- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
It‘s one of those shitposts that tries to deflect the reason to something else again. It’s like they are testing which shitposts attracts the most views.
Remember when foreign students were the culprit? Or when it was plastic straws?
If the article states it as a question the answer is: no you shitpost
You know how many multi family dwellings can fit on the land required than a single family home? A lot. You know what’s the reason for housing shortage? Single family homes
Did you even read the article? It isn’t about the space the parking takes up, it’s the cost of fulfilling parking minimums:
“We had a project in Toronto where for 32 units of seniors’ co-op affordable housing. The old default bylaw said they needed 42 underground parking spaces. So that would have cost that not-for-profit $4 million to create the parking before they created a single unit of affordable housing,” he said.
While I agree that cars suck and the amount of parking required for them is terrible, this whole article seems likes an attempt to distract the reader from the real issues, which are weak laws on foreign and corporate investment, limited regulations of the rent market, a tremendous cost of living across the country, and lack of competition in multiple housing related sectors
I really don’t understand why people always specify foreign investment. What difference does it make to me as a tenant if my slumlord has their Canadian citizenship or not?
Housing shouldn’t be an investment at all, regardless of the would-be investors’ nationality.
I also specify corporate investment.
None of my landlords have been corporations or foreigners, yet they all owned enough housing for 20 families or more.
The system itself is broken and all who abuse of it need to be reigned in, regardless of where they come from or if they hide behind an LLC or not.
Re corporate investors: banning investors from buying properties didn’t work in Rotterdam.
This is an extremely weak study. It only allowed for one year for prices to correct, and it only affected certain areas of a single city.
It takes far longer than that for the market to correct itself naturally. The only thing that would instantly lower prices is if you required all investors to immediately divest their holdings in that area, and that’s extremely unlikely to happen.
@pennomi @mondoman712 “the market to correct itself naturally” lol
Yes, “naturally” is probably a bad term to use there. What I mean is that the effects of a policy like that shouldn’t be expected to come into effect immediately - supply/demand is more of a loose trend over time, not an instant correction.
We need to abolish minimum parking requirements. They completely warp which types of housing and business establishments are economical to build.
