- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The central feature of Poilievre’s plan is a policy that ties federal funding to housing starts.
Which creates more bureaucracy on to of an already bureaucratic system. Genius
The central feature of Poilievre’s plan is a policy that ties federal funding to housing starts.
Which creates more bureaucracy on to of an already bureaucratic system. Genius
What the fuck does that even mean?
Absolutely nothing. It’s politic speak - fluff.
It means tweak existing programs to incentivizes others to build homes, don’t make an organization that tries to build homes.
I can’t imagine myself voting conservative, but he’s not wrong to suggest the federal government should be pressuring municipalities to get housing built.
But we don’t need housing starts, we need housing completions. The proposal incentivizes cities to approve projects now but doesn’t stop them from tying them up in red tape later.
It puts the largest burden of building housing on cities that have already been building instead of on cities with untapped potential. I suspect cities like West Vancouver will just walk away from the money.
Unless the success bonus is a bigger carrot than the penalty is a stick, it creates an incentive not to exceed 15% growth because it will make it harder to meet quota the next year. Cities will make quota then tie up new starts until the new year.
My feeling is that cities with high housing costs (especially wrt local income) should face more pressure to build. Cities with low densities should face more pressure to build.
Or on this case add a policy to penalize those who don’t measure up to your imaginary stick.
That’s not their job. The fed doesn’t pressure munis. The Fed doles out money TO PROVINCES as per an agreement.
True. And density. Because sprawling out these matchstick shitbox firetrap hasty-built bungalows and eating farmland and greenspace wasn’t the answer 20 years ago; less now.