this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
338 points (99.4% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(Reuters) - Canada on Sunday announced a two-year extension to a ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing, saying the step was aimed at addressing worries about Canadians being priced out of housing markets in cities and towns across the country.

Canada is facing a housing affordability crisis, which has been blamed on an increase in migrants and international students, fueling demand for homes just as rising costs have slowed construction.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 150 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Foreign ownership is a bit of a blind, you need to ban corporate ownership as well

[–] honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)

How do you define 'corporate' ownership? If you can own 100 properties as an individual, does that count as 'corporate'? If it doesn't, that seems like an easy loophole. If the intent is to ban large quantities of homes owned by single entities, then doing it by quantity sounds more sensible.

That might redistribute old homes, but it doesn't necessarily solve the drip feeding of new homes that we have going on right now. For example, the UK used to build 250k+ houses every year during the 1950-1980s period. 50% of that was government built council houses for those in need. It's estimated that we need to build 250k more homes than we currently do in the UK, and the private housing industry has not done its part.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 15 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

  1. ban company/ corporate ownership of standalone housing.

  2. increased scale of taxation on any property past PPR. One house gets you 10% increase. Two gets you 20%, etc. oh it's empty? Now you got an empty property tax as well

  3. fuck up developer scarcity. Set hard time limits between land purchase and development / sale. Give land use laws teeth

[–] honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why you acting like we can only do one of these things?

I'm not, please don't assume that. It sounds like we're in agreement here, so I'm not debating you, but rather adding to your post, I suppose. It sounded like you wanted to extend the conversation towards solutions to the housing crisis in general.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 7 points 2 years ago

all g I realised that came across a bit more antagonistic than intended. I meant it more as "let's do ALL of it mwahhahaa"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)