As a BC municipality's first Municipal Social Planner in the early 70s, the unaffordability of housing resulted from several factors some of which weren't predictable like the flatlining of real income growth. That corresponded with the decline of union membership globally as the public became convinced that unions were all about entitlement.
What was predictable was the impact of the proliferation of the single-family dwelling and the impact of low density once the buildable areas were built out. Mayors and Councils were tossed out every two years on density issues alone. Cities can't build themselves out to prosperity so development charges added up and as more people moved in, the need for more services keeps growing.
What also wasn't predicted was the loss of rental stock as developers financed by pre-sales and rental developers couldn't.
We didn't foresee what BC has put in now and that's a means to protect rental areas like the three story apartments.
Chretien had a Mulroney deficit to overcome and his out was that housing was not a constitutional issue for the federal government. The MURB program that allowed the capital cost depreciation on the building incented people like me to buy a unit and rent it out. I don't think I ever raised the rent as it was the writeoff on my income that mattered. Deemed too rich, it ended.
A careful listen to Mark Carney's general statements on running for Liberal leader he's signalled that the old ways won't work and that he grasps generational unfairness and that Canadians have an income problem. His plan is not a surprise to me as I worked directly for CEO who is just like him. They do what they say and make sure it's managed well.
Carney knows that the public conditioning by corporate threats to exit Canada means he has to steer clear of fairer taxation on that sector. No one seems to care that share buybacks for excess profits have been going on for decades now nor that arenas and stadiums and major event sponsorships have been surging. The days of small business sponsoring youth and adult sports teams and activities are long gone.
Cutting the upcoming capital gains tax change that would have affected only the very wealthy. Individuals would still have paid the lower rate on capital gain below $250,000 per year.
Curious, what do you think about the argument, which I think speaks to your first note, that broader affordability requires stabilized housing prices paired with rises in real incomes over time? (See, eg. Carolyn Whitzman)? And that this needs to be paired with a range of housing from non-market to market, dense or otherwise (though city needs may vary), while cutting development charges? The Ontario Greens are more or less taking this approach, for instance.
I haven't looked at the Carney proposal in any degree of depth but Carolyn Whitzman references the historical rule of thirds that was in the Final Report of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Planning, by CA Curtis in 1944 and part of the work of Canada's Advisory Committee on Reconstruction.
The percentages might differ but the historical rule of thirds suggests that:
> The top third could afford to purchase new homes.
> The middle third required affordable rentals, including nonprofit cooperatives.
> The lowest third required public housing, including operating subsidies.
Canadians have an income problem and the faster we can get to at least a guaranteed income scheme with housing affordability the better.
The problem is affordable rentals and purchases without some bold incentives.
Second issue is how cities get funded for growth. Cities have some income issues as do the provinces.
Given how we blame the federal and provincial governments for everything, the reality is that corporations are doing nothing to bolster incomes and as long as only a few put the spotlight on that nothing will change. I'm hopeful that Mark Carney as PM will say what's he said at WEF on stakeholder capitalism where they consider paying better versus naming rights for stadiums.
A bit of a ramble but I endorse the Whitzman ideas.
A federal agency for housing with the right incentives with Carney managing it will do a lot as he sees the complexities in these challenges that Trudeau didn't address in the focused way Carney sees things.
I think Robert Jago's point is well-taken (regarding the NDP, but applies here) that when the government aims to "unlock" public land, what that seems to mean is to cede control of that land to developers or keep it in government hands. I can't help but feel that trying to incubate more Sen̓áḵw-style neighbourhoods, returning control of land to First Nations, has to be at the front and centre of the housing issue.
I’ve been begging for a policy similar to this for a couple decades now and seeing it finally be offered by one of the major parties (and the Liberals no less) is music to my ears.
I’m certainly hopeful it doesn’t go down the P3 path of nonsense, but I’m happy to see the offering.
We need the Federal government to return to building affordable housing with a plan that is not a p3. The private sector, in Vancouver at least, doesn't want to build rental stock unless it commands $7/sqft rent ($3,500/month for a 500sq ft apartment) which is unaffordable. Neoliberalism failed us
If this is just Metrolinx for housing, or TCHC... But if not, I just wonder what the logistics of having a state construction entity would even look like in the short term? Even large construction companies like Aecon farm out most of their work to private subcontractors. Hell, even healthcare is, despite being universal, essentially a public/private partnership.
We should definitely have a public construction firm, but this requires construction workers, which Canada does not have in abundance, and equipment, which we largely get from the US and are imminently going to be tariffed.
Moreover, if this isn't paired with the definancialization of the housing market, it won't really matter what the government does with regard to construction. In particular, because, I think, developers and real estate holders will, in response, likely slow all of their existing construction in response, which will then make government housing a drop in the bucket.
And then you have to contend with the fact that there are so many people whose life savings are held in their homes. If you build and reduce housing prices, you'll then also start liquidating people's savings. 40% of the Canadian GDP is in housing, so...
I'm not saying this is completely insurmountable, but do I have any faith that the Liberals will draft a plan that challenges the corporate monopoly on housing, protects people's savings and creates a new, functional state construction firm? I don't know, and so I think I agree with your position that we should be intrigued, and that it's great that this conversation is happening, but be skeptical of the details.
I’m pretty sure this entity will be more in line with being a developer and not a constructor. Developers contract private companies to build their projects (sometimes they’re both, but mostly they’re not), developers make the largest profits. By having the Federal Government be the developer that will hire constructors to build their projects they can eliminate the “profit” passed on to the buyers/renters in the form of higher costs but still employ existing/new private constructors.
I really doubt the government will go as far as becoming the constructors too.
We had a very successful model until Mulroney (confirmed by a top Canadian Planner who is a country/city planning history expert), which was not P3, which did not build for maximizing ROI on every 'housing unit'. We also need gradually take residential properties off the table as the top profitable investment. Housing should hold it's value, possibly indexed to only the rate of inflation.
At today's wage rates and with the level of part time and precarious work, it is not possible to build "affordable" homes. Thus, the government needs to finance the build, the own some and have some owned by non-profits and co-ops that do not need to pay back a loan. If we had better value for work laws (e.g. workers get paid the full value of their work) and better tax laws (those who make more pay more on a fair basis), perhaps a society that is based on to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability would help.
Sounds like a rubbish policy the Australian govt adopted faced with unaffordable housing costs, high immigration, tax breaks for investors. Relied on the private sector building for profit. Achieved so far SFA.
It's always super disappointing when someone purportedly "progressive" incorrectly conflates socialism with the kind of policies typically enacted in social democracies.
Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with the state providing for its people. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are democratically controlled by the workers, instead of privately owned like under capitalism. It is this mislabeling, ironically started by capitalists as a way to obfuscate the true meaning of socialism and misdirect progressives, that keeps the public ignorant of the option of actual socialism as a viable means of organizing the economic system.
The advocates of capitalism have so enamoured and indoctrinated everyone that even supposed scholars seem unable to see anything but working within that inherently inequitable system. And by misstating something as "socialist" Moscrop is playing right into their hands.
So you acknowledge your misuse of socialism... and then insult me for pointing it out? If you'd just stopped at "being cheeky" you would have won me over, instead you've alienated a potential ally. Did you intend such a counterproductive contribution to the progressive cause?
If your article had put "socialism" in quotes, perhaps followed by an exclamation point, I would have been far more likely to get that you're being cheeky. As it stands, are you only writing for an echo chamber of people who already know your views, or are you trying to educate and enlighten a broader audience? You can't misuse the word socialism in the exact same way capitalists do without any hint of being ironic and expect a random person to understand you're being cheeky.
I used to think as long as the right continue to unite the left shall be bereft. But after over a decade of activism I realize the truth is that as long as the left continue to cleft the right shall have the might. Too much ego, as evidenced by your snarky comment. Let's see if it can withstand leaving this comment on display.
The NDP should take this opportunity and try to exceed Carney’s plan,....?
Excuse me, but the NDP are dead in the water and will never form government....all they can do is make promises they'll never be able to, or need to, fulfill .
This a an excellent read of Carney's policy proposal; your warning about P3s certainly resonates with me, although it should be said that there are different types of P3s, and that not all are failures. The worst are those in which the public sector effectively cedes all control to the private consortium, which operates without oversight and any kind of accountability. That has certainly been the case with P3 hospital projects. So -- will the NDP eschew P3 housing projects? Don't count on it. I recall defending a resolution on the floor of a federal NDP convention -- the theme was opposition to privatisation -- calling upon the party to oppose P3 hospitals as another form of privatisation, even when the project eventually reverts to public ownership. Paul Moist, then President of CUPE National, opposed any discussion of P3s. Unions don't necessarily oppose P3s, because the projects provide jobs for unionized workers. And check out where public sector union pensions are invested...
As a BC municipality's first Municipal Social Planner in the early 70s, the unaffordability of housing resulted from several factors some of which weren't predictable like the flatlining of real income growth. That corresponded with the decline of union membership globally as the public became convinced that unions were all about entitlement.
What was predictable was the impact of the proliferation of the single-family dwelling and the impact of low density once the buildable areas were built out. Mayors and Councils were tossed out every two years on density issues alone. Cities can't build themselves out to prosperity so development charges added up and as more people moved in, the need for more services keeps growing.
What also wasn't predicted was the loss of rental stock as developers financed by pre-sales and rental developers couldn't.
We didn't foresee what BC has put in now and that's a means to protect rental areas like the three story apartments.
Chretien had a Mulroney deficit to overcome and his out was that housing was not a constitutional issue for the federal government. The MURB program that allowed the capital cost depreciation on the building incented people like me to buy a unit and rent it out. I don't think I ever raised the rent as it was the writeoff on my income that mattered. Deemed too rich, it ended.
A careful listen to Mark Carney's general statements on running for Liberal leader he's signalled that the old ways won't work and that he grasps generational unfairness and that Canadians have an income problem. His plan is not a surprise to me as I worked directly for CEO who is just like him. They do what they say and make sure it's managed well.
Carney knows that the public conditioning by corporate threats to exit Canada means he has to steer clear of fairer taxation on that sector. No one seems to care that share buybacks for excess profits have been going on for decades now nor that arenas and stadiums and major event sponsorships have been surging. The days of small business sponsoring youth and adult sports teams and activities are long gone.
Cutting the upcoming capital gains tax change that would have affected only the very wealthy. Individuals would still have paid the lower rate on capital gain below $250,000 per year.
Curious, what do you think about the argument, which I think speaks to your first note, that broader affordability requires stabilized housing prices paired with rises in real incomes over time? (See, eg. Carolyn Whitzman)? And that this needs to be paired with a range of housing from non-market to market, dense or otherwise (though city needs may vary), while cutting development charges? The Ontario Greens are more or less taking this approach, for instance.
I haven't looked at the Carney proposal in any degree of depth but Carolyn Whitzman references the historical rule of thirds that was in the Final Report of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Planning, by CA Curtis in 1944 and part of the work of Canada's Advisory Committee on Reconstruction.
The percentages might differ but the historical rule of thirds suggests that:
> The top third could afford to purchase new homes.
> The middle third required affordable rentals, including nonprofit cooperatives.
> The lowest third required public housing, including operating subsidies.
Canadians have an income problem and the faster we can get to at least a guaranteed income scheme with housing affordability the better.
The problem is affordable rentals and purchases without some bold incentives.
Second issue is how cities get funded for growth. Cities have some income issues as do the provinces.
Given how we blame the federal and provincial governments for everything, the reality is that corporations are doing nothing to bolster incomes and as long as only a few put the spotlight on that nothing will change. I'm hopeful that Mark Carney as PM will say what's he said at WEF on stakeholder capitalism where they consider paying better versus naming rights for stadiums.
A bit of a ramble but I endorse the Whitzman ideas.
A federal agency for housing with the right incentives with Carney managing it will do a lot as he sees the complexities in these challenges that Trudeau didn't address in the focused way Carney sees things.
I think Robert Jago's point is well-taken (regarding the NDP, but applies here) that when the government aims to "unlock" public land, what that seems to mean is to cede control of that land to developers or keep it in government hands. I can't help but feel that trying to incubate more Sen̓áḵw-style neighbourhoods, returning control of land to First Nations, has to be at the front and centre of the housing issue.
I’ve been begging for a policy similar to this for a couple decades now and seeing it finally be offered by one of the major parties (and the Liberals no less) is music to my ears.
I’m certainly hopeful it doesn’t go down the P3 path of nonsense, but I’m happy to see the offering.
We need the Federal government to return to building affordable housing with a plan that is not a p3. The private sector, in Vancouver at least, doesn't want to build rental stock unless it commands $7/sqft rent ($3,500/month for a 500sq ft apartment) which is unaffordable. Neoliberalism failed us
If this is just Metrolinx for housing, or TCHC... But if not, I just wonder what the logistics of having a state construction entity would even look like in the short term? Even large construction companies like Aecon farm out most of their work to private subcontractors. Hell, even healthcare is, despite being universal, essentially a public/private partnership.
We should definitely have a public construction firm, but this requires construction workers, which Canada does not have in abundance, and equipment, which we largely get from the US and are imminently going to be tariffed.
Moreover, if this isn't paired with the definancialization of the housing market, it won't really matter what the government does with regard to construction. In particular, because, I think, developers and real estate holders will, in response, likely slow all of their existing construction in response, which will then make government housing a drop in the bucket.
And then you have to contend with the fact that there are so many people whose life savings are held in their homes. If you build and reduce housing prices, you'll then also start liquidating people's savings. 40% of the Canadian GDP is in housing, so...
I'm not saying this is completely insurmountable, but do I have any faith that the Liberals will draft a plan that challenges the corporate monopoly on housing, protects people's savings and creates a new, functional state construction firm? I don't know, and so I think I agree with your position that we should be intrigued, and that it's great that this conversation is happening, but be skeptical of the details.
I’m pretty sure this entity will be more in line with being a developer and not a constructor. Developers contract private companies to build their projects (sometimes they’re both, but mostly they’re not), developers make the largest profits. By having the Federal Government be the developer that will hire constructors to build their projects they can eliminate the “profit” passed on to the buyers/renters in the form of higher costs but still employ existing/new private constructors.
I really doubt the government will go as far as becoming the constructors too.
We had a very successful model until Mulroney (confirmed by a top Canadian Planner who is a country/city planning history expert), which was not P3, which did not build for maximizing ROI on every 'housing unit'. We also need gradually take residential properties off the table as the top profitable investment. Housing should hold it's value, possibly indexed to only the rate of inflation.
At today's wage rates and with the level of part time and precarious work, it is not possible to build "affordable" homes. Thus, the government needs to finance the build, the own some and have some owned by non-profits and co-ops that do not need to pay back a loan. If we had better value for work laws (e.g. workers get paid the full value of their work) and better tax laws (those who make more pay more on a fair basis), perhaps a society that is based on to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability would help.
Sounds like a rubbish policy the Australian govt adopted faced with unaffordable housing costs, high immigration, tax breaks for investors. Relied on the private sector building for profit. Achieved so far SFA.
It's always super disappointing when someone purportedly "progressive" incorrectly conflates socialism with the kind of policies typically enacted in social democracies.
Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with the state providing for its people. Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are democratically controlled by the workers, instead of privately owned like under capitalism. It is this mislabeling, ironically started by capitalists as a way to obfuscate the true meaning of socialism and misdirect progressives, that keeps the public ignorant of the option of actual socialism as a viable means of organizing the economic system.
The advocates of capitalism have so enamoured and indoctrinated everyone that even supposed scholars seem unable to see anything but working within that inherently inequitable system. And by misstating something as "socialist" Moscrop is playing right into their hands.
I know. I was being cheeky. Don't be so boring and uptight, man.
So you acknowledge your misuse of socialism... and then insult me for pointing it out? If you'd just stopped at "being cheeky" you would have won me over, instead you've alienated a potential ally. Did you intend such a counterproductive contribution to the progressive cause?
If your article had put "socialism" in quotes, perhaps followed by an exclamation point, I would have been far more likely to get that you're being cheeky. As it stands, are you only writing for an echo chamber of people who already know your views, or are you trying to educate and enlighten a broader audience? You can't misuse the word socialism in the exact same way capitalists do without any hint of being ironic and expect a random person to understand you're being cheeky.
I used to think as long as the right continue to unite the left shall be bereft. But after over a decade of activism I realize the truth is that as long as the left continue to cleft the right shall have the might. Too much ego, as evidenced by your snarky comment. Let's see if it can withstand leaving this comment on display.
The NDP should take this opportunity and try to exceed Carney’s plan,....?
Excuse me, but the NDP are dead in the water and will never form government....all they can do is make promises they'll never be able to, or need to, fulfill .
This a an excellent read of Carney's policy proposal; your warning about P3s certainly resonates with me, although it should be said that there are different types of P3s, and that not all are failures. The worst are those in which the public sector effectively cedes all control to the private consortium, which operates without oversight and any kind of accountability. That has certainly been the case with P3 hospital projects. So -- will the NDP eschew P3 housing projects? Don't count on it. I recall defending a resolution on the floor of a federal NDP convention -- the theme was opposition to privatisation -- calling upon the party to oppose P3 hospitals as another form of privatisation, even when the project eventually reverts to public ownership. Paul Moist, then President of CUPE National, opposed any discussion of P3s. Unions don't necessarily oppose P3s, because the projects provide jobs for unionized workers. And check out where public sector union pensions are invested...