As always, the Fraser Institute is shitting on ideas that could help the 99%, and saying government should rEmOvE ReD tApE.
I really want this to work. But the announcements I’ve seen for the building plan only address the supply side and ignore the problems on the demand side: people who own houses are able to pump up the cost of new houses; tax law encourages Canadians to treat their primary residence as an investment; real estate is used for money laundering (at least in some jurisdictions); mortgage fraud is a thing (at least in some jurisdictions); renovictions are used to pump the cost of rentals; and rent caps aren’t available in many jurisdictions.
Anyhow, here’s hoping the investing in modular housing succeeds, rezoning somehow lowers prices, and the feds are able to push housing starts to the moon.
The bias in this is just revolting. I get that it’s “opinion”, but they’ve made no attempt at having a terribly balanced one.
Canada’s housing sector has been following the Fraser Institute’s advice for decades now, and the result has been exactly as many predicted. Carney’s right: it’s time for the state to get back into building because the private sector has failed to do the job.
Unfortunately, this reads more like a financial instrument rather than what I would argue Canada needs: a housing agency that actually builds the houses rather than simply funds and directs construction. Regardless, in the wreckage that free market capitalism has wrought on housing, this is the sort of thing that takes a lot of time and money get up to speed. You needs skilled labour, industry connections, reputation, and experience building in various climates, and you just can’t create that out of the blue. I’m pleased to hear that they’re moving in the right direction.
I agree with all of your statements, but
They have a point of view. I don’t agree with it, and it ignores the pain that the housing crisis is inflicting on Canadians, but it makes no sense to expect them to parrot talking points they don’t agree with.
I’m not asking them to parrot talking points, but ignoring reality doesn’t do anyone any favours. It’s like writing from a perspective that the world is flat and talking like only fools would think that a spherical planet worldview is rational. Their perspective is demonstrably flawed, but rather than approaching the issue on the facts, they’ve just blasted this project from a ideological perspective. It’s a bad article and the Globe & Mail should feel bad about publishing it.
It’s an op-ed, not an article. It explains the Fraser Institute’s point of view (perhaps that of their donors). They raise a couple of good points (notably the one about the infrastructure bank), but it’s their chance to get their ideas out. It shouldn’t be balanced.
If all op-eds need to be balanced, then we’d see indigenous land defenders having to explain why a company is allowed to despoil that land. Similarly, if a doctor is writing an op-ed explaining why think you should get vaccinated, they shouldn’t need to reiterate the talking points of whackos saying it isn’t. That’s fine for articles, but this isn’t an article.
The point of op-eds is to get an idea out. This one is probably a counterpoint to Paul Kershaw’s delicious trolling in yesterday’s Globe.