Best housing policy is to have government compete with private sector building “market affordable” (small) homes that are meant to break even, and so costs nothing.
Maybe even at a loss.
Not even cities propose this, though they can do it independently.
Cities can’t levy taxes so they are least able to do it - and they tend to have a lot of responsibilities. The feds and provinces can raise money through taxes, so they are the most logical actor to take it on.
It’s easier the higher the overall cost of housing. Training more people in trades can be lower labour costs. Doesn’t have to follow usual government principle of ultra comfy job to give out as political favours. Affordability due to small size makes it easier to break even while affordable. Just because you target a break even price, doesn’t mean you won’t sell to highest bidder.
More supply is what lowers cost of housing, and targetting break even gives a pricing advantage over profit/scarcity model. So do decisions prioritizing affordability over luxury.
Maybe even at a loss.
Cities can’t levy taxes so they are least able to do it - and they tend to have a lot of responsibilities. The feds and provinces can raise money through taxes, so they are the most logical actor to take it on.
It doesn’t cost anything if they break even, or why not small profit. Cities can have debt.
And given the cost of housing at the moment, breaking even probably isn’t enough to lower housing costs.
It’s easier the higher the overall cost of housing. Training more people in trades can be lower labour costs. Doesn’t have to follow usual government principle of ultra comfy job to give out as political favours. Affordability due to small size makes it easier to break even while affordable. Just because you target a break even price, doesn’t mean you won’t sell to highest bidder.
More supply is what lowers cost of housing, and targetting break even gives a pricing advantage over profit/scarcity model. So do decisions prioritizing affordability over luxury.