Fast tracking Housing in BC

[the truth]

*removed*

[BC Landlord]

*removed*

[BC Landlord]

*removed*

[the truth]

*removed*

[BC Landlord]

If the government really wanted to "fast track" housing, they would try to make investing in rental business more attractive. With rent controls in place, and a plethora of other obstacles, that's not a case these days.

[JLives]

If the government really wanted to "fast track" housing, they would try to make investing in rental business more attractive. With rent controls in place, and a plethora of other obstacles, that's not a case these days.

I agree. The government needs to invest in rental housing at large rate. Government run rental housing. The private sector is incapable of providing affordable housing to low income people as they have proven over the last 15 years or so. They had their shot and didn't take it.

[GordonH]

If the government really wanted to "fast track" housing, they would try to make investing in rental business more attractive. With rent controls in place, and a plethora of other obstacles, that's not a case these days.

I agree. The government needs to invest in rental housing at large rate. Government run rental housing. The private sector is incapable of providing affordable housing to low income people as they have proven over the last 15 years or so. They had their shot and didn't take it.

First thing that comes to my mind after reading this is, New York City… The Projects.

[Catsumi]

I agree. The government needs to invest in rental housing at large rate. Government run rental housing. The private sector is incapable of providing affordable housing to low income people as they have proven over the last 15 years or so. They had their shot and didn't take it.

First thing that comes to my mind after reading this is, New York City… The Projects.

Agree with you Gordon

The private homeowners took “their shot” but were hamstrung with a deck stacked against them, so now it’s to be on the taxpayer dime to make something ‘work’ that private owners could not. So, we just can’t see the past clearly enough to have a gander at what govt subsidized actually looks like.

Open your eyes. It will be a repeat of the ghastly, unliveable swamps of despair known as the NYC Projects

Everyone will have two or more dangerous, vicious dogs that krap in the hallways, for protection.

Rats will enjoy the filth and multiply.

There will be no protection, no overseer to see to the well being of honest tenants, just a free for all gangster bang

A blight on the earth.

[JLives]

I agree. The government needs to invest in rental housing at large rate. Government run rental housing. The private sector is incapable of providing affordable housing to low income people as they have proven over the last 15 years or so. They had their shot and didn't take it.

First thing that comes to my mind after reading this is, New York City… The Projects.

We're better than letting fear get in the way of providing homes accessible to lower income people. Would you rather they just stay on the streets or in the bush? People need homes.

[Even Steven]

When gov't is giving away housing, can I get some too?

What's the point of working hard when gov't just gives things away for free?

[fluffy]

Lessons from the past on a national housing strategy

(Written in March 2017)

"In the government’s election platform and budget, affordable housing is positioned as social infrastructure: a public good that calls for public investment. The underlying premise is that housing is a system that needs to be managed. If it’s left to chance, shortfalls and inequities result, with the biggest impact on young adults, newcomers, Indigenous people and some ethnoracial groups — all of whom are already disadvantaged in the labour market.

Housing is a wobbly pillar of social policy (as a housing wonk once said), and nowhere more so than in Canada. Most Canadians buy, sell and rent their housing in the market, and don’t see it as being part of infrastructure or social policy. Other more mainstream needs compete for the public dollar. On a per capita basis, the United States creates more subsidized rentals per year than we do, and offers far more subsidies to low-income private rental tenants. Canada’s peak period for social housing was a generation ago."

>snip<

"Federal programs built a lot of war-worker housing in the 1940s and some social housing in the 1950s, but the serious effort started in 1964. The same Pearson Liberal government that gave Canadians universal medicare and the Canada/Quebec Pension Plan funded and created a serious social housing program. In the 1970s, the federal government led again, shifting to a sustainable, mixed-income and community-based approach. And affordable housing was not a partisan matter: the key partner in the 1960s was Conservative-ruled Ontario; the 1970s programs had support across the spectrum; and the Mulroney Conservatives’ flexible federalism sustained this system in the 1980s. Federal retrenchment and devolution in the 1990s created the challenges we face today, and federally led housing initiatives between 2002 and 2015 softened the impact without reversing it."

>snip<

"It’s important to approach housing as a system. Affordable housing is not about intrepid local groups doing a project here or there, with disjointed layers of public funding at different periods. It’s about implementing policies to sustain a system of capital funding, mortgages, and rent subsidies (plus support services for people with disabilities) on a scale that makes a difference. In the heyday of Canadian social housing from 1965 to 1990, 10 percent of total housing production was non-profit, public or co-operative. This magnitude was sufficient to house half the lowest-income segment of the roughly 170,000 households added in Canada each year, give people with low incomes decent options in the same neighbourhoods as middle-class Canadians lived in, and (by the 1980s) house many homeless people. The program initiatives that the federal government has now signalled for its National Housing Strategy fall far short of a return to the heyday, but they nudge Canada back in that direction."

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazine ... -strategy/

The problems in housing that we face today have been, in a significant part, brought on by government shifting away from social housing and laying off that responsibility on the private sector, the results of which have become evident. Introducing a profit margin, and private suppliers being reluctant to finance social housing over time, has resulted in a severe shortage of housing availability for both purchase and rental across the board, not just the lower income people who once depended on social housing.

[Gone_Fishin]

Looks to me like the NDP has failed miserably, again.

That's the problem with union thugs and far left activists. When it comes to putting a business plan into action, they're completely incompetent, having zero experience and no idea where to start. We can be assured that 60% of the money has been spent though, to produce 11% of the units.

The NDP government announced a housing plan in 2018 that was to deliver 114,000 affordable homes to BC in 10 years. That has not been a promise they have kept, having delivered only 11% of the homes promised in year 6 of 10.

[Glacier]

It looks to me like they are advancing policies on both housing and addictions, as they are two different issues. Nonetheless, housing is an essential first step in treating addictions where the issue overlaps with homelessness.

They are not different issues. Homelessness is the consequence of mental health issues (namely addictions), not the other way around. Therefore, as the root cause, the addiction should be addressed first. Of course, if you are choosing fixing problems over vanity.

Indeed. The reason why the homelessness crisis is getting worse is that authorities are insisting on putting the cart before the horse. In other words, they are confusing cause and effect.

[ferri]

Fast tracking Housing in BC

[JLives]

When gov't is giving away housing, can I get some too?

What's the point of working hard when gov't just gives things away for free?

Productive discussions don't occur with this type of rhetoric ES. Housing needs to affordable and accessible for low income people too. That's the point, nobody is talking about free or giving.