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.
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.