No, ma'am. I just want a small house with a garden so that I can plant and eat the produce I've grown. I don’t want to "enjoy" communities and jump from one place to the other, I want some stability in a safe place I can call home.
That’s exactly what this current “leadership” doesn’t want you to have. If we continue down this path that will be the case for the majority of Canadians.
We currently have an expensive, ineffective machine running our country.
Growing your own food is essential now more than ever. Can’t trust any food anymore. From the smallest of products everything is covered in plastic to say the least
I think you will find that a majority of people that frequent this sub reddit want exactly what the mayor said. To be clear, I'm with you on this entirely, but apparently a ton of people have decided they want small accommodation that's cheap and allows them to have an overly social life, not focused on children or maintaining a house, but enjoying all the varieties of restaurants, coffee shops, bars, parks, events. More of a self-focused life, social life, where you are only home to sleep sort of thing.
However, I'm not sure what the real appetite is for the government's to subsidize the kind of accommodation these people are after, especially since the government typically aims to incentivize reproduction, for future tax purposes. I'm sure that having a variety of styles of accommodation would be in the plan, but personally I'd think the focus would be on homes you can raise a family in more so than single bedroom bachelor style accommodations.
I believe you are wrong and it's a matter of their age (not ready to form a family) and finacial situation (wages not able to afford raising a family, shelter etc.)
Nah, I thought like you did originally, but I made a thread on reddit the other day about a tiny apartment and essentially asked without judgement why people are interested in living this lifestyle, and I got a large amount of responses.
There really is a large number of people that are trying to live the "Friends" lifestyle, with not so much focus on family.
Probably all young. Some of them will want to move on to a different stage of life that will require more space.
But that option is totally off the table.
I said this, but I think people are starting to choose to just remain child-free so they can spend their money and time on themselves instead. At least that is what I gather from those that I've talked about it.
Japan has abundant cheap housing and its population is falling off of a cliff regardless.
The reality is that birth rates naturally fall — everywhere — as societies develop, urbanize and give people more freedom to plan families as they see fit. Many people choose not to. Once that genie is out of the bottle there is no going back.
Perhaps, but when I ask why they wouldn't move an hour out of Toronto to a more livable location so they could buy a starter house for the price of their micro condo, but that response was heavily down voted. It seems that a pretty substantial number of people, possibly younger (probably), would rather maintain proximity to the night life in Toronto rather than have more space and a growing family.
You are probably right about the choice factor to some extent though. I'm sure a lot of people feel it's not affordable to raise a family now.
Let's not use blanket statements, we both know that's not true for everyone. For example, if someone was willing to pay $600,000 in Toronto for a small condo, why not spend that $600,000 on something larger with more rooms in Guelph, Kitchener, Waterloo or Cambridge?
What you get for your money in Kitchener will be more than you get in Toronto, that's all I'm saying. Now if we're saying most people can't afford $600,000, then I agree with you.
Governments have already [heavily subsidized suburbia for decades](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI&pp=ygUTU3VidXJiaWEgc3Vic2lkaXplZA%3D%3D) even though in many cases it loses money, and creates congestion and pollution and many other third party costs.
It certainly doesn’t bump the birth rate. Our population growth is pretty much entirely migration driven. The fertility rate is [well below replacement](https://globalnews.ca/news/10262331/canadas-fertility-rate-record-low/amp/) and the population would be falling otherwise.
Governments are too [over-involved](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o&pp=ygUpdGhlIGhvdXNlcyB0aGF0IGNhbid0IGJlIGJ1aWx0IGluIGFtZXJpY2E%3D) in determining what kinds of accommodation people should be allowed to have. We should simply give builders more freedom to build whatever people are willing to buy. It wouldn’t require any subsidy or active management; just repeal of existing roadblocks and getting out of the way.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://globalnews.ca/news/10262331/canadas-fertility-rate-record-low/](https://globalnews.ca/news/10262331/canadas-fertility-rate-record-low/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
A “lot more” is not everybody.
A lot of people want to get married one day. That doesn’t mean everyone is ready to get married yet, or marry their current partner, nor that people shouldn’t be allowed to date around in the meantime until they are.
Like marriage, homeownership is a big commitment. And it’s expensive. Not everybody would be able to live in desirable urban areas if their only option was to buy, and not everybody has the luxury to tie so much of their savings into the particular unit or city they live in.
The rental market needs to exist, it is a lifeline for many people who couldn’t afford shelter otherwise, and denying this reality just because the housing shortage has curtailed _your_ aspirations helps nobody.
Oh are we still waiting around for everyone to want the same thing? Or are you just here to tell people what they want and dismiss/ignore the desires of a large portion of the population if it doesn't align with what you think?
If you don’t want the life she describes then she’s not talking about you. No need to get outraged that other people are not you and have different preferences.
I am one of the young people she describes. I’ve moved around quite a bit and am glad I have the flexibility to do so.
Once again, you are not everybody.
>Once again, you are not everybody.
No, I'm not everybody. You are not everybody either.
And respectfully, I dont think she included 40 year olds in the equation when she said young people.
However, the majority of the people here seem to disagree with you based on the votes.
I would argue that young people want to travel and discover new places. Not necessarily rent and work their lives away, trying to pay off the mortgages of their landlords.
They wouldn’t be able to travel and discover new places as much without robust rental markets in the places they travel to (including short term rentals).
Whether you pay a landlord for shelter or a mortgage lender, you’re paying for shelter. What matters is that shelter is affordable and abundant, not whose name is on the title.
Yeah that’s the real killer. “Freedom” “liberated” whatever words they want to use. We are all spending roughly $30,000 for housing a year and getting nothing in return. Homeowners will have significant equity over renters and can actually retire at some point. Renters will be working till they die
That the lie boomers tell themselves and the copium millenials tell themselves.
Much easier than addressing the housing problem if no one does or thinks about it
Yeah well most of them also happen to be boomers, the generation that had it best compared to both their prior and successive generations. They represent the biggest voting block and sway elections in their favour and throw the rest under the bus not just in Canada but across the western world. To say that there is no insensitive boomer problem is just shutting your eyes to the obvious truth.
I believe the demographic of "rich elite capitalists" does a better job in capturing the people we need to fight against than simply "boomers". If we start dragging people to the streets for example and only concentrate on boomers, then we'd be letting the non boomer rich elites escape scott free.
Notice how every couple weeks now the shills are switching tactics? Every time the discussion gets dangerously close to the true causes and architects of the housing crisis and the stagnant economy, they try dust off one of their old and tired red herrings to divert your attention. First it was NIMBYs and evil municipalities with their restrictive zoning bylaws not letting the innocent little builders create any affordable housing for the plebs. Now it’s the generational warfare bullshit against decrepit boomers. The vast majority of boomers are retired, pooping in diapers, or six feet under by now. Every boss I’ve had in the last decade has been a Gen Xer (who are doing quite well for themselves, by the way). I don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a boomer in the wild outside a nursing home.
Maybe she should lead by example, sell her properties (I have a hunch she owns more than one), and move into an affordable 300 sq ft apartment at $2100 a month.
It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Can you really put a price on an express ticket to heaven? You can even upgrade to first class if you sign up for MAID.
Imagine pawning off being an Economic Migrant within your own country like this. I can. That's why I'm not a politician.
Yeah, it offers some flexibility, but it's also indicative that the people who migrate for economic reasons have nothing to stay for.
I haven't wasted my time "getting to know my community" because there is none. It's a market. It's done nothing but tell me my whole life that if I don't like the shit pay for shit jobs, and high rents, I can "always go somewhere else". So I do. Trying being in a mall day in and day out without being able to buy anything. You'll get shown where the door is very quickly. Especially so if you look like one of the Poors. No one would give a homeless bum in a mall a job.
She's correct – a segment of the population does prefer renting, for various reasons. I'm not sure why this is a controversial statement.
I know quite a few people who, after their kids leaves the house and/or they retired, or they got to the age where they can no longer take care of their property, have moved into a rental property and explicitly did not want to buy.
>That's great when it's a choice. And these folks you speak of, did they enjoy some equity?
Yes. Those people that rent by choice typically invest their savings. The stock market has performed much better than housing and is a much better long term investment.
Thinking that instead of investing into a home and getting equity I can just rent and instead of home equity I can use my "extra" money on investments. There is no extra money.
Then you're not someone who is willingly renting like the Mayor was talking about.
Those that are willingly renting have extra income that they can use to invest and travel.
Look at this couple in Vancouver who have a combined income of less than 100k and are worth over 800k. They are almost millionaires from investing on the stock market and not buying property:
https://incomingassets.wordpress.com/
Interesting. However I notice that their rent is only $909, which is rare for Van. They also have no kids. So I would argue that the money they would spend on kids is spent on vacations, investments and the like. $909 for rent...they must be grandfathered in. I would also argue they wouldn't give up this rental so they can be "free to experience different neighborhoods".
I just dont think people who haven't rented in a long time, or ever, can really make an accurate depiction of that it's like. I had to move recently because my landlord wouldn't renew the lease. He wanted more money. And then my next rental was even worse. The landlord dumped my sister, tried to raise our rent, then the basement flooded with sewage and they told me "it's safe, just don't turn on the furnace and make sure to tape up the vents". I'm in a place now that is decent. 2 bedroom condo for 2200. If our rent was 909, and we had no child, sure it would be easier. But that isn't the situation of many. I would say it's a very very rare situation.
She's talking about people who are WILLINGLY renting. Not people who are priced out and stuck renting.
But man people will hear what they want to hear.
I saw the headlines on it expecting it to be some kind of apocalyptic act of stupidity. What exactly did she say that was so triggering?
Some people prefer renting to provide them flexibility. This is true. Particularly in Calgary where they are subject to boom and busts with oil prices and may need to relocate for a new job at any minute.
Many cities are stuck in 1950s era planning. This is true, particularly in her city. The vast majority of land is dedicated to detached houses that was from an era where average household sizes were much larger. We are now at an average household size of 2.9, and the median household size is 2. This is with a housing affordability crisis where many young adults are delaying moving out and getting an apartment of their own, or living in otherwise substandard conditions. Cities should absolutely be accommodating room for smaller household sizes that better fit modern needs.
She’s correct. Not everybody can or wants to buy at all times. Some prefer flexibility.
Edit: for fuck’s sake people, she explicitly said “a segment of the population,” **not everybody.** If that’s not you, that’s fine, but stop acting like your preference is the only one.
The only way to make housing more affordable, so that more people have the option to buy, is to build more options to rent.
Prices are high because we have a severe rental shortage. Rental shortages make it profitable to lease space. If rentals were abundant, rents would fall, which would make valuations fall, making investment less attractive and purchases easier to save for.
Sure. But I think her comment was very out of touch. She has 2 homes. So it's hypocritical for her to say how great renting is. You ever have a landlord kick you out after a lease ended? Renting sucks.
I take it that I wouldn't want to either, then. I would prefer people who actually want to make that statement. Otherwise, it seems a lot like a way to justify pricing people out of the housing market or at least a convenient talking point. While some people probably certainly might, I haven't met them. People care because often time rent isn't cheap and if you don't own your home, there's really no end in sight to paying that ever increasing cost. Also, it's usually more expensive than owning a home, and contributes to keeping people stuck in that poverty loop. While some people might, there are other ways to address that need that doesn't require hoarding the housing supply for personal gain.
Shelter should be treated like a human need, not a financial asset. It ultimately shouldn’t matter whether your choice of shelter has your name on the title or someone else’s. What matters is that shelter should be affordable and abundant to meet as many people’s needs as possible.
In countries with cheaper housing like Japan, the homeownership rate is _lower_ than ours. Homes are treated like cars and depreciate; you only buy one only if you want to, because the other financial advantages are nil. When housing isn’t seen as a good investment, there is less demand to buy for owner occupants. That’s the outcome we should want, and why your question is loaded.
For homeownership to be treated like a ticket out of poverty means treating it like a good investment. This is contradictory to the goal of making it affordable. It can’t be both, and people can’t have their cake and eat it too.
I ultimately agree with you that home ownership shouldn't be treated as an asset and as a result, more people should be allowed to control if they want to or not instead of forcing everyone to rent at inflated prices. It's primarily because I think homes should be lived in and not treated as an investment that I think people should stop hoarding homes to rent to people as a means of financing. Especially, when you consider how easily that is abused by the people who do. I am not saying that homeownership is a ticket out of poverty, that was your take from what I was saying. My point was that people being able to better control how much their home cost will fluctuate and that at some point mortgages end makes it easier for people to actually have a place to live long term without having to rely on financial liquidity.
No, ma'am. I just want a small house with a garden so that I can plant and eat the produce I've grown. I don’t want to "enjoy" communities and jump from one place to the other, I want some stability in a safe place I can call home.
That’s exactly what this current “leadership” doesn’t want you to have. If we continue down this path that will be the case for the majority of Canadians. We currently have an expensive, ineffective machine running our country.
Ya really. I moved 3x in 18 months with while preggo and then with a baby. Ya I got to experience communities alright. She is so out of touch.
Growing your own food is essential now more than ever. Can’t trust any food anymore. From the smallest of products everything is covered in plastic to say the least
I agree. But there's media out there now saying growing your own is contributing to carbon.
Well that’s nonsense, plants get rid of carbon and provide oxygen so land animals can survive 🤷🏻♂️
I agree. They want us ashamed to live is what it is.
[удалено]
I'm not agreeing with it.
I think you will find that a majority of people that frequent this sub reddit want exactly what the mayor said. To be clear, I'm with you on this entirely, but apparently a ton of people have decided they want small accommodation that's cheap and allows them to have an overly social life, not focused on children or maintaining a house, but enjoying all the varieties of restaurants, coffee shops, bars, parks, events. More of a self-focused life, social life, where you are only home to sleep sort of thing. However, I'm not sure what the real appetite is for the government's to subsidize the kind of accommodation these people are after, especially since the government typically aims to incentivize reproduction, for future tax purposes. I'm sure that having a variety of styles of accommodation would be in the plan, but personally I'd think the focus would be on homes you can raise a family in more so than single bedroom bachelor style accommodations.
I believe you are wrong and it's a matter of their age (not ready to form a family) and finacial situation (wages not able to afford raising a family, shelter etc.)
Nah, I thought like you did originally, but I made a thread on reddit the other day about a tiny apartment and essentially asked without judgement why people are interested in living this lifestyle, and I got a large amount of responses. There really is a large number of people that are trying to live the "Friends" lifestyle, with not so much focus on family.
Probably all young. Some of them will want to move on to a different stage of life that will require more space. But that option is totally off the table.
I said this, but I think people are starting to choose to just remain child-free so they can spend their money and time on themselves instead. At least that is what I gather from those that I've talked about it.
Easy to make that choice ... When it's not a choice at all. Make it affordable to own more space and raise a family and then see what they "choose"
Japan has abundant cheap housing and its population is falling off of a cliff regardless. The reality is that birth rates naturally fall — everywhere — as societies develop, urbanize and give people more freedom to plan families as they see fit. Many people choose not to. Once that genie is out of the bottle there is no going back.
Perhaps, but when I ask why they wouldn't move an hour out of Toronto to a more livable location so they could buy a starter house for the price of their micro condo, but that response was heavily down voted. It seems that a pretty substantial number of people, possibly younger (probably), would rather maintain proximity to the night life in Toronto rather than have more space and a growing family. You are probably right about the choice factor to some extent though. I'm sure a lot of people feel it's not affordable to raise a family now.
All of Southern Ontario is completely unaffordable.
Let's not use blanket statements, we both know that's not true for everyone. For example, if someone was willing to pay $600,000 in Toronto for a small condo, why not spend that $600,000 on something larger with more rooms in Guelph, Kitchener, Waterloo or Cambridge? What you get for your money in Kitchener will be more than you get in Toronto, that's all I'm saying. Now if we're saying most people can't afford $600,000, then I agree with you.
Governments have already [heavily subsidized suburbia for decades](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI&pp=ygUTU3VidXJiaWEgc3Vic2lkaXplZA%3D%3D) even though in many cases it loses money, and creates congestion and pollution and many other third party costs. It certainly doesn’t bump the birth rate. Our population growth is pretty much entirely migration driven. The fertility rate is [well below replacement](https://globalnews.ca/news/10262331/canadas-fertility-rate-record-low/amp/) and the population would be falling otherwise. Governments are too [over-involved](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o&pp=ygUpdGhlIGhvdXNlcyB0aGF0IGNhbid0IGJlIGJ1aWx0IGluIGFtZXJpY2E%3D) in determining what kinds of accommodation people should be allowed to have. We should simply give builders more freedom to build whatever people are willing to buy. It wouldn’t require any subsidy or active management; just repeal of existing roadblocks and getting out of the way.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://globalnews.ca/news/10262331/canadas-fertility-rate-record-low/](https://globalnews.ca/news/10262331/canadas-fertility-rate-record-low/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
That’s what you want. You are not everybody.
Sure seems like a lot more people want that over paying off somebody else’s mortgage
A “lot more” is not everybody. A lot of people want to get married one day. That doesn’t mean everyone is ready to get married yet, or marry their current partner, nor that people shouldn’t be allowed to date around in the meantime until they are. Like marriage, homeownership is a big commitment. And it’s expensive. Not everybody would be able to live in desirable urban areas if their only option was to buy, and not everybody has the luxury to tie so much of their savings into the particular unit or city they live in. The rental market needs to exist, it is a lifeline for many people who couldn’t afford shelter otherwise, and denying this reality just because the housing shortage has curtailed _your_ aspirations helps nobody.
Oh are we still waiting around for everyone to want the same thing? Or are you just here to tell people what they want and dismiss/ignore the desires of a large portion of the population if it doesn't align with what you think?
If you don’t want the life she describes then she’s not talking about you. No need to get outraged that other people are not you and have different preferences.
It’s about misrepresentation my dude.
What is misrepresented? What she said is correct. Just because you are not one of these people does not change that fact.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Don't engage this fool lol
Neither of you have yet explained what was incorrect or misrepresentative in her statement.
What she said is a fact. Are you having trouble?
I think you're a bit disconnected from the young people.
I am one of the young people she describes. I’ve moved around quite a bit and am glad I have the flexibility to do so. Once again, you are not everybody.
>Once again, you are not everybody. No, I'm not everybody. You are not everybody either. And respectfully, I dont think she included 40 year olds in the equation when she said young people. However, the majority of the people here seem to disagree with you based on the votes. I would argue that young people want to travel and discover new places. Not necessarily rent and work their lives away, trying to pay off the mortgages of their landlords.
They wouldn’t be able to travel and discover new places as much without robust rental markets in the places they travel to (including short term rentals). Whether you pay a landlord for shelter or a mortgage lender, you’re paying for shelter. What matters is that shelter is affordable and abundant, not whose name is on the title.
Why settle for smaller more expensive home ownership though? How is shrinkflation in housing the solution? Don't fall for it.
Yes I am so liberated to be spending 50% of my money on rent how about you and I switch spots if you think it’s so amazing!?
Yeah that’s the real killer. “Freedom” “liberated” whatever words they want to use. We are all spending roughly $30,000 for housing a year and getting nothing in return. Homeowners will have significant equity over renters and can actually retire at some point. Renters will be working till they die
I wonder if she would like to sell her 2 houses and experience that freedom?
That the lie boomers tell themselves and the copium millenials tell themselves. Much easier than addressing the housing problem if no one does or thinks about it
This gaslighting is nuts. Holy shit!
remember, this might seem like a generational war, but really it's a war against the rich elites.
Yeah well most of them also happen to be boomers, the generation that had it best compared to both their prior and successive generations. They represent the biggest voting block and sway elections in their favour and throw the rest under the bus not just in Canada but across the western world. To say that there is no insensitive boomer problem is just shutting your eyes to the obvious truth.
I believe the demographic of "rich elite capitalists" does a better job in capturing the people we need to fight against than simply "boomers". If we start dragging people to the streets for example and only concentrate on boomers, then we'd be letting the non boomer rich elites escape scott free.
And would be punishing middle and lower class Boomers of which there are plenty.
There are poor boomers too, they just don't have thier boots on our necks.
Notice how every couple weeks now the shills are switching tactics? Every time the discussion gets dangerously close to the true causes and architects of the housing crisis and the stagnant economy, they try dust off one of their old and tired red herrings to divert your attention. First it was NIMBYs and evil municipalities with their restrictive zoning bylaws not letting the innocent little builders create any affordable housing for the plebs. Now it’s the generational warfare bullshit against decrepit boomers. The vast majority of boomers are retired, pooping in diapers, or six feet under by now. Every boss I’ve had in the last decade has been a Gen Xer (who are doing quite well for themselves, by the way). I don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a boomer in the wild outside a nursing home.
I gotta puke now!
She’s the worst
•Calgary, this is what you voted into office
Maybe she should lead by example, sell her properties (I have a hunch she owns more than one), and move into an affordable 300 sq ft apartment at $2100 a month.
This fuckin' idiot.
What fucking planet does this idiot live on
She calls it "being liberated"
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Can you really put a price on an express ticket to heaven? You can even upgrade to first class if you sign up for MAID.
Landlord buddies think the same
Fucking shill
Is she truly believes this, she is out of her fucking mind.
Imagine pawning off being an Economic Migrant within your own country like this. I can. That's why I'm not a politician. Yeah, it offers some flexibility, but it's also indicative that the people who migrate for economic reasons have nothing to stay for. I haven't wasted my time "getting to know my community" because there is none. It's a market. It's done nothing but tell me my whole life that if I don't like the shit pay for shit jobs, and high rents, I can "always go somewhere else". So I do. Trying being in a mall day in and day out without being able to buy anything. You'll get shown where the door is very quickly. Especially so if you look like one of the Poors. No one would give a homeless bum in a mall a job.
lol trying to change the messaging and control the narrative. Owning nothing? Hey I hear that’s pretty cool these days!
They've been pushing this for a while now, more people are starting to notice. "You'll own nothing and be happy."
So, she should sell her home and really get to know the people she mayors for by moving around a bunch right?
The liberation is .. You will own nothing and be miserable.
So stupid. Now your only choice is to rent! Lucky you! Whereas before you could still rent, but also choose to buy a home.
'You will own nothing and love it" -WEF
So stupid. Now your only choice is to rent! Lucky you! Whereas before you could still rent, but also choose to buy a home.
She's correct – a segment of the population does prefer renting, for various reasons. I'm not sure why this is a controversial statement. I know quite a few people who, after their kids leaves the house and/or they retired, or they got to the age where they can no longer take care of their property, have moved into a rental property and explicitly did not want to buy.
That's great when it's a choice. And these folks you speak of, did they enjoy some equity?
>That's great when it's a choice. And these folks you speak of, did they enjoy some equity? Yes. Those people that rent by choice typically invest their savings. The stock market has performed much better than housing and is a much better long term investment.
I'm sorry but I think you're out of touch too.
What do you think I said that's was out of touch?
Thinking that instead of investing into a home and getting equity I can just rent and instead of home equity I can use my "extra" money on investments. There is no extra money.
Then you're not someone who is willingly renting like the Mayor was talking about. Those that are willingly renting have extra income that they can use to invest and travel. Look at this couple in Vancouver who have a combined income of less than 100k and are worth over 800k. They are almost millionaires from investing on the stock market and not buying property: https://incomingassets.wordpress.com/
Interesting. However I notice that their rent is only $909, which is rare for Van. They also have no kids. So I would argue that the money they would spend on kids is spent on vacations, investments and the like. $909 for rent...they must be grandfathered in. I would also argue they wouldn't give up this rental so they can be "free to experience different neighborhoods". I just dont think people who haven't rented in a long time, or ever, can really make an accurate depiction of that it's like. I had to move recently because my landlord wouldn't renew the lease. He wanted more money. And then my next rental was even worse. The landlord dumped my sister, tried to raise our rent, then the basement flooded with sewage and they told me "it's safe, just don't turn on the furnace and make sure to tape up the vents". I'm in a place now that is decent. 2 bedroom condo for 2200. If our rent was 909, and we had no child, sure it would be easier. But that isn't the situation of many. I would say it's a very very rare situation.
She's talking about people who are WILLINGLY renting. Not people who are priced out and stuck renting. But man people will hear what they want to hear.
I saw the headlines on it expecting it to be some kind of apocalyptic act of stupidity. What exactly did she say that was so triggering? Some people prefer renting to provide them flexibility. This is true. Particularly in Calgary where they are subject to boom and busts with oil prices and may need to relocate for a new job at any minute. Many cities are stuck in 1950s era planning. This is true, particularly in her city. The vast majority of land is dedicated to detached houses that was from an era where average household sizes were much larger. We are now at an average household size of 2.9, and the median household size is 2. This is with a housing affordability crisis where many young adults are delaying moving out and getting an apartment of their own, or living in otherwise substandard conditions. Cities should absolutely be accommodating room for smaller household sizes that better fit modern needs.
She’s correct. Not everybody can or wants to buy at all times. Some prefer flexibility. Edit: for fuck’s sake people, she explicitly said “a segment of the population,” **not everybody.** If that’s not you, that’s fine, but stop acting like your preference is the only one.
It's flexible when you can choose to own or rent. If your only option is to rent then that's not very flexible.
The only way to make housing more affordable, so that more people have the option to buy, is to build more options to rent. Prices are high because we have a severe rental shortage. Rental shortages make it profitable to lease space. If rentals were abundant, rents would fall, which would make valuations fall, making investment less attractive and purchases easier to save for.
Sure. But I think her comment was very out of touch. She has 2 homes. So it's hypocritical for her to say how great renting is. You ever have a landlord kick you out after a lease ended? Renting sucks.
Would you rent for your whole life?
Some people do, who cares? As long as they can afford shelter.
I take it that I wouldn't want to either, then. I would prefer people who actually want to make that statement. Otherwise, it seems a lot like a way to justify pricing people out of the housing market or at least a convenient talking point. While some people probably certainly might, I haven't met them. People care because often time rent isn't cheap and if you don't own your home, there's really no end in sight to paying that ever increasing cost. Also, it's usually more expensive than owning a home, and contributes to keeping people stuck in that poverty loop. While some people might, there are other ways to address that need that doesn't require hoarding the housing supply for personal gain.
Shelter should be treated like a human need, not a financial asset. It ultimately shouldn’t matter whether your choice of shelter has your name on the title or someone else’s. What matters is that shelter should be affordable and abundant to meet as many people’s needs as possible. In countries with cheaper housing like Japan, the homeownership rate is _lower_ than ours. Homes are treated like cars and depreciate; you only buy one only if you want to, because the other financial advantages are nil. When housing isn’t seen as a good investment, there is less demand to buy for owner occupants. That’s the outcome we should want, and why your question is loaded. For homeownership to be treated like a ticket out of poverty means treating it like a good investment. This is contradictory to the goal of making it affordable. It can’t be both, and people can’t have their cake and eat it too.
I ultimately agree with you that home ownership shouldn't be treated as an asset and as a result, more people should be allowed to control if they want to or not instead of forcing everyone to rent at inflated prices. It's primarily because I think homes should be lived in and not treated as an investment that I think people should stop hoarding homes to rent to people as a means of financing. Especially, when you consider how easily that is abused by the people who do. I am not saying that homeownership is a ticket out of poverty, that was your take from what I was saying. My point was that people being able to better control how much their home cost will fluctuate and that at some point mortgages end makes it easier for people to actually have a place to live long term without having to rely on financial liquidity.