peace with the fact that I believe we must, more or less, just have trust in people to do the right thing with their money, and largely they will.

Obsession with ensuring only those "deserving" get benefits is so self defeating. Aside from perpetuating poverty, humiliating vulnerable people, it also ENCOURAGES cheating the system. Human morality is a wonderful thing. If you treat people well, and with respect, and give them money to help them survive, the majority of humans will not try to cheat the system. If you treat people badly, humiliate them, and take away their agency, they will take any opportunity they have to cheat the system. Why wouldn't they, they will have exactly as much respect for the system, as the system shows them.

And if you're worried about sociopaths who have no morality, fear not, those people are much more likely to succeed as CEOs and politicians--which might be part of why those people are so much in favour of trying to prevent the system from being cheated. (Note: Not saying all pols, or all CEOs, but the point is people who have no scruples are often effective at gaming the system and going far, they don't need welfare).

So, at the end of the day, I don't think we should try and test if people are "genuinely unable to pay".

Of course, that's not to say that we shouldn't also provide other forms of support (addiction counselling, money management skills, other social services) to those who do have trouble making these choices well--but remember, some of the most financially over-extended people have significant incomes, and aren't actually "poor" in the traditional sense.

The problem with the grocery comparison is that groceries are broadly fungible, I don't care if I eat a banana from NoFrills or from the food bank (and to take it to the extreme, when I'm starving, I don't care if I eat a steak from Zehrs or dried beans from the food bank). When it comes to housing, it's non-fungible (or at least farther along the non-fungible spectrum). It costs me a ton of money, time, and effort to move, one home is not equivalent to another from the perspective of the resident of one of the homes.