• De_Narm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s the usual problem with symbolic politics. It seemed good on paper but either they never thought it through or someone lobbied for the loophole. Capitalism will always choose the cheapest solution and that’s obviously the fine here. Remove the option or drastically increase it.

  • bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    How much money do they need to build an affordable housing project? I would think 24 million could make a lot of duplexes.

    • ImplyingImplications
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Clearly they were hoping the developers would just build the affordable housing themselves. They have no idea what to do with this money

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I have always wondered why the cities themselves don’t build highrises and sell the condos for the cost of construction. My city has even had times where there have been empty lots that have sat because no developer can figure out something to do with them. Just keep on plugging along until the rest of the market has to price for cost of construction.

          • HubertManne@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            which would work until enough were built that there was no profit in flipping and if people realized that was the intention the ability to flip would go away much faster.

  • doylio
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    This was easily foreseeable. The only way to get affordable housing in a market economy is to increase supply or decrease demand. This policy did neither

    • Ironfist@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Completely agree and I would even say this policy made things worst disincentivizing developers to build because it makes the project more expensive. In my opinion the best that the government could do is 1st make construction easier, 2nd forbid corporations to own multiple units and 3rd ban Airbnb.

      • doylio
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Back in May, there was a law on the books in the Quebec legislature to fine Airbnb for every unregistered unit on their site. I hope that gets through soon!

  • Cyborganism
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Padulo is already frustrated with tenant rights’ protection in Quebec under the province’s housing tribunal, which he says is biased “against landlords.” Now, he says, the city wants to “put its nose” in his business.

    “If people can’t afford it, they should not live in the city. The city is made for the privileged,” he said.

    Nicola Padulo mérite une place de choix dans la queue pour la guillotine.

    Ce sont des sociopathes comme lui qui sont à la racine de nos problèmes. Honnêtement ça prendrait une bonne manif devant sa porte de maison pour lui montrer que c’est lui qui n’a pas d’affaire ici.

  • m-p{3}A
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    If they don’t, they must pay a fine or hand over land, buildings or individual units for the city to turn into affordable or social housing.

    Seems like the fine isn’t high enough to steer them towards the intended objective.