I had never looked at it like this before. Your proposal makes much more sense than any other I’ve seen. It really illuminates the fact that (most) politicians are far less interested in solving problems than they are in keeping their seats.

We’re at this stage because of the misperception that being unhoused makes one a criminal.

Most of the unhoused aren’t criminals. The ones who are are over represented in the public eye and cause people to think that all homeless people are the same. They aren’t.

Most criminals aren’t unhoused. Most addicts aren’t unhoused. Why are we only talking about addiction and crime as it relates to the unhoused?

The unhoused are 7 to 10 times more likely than the housed to be the victim of a crime.

Twice this summer, in my neighborhood people have rolled up in their pickup trucks on nearby encampments,doused the tents in gasoline (without checking if anyone was inside) and lit them on fire.

You think it sucks having your stuff stolen? Imagine having what little shelter and few possessions you do have being repeatedly burnt to the ground.

Essentially using poverty as an excuse to “treat” people against their will is dystopian.

Well said:

We call for policies that are consistent, evidence-based, and based on harm reduction rather than vilifying drug users with a false morality framework.

If the province and municipalities want to address the murderous toxic drug supply, they should provide a safer supply and expand supervised consumption sites.

If the province and municipalities want to address the housing needs of the thousands of people who cannot afford a place to live, they should prioritize protecting tenant rights and explore non-market housing solutions, such as investments in social housing.

We cannot hide the problems we are faced with in Ontario or warehouse people to pretend we’ve solved underlying issues; we must highlight and challenge systems of neglect, exploitation and harm.

He definitely got the “I don’t know” part right.

You’re right, I had not considered the impact of the gorram apple hoarders. As an individual, I tend to look at things from an individual perspective.

Check out all of the ways government is subsidizing construction of units.

Why are they subsidizing housing? To prop up prices? Supply shortage? Probably both.

They can’t suddenly sell for less

If you mean “Less than it cost to build”, then yes, that’s true. They could certainly lower their margins, if they needed to, but there is no incentive for them to do so.

I don’t think housing prices,in general, are tightly coupled to building costs. The price tends to exceed the cost because a large part of a house’s value is subjective (location, proximity to desirables, price of other homes in the area etc.).

Government doesn’t want all these companies to fail, so they prop up the prices.

How do they prop up prices? A quick google search indicates that one way the govt. props up prices is by buying mortgage backed securities. They do this to stimulate demand:

(https://betterdwelling.com/canada-is-spending-75-of-its-forecast-deficit-to-prop-up-mortgages/)

The GoC policy will only stimulate mortgage demand and therefore apply positive pressure to inflate home prices.

Ultimately, a house is worth the most that an individual is willing to pay for it, and I can’t really see how that is not a function of supply and demand.

If people did not have to compete for housing from the same, limited pool of houses, wouldn’t the price of houses necessarily drop in response?

This thing is far too complicated for supply and demand economics.

I agree it is more complicated than “just” supply and demand, but I think it is safe to say that supply and demand play a not insignificant role.

Scarcity and competition for a scarce resource increase the value of that resource.

If we needed apples to live, and you had 1000 people wanting to buy your apples, and only had 10 of them, you can basically set the price to the highest amount 10 of those 1000 people are willing to pay. If you suddenly have 1000 apples, their value is eventually going to go down to the lowest price one of those 1000 want to pay.

This sounds like the opposite of a correction. If no one is building housing, the existing supply will become more valuable.

If you were a politician I could vote for, I would!

Peace brother, may your tomorrow be brighter than today.

Personally, I feel the attention would be better focused on the many people who can no longer afford shelter at all. I think a lot of people don’t realize just how close they are to being in the same situation, through no fault of their own.

This isn’t the first article I’ve read about the housing crisis that felt disconnected from reality. A few weeks ago it was the tragic story of a family earning a six figure income who had to downsize from a 3200 sq ft home to a 2400 sq ft. It just feels disingenuous that these are the issues they decide to report on while a quickly growing number of people can only afford to live in tents.

Doesn’t really feel comparable, to me.

While choosing to live outside their means, for their children, is commendable, it’s not a great example of the problem. Many people never have the opportunity to make that choice at all and are now homeless as a result.

Here’s an interesting podcast on the topic of lab meat that shows just how much grandstanding this “fight” really is. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4yCKSioorfxTL6x7PaunOR?si=fCHOyvmgSXqITX9x7_6GxA

TLDR: they’re banning a product that isn’t even commercially available to the public yet.