Posts: 1,684
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
121
(12-09-2022, 04:43 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: (12-09-2022, 02:45 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I am not a millennial and I will be paying at 70 still too !!!
Erm....really?
You just noted you were a landlord.
Honestly, this is pretty tone deaf...do you deny the problems with the housing market that GenZ and Millennials are facing? Do you not understand that the housing market that previous generations faced was fundamentally different from this one?
And frankly....let me ask....how is it possible you won't have paid off a single property with an income and a rental income in your adult life? I dont answer to you Dan nor would I. Asking a person to explain their personal finance situation on a public board and whether they have paid off a single property in their life time is quite rude. You assume I haven't paid off a property. I said I will still be paying a mortgage in my 70's, who said I intend to stop buying properties.
And you are often tone deaf because of your inability to see things through other peoples lens.
Posts: 4,289
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
177
(12-09-2022, 10:00 AM)Joedelay Highhoe Wrote: (12-09-2022, 09:29 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: A moratorium on rent increases would tend to prevent supply from catching up with demand. Calling such a proposal useful is a very confusing thing to do.
Don't over think it. Stopping rent increases (especially between tenants) wouldn't correct the lack of housing, but it would help people who are struggling to pay rent. I'm not a city planner, obviously, but I think that helping people is useful. That's my logic. If you helped people by making their lives more affordable, all while increasing supply by other means, maybe the housing crisis might start to reverse its trend? I don't know - you're the expert.
You’re right that you don’t know, but wrong that I’m the expert. However, I do know some basic economics, enough to know that price controls have to be imposed very carefully if they are not to cause harm.
In extreme cases, rent control can actually destroy a city. Even more mild rent control has to be used carefully. If it is done in a way which keeps rents depressed below market levels for an extended period of time, it will cause harm. On the other hand, A mild form of rent control can be helpful to avoid sudden and/or unexpected rent increases for existing tenants. These more mild forms, such as what exists in Ontario, need to be carefully designed.
What we need is more housing. Concentrating on price levels is just a way of diverting attention from root causes by instead looking at a symptom.
Posts: 618
Threads: 12
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation:
82
12-09-2022, 09:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2022, 09:29 PM by bravado.)
Housing breaks people's brains:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...22/672240/
Build more units, what's the problem? When you've built enough, build some more while you're at it.
Since the worst case scenario is literally happening right now in our city, then I don't care if some developers get rich or some lady has too much shade in her backyard now from an apartment building.
local cambridge weirdo
Posts: 593
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation:
51
(12-08-2022, 07:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Looks like Debbie Chapman will be vice-chair of the planning committee. This is a fairly high profile assignment. Paul Singh is chair.
One of the strongest NIMBY voices on council being made vice-chair is concerning, but I have no doubt it was strategic with Singh as chair.
https://twitter.com/debbiechapman1/statu...6609311744
Am I mis-remembering or was she not chair of that committee at the end of their last term?
Posts: 4,289
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
177
(12-09-2022, 09:27 PM)bravado Wrote: Housing breaks people's brains:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...22/672240/
Build more units, what's the problem? When you've built enough, build some more while you're at it.
Since the worst case scenario is literally happening right now in our city, then I don't care if some developers get rich or some lady has too much shade in her backyard now from an apartment building.
Good article!
And unfortunately urban planning also breaks people’s brains. The most obvious way in which this is true is that the highways always seem to be full. So, by my logic (not mine, of course, but the logic I’m using), we clearly need to build more. Most people on this board know that this is untrue, of course. But what’s wrong with the logic? Of course the highways are effectively free at the point of use, but built on a socialist model. So it’s like there was rent control with rents set at $0, and the government builds all the housing. Also, highways are only one way of getting from one place to another; what is in short supply is transportation, not roads specifically, so the real fix is to build efficient economical transportation, which doesn’t mean using highways for everything. Maybe there is an analogy back to housing: what is in short supply is living space, not single-family houses with a backyard specifically.
I’m worried that eventually we will decide that we do indeed need to build lots of new housing, and will decide that the way to do that is to fill in the greenbelt with cookie cutter subdivisions and more 400-series highways. The current government is already moving in this direction in a small way. Of course, anybody who knows anything about urban planning knows that this will just re-create our current problem on an even grander scale.
Posts: 618
Threads: 12
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation:
82
(12-10-2022, 12:00 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: (12-09-2022, 09:27 PM)bravado Wrote: Housing breaks people's brains:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...22/672240/
Build more units, what's the problem? When you've built enough, build some more while you're at it.
Since the worst case scenario is literally happening right now in our city, then I don't care if some developers get rich or some lady has too much shade in her backyard now from an apartment building.
Good article!
And unfortunately urban planning also breaks people’s brains. The most obvious way in which this is true is that the highways always seem to be full. So, by my logic (not mine, of course, but the logic I’m using), we clearly need to build more. Most people on this board know that this is untrue, of course. But what’s wrong with the logic? Of course the highways are effectively free at the point of use, but built on a socialist model. So it’s like there was rent control with rents set at $0, and the government builds all the housing. Also, highways are only one way of getting from one place to another; what is in short supply is transportation, not roads specifically, so the real fix is to build efficient economical transportation, which doesn’t mean using highways for everything. Maybe there is an analogy back to housing: what is in short supply is living space, not single-family houses with a backyard specifically.
I’m worried that eventually we will decide that we do indeed need to build lots of new housing, and will decide that the way to do that is to fill in the greenbelt with cookie cutter subdivisions and more 400-series highways. The current government is already moving in this direction in a small way. Of course, anybody who knows anything about urban planning knows that this will just re-create our current problem on an even grander scale.
If I can be cynical, the provincial government sees 2 choices:
1. Keep expanding SFH and suburbs, citizens/voters seem to accept this in general
2. Have a painful, but financially sound, discussion about increasing density and stopping sprawl
Everything Doug has shown me (and his supporters) is that they like the easy, self-serving option at all times.
local cambridge weirdo
Posts: 177
Threads: 6
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation:
34
(12-09-2022, 11:35 PM)cherrypark Wrote: (12-08-2022, 07:51 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Looks like Debbie Chapman will be vice-chair of the planning committee. This is a fairly high profile assignment. Paul Singh is chair.
One of the strongest NIMBY voices on council being made vice-chair is concerning, but I have no doubt it was strategic with Singh as chair.
https://twitter.com/debbiechapman1/statu...6609311744
Am I mis-remembering or was she not chair of that committee at the end of their last term?
That's my recollection, too. I recall watching at least one meeting that she chaired which was incredibly painful as she needed a lot of support from others around the horseshoe to walk through a couple of (admittingly, trickier) issues.
Posts: 593
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2018
Reputation:
51
(12-11-2022, 06:50 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote: (12-09-2022, 11:35 PM)cherrypark Wrote: Am I mis-remembering or was she not chair of that committee at the end of their last term?
That's my recollection, too. I recall watching at least one meeting that she chaired which was incredibly painful as she needed a lot of support from others around the horseshoe to walk through a couple of (admittingly, trickier) issues.
Right - and the one time her spouse delegated for 660 Belmont she passed chairing to Councillor Singh, so as I recall the roles have flipped here. (was a bit of a spicy exchange between the two as well in question follow up, as I recall...)
Posts: 177
Threads: 6
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation:
34
(12-11-2022, 10:04 PM)cherrypark Wrote: (12-11-2022, 06:50 PM)dtkmelissa Wrote: That's my recollection, too. I recall watching at least one meeting that she chaired which was incredibly painful as she needed a lot of support from others around the horseshoe to walk through a couple of (admittingly, trickier) issues.
Right - and the one time her spouse delegated for 660 Belmont she passed chairing to Councillor Singh, so as I recall the roles have flipped here. (was a bit of a spicy exchange between the two as well in question follow up, as I recall...) Oh, yes. I do remember that one now too.
Posts: 1,451
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
40
(12-10-2022, 01:05 PM)bravado Wrote: If I can be cynical, the provincial government sees 2 choices:
1. Keep expanding SFH and suburbs, citizens/voters seem to accept this in general
2. Have a painful, but financially sound, discussion about increasing density and stopping sprawl
Everything Doug has shown me (and his supporters) is that they like the easy, self-serving option at all times.
Is part of the challenge that a lot of big picture urban planning is done on a massive scale and, over time, elements either don't live up to everyone's expectations, or the slate is wiped clean (eg demolished) and everyone starts all over again? Europe had the discussion about urban planning and renewal in the 1950s when they were rebuilding a lot of their inner cores after the Second World War. Some chose period accurate recreation (eg the quaint medieval German villages) while others went for forward facing modern developments, some of which worked, others of which are going through their own redevelopments.
|