Poll: CANADIANS SEE CUTTING IMMIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TARGETS AS A TEMPORARY SOLUTION TO EASE HOUSING SHORTAGE

[CdnFox]

CANADIANS SEE CUTTING IMMIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TARGETS AS A TEMPORARY SOLUTION TO EASE HOUSING SHORTAGE

While Canadians strongly agree that more homes should be built, they are split on whether it will actually impact housing prices substantially, with 56% agreeing it will lower the cost of buying a new home and 57% agreeing it will lower the cost of rent. Two-thirds (65%) of current homeowners disagree that building more housing will cause their home to be worth less.

TOP REASONS COST OF HOUSING IS INCREASING IN
CANADA
1. Increases in interest rates and inflation (68%)
2. Not enough housing supply (63%)
3. Increases in number of people immigrating to
Canada (57%)

 

[CdnFox]

Well at least people are starting to wake up.

Even a year ago a lot of people uneducated on the subject thought the problem was foreign investors, which it isn't. Or it was 'evil landlords making insane profits' - which isn't true. It would seem that people are finally starting to figure out that it's a lack of properties, period.

That's a start.  Most people still don't understand WHY there's a lack, but at least they get the problem. There are still uneducated people who think there's not enough because of "density" or "Nimbyism" etc etc etc. but that's just beyond being too simple and inaccurate.

The simple answer is that the way our provincial and federal gov'ts are right now, along with our banking system, it severely hampers and discourages building homes as fast as our infrastructure grows. We will ALWAYS build less than we need the way things are set up right now.

Cutting immigration would reduce the upward pressure on prices for a SHORT time.  Maybe 2, 3 years max and probably not even that long.  Which would help if other measures were introduced in the meantime that might take longer to have an effect but would be more permanent solutions.

THis is really not complicated. But it's a lot of work and they just don't want to take it on.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There are still uneducated people who think there's not enough because of "density" or "Nimbyism" etc etc etc. but that's just beyond being too simple and inaccurate.

Uneducated people?  There are decades worth of scholarly articles and papers on the topic of nimbyism and its effect on development.
 

Quote

Abstract
A substantial amount of research relative to the not in my backyard (NIMBY) and locally unwanted land use (LULU) phenomena has been conducted during the past two decades.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0885412206295845

Meanwhile...

Quote

What is NIMBYism and how is it affecting how much housing is getting built?

Social Sharing

 

Kevin Lee, the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders' Association, said despite existing "appetite" to build more within existing neighbourhoods, Nimbyism discourages developers from trying to build. In many cases, local opposition to housing developments can "delay and sometimes completely derail projects."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nimbyism-explainer-1.6909852#:~:text=Kevin Lee%2C the CEO of,and sometimes completely derail projects."

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Uneducated people? 

yes - that's the nice way of saying M0r0ns

 

Quote

There are decades worth of scholarly articles and papers on the topic of nimbyism and its effect on development.

none of which is the problem we're facing.

Oh sure - it can play a small role. The greenbelt fiasco in ontario for example - that will result in fewer homes being built.

But we BUILT lots of homes - just not fast enough. IF we'd built the same number but in 2/3 the time we'd be fine. So it wasn't that we had no where to do it or 'nimbyism'.   That's an uneducated position.

As to your links - your own articles point out it's not much of a problem:

"And while there will always be people who are "stuck" with NIMBY views, they're a minority, she said, adding that most residents often become more open to development after learning how it benefits the community."

As i said - only m0r0ns think that's our problem.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As i said - only m0r0ns think that's our problem.

I'd be interested in hearing the response of of the Canadian Home Builders Association to your assertion. 

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'd be interested in hearing the response of of the Canadian Home Builders Association to your assertion. 

We did.  They said those people are in the minority and the majority are happy with development once they see how it benefits them. Its not the reason we can't build enough  homes.

Your problem is you can't even read your own links.

However as  i noted the problem wasn't that we coudln't build homes - we absoltuely built homes - the problem was we didn't build them fast enough and are not doing so today. So it wasn't nimbyism.  That might prevent a few homes here and there but not the hundreds of thousands of homes we didn't build or even remotely close.

So the space existed and there's plenty more space left.

But as usual you misread something and don't really understand it and present it as fact. Just last month you were CONVINCED!!!! that density was the problem until i pointed out why that isn't the problem either.

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We did.  They said those people are in the minority and the majority are happy with development once they see how it benefits them. Its not the reason we can't build enough  homes.

Sure they need convincing.  Give it a couple more years, maybe then it will sink in.  You're in good company though, only 3% of Canadians think nimbys are an issue.

Quote

 

The NIMBYs who show up to council meetings are often few in number, but given outsized importance by virtue of just showing up and being members of politicians’ most-feared demographic: older homeowners.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-housing-boom-is-back-thanks-to-nimbyism-and-bad-zoning

 

 

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure they need convincing.  Give it a couple more years, maybe then it will sink in.

 

Sounds like it takes about a week   And i've actually gone through that with land assemblies and such.

Sorry - you've been defeated by your own source. it's just not a substantial issue. 

It takes about 3-5 years to go from identifying the land to building on it as it is right now, But THAT"s not the problem in your mind - it's the handful of people that may take weeks to convince that only applies to rezoning and doesn't affect the millions of square acres we've alrieady got right now to build on.

Why are you this dumb? There's no excuse for it.

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But THAT"s not the problem in your mind - it's the handful of people that may take weeks to convince that only applies to rezoning and doesn't affect the millions of square acres we've alrieady got right now to build on.

Weeks ago I suggested the role for federal and provincial leaders was to do just that, convince people. Its really the only role they have be to play in a municipal jurisdiction.

That still isn't happening so municipal politicians are still being cowed by their most-feared demographic: older homeowners. 

My guess is that fed/prov politicians are frightened too.

Edited October 8, 2023 by eyeball