[thechat] canada's new democratic party

[Tara Cleveland]

Erik Mattheis wrote:

>> Sure, they can create public housing projects and put them where they
>> want
>> (change zoning etc.) - but do they?
>
> Of course!

Well they don't in Canada any more. At least not federally - I guess some
cities may have funded projects somewhere (not any that I know of in Toronto
though). And big public housing projects have pretty much fallen from favour
as they tend to turn into ghettos - so often there are public/private mixes
or co-op developments, and mixed income housing - most of these programs
have turned out well in Toronto. But like I said, not much has visibly been
done since the late 80s/early 90s.

> I must not have made myself clear: my point is that if developers are
> not given financial incentives to build affordable housing, they won't.

I agree for the most part - I was just trying to discuss what Martin was
talking about. I think that incentives are better than regulation when it
comes to housing, but part of me wishes there were more companies willing to
invest in rental housing and co-ops... In Toronto they've been tearing down
rental housing and putting up luxury condos for the last 10 years or so.

> It's common sense: if you have money to buy an acre of land to develop,
> you're going to find land that you'll be able to make the most profit
> from. Look at this short article:
> <http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2002/04/08/
> daily42.html>. If Minneapolis required them to make _any_ portion
> "affordable", would they have chosen a Minneapolis location?

No because it's luxury development. I agree with you, I don't think it's as
simple as a blanket percentage... Maybe a percentage in a certain area, of
the city, or taxing luxury condos at a higher rate, or saying to a developer
that they must include one of a list of publicly beneficial things in their
development and include parks and day care centres and community centres on
the list (or something... I am pulling this outta my a$$ you know ;-) ). But
huge swaths of the city (Toronto) are being built up into expensive
developments when only a few metres away there are people sleeping in boxes
(and freezing to death in the winter) and somehow it just seems
fundamentally wrong to me. I'd *like* to live in a city where such
incredible inequality in the most basic standard of living was not so
obvious.

<liberal snippage (no pun intended)>
> You have to use government funds in some way, or lower income families
> and individuals will have no place to live.

Well that's the thing... I think government should be in the housing game in
a fundamental way because housing is such a basic need. And I think it
benefits us all if lower income people can afford a place to live.

> And there were given no incentives by the gov? And

I don't know. I don't remember any - at least not any special incentives
that I remember - but I could be wrong. My husband and I went on a tour when
we were looking into buying a condo several years ago.

> Jack thinks the government is spending:
>
> a. too much on affordable housing initiatives and programs.
> b. not enough on affordable housing initiatives and programs.
> c. just the right amount on affordable housing initiatives and programs.
>
> My answer would be "b". I always got pretty good reading comprehension
> scores, and I'm sure that "b" is my final answer.

Cue lights, confetti and theme song... "You've won the million dollars!"...

Now try to collect it in affordable housing incentives ;-P.

Tara