National Housing Strategy

[Keepitsimple]

The NDP in particular are always calling for a National Housing Strategy. With Layton and Chow being products of Toronto's Silly Hall socialist regime, it's not surprising. But what exactly do people think a National Housing Strategy means? The city of Toronto spends $200 million on homeless initiatives each and every year - and that total is rising. If they took even HALF of that and provided rent subsidies of $500 a month, that would provide homes for about 16,000 people and that would likely include some families.

The socialist leaning Toronto Star likes to repeat the claim ad nauseum that people have been on the "wait list" for housing for 10 years.......do you not think that it might be time to update that list?

Projects around the world have shown that mixing a few financially-challenged families with the regular population creates a better awareness of what it takes to succeed in society. Their children see the people next door getting up every day at 7:00 to go to work. They see kids going to school. They see neighbourhoods that have pride of ownership. These things rub off on the children, if not the parents. Setting aside 5% or so of new developments for assisted income families might be a good start.

We can't completely solve the homeless issue....with regards to drug abuse and mental health.....but that's really more of a health issue.

What are your thoughts on what a National Housing Strategy is....or should be.....or is it just a convenient political euphemism of the left that really doesn't mean all that much?

[Renegade]

The NDP in particular are always calling for a National Housing Strategy. With Layton and Chow being products of Toronto's Silly Hall socialist regime, it's not surprising. But what exactly do people think a National Housing Strategy means? The city of Toronto spends $200 million on homeless initiatives each and every year - and that total is rising. If they took even HALF of that and provided rent subsidies of $500 a month, that would provide homes for about 16,000 people and that would likely include some families.

The socialist leaning Toronto Star likes to repeat the claim ad nauseum that people have been on the "wait list" for housing for 10 years.......do you not think that it might be time to update that list?

Projects around the world have shown that mixing a few financially-challenged families with the regular population creates a better awareness of what it takes to succeed in society. Their children see the people next door getting up every day at 7:00 to go to work. They see kids going to school. They see neighbourhoods that have pride of ownership. These things rub off on the children, if not the parents. Setting aside 5% or so of new developments for assisted income families might be a good start.

We can't completely solve the homeless issue....with regards to drug abuse and mental health.....but that's really more of a health issue.

What are your thoughts on what a National Housing Strategy is....or should be.....or is it just a convenient political euphemism of the left that really doesn't mean all that much?

Sounds like another excuse to waste taxpayer money.

[M.Dancer]

The last time there was a national Housing strategy would have been right after the war. Little had been built during the war owing to a number of factors and vets returning were anxious to get on with their lives. CMHC played a pivotal role in building thousands of homes, many of them rentals.

We are in a situation today that is no where near as dire. New units are being built (slowing somewhat) at a steady pace. If anything what is needed are further tax credits towards the cost of buying homes like being able to declare the interest and incentive for landlords to build new units in the way of capital gains credits.

[Mr.Canada]

The last time there was a national Housing strategy would have been right after the war. Little had been built during the war owing to a number of factors and vets returning were anxious to get on with their lives. CMHC played a pivotal role in building thousands of homes, many of them rentals.

We are in a situation today that is no where near as dire. New units are being built (slowing somewhat) at a steady pace. If anything what is needed are further tax credits towards the cost of buying homes like being able to declare the interest and incentive for landlords to build new units in the way of capital gains credits.

M.Dancer, you have been writing a lot of sensible things lately. Are you coming down with something?

[M.Dancer]

M.Dancer, you have been writing a lot of sensible things lately. Are you coming down with something?

Do I know you?

[Mr.Canada]

Do I know you?

You never know.

[Mr.Canada]

National Housing Strategy is another way of saying Social Housing. Government controlled housing creating ghettos in nice neighborhoods as is what is happening now.

[eyeball]

F#*ing socialists. What part of die and go away don't they understand? We should just get rid of society, that would sure fix them.

Hey, at least social housing ghettos will put them all in one place. Makes it easier to round em' up.

Edited October 21, 2008 by eyeball

[Alta4ever]

F#*ing socialists. What part of die and go away don't they understand? We should just get rid of society, that would sure fix them.

Hey, at least social housing ghettos will put them all in one place. Makes it easier to round em' up.

What an odd post.

[Renegade]

The socialist leaning Toronto Star likes to repeat the claim ad nauseum that people have been on the "wait list" for housing for 10 years.......do you not think that it might be time to update that list?

Projects around the world have shown that mixing a few financially-challenged families with the regular population creates a better awareness of what it takes to succeed in society. Their children see the people next door getting up every day at 7:00 to go to work. They see kids going to school. They see neighbourhoods that have pride of ownership. These things rub off on the children, if not the parents. Setting aside 5% or so of new developments for assisted income families might be a good start.

There is no shortage of housing, so why on earth would we want to build any. In my (and many other) neigbourhoods there are restrictions on turning basements into apartments or on multiple unrelated individuals sharing a house. It's restrictions such as these which keep us from have the most efficient use of current housing stock. If government wants to make more accomodation available, there is a simple fix. Remove such restictions.

[eyeball]

The sarcasm wasn't heavy enough?

[Alta4ever]

The sarcasm wasn't heavy enough?

No, it just seemed a little off colour.

[eyeball]

No, it just seemed a little off colour.

The OP was the first one I saw this AM and I guess it kind of set the mood.

I know someone who was recently given a notice to evict their illegal tenant who's been living there for years. Both of these people will now be in a tougher situation. The latter will be out on the street and the former will have to struggle that much harder to pay their mortage. We're assuming some neighbour, perhaps a nouveau local from somewhere else, ratted on them to the by-law officer. You see a lot of that around here these days.

Our official community plan has become a weapon that neighbours can use against one another in situations where conflicts arise or people simply don't like someone else and they go looking for some reason to rat on them.

I've been on a regional district area planning committee for years and I've seen lots of resistance to what Renegade suggests. I can't help but get the sense that virtually all the resistance to increasing density comes from people who routinely also use the word socialist in a perjorative manner. Its no surprise they're the least sociable people in society.

Edited October 21, 2008 by eyeball

[Alta4ever]

The OP was the first one I saw this AM and I guess it kind of set the mood.

I know someone who was recently given a notice to evict their illegal tenant who's been living there for years. Both of these people will now be in a tougher situation. The latter will be out on the street and the former will have to struggle that much harder to pay their mortage. We're assuming some neighbour, perhaps a nouveau local from somewhere else, ratted on them to the by-law officer. You see a lot of that around here these days.

Our official community plan has become a weapon that neighbours can use against one another in situations where conflicts arise or people simply don't like someone else and they go looking for some reason to rat on them.

I've been on a regional district area planning committee for years and I've seen lots of resistance to what Renegade suggests. I can't help but get the sense that virtually all the resistance to increasing density comes from people who routinely also use the word socialist in a perjorative manner. Its no surprise they're the least sociable people in society.

I'm not much for the community plans, I hate cookie cutter neighborhoods. If you own the property it should be your to with as you please, as long as it falls within the zoning. Basement aptments and ect. need to be looked at again, it can provide very affordable housing and creat a second source of income for the property owner.

[eyeball]

I'm not much for the community plans, I hate cookie cutter neighborhoods. If you own the property it should be your to with as you please, as long as it falls within the zoning. Basement aptments and ect. need to be looked at again, it can provide very affordable housing and creat a second source of income for the property owner.

I've heard it all a hundred times and it just doesn't seem to matter. I actually think the planners, and building and health inspecters and enforcers and such like things just the way they are. It gives them all a job. F#%king socialists.

[eyeball]

If you own the property it should be your to with as you please, as long as it falls within the zoning.

Another problem relating to density in rural areas is sewage and water as many people are on wells and septic systems. The size of your lot and capacity of your septic system are key issues so there are good reasons for not increasing density. However there are lots of cases where this is not an issue but trying to get the variances and zoning permission to allow a rental is an uphill battle all the way.

We have a lot of rainfall here so surface water pollution from septic fields is always a concern, especially given the fact so many are older osystems. You would think most people would jump at the chance to install public water and sewage but the resistance to this is almost as automatic as is the possibilty that public services raises about increasing density. Its a vicious circle.

[M.Dancer]

I can't help but get the sense that virtually all the resistance to increasing density comes from people who routinely also use the word socialist in a perjorative manner. Its no surprise they're the least sociable people in society.

Density tends to be a good thing for communities. Reduces costs and creates opportunities. The only caveat to increasing density is that the infrastructure must be able to accommodate the density. Little things like sewage and water, schools and churches, roads and markets.

I had some friends who moved to Maple, a community just north of Toronto. They were happy with their home, and it was really quite nice..I said that milk must really be expensive there. He looked at me strangely and said it was the same price as in Toronto...."yes" I said. "but you have to drive 1.5 k to the store....

[eyeball]

Density tends to be a good thing for communities. Reduces costs and creates opportunities.

Density also reduces property values and increases crime or so the argument goes, round and round usually

[Alta4ever]

Another problem relating to density in rural areas is sewage and water as many people are on wells and septic systems. The size of your lot and capacity of your septic system are key issues so there are good reasons for not increasing density. However there are lots of cases where this is not an issue but trying to get the variances and zoning permission to allow a rental is an uphill battle all the way.

We have a lot of rainfall here so surface water pollution from septic fields is always a concern, especially given the fact so many are older osystems. You would think most people would jump at the chance to install public water and sewage but the resistance to this is almost as automatic as is the possibilty that public services raises about increasing density. Its a vicious circle.

Sorry we don't deal all that much with high density residential on septic fields, most here are on public waste systems. I didn't really think iof that problem, but even so, their are solutions to those problems.

[M.Dancer]

Density also reduces property values and increases crime or so the argument goes, round and round usually

Well, that is true for the wrong kind of density. Too much low income housing, not enough home owners with stakes in the community...density without infrastructure like opportunities for employment.

Kind of funny, I'm sure you remember Jamestown. When it was built and planned, it was marketed as the be all and end all for middle income and upscale urban singles....