this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
136 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9386 readers
1175 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
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The bankruptcy risk does not exist for the federal government. So a government funded non-profit development project that's built by the same construction company (charging the same money) that a for-profit investor would hire, would save that 12-20% for that project straight up.

Yes for single family homes the calculus you describe makes sense.

But we aren't building ourselves out of this shit show with single family homes. I think most recognize that given the push for rezoning. So in my mind, looking at multistorey buildings is the only interesting scenario. And I think my argument that there's savings in the elimination of the profit and the "luxury" factors is reasonable.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

It wouldn't save 12-20%, in a situation where the development "fails" it just means that the costs far exceed the revenue and it becomes a tax burden on the public. Just because no bankruptcy is declared doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences for stakeholders.