53
submitted 10 months ago by grte@lemmy.ca to c/canadapolitics@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] grte@lemmy.ca 36 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The reason why is because foreign home ownership has never been the core of the issue. This law was a distraction from the reality that Canadians are plenty willing, and more likely, to be the one exploiting you.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/46-28-0001/2023001/article/00001-eng.htm

In Nova Scotia, more than 1 in 20 houses is used as an investment by a person living outside the province or the country

[...]

In-province investors owned, as investment properties, between 8.7% of the houses in New Brunswick and 12.4% in Nova Scotia, and, as such, they owned more houses used as an investment than all the other types of investors combined.

Chart indicating home ownership by in or out of province resident

As always, the core of the issue is that home ownership is treated as a commodity. Sort of a fundamental reality of putting a thing into a competitive market is that you're going to have winners and losers. And losers in the housing market leads to, you know, homelessness among many other social ills.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I tried to point this out on Reddit and Lemmy so many times and usually got downvoted. People want to believe there's some nefarious boogeyman buying up houses and keeping them vacant, but the reality is that virtually all homes in Canada have occupants. We just don't have nearly enough housing for the population.

Edit: it's still happening. In the other thread on this board about this article, people are saying "it's not the foreign buyers we should tax, it's the corporate buyers". People will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid considering the possibility that we need to densify our housing.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We need to change the ways we build our cities. The suburban experiment has failed and we need to address that. Commiting nearly every scrap of residential zoning for exclusively single family homes has had massive impacts on the urban fabric of our cities, the scarcity of housing, and the dependance on cars.

We don't need to eliminate all single family homes, but we do need to make it possible to build multi-residences and mixed use areas. We also need to address how we tax residential properties because as it stands, single family zoning is often subsidized by the denser areas of the city.

[-] tleb@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

Residential property shouldn't be an investment, but we can make great strides if we ban corporate and foreign ownership (NO exceptions this time)

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

It's the kind of thing that might occur if people don't have pensions and need to secure some sort of income that would sustain them when they retire. 🫠 Perhaps in addition to tackling the lack of density, number of non-market units, etc. we should also look at the industry pushing people to create their own pensions.

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
53 points (100.0% liked)

CanadaPolitics

1878 readers
15 users here now

Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees

Rules:

All of Lemmy.ca's rules apply

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS