2021 federal election

[tomh009]

Neither party is going to meet our emissions targets. Neither party is going to take serious measures to address the housing crisis. Neither party is going to address growing income inequality.

I do think the Liberals' climate plan is credible, with CO2 prices ramping up to $150, and the revenues being returned on a strict per-capita basis (you get back the same amount regardless of your income or the amount you "spend" on CO2). I don't know whether we'll hit the target but it should at least get us close. The NDP climate plan appears fairly similar, with some loopholes (what are they?) additionally being closed.

The Conservatives' plan looks similar at first glance but the CO2 prices top out at $40 which is nowhere near enough. Worse, their "savings account" refunds increase with the amount you "spend" on CO2, so the big CO2 spenders get more money back, removing the incentive to cut back on fossil fuel usage.

Housing ... I like NDP's target of 100K affordable units per year. I do wonder whether it's achievable -- think 1,700 units per year in the region. Even with the fast-start funds, will there be enough developers, enough contractors, and, most importantly, enough available and appropriately zoned land available?

As for income inequality, NDP proposes a minimal increase to the top marginal rate and a wealth tax for "the very richest" so I don't think these will move the needle much. Their proposed 75% capital gains inclusion rate will have a bigger impact, but notably it will also hit some of the middle class -- anyone saving and investing beyond the RRSP contribution limits. The bigger impact is the prioritization of guaranteed basic income, but there is not much detail in the platform about this. (I think the costing of the spending and revenues is waiting for the PBO, I do want to see that.)

[ac3r]

The LPC has come out with some election promises that relate to housing. Frankly, this seems like too little too late: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau...-1.6151154

[danbrotherston]

The CPC plan is, ironically the very thing they claim to have, a large complicated and ineffective bureaucracy.

The liberal plan isn't terrible, but it's nowhere near enough, but when mixed with obviously bad investments of buying a fucking oil pipeline, no way man, no way.

Mike Morris is a strong candidate and I think he's worth voting for alone. I'd suggest that having the one of two or three green MPs in our region would give more profile than even a random member of the ruling party. Certain I think Guelph comes up provincially more often because of the Ontario green party leader sitting there.

[tomh009]

The LPC has come out with some election promises that relate to housing. Frankly, this seems like too little too late: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau...-1.6151154

I don't think they really address housing affordability. And subsidizing mortgage rates (what they are effectively proposing) will just help drive up housing prices.

Housing affordability is a complicated problem, and it's made more complex yet by the split of responsibilities between the multiple levels of government. To me, land availability, zoning, land prices and property tax structure are the keys to finding a sustainable solution to this problem. However, more of that is under provincial control than federal.

[neonjoe]

The one problem is that there are two goals. Sustainability which means restricting SFH and affordability, most of the complaints about the affordability that I hear from the right is that there isn't enough SFH, as that is what is desired.
I don't know if there is really a solution beyond only dealing with price speculation.

[danbrotherston]

The one problem is that there are two goals. Sustainability which means restricting SFH and affordability, most of the complaints about the affordability that I hear from the right is that there isn't enough SFH, as that is what is desired.
I don't know if there is really a solution beyond only dealing with price speculation.

It isn't about demand for SFH it's about SFH being the only type of housing people think of.

And sprawl is a Ponzi scheme. Building it decreases affordability but only hidden.

[taylortbb]

It isn't about demand for SFH it's about SFH being the only type of housing people think of.

And sprawl is a Ponzi scheme. Building it decreases affordability but only hidden.

It is about demand though. A shockingly large number of people consider anything other than a SFH unacceptable for raising a family, and won't be satisfied until they own one. Maybe not people in my circle or yours, but when I talk to the broader population it absolutely appears that a majority of people have a vision that includes the stereotypical suburban family, with 2 kids, a dog, and a SFH with 2 cars in the garage.

You're right though that it's not sustainable. We simply can't have nearly as many people living in SFHs as want them, at least not if we're going to solve climate change. People are going to have to accept denser living arrangements than their parents' generation if we're going to have a planet to live on, but they don't want to hear it. There's a reason no political party is telling the truth on this fact, it's political suicide.

[danbrotherston]

It isn't about demand for SFH it's about SFH being the only type of housing people think of.

And sprawl is a Ponzi scheme. Building it decreases affordability but only hidden.

It is about demand though. A shockingly large number of people consider anything other than a SFH unacceptable for raising a family, and won't be satisfied until they own one. Maybe not people in my circle or yours, but when I talk to the broader population it absolutely appears that a majority of people have a vision that includes the stereotypical suburban family, with 2 kids, a dog, and a SFH with 2 cars in the garage.

You're right though that it's not sustainable. We simply can't have nearly as many people living in SFHs as want them, at least not if we're going to solve climate change. People are going to have to accept denser living arrangements than their parents' generation if we're going to have a planet to live on, but they don't want to hear it. There's a reason no political party is telling the truth on this fact, it's political suicide.

I agree that is how they feel, but they feel that way from decades of....well...brainwashing...that is the only lifestyle they have seen normalized.

But I actually don't think it would be hard to change. Right now the main problem is SFH are really the only reasonable housing. It's unsustainability means it should cost more (maybe even more than now) but same as rising fuel costs are exclusively a hardship until we actually build alternatives to driving, SFH costing more will be a hardship until we build alternatives to them. Right now, even if I wanted too, most types of housing I would prefer are simply unavailable (or similarly unaffordable) in KW.

As for political feasibility yeah, it would be hard. It is the kind of thing we need inspiring leadership to achieve but we lack inspiring leaders.

[cherrypark]

It isn't about demand for SFH it's about SFH being the only type of housing people think of.

And sprawl is a Ponzi scheme. Building it decreases affordability but only hidden.

It is about demand though. A shockingly large number of people consider anything other than a SFH unacceptable for raising a family, and won't be satisfied until they own one. Maybe not people in my circle or yours, but when I talk to the broader population it absolutely appears that a majority of people have a vision that includes the stereotypical suburban family, with 2 kids, a dog, and a SFH with 2 cars in the garage.

You're right though that it's not sustainable. We simply can't have nearly as many people living in SFHs as want them, at least not if we're going to solve climate change. People are going to have to accept denser living arrangements than their parents' generation if we're going to have a planet to live on, but they don't want to hear it. There's a reason no political party is telling the truth on this fact, it's political suicide.

Along the same lines as what Dan said, it seems like a self-perpetuating expectation. People think of a typical suburban SFH as the target because its also the most readily available and suitable housing the market for most of Ontario's population centres. At least in KW, there is a real lack of a middle option where shoebox in the sky condos and SFH don't have some good to great quality midpoint readily available for people to see as an alternative.

From my vantage point as a current newly growing family in (albeit century home) SFH that would absolutely love Dutch style neighbourhoods and a row/semi home with more communal space and less wasted frontage/yard that most new builds offer.

[plam]

Along the same lines as what Dan said, it seems like a self-perpetuating expectation. People think of a typical suburban SFH as the target because its also the most readily available and suitable housing the market for most of Ontario's population centres. At least in KW, there is a real lack of a middle option where shoebox in the sky condos and SFH don't have some good to great quality midpoint readily available for people to see as an alternative.

From my vantage point as a current newly growing family in (albeit century home) SFH that would absolutely love Dutch style neighbourhoods and a row/semi home with more communal space and less wasted frontage/yard that most new builds offer.

Townhouses are greatly under-utilized I feel. Ours has some communal yard and not much frontage and is more space efficient than bungalows for sure.

[Bytor]

Housing ... I like NDP's target of 100K affordable units per year. I do wonder whether it's achievable -- think 1,700 units per year in the region. Even with the fast-start funds, will there be enough developers, enough contractors, and, most importantly, enough available and appropriately zoned land available?

I doubt it. 70+% of Kitchener residential area is for single-family homes only. That you can now make coach houses or tiny homes in the back yard is a useless gesture. The CRoZBy programme which has proposed that the current R-1 through R-9 zones be replaced by RES-1 through RES-7 is utterly useless as well.

We'd be much better off to take the R-1 through R-4 or RES-1 through RES-3 and make them all R-5 or RES-4 to encourage building the missing middle housing all over the city.

[ijmorlan]

Housing ... I like NDP's target of 100K affordable units per year. I do wonder whether it's achievable -- think 1,700 units per year in the region. Even with the fast-start funds, will there be enough developers, enough contractors, and, most importantly, enough available and appropriately zoned land available?

I doubt it. 70+% of Kitchener residential area is for single-family homes only. That you can now make coach houses or tiny homes in the back yard is a useless gesture. The CRoZBy programme which has proposed that the current R-1 through R-9 zones be replaced by RES-1 through RES-7 is utterly useless as well.

We'd be much better off to take the R-1 through R-4 or RES-1 through RES-3 and make them all R-5 or RES-4 to encourage building the missing middle housing all over the city.

Yes, it doesn’t make sense to talk about what people insist on buying when it is illegal in a huge portion of the city to build anything other than very specific types of building. At a minimum all residential zones should allow everything up to maybe 3-story apartment buildings, and all commercial zones should allow a couple of floors of apartments above stores (e.g., all those strip malls, for example). That’s just a start of course.

[plam]

I doubt it. 70+% of Kitchener residential area is for single-family homes only. That you can now make coach houses or tiny homes in the back yard is a useless gesture. The CRoZBy programme which has proposed that the current R-1 through R-9 zones be replaced by RES-1 through RES-7 is utterly useless as well.

We'd be much better off to take the R-1 through R-4 or RES-1 through RES-3 and make them all R-5 or RES-4 to encourage building the missing middle housing all over the city.

Yes, it doesn’t make sense to talk about what people insist on buying when it is illegal in a huge portion of the city to build anything other than very specific types of building. At a minimum all residential zones should allow everything up to maybe 3-story apartment buildings, and all commercial zones should allow a couple of floors of apartments above stores (e.g., all those strip malls, for example). That’s just a start of course.

I guess it depends how much of an incrementalist one is. Allowing accessory dwelling units (granny flats) as of right increases potential housing by a factor of say 1.5 (since the ADUs are smaller than the main dwellings) and allowing bigger units gives a bigger factor.

We've talked about Minneapolis, right?

https://tcf.org/content/report/minneapol...ly-zoning/

In principle Wellington is working through requiring new builds in certain areas to be 4- to 6- stories.

[danbrotherston]

Housing ... I like NDP's target of 100K affordable units per year. I do wonder whether it's achievable -- think 1,700 units per year in the region. Even with the fast-start funds, will there be enough developers, enough contractors, and, most importantly, enough available and appropriately zoned land available?

I doubt it. 70+% of Kitchener residential area is for single-family homes only. That you can now make coach houses or tiny homes in the back yard is a useless gesture. The CRoZBy programme which has proposed that the current R-1 through R-9 zones be replaced by RES-1 through RES-7 is utterly useless as well.

We'd be much better off to take the R-1 through R-4 or RES-1 through RES-3 and make them all R-5 or RES-4 to encourage building the missing middle housing all over the city.

This honestly seems like an obvious thing to do, it's ridiculous there is resistance to this.

[Bytor]

It is about demand though. A shockingly large number of people consider anything other than a SFH unacceptable for raising a family, and won't be satisfied until they own one.

And most native-born Canadians haven't ever lived in a world where anything else is possible. The reason they only think of SFH is because they only two options that have been open to them are that and small, city centre condos. Kinda like the same way they cannot contemplate getting around town in any way other than using a car. It's hard to comprehend something that you don't even know about.