this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
35 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10111 readers
863 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
35
Toronto risks losing $30M in federal housing funds after council rejects citywide sixplex zoning (www.ipolitics.ca)
submitted 23 hours ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

But one Toronto MP, who asked not to be identified to speak freely, said the mayor didn’t act because of her electoral considerations.

The next municipal election is scheduled for fall 2026, and a recent poll found that 53 per cent of residents disapproved of Chow’s performance.

Chow was elected mayor in a 2023 byelection, winning just over 37 per cent of the vote. She dominated the central wards and won most of Scarborough, but lost in suburban Etobicoke and North York.

The areas that blocked sixplexes (Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, with the exception of Ward 23) are also the areas most resistant to density, and where council opposition was strongest.

The MP said Chow’s decision on sixplexes is an effort to “hold on to every vote” she won in the suburbs north of Bloor Street while reassuring her downtown base.

I hate that too often politicians base their decisions on what could happen in futire elections.

I mean almost none of them prioritize their civic duty and what's best for their constituents anymore. It's all "But what about my re-election!" bs now.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I hate that too often politicians base their decisions on what could happen in futire elections.

I struggle with this point. Isn't respecting their constituents' democratic wishes their civic duty? Isn't this exactly what you'd want from a mayor or city councillor you voted for? If she steamrolls her voters, they'll elect a John Mandatory who promises to listen to them and they'll reverse the zoning changes. On one hand what constituents want could be counterproductive, on the other, going against their democratic wishes is also counterproductive. The only case where I can see steamrolling them is if you can make a change so quickly, so that they see the material benefits from it and change their mind as a result. Otherwise I think you have to get the democratic buy-in from people for the changes you make. E.g. work with councillors to propose solutions to what people resistant to density are afraid of, or give them something in exchange, in order to get enough buy-in so that that changes and likely you survive the next election. Meanwhile rezone parts of TO that aren't as opposed to density.

But make no mistake, very few people want construction projects going on around them for years, without anything to soothe the pain. If you tell them you'll freeze their property tax for 10 years because the new development would pay more, then they may be okay with listening to construction noise for a few years.

I don't mind construction noise too much but if I had the choice to have it or not have it, and didn't see a good reason to have it, I'd vote for peace and quiet. Now I do see there's a good reason so I would've voted pro-density if I was in TO (am just across the border in Peel), but the west end of TO around me is full of "Fight the Height" and "Stop the Lot Split" signs.

[–] Davriellelouna@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

make no mistake, very few people want construction projects going on around them for years, without anything to soothe the pain. If you tell them you’ll freeze their property tax for 10 years because the new development would pay more, then they may be okay with listening to construction noise for a few years.

Canada has a very high immigration rate combined with strict zoning rules.

The result? The country is facing the worse housing crisis in the Western world. Rents have increased at double digits. Visible homelessness has skyrocketed. People are ending up on the streets. Landlords are abusing vulnerable women.

Olivia Chow claims to be a progressive fighting for ordinary people.

That turned out to be a lie. If you live in a country with a major housing crisis and oppose making housing more affordable, you aren't a progressive.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I'm aware of all that. It doesn't address the mechanism I described which prevents or reverses progressive changes if enough people are against them. I'm trying to explain why change isn't happening and what's needed for it to happen in our system. What I'm saying is no amount of scoffing at Chow or whoever else we elect would help get out of this mess unless we and our representatives convince enough people on the ground to vote for building housing. Chow was elected with 37% of the vote, not 50 or 80.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago

I hate that too often politicians base their decisions on what could happen in futire elections.

Yes. This is the shittiest way of rEpReSeNtInG tHeIr CoNsTiTuEnTs while ignoring the needs of a growing majority of the population.