this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
246 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

10069 readers
523 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The problem is building an insufficient number of homes, below the rate of population growth, at government expense, costs taxpayers money without solving the problem. Worse, it takes the place of effective solutions.

When we learn more about this proposal, we can understand if it would lower the cost of housing. Until then, skepticism is warranted.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think it doesn't matter whether new construction is funded by taxpayers or not. We all end up paying either way through various channels. I think what matters is how much money is collected as profit due to what we build, how we build it and how much we build.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

The problem I'm trying to highlight is that this plan may give developers sweetheart deals, but leave housing prices at unaffordable levels.

It may not, but the strategy of flooding the market will fail if we don't manage to build enough houses.