38
Abrupt Late-Summer Shift: Polls Now Put CPC in Majority Territory (www.338canada.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yes, let's follow Pierre's solution.

Wait. What is it again? Aside from "suck it hair guy" they don't have a platform.

I love how this decades-old problem is being hung around Trudeau's neck and the only apparent solution is a nothingburger from a team usually gleefully fucking over the plebes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I can't stand PP (he panders too much to extremists like antivaxxers and anti-trans chuds like Dr Peterson and was anti-spending during pandemic shut-downs) but his approach to housing is probably the best one on the table: he wants to specifically target municipal red tape and punish cities by cutting federal funding to large cities that don't upzone and hit their housing targets. These are specific policy planks with hard numbers in them. There are parts I disagree with (like restricting it to municipalities over 0.5M residents) but it's the right direction.

    I'm firmly in the YIMBY camp, and PP is the only person talking anything approaching sense on that particular issue. Ford had the Housing Affordability Task Force tell him the same thing, and he threw away 99% of their recommendations and instead focused on handing the Greenbelt out to his croneys.

    Trudeau has the Housing Accelerator Fund for similar purpose, but that's carrots instead of sticks. Municipalities have spent decades fighting tooth and nail against infill housing, they deserve sticks and not carrots. It was municipal governments that put us behind this 8-ball, and then the post-pandemic era sunk it.

    edit: downvote away, but the fact is he does have a specific plan. Unfortunately NatPo is the only media source I could find writing about it - better-media sources with info and analysis of his plan welcome.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/poilievre-promises-carrots-and-sticks-to-get-big-cities-to-build-more-housing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Are you in Ontario? Because Conservatives "cutting red tape" on municipal planning means greenlighting sprawling mcmansion developments on remote farmland, and resort style condo towers in town. Neither of which are intended, or help the housing affordability issue. It's actually the reverse; we have municipalities trying to get developers to infill, and getting overwritten by ministerial zoning orders.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yes, I'm in Ontario. Ford had put together a Housing Affordability Task Force that said the exact things I'm saying - dozens of recommendations on eliminating red-tape that was blocking infill. Ford ignored all those recommendations (why did he even assemble the HATF if he wasn't going to use their ideas?) and then opened the greenbelt.

    See the HATF document:

    https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-housing-affordability-task-force-report-en-2022-02-07-v2.pdf (warning, PDF)

    Some notable quotes:

    Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario can quickly create more housing supply by allowing more housing in more locations “as of right” (without the need for municipal approval) and make better use of transportation investments.

    Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial standards for urban design, including building shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical character over new housing, no longer require municipal approval of design matters like a building’s colour, texture, type of material or window details, and remove or reduce parking requirements.

    See? This is all good urbanism. Good YIMBYism. It's very sad that Ford ignored 99% of the document. And meanwhile, municipalities screamed bloody murder about the HATF recommendations.

    we have municipalities trying to get developers to infill

    Sauce? Because every person in the industry that I follow says the opposite.

    For example, this PDF was missisauga's response to HATF:

    https://www.mississauga.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/11152736/Corporate-Report-of-the-Ontario-Housing-Affordability-Task-Force-and-Implications-for-Mississauga-2022-02-24.pdf

    Staff have concerns, however, that some of the Task Force’s recommendations may remove some decision making powers from Council, reduce community engagement, lower design standards and could undermine the creation of complete communities. Moreover, certain changes could reduce revenues generated by development related charges which could be a risk to infrastructure and parkland provision.

    Mississauga has been one of the worst cities for missing building targets - they had no plan beyond "build tower-in-park highrises downtown, sprawl to our limits and then do nothing everywhere else." And now their Mayor wants to run the Ontario Liberal party, which is so egregious it actually got me to register to vote in their leadership race to support her opponent.

    For another example, see this video of deposition by Mark Richardson of Housing Now TO (an affordable housing builder):

    https://mastodon.social/@Pxtl/110300343308877005 (yes, this is my mastodon toot, but it's his video).

    This is a guy trying to build he’s trying to build subsidized, low-cost housing everybody says they wants. Trying to build Green Buildings everybody says they want. And the municipal government is blocking him at every turn, with “guidelines which are treated like they’re cast in stone”.

    $20 billion dollar intersection in Forest Hill; somebody said that should be a 7-storey and 70-unit building in 2018. How…where did that number come from? Somebody picked that number. Because it “conformed to the current planning policy for Forest Hill” and somebody adjacent to the site had a backyard swimming pool. That can’t be our priority in 2023.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think it's easy to rage about NIMBYs, but it shouldn't be any surprise that someone with a nice house and pool is going to be upset with a sky scraper going up next to them. It would ruin their land value and enjoyment of their property.

    While we shouldn't be prioritizing individuals over the needs of the many, if you want support from the NIMBYs you'll need to do something for them. For example, if you're going to be ruining the value of people's houses with billion dollar projects, perhaps there should be some compensation for those people included. It wouldn't fully convince the NIMBYs, but it would soften the bitter pill they have to swallow and might win over the moderates in those areas.

    But that aside, regarding PP I think you're incredibly naive if you really think he's going to implement policies that upset his rich friends. It might be in his platform, but he's a divisive lying shit and I wouldn't trust a word he says. The only thing I'm confident of is that PP will pass laws funnelling more money to his rich friends, just like Ford, and he'll likely attempt to weaken our democracy to ensure his minority party continues to get majorities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I'm extremely skeptical about his promises, especially about Ford, but the fact is that people are saying he's doing vague rage-farming on this when no: he is offering specific policy planks that directly confront the issue and circumvent the NIMBYs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Thanks for sharing all that. It's informative. I live in a bit of a bubble where municipalities are actually working toward good urban policy, albeit very slowly. However, I think you proved my point. When Conservatives say "cutting red tape" -they don't mean enabling YIMBY urban policy, even when their own research says that is what's needed. They mean putting all the power in the hands of developers so they can fill in wet lands and pave over farmland. And developers have no interest in affordable housing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I know. I wish there was a serious political YIMBY movement, instead of one side that's pandering to corrupt and incompetent municipal governments and the other side that is corrupt and pandering to sprawl developers. I want a government that panders to infill developers.

    There is good deregulation that could happen - for example, single-stair multi-unit dwellings are illegal in Canada at over 2 floors for fire-safety reasons. All the nicest cities in the world are almost completely made low-rise and mid-rises of those -- they enable dense, pleasant floor plans on small lots instead of cavernous dark-hallway-of-doors layouts on huge properties.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    That's good politics works. The guy in charge openly washed his hands of the problem and doesn't seem to have any solutions. So the masses are turning to the person who says "I can fix it!", even if he doesn't have a plan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent