The central feature of Poilievre’s plan is a policy that ties federal funding to housing starts.

Which creates more bureaucracy on to of an already bureaucratic system. Genius

  • willybe@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    10 months ago

    The central feature of Poilievre’s plan is a policy that ties federal funding to housing starts.

    Which creates more bureaucracy on to of an already bureaucratic system. Genius

    Forcing cities to levels of growth whether they have infrastructure or not. If they don’t have the ability to meet that number they will be penalized seeing cities further back causing more problems.

    As if we don’t already have enough problems.

    • Numpty@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      You and I see through the fluff… and we are in the minority. PP is just saying whatever people want to hear. No facts, no proof, just fluff that riles up the voters.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      It means tweak existing programs to incentivizes others to build homes, don’t make an organization that tries to build homes.

      I can’t imagine myself voting conservative, but he’s not wrong to suggest the federal government should be pressuring municipalities to get housing built.

      But we don’t need housing starts, we need housing completions. The proposal incentivizes cities to approve projects now but doesn’t stop them from tying them up in red tape later.

      It puts the largest burden of building housing on cities that have already been building instead of on cities with untapped potential. I suspect cities like West Vancouver will just walk away from the money.

      Unless the success bonus is a bigger carrot than the penalty is a stick, it creates an incentive not to exceed 15% growth because it will make it harder to meet quota the next year. Cities will make quota then tie up new starts until the new year.

      My feeling is that cities with high housing costs (especially wrt local income) should face more pressure to build. Cities with low densities should face more pressure to build.

      • willybe@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Or on this case add a policy to penalize those who don’t measure up to your imaginary stick.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        the federal government should be pressuring municipalities to get housing built.

        That’s not their job. The fed doesn’t pressure munis. The Fed doles out money TO PROVINCES as per an agreement.

        But we don’t need housing starts, we need housing completions.

        True. And density. Because sprawling out these matchstick shitbox firetrap hasty-built bungalows and eating farmland and greenspace wasn’t the answer 20 years ago; less now.

  • Skies5394@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    What the eff is that picture?

    Is it normal for politicians to have mock gatherings to announce things as we see here with the curtain pulled back?

    • willybe@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Thank-you for bringing that up. I laughed when I saw it. I’m surprised he isn’t wearing a harness, hi vis, and a hard hat.

      If you watch the video, you can see the platform in the executive parking lot lifts him up to use the Shaw workyard as a background. This way he doesn’t have to get his shoes dirty.

      What a putz