Housing shortfall, costs and affordability

[tomh009]

Frankly I don't find what ac3r wrote worth censoring, nor is it close to the worst breaches of civility on this forum which don't get removed or modified.

If you see offensive posts, please do report them. We can certainly miss some of those.

[dtkvictim]

Frankly I don't find what ac3r wrote worth censoring, nor is it close to the worst breaches of civility on this forum which don't get removed or modified.

If you see offensive posts, please do report them. We can certainly miss some of those.

To clarify, I spend my online time with intent to broaden my information intake and avoid echo chambers, so nothing I've seen on this forum comes close to personally offending me. I'm not likely to report anything unless it's illegal.

My point was that on a relative scale to other discussions here, it didn't seem that bad. Perhaps you would have responded to same in other situations but simply didn't have eyes on them, in which case that's understandable.

[danbrotherston]

If you see offensive posts, please do report them. We can certainly miss some of those.

To clarify, I spend my online time with intent to broaden my information intake and avoid echo chambers, so nothing I've seen on this forum comes close to personally offending me. I'm not likely to report anything unless it's illegal.

My point was that on a relative scale to other discussions here, it didn't seem that bad. Perhaps you would have responded to same in other situations but simply didn't have eyes on them, in which case that's understandable.

I mean, everyone has different tolerances, but things don't have to be illegal to be offensive, and things don't have to be offensive to be unhelpful harmful contributions to a discussion/community.

Frankly, I enjoy this space because the level of discourse is high and not simply emotionally charged screaming as it is in other places. When someone like ac3r calls and insists literally that Trudeau is "evil" and "psychotic" it doesn't broaden my information intake, it degrades it...it replaces issues with emotions. So, while I'm not offended (Trudeau doesn't need my protection) I still don't think it brings any value here, and actively harms reasonable discussions.

But for offensive content, in a previous comment (which I'll admit, I didn't think to report) ac3r referred to homeless people as "vermin" perhaps that isn't a comment you saw, but I would hope that dehumanising a group of people--especially a group of people who are vulnerable and powerless--by referring to them as "vermin" is offensive to you. This is something that SHOULD be offensive to our humanity.

[ijmorlan]

Pulling out a gun at a party and randomly killing a bunch of people is evil and psychotic. Dressing up in a way that is widely, or even universally, considered to be bad taste, is not. Words have meanings, and Trudeau matches none of the ones you used.

You don't have to answer, but are you white? People of colour often do not see things like blackface and mocking certain ethnicities as simply "bad taste" because racism is not nice to witness or experience...especially from your nations leader. When you are on the receiving end of racism, it's a very humiliating experience. You don't get to decide how we feel and see these things.

Your skin colour and my skin colour have nothing to do with whether certain actions are evil and/or psychotic.

We’re talking about dressing in costume, as actors will. This can be inappropriate, and in context could even be threatening (I’m thinking about a KKK rally, for example, or a different modern event designed to intimidate), but in and of itself in the absence of any other evidence of ill will it cannot reasonably be described as either evil or psychotic.

I’m also aware of the fact that I’m talking to the guy who characterized homeless as vermin. So on some level I really don’t know why I’m saying any of this: it’s known that you frequently exaggerate to the point of absurdity, and often say things that are not worthy of a response. But you asked the question reasonably, so I’ve spent some time attempting to come up with a reasonable response that tries to be helpful.

[bravado]

Doug Ford finally says it out loud: he thinks that homeowners losing value is worse than people dying in tents and young people leaving the province.

Also, it’s odd how the “fiscal conservatives” continue to choose the urban planning that costs the most to build and maintain.

https://x.com/colindmello/status/1770806...68065?s=46

[font=.SF UI][font=.SFUI-Regular][/font][/font]

[danbrotherston]

Doug Ford finally says it out loud: he thinks that homeowners losing value is worse than people dying in tents and young people leaving the province.

Also, it’s odd how the “fiscal conservatives” continue to choose the urban planning that costs the most to build and maintain.

https://x.com/colindmello/status/1770806...68065?s=46

[font=.SF UI][font=.SFUI-Regular][/font][/font]

The thing about Ford is that he has basically no values. Now, I've before said that he does seem to respond when people are angry at him, and this is absolutely true...he'll pander to whomever most recently yelled at him. So he must have gotten a call from a NIMBY this morning.

That being said, I don't think this is particularly controversial. There are basically no politicians who actually want to solve the housing crisis...and of the general population, it's very non-mainstream view to understand how single family homes are harmful to cities. Even the war on cars is more mainstream than that IMO. Now yes, most people object to sprawl, but most people don't seem to make the connection between sprawl and single family homes. Or to put it more succinctly, the average person is geometrically challenged (at least when it comes to scale). They don't even grasp that about cars...the death, toxic air and noise pollution, traffic congestion, immense financial cost, social mobility, and climate change are really the only factors which are driving people to question cars.

[bravado]

I really think the BC government seems to have taken the Ford government’s housing task force report and is enacting almost all of it. Their housing starts are up - but I don’t think the constant doom cycle in Canadian news really rewards small victories like that.

[danbrotherston]

I really think the BC government seems to have taken the Ford government’s housing task force report and is enacting almost all of it. Their housing starts are up - but I don’t think the constant doom cycle in Canadian news really rewards small victories like that.

This is true...also Alberta's liberal/progressive cities are doing a lot of liberal/progressive things like enacting traditionally conservative policies to remove restrictions on housing...

Yes, that is a true sentence...despite how insane it sounds...we just live in an insane world...

[tomh009]

The thing about Ford is that he has basically no values. Now, I've before said that he does seem to respond when people are angry at him, and this is absolutely true...he'll pander to whomever most recently yelled at him.

Yes. This is the basic definition of a populist--neither conservative nor progressive.

That being said, I don't think this is particularly controversial. There are basically no politicians who actually want to solve the housing crisis...and of the general population, it's very non-mainstream view to understand how single family homes are harmful to cities.

Credit to the Kitchener council for at least doing something about this. Growing Together is not quite as much as I would like to see (as it leaves the surburbs untouched) but it's at least a good first step.

[danbrotherston]

The thing about Ford is that he has basically no values. Now, I've before said that he does seem to respond when people are angry at him, and this is absolutely true...he'll pander to whomever most recently yelled at him.

Yes. This is the basic definition of a populist--neither conservative nor progressive.

That being said, I don't think this is particularly controversial. There are basically no politicians who actually want to solve the housing crisis...and of the general population, it's very non-mainstream view to understand how single family homes are harmful to cities.

Credit to the Kitchener council for at least doing something about this. Growing Together is not quite as much as I would like to see (as it leaves the surburbs untouched) but it's at least a good first step.

Yeah, sorry, I should have clarified, provincial or federal. Lots of local politicians are doing things...for better or worse, and in some cases, for housing at least, much better.

[plam]

Incidentally, Wellington (NZ) just approved a new zoning plan which permits more much density. The interesting thing was that there was an independent panel which was super NIMBY and it got shot down by council. The amended plan now goes to the minister.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-03-...ns-the-war

[tomh009]

Incidentally, Wellington (NZ) just approved a new zoning plan which permits more much density. The interesting thing was that there was an independent panel which was super NIMBY and it got shot down by council. The amended plan now goes to the minister.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-03-...ns-the-war

That's great news for Wellington! They have something similar to our PARTS, not quite as much density but much simpler and a bigger area around each station:

The second huge win is for the northern suburbs. By defining the Johnsonville rail line as “rapid transit”, the council has enabled thousands of new homes to be built along the train line. Anything within a walking catchment of a rapid transit station must automatically be zoned for six-storey apartments. A successful amendment by Nīkau Wi Neera took it even further, expanding the rapid transit walking catchment from five minutes to 10 minutes. Multiplied across nine train stations on the Johnsonville and Kāpiti lines, this adds up to enormous potential for new housing.

[plam]

Incidentally, Wellington (NZ) just approved a new zoning plan which permits more much density. The interesting thing was that there was an independent panel which was super NIMBY and it got shot down by council. The amended plan now goes to the minister.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-03-...ns-the-war

That's great news for Wellington! They have something similar to our PARTS, not quite as much density but much simpler and a bigger area around each station:

The second huge win is for the northern suburbs. By defining the Johnsonville rail line as “rapid transit”, the council has enabled thousands of new homes to be built along the train line. Anything within a walking catchment of a rapid transit station must automatically be zoned for six-storey apartments. A successful amendment by Nīkau Wi Neera took it even further, expanding the rapid transit walking catchment from five minutes to 10 minutes. Multiplied across nine train stations on the Johnsonville and Kāpiti lines, this adds up to enormous potential for new housing.

Yeah, it is probably the most progressive zoning we've seen in New Zealand; Auckland upzoned a few years ago but not quite as much. Johnsonville is a small train but it is a train, which is always more than a bus. The independent panel tried to say "well, we have data about how people get to work [walking] but not about how they get back". It is true that walking back often involves significant uphill climb, but it's also unlikely that a car materializes at the bottom of the hill. Scooters and buses do.

[Acitta]

“There is no rest” — a spotlight on what homelessness is like for women
As bad as homelessness is for men, it is even worse for women because they are often dealing with violence, must care for their children and have fewer shelter spaces available to them, Luisa D’Amato writes

[bravado]

Thought I'd share a remarkably good bit of local news reporting on the topic of the OLT and Cambridge city council's curious relationship with it.

City's defense costs continue to mount at Ontario Land Tribunal

City racks up more than $263,000 in fees defending itself over the last two years with 11 cases remaining on the docket, including a new appeal launched by the owner of the former Preston Springs

CambridgeToday wanted to know just how heavy the toll is on taxpayers, so we asked the city for some insight into cases that have been before the tribunal since January 1, 2022.

We were forced to file our request through the Freedom of Information Act and pay a processing fee once the city decided to grant us access.

Over seven cases filed since early 2022 and concluding as late as June of 2023, the city paid $263,523 in legal and consulting fees to represent its side at OLT hearings.
[...]
Mayor Jan Liggett tried to get the system changed two years ago but failed to convince council to support an effort led by Aurora Mayor Tom Mrakas.

She could not be reached for comment for this story.

But back then, as Ward 4 councillor, she urged fellow councillors to support a resolution calling for dissolution of the tribunal because it had become "so profoundly pro-development" it no longer served the municipalities it was designed to help.

“It is consistently and repeatedly overriding local community development plans in favour of development interests,” she told her fellow councillors.

“We will never solve the housing crisis, which is rampant across the province, through the decisions of this unaccountable body.”
[...]
Two appeals since 2022 stand out because they were triggered by council decisions that ignored expert advice.

In both cases, the city lost.
[...]

In addition to the Preston Springs appeal, the city will need to pay legal fees and hire outside consultants to defend council's decision on two more cases this year:

- a plan to build two stacked townhouse buildings with 32 units at 220 and 22 Blair Road.
- a plan to build a 39-unit townhouse complex at the corner of Wayne Avenue and Pinebush Road
[...]

The most important, and most grown-up comments were saved for the end by Councillor Hamilton, the only guy who seems to take this job seriously:

"It shows how little power city councils actually have," says Cambridge Coun. Scott Hamilton, who keeps the OLT and taxpayer burden in mind whenever a contentious decision comes to the horseshoe.

The toughest part of the job, he says, is when 20 people are yelling at you in council chambers to vote against something and there's a report in front of you recommending it.

In those moments it's essential to strip away the emotional component because a council decision can't be based on knee-jerk reaction, he says.

"We are not experts on council. We don't have experience in architecture...in land use planning. The best we can do is listen to those experts."

The power of council is in consultation; with developers, with residents and with staff to try to shape housing developments into something that meets the needs of the community and addresses as many as concerns as possible, he says. 

Federal, provincial and regional mandates on growth matter, as does the Ontario Land Tribunal, he says.

The fact is, "if it ticks the provincial box, if it ticks the regional box" in terms of meeting growth and density objectives and gets the support of city planning staff, it gives city council very little wiggle room at the OLT.

Voting against it, in many cases, is like throwing taxpayers' money away. But that's the reality of the current system.

"I don't think people realize the gravity of it." 

"The OLT is a massive hammer that's wielded above us. It's an unfortunate reality."