Canadian Politics Thread

[Warhippy]

People keep saying immigrants, foreigners and the government are the reason that housing is so expensive.

 

But they NEVER EVER speak of the financialization of our housing sector by corporations.

 

People owning 5+ homes, corporations and developers owning hundreds of homes.

 

All to make a profit.  Evicting tenants to raise rent without committing to upgrades or improvements just to pad their profit margins.

 

100 units to be sold.  ONE HUNDRED, throwing over 100 families out on the streets.  

 

It's genuinely insane how little this is truly spoken of when people decide to blame the government or immigration for our housing issues

 

The for sale sign in front of Heather Mulryan's Hamilton townhouse is a constant source of dread. 

The 41-year-old single mom of two boys has rented her home on Hamilton's Mountain for 14 years but said she received a surprise letter from her landlord, DiCenzo Management, in April. 

The letter, delivered to all tenants, said the landlord will be selling the 36 units on Anna Capri Drive — and Mulryan's was among the first on the market.

Mulryan also learned for the first time that the townhouses, built in 1981, are actually condominiums, she said. DiCenzo Management said it's therefore allowed to sell each unit to individual buyers, rather than the complex as a whole to a landlord.

"After 40 years we have decided that the time has come to proceed with individual dwelling sales on a unit-by-unit basis," said the letter signed by president Anthony DiCenzo. 

"Rest assured that, should your unit be sold, you will receive a minimum of 60-days notice to vacate your unit."

Two days later, the for sale sign appeared on her front lawn, Mulryan said. 

Her unit is currently listed online for $584,900.

"It's hard to cope thinking that any day I'm going to get a notice that somebody wants to buy my home and that's it, it's over for me," Mulryan said. "It's devastating."

Mulryan said she currently pays just over $1,000 a month for the three-bedroom, rent-controlled townhouse and knows that amount won't go far in the midst of today's affordable housing crisis. 

Even a one-bedroom apartment is out of her price range at $1,600 on average, according to rental listing site Zumper. 

Her neighbours, many of whom also have children, face similar financial constraints, Mulryan said. She's afraid not only her family but many of the other tenants will end up homeless. 

"The majority of us don't stay here because we love it," she said. "We stay here because it's all we can afford." 

About 100 units will be sold

DiCenzo Management, which is connected to local developer DiCenzo Homes, owns and rents out townhouses in two other surveys, on Upper Ottawa Street and Woodman Drive North. Both are also condominiums.

The landlord said in a statement to CBC Hamilton it intends to sell upwards of 100 units across the three surveys, with some starting prices below $500,000.

"In the process we hope these townhomes will make a valuable and much-needed contribution to the stock of affordable homes for sale," the statement said. 

"We hope that people who wouldn't otherwise be able to buy a house in the city will be able to afford these properties." 

The decision to sell comes as there's a "lack of demand for new home products," which DiCenzo Homes specializes in, the statement said.

So far, one unit, in the Anna Capri survey, has been sold, Anthony DiCenzo said in an email. 

Potentially risky for buyers: lawyer

Real estate lawyer Slonee Malhotra, based in Waterloo Region, says evicting tenants may not be as simple as DiCenzo Management suggests. 

If the landlord didn't inform tenants their units were condos when they signed the lease agreements, that could be a problem at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). 

While Mulryan hasn't received a formal eviction notice yet, the letter from the landlord states it intends to do so, which will prompt the process to go through the LTB.

Mulryan said she was never made aware her unit was actually a condo. And a neighbour's lease, signed two years ago and seen by CBC Hamilton, has a section where it's indicated the unit is not a condominium. 

"It could be that the landlord is entering into a lease in bad faith," Malhotra said. "The LTB looks at that and all surrounding circumstances."

In response, DiCenzo said property records indicating the townhouses are condos are publicly available and that DiCenzo Management has never been "secretive" or intentionally withheld information.

"There are almost 100 tenants within these units, some of whom have been living there for many years, if not decades," DiCenzo said. "As a result, it's impossible for us to say what conversations were had with each tenant at the time they signed their lease agreements."

There's also a requirement not noted in DiCenzo Management's letter in April, which is that tenants have the right of first refusal, Malhotra noted. That means when an offer is made on their unit, tenants must first be given the chance to buy it for the same price. 

There are other rules in the Residential Tenancies Act that the tenants could use to try to stop eviction at an LTB hearing, Malhotra said.  

Potential buyers would be taking a risk buying the units, she said. They may have to offer tenants a cash payment in exchange for possession (known as "cash for keys") or go through a lengthy hearing process at the LTB. 

DiCenzo said potential buyers are advised of "all the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act," and purchase agreements will be conditional on the eviction process being completed.

Buyers must also sign a declaration form stating they or their immediate family members intend to live there, he said.

Mulryan and several other tenants are prepared to stay in their units unless, after a hearing, the LTB orders them out, she said. 

"In the state of the housing situation right now, it really doesn't make any sense that they're allowed to just [evict] people," Mulryan said. "I just don't see how they can be allowed to do it on such a big scale."

[Bob Long]

19 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

People keep saying immigrants, foreigners and the government are the reason that housing is so expensive.

 

But they NEVER EVER speak of the financialization of our housing sector by corporations.

 

People owning 5+ homes, corporations and developers owning hundreds of homes.

 

All to make a profit.  Evicting tenants to raise rent without committing to upgrades or improvements just to pad their profit margins.

 

100 units to be sold.  ONE HUNDRED, throwing over 100 families out on the streets.  

 

It's genuinely insane how little this is truly spoken of when people decide to blame the government or immigration for our housing issues

 

The for sale sign in front of Heather Mulryan's Hamilton townhouse is a constant source of dread. 

The 41-year-old single mom of two boys has rented her home on Hamilton's Mountain for 14 years but said she received a surprise letter from her landlord, DiCenzo Management, in April. 

The letter, delivered to all tenants, said the landlord will be selling the 36 units on Anna Capri Drive — and Mulryan's was among the first on the market.

Mulryan also learned for the first time that the townhouses, built in 1981, are actually condominiums, she said. DiCenzo Management said it's therefore allowed to sell each unit to individual buyers, rather than the complex as a whole to a landlord.

"After 40 years we have decided that the time has come to proceed with individual dwelling sales on a unit-by-unit basis," said the letter signed by president Anthony DiCenzo. 

"Rest assured that, should your unit be sold, you will receive a minimum of 60-days notice to vacate your unit."

Two days later, the for sale sign appeared on her front lawn, Mulryan said. 

Her unit is currently listed online for $584,900.

"It's hard to cope thinking that any day I'm going to get a notice that somebody wants to buy my home and that's it, it's over for me," Mulryan said. "It's devastating."

Mulryan said she currently pays just over $1,000 a month for the three-bedroom, rent-controlled townhouse and knows that amount won't go far in the midst of today's affordable housing crisis. 

Even a one-bedroom apartment is out of her price range at $1,600 on average, according to rental listing site Zumper. 

Her neighbours, many of whom also have children, face similar financial constraints, Mulryan said. She's afraid not only her family but many of the other tenants will end up homeless. 

"The majority of us don't stay here because we love it," she said. "We stay here because it's all we can afford." 

About 100 units will be sold

DiCenzo Management, which is connected to local developer DiCenzo Homes, owns and rents out townhouses in two other surveys, on Upper Ottawa Street and Woodman Drive North. Both are also condominiums.

The landlord said in a statement to CBC Hamilton it intends to sell upwards of 100 units across the three surveys, with some starting prices below $500,000.

"In the process we hope these townhomes will make a valuable and much-needed contribution to the stock of affordable homes for sale," the statement said. 

"We hope that people who wouldn't otherwise be able to buy a house in the city will be able to afford these properties." 

The decision to sell comes as there's a "lack of demand for new home products," which DiCenzo Homes specializes in, the statement said.

So far, one unit, in the Anna Capri survey, has been sold, Anthony DiCenzo said in an email. 

Potentially risky for buyers: lawyer

Real estate lawyer Slonee Malhotra, based in Waterloo Region, says evicting tenants may not be as simple as DiCenzo Management suggests. 

If the landlord didn't inform tenants their units were condos when they signed the lease agreements, that could be a problem at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). 

While Mulryan hasn't received a formal eviction notice yet, the letter from the landlord states it intends to do so, which will prompt the process to go through the LTB.

Mulryan said she was never made aware her unit was actually a condo. And a neighbour's lease, signed two years ago and seen by CBC Hamilton, has a section where it's indicated the unit is not a condominium. 

"It could be that the landlord is entering into a lease in bad faith," Malhotra said. "The LTB looks at that and all surrounding circumstances."

In response, DiCenzo said property records indicating the townhouses are condos are publicly available and that DiCenzo Management has never been "secretive" or intentionally withheld information.

"There are almost 100 tenants within these units, some of whom have been living there for many years, if not decades," DiCenzo said. "As a result, it's impossible for us to say what conversations were had with each tenant at the time they signed their lease agreements."

There's also a requirement not noted in DiCenzo Management's letter in April, which is that tenants have the right of first refusal, Malhotra noted. That means when an offer is made on their unit, tenants must first be given the chance to buy it for the same price. 

There are other rules in the Residential Tenancies Act that the tenants could use to try to stop eviction at an LTB hearing, Malhotra said.  

Potential buyers would be taking a risk buying the units, she said. They may have to offer tenants a cash payment in exchange for possession (known as "cash for keys") or go through a lengthy hearing process at the LTB. 

DiCenzo said potential buyers are advised of "all the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act," and purchase agreements will be conditional on the eviction process being completed.

Buyers must also sign a declaration form stating they or their immediate family members intend to live there, he said.

Mulryan and several other tenants are prepared to stay in their units unless, after a hearing, the LTB orders them out, she said. 

"In the state of the housing situation right now, it really doesn't make any sense that they're allowed to just [evict] people," Mulryan said. "I just don't see how they can be allowed to do it on such a big scale."

 

you are onto something here, just did a quick search and it looks like at least 20% of homes are investor owned. 

 

I'm not sure of the breakdown of large vs small ownership groups tho e.g., people with 1 or 2 properties vs corporate entities with dozens or hundreds of units. 

[the destroyer of worlds]

Or how about all the tiny, shoebox 1 bed condos.  So much of that is a scam for "investors" to make money.  And many did.  Yet, those overpriced condos don't really fit what many people actually need or want.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

I know some of the members here who subscribe towards the "smaller government" right wing policies would feel happy about this, because in the end when people leave the public service, there's opportunity to trim those positions - but the public service is what government relies upon to execute their mandates and keep services running (including those that the "smaller government" right wing supporters depend upon, ironically enough).  So in the end, this news is not good news.  (Not going to bother copying/pasting the article, as it's a real pain to re-format it to look half-decent when quoted here.)

 

https://theconversation.com/unable-to-work-in-their-official-language-of-choice-some-public-servants-are-quitting-to-canadas-detriment-233164

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

you are onto something here, just did a quick search and it looks like at least 20% of homes are investor owned. 

 

I'm not sure of the breakdown of large vs small ownership groups tho e.g., people with 1 or 2 properties vs corporate entities with dozens or hundreds of units. 

It's what today's right and Pierre refuse to admit or accept.

 

That direct intervention in to our housing market to make it more affordable means one of two things.

 

MASSIVE subsidization of building.  meaning literally paying corporations to build homes they can then sell.  All while they enjoy the profits of it all.

 

And

 

Direct government intervention means literally taking assets away from corporations and businesses.  More than a fifth of our entire housing sector is outright owned by corporations and developers/property management groups while an estimated fifth more is owned by shell companies or subsidiaries.  While yet a significant percentage more are owned by single individuals who own 5 or more homes.

 

Stripping that away is effectively shattering our economy at worst, or outright informing business, investor and entrepreneurs that their asets can be taken away at any time which is....(come on now, starts with an S, an A or a C) ism's 

 

The amount of homes owned by these groups/entities is genuinely insane.  How the f**k can the government allow for a single developer, and not a large one; to own hundreds of homes.  Homes that were previously built and paid for by the Ontario government, sold to this company for a pittance of their current value only to be flipped as is at a massive mark up?

 

More so, how can people look at this, realize how much of this is happening in Canada and still think the government or immigrants are the actual problem?

[Bob Long]

31 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

It's what today's right and Pierre refuse to admit or accept.

 

That direct intervention in to our housing market to make it more affordable means one of two things.

 

MASSIVE subsidization of building.  meaning literally paying corporations to build homes they can then sell.  All while they enjoy the profits of it all.

 

And

 

Direct government intervention means literally taking assets away from corporations and businesses.  More than a fifth of our entire housing sector is outright owned by corporations and developers/property management groups while an estimated fifth more is owned by shell companies or subsidiaries.  While yet a significant percentage more are owned by single individuals who own 5 or more homes.

 

Stripping that away is effectively shattering our economy at worst, or outright informing business, investor and entrepreneurs that their asets can be taken away at any time which is....(come on now, starts with an S, an A or a C) ism's 

 

The amount of homes owned by these groups/entities is genuinely insane.  How the f**k can the government allow for a single developer, and not a large one; to own hundreds of homes.  Homes that were previously built and paid for by the Ontario government, sold to this company for a pittance of their current value only to be flipped as is at a massive mark up?

 

More so, how can people look at this, realize how much of this is happening in Canada and still think the government or immigrants are the actual problem?

 

All of this is why I've said for years leasehold buildings on crown land is the only viable path if we want to actually build new affordable homes in the range of hundreds of thousands of new units over the next few years.

 

It doesn't effect any current owner either.

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

3 hours ago, Bob Long said:

So this is pretty interesting - its US workplace views on DEI: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/

 

I guess its not surprising, right leaning white men like it the least  but its nowhere near a majority of them.

 

This gets into a lot of detail by particular groups, worth a look for this discussion. 

 

This was the best graphic fromm the article, thanks for sharing.

[RupertKBD]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

People keep saying immigrants, foreigners and the government are the reason that housing is so expensive.

 

But they NEVER EVER speak of the financialization of our housing sector by corporations.

 

People owning 5+ homes, corporations and developers owning hundreds of homes.

 

All to make a profit.  Evicting tenants to raise rent without committing to upgrades or improvements just to pad their profit margins.

 

100 units to be sold.  ONE HUNDRED, throwing over 100 families out on the streets.  

 

It's genuinely insane how little this is truly spoken of when people decide to blame the government or immigration for our housing issues

 

The for sale sign in front of Heather Mulryan's Hamilton townhouse is a constant source of dread. 

The 41-year-old single mom of two boys has rented her home on Hamilton's Mountain for 14 years but said she received a surprise letter from her landlord, DiCenzo Management, in April. 

The letter, delivered to all tenants, said the landlord will be selling the 36 units on Anna Capri Drive — and Mulryan's was among the first on the market.

Mulryan also learned for the first time that the townhouses, built in 1981, are actually condominiums, she said. DiCenzo Management said it's therefore allowed to sell each unit to individual buyers, rather than the complex as a whole to a landlord.

"After 40 years we have decided that the time has come to proceed with individual dwelling sales on a unit-by-unit basis," said the letter signed by president Anthony DiCenzo. 

"Rest assured that, should your unit be sold, you will receive a minimum of 60-days notice to vacate your unit."

Two days later, the for sale sign appeared on her front lawn, Mulryan said. 

Her unit is currently listed online for $584,900.

"It's hard to cope thinking that any day I'm going to get a notice that somebody wants to buy my home and that's it, it's over for me," Mulryan said. "It's devastating."

Mulryan said she currently pays just over $1,000 a month for the three-bedroom, rent-controlled townhouse and knows that amount won't go far in the midst of today's affordable housing crisis. 

Even a one-bedroom apartment is out of her price range at $1,600 on average, according to rental listing site Zumper. 

Her neighbours, many of whom also have children, face similar financial constraints, Mulryan said. She's afraid not only her family but many of the other tenants will end up homeless. 

"The majority of us don't stay here because we love it," she said. "We stay here because it's all we can afford." 

About 100 units will be sold

DiCenzo Management, which is connected to local developer DiCenzo Homes, owns and rents out townhouses in two other surveys, on Upper Ottawa Street and Woodman Drive North. Both are also condominiums.

The landlord said in a statement to CBC Hamilton it intends to sell upwards of 100 units across the three surveys, with some starting prices below $500,000.

"In the process we hope these townhomes will make a valuable and much-needed contribution to the stock of affordable homes for sale," the statement said. 

"We hope that people who wouldn't otherwise be able to buy a house in the city will be able to afford these properties." 

The decision to sell comes as there's a "lack of demand for new home products," which DiCenzo Homes specializes in, the statement said.

So far, one unit, in the Anna Capri survey, has been sold, Anthony DiCenzo said in an email. 

Potentially risky for buyers: lawyer

Real estate lawyer Slonee Malhotra, based in Waterloo Region, says evicting tenants may not be as simple as DiCenzo Management suggests. 

If the landlord didn't inform tenants their units were condos when they signed the lease agreements, that could be a problem at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). 

While Mulryan hasn't received a formal eviction notice yet, the letter from the landlord states it intends to do so, which will prompt the process to go through the LTB.

Mulryan said she was never made aware her unit was actually a condo. And a neighbour's lease, signed two years ago and seen by CBC Hamilton, has a section where it's indicated the unit is not a condominium. 

"It could be that the landlord is entering into a lease in bad faith," Malhotra said. "The LTB looks at that and all surrounding circumstances."

In response, DiCenzo said property records indicating the townhouses are condos are publicly available and that DiCenzo Management has never been "secretive" or intentionally withheld information.

"There are almost 100 tenants within these units, some of whom have been living there for many years, if not decades," DiCenzo said. "As a result, it's impossible for us to say what conversations were had with each tenant at the time they signed their lease agreements."

There's also a requirement not noted in DiCenzo Management's letter in April, which is that tenants have the right of first refusal, Malhotra noted. That means when an offer is made on their unit, tenants must first be given the chance to buy it for the same price. 

There are other rules in the Residential Tenancies Act that the tenants could use to try to stop eviction at an LTB hearing, Malhotra said.  

Potential buyers would be taking a risk buying the units, she said. They may have to offer tenants a cash payment in exchange for possession (known as "cash for keys") or go through a lengthy hearing process at the LTB. 

DiCenzo said potential buyers are advised of "all the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act," and purchase agreements will be conditional on the eviction process being completed.

Buyers must also sign a declaration form stating they or their immediate family members intend to live there, he said.

Mulryan and several other tenants are prepared to stay in their units unless, after a hearing, the LTB orders them out, she said. 

"In the state of the housing situation right now, it really doesn't make any sense that they're allowed to just [evict] people," Mulryan said. "I just don't see how they can be allowed to do it on such a big scale."

 

I know it's far easier said than done....and that the cries of "Socialism" would be long and loud, but I'd love to see the various levels of government get together and purchase those units. Make a lump sum offer for the entire development that lowers the individual cost per unit. (say, $400k per)

 

It probably wouldn't hurt to let the owners know that accepting such a deal might save them from a lot of additional red tape, were they to refuse the offer and attempt to sell each unit individually.

[Bob Long]

29 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

This was the best graphic fromm the article, thanks for sharing.

 

Yea it's a good one. This level of buy in on dei speaks volumes.

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

People keep saying immigrants, foreigners and the government are the reason that housing is so expensive.

 

But they NEVER EVER speak of the financialization of our housing sector by corporations.

 

People owning 5+ homes, corporations and developers owning hundreds of homes.

 

All to make a profit.  Evicting tenants to raise rent without committing to upgrades or improvements just to pad their profit margins.

 

100 units to be sold.  ONE HUNDRED, throwing over 100 families out on the streets.  

 

It's genuinely insane how little this is truly spoken of when people decide to blame the government or immigration for our housing issues

 

The for sale sign in front of Heather Mulryan's Hamilton townhouse is a constant source of dread. 

The 41-year-old single mom of two boys has rented her home on Hamilton's Mountain for 14 years but said she received a surprise letter from her landlord, DiCenzo Management, in April. 

The letter, delivered to all tenants, said the landlord will be selling the 36 units on Anna Capri Drive — and Mulryan's was among the first on the market.

Mulryan also learned for the first time that the townhouses, built in 1981, are actually condominiums, she said. DiCenzo Management said it's therefore allowed to sell each unit to individual buyers, rather than the complex as a whole to a landlord.

"After 40 years we have decided that the time has come to proceed with individual dwelling sales on a unit-by-unit basis," said the letter signed by president Anthony DiCenzo. 

"Rest assured that, should your unit be sold, you will receive a minimum of 60-days notice to vacate your unit."

Two days later, the for sale sign appeared on her front lawn, Mulryan said. 

Her unit is currently listed online for $584,900.

"It's hard to cope thinking that any day I'm going to get a notice that somebody wants to buy my home and that's it, it's over for me," Mulryan said. "It's devastating."

Mulryan said she currently pays just over $1,000 a month for the three-bedroom, rent-controlled townhouse and knows that amount won't go far in the midst of today's affordable housing crisis. 

Even a one-bedroom apartment is out of her price range at $1,600 on average, according to rental listing site Zumper. 

Her neighbours, many of whom also have children, face similar financial constraints, Mulryan said. She's afraid not only her family but many of the other tenants will end up homeless. 

"The majority of us don't stay here because we love it," she said. "We stay here because it's all we can afford." 

About 100 units will be sold

DiCenzo Management, which is connected to local developer DiCenzo Homes, owns and rents out townhouses in two other surveys, on Upper Ottawa Street and Woodman Drive North. Both are also condominiums.

The landlord said in a statement to CBC Hamilton it intends to sell upwards of 100 units across the three surveys, with some starting prices below $500,000.

"In the process we hope these townhomes will make a valuable and much-needed contribution to the stock of affordable homes for sale," the statement said. 

"We hope that people who wouldn't otherwise be able to buy a house in the city will be able to afford these properties." 

The decision to sell comes as there's a "lack of demand for new home products," which DiCenzo Homes specializes in, the statement said.

So far, one unit, in the Anna Capri survey, has been sold, Anthony DiCenzo said in an email. 

Potentially risky for buyers: lawyer

Real estate lawyer Slonee Malhotra, based in Waterloo Region, says evicting tenants may not be as simple as DiCenzo Management suggests. 

If the landlord didn't inform tenants their units were condos when they signed the lease agreements, that could be a problem at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB). 

While Mulryan hasn't received a formal eviction notice yet, the letter from the landlord states it intends to do so, which will prompt the process to go through the LTB.

Mulryan said she was never made aware her unit was actually a condo. And a neighbour's lease, signed two years ago and seen by CBC Hamilton, has a section where it's indicated the unit is not a condominium. 

"It could be that the landlord is entering into a lease in bad faith," Malhotra said. "The LTB looks at that and all surrounding circumstances."

In response, DiCenzo said property records indicating the townhouses are condos are publicly available and that DiCenzo Management has never been "secretive" or intentionally withheld information.

"There are almost 100 tenants within these units, some of whom have been living there for many years, if not decades," DiCenzo said. "As a result, it's impossible for us to say what conversations were had with each tenant at the time they signed their lease agreements."

There's also a requirement not noted in DiCenzo Management's letter in April, which is that tenants have the right of first refusal, Malhotra noted. That means when an offer is made on their unit, tenants must first be given the chance to buy it for the same price. 

There are other rules in the Residential Tenancies Act that the tenants could use to try to stop eviction at an LTB hearing, Malhotra said.  

Potential buyers would be taking a risk buying the units, she said. They may have to offer tenants a cash payment in exchange for possession (known as "cash for keys") or go through a lengthy hearing process at the LTB. 

DiCenzo said potential buyers are advised of "all the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act," and purchase agreements will be conditional on the eviction process being completed.

Buyers must also sign a declaration form stating they or their immediate family members intend to live there, he said.

Mulryan and several other tenants are prepared to stay in their units unless, after a hearing, the LTB orders them out, she said. 

"In the state of the housing situation right now, it really doesn't make any sense that they're allowed to just [evict] people," Mulryan said. "I just don't see how they can be allowed to do it on such a big scale."

DiCenzo was the developer of  that project. They kept it as a rental for 40+ years and are now selling it, adding 100 units to the supply of homes for sale. Lots of developers keep properties as rentals and sell them off later. Aquilini has done this many times. 
 

So this is not what you think it is in terms of some corporation buying condos, renting them out and then selling them off later. Corporations usually buy commercial properties or apartment buildings not stratified condos. 
 

Also, although this is terrible for the renters, it does add 100 units to the supply of homes for sale, which helps keep prices stable. 

Edited July 9 by Elias Pettersson

[Elias Pettersson]

7 hours ago, King Heffy said:

The knowledge minorities in the police force have of their respective communities is valuable.  It's also a hell of a lot easier for undercover work with ethnic gangs if you have officers who fit the profile.

I agree with this. Sometimes the most qualified aren’t actually the best ones for the job. You need to take other things into consideration such as ethnic background, language, etc. 

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

It's what today's right and Pierre refuse to admit or accept.

 

That direct intervention in to our housing market to make it more affordable means one of two things.

 

MASSIVE subsidization of building.  meaning literally paying corporations to build homes they can then sell.  All while they enjoy the profits of it all.

 

And

 

Direct government intervention means literally taking assets away from corporations and businesses.  More than a fifth of our entire housing sector is outright owned by corporations and developers/property management groups while an estimated fifth more is owned by shell companies or subsidiaries.  While yet a significant percentage more are owned by single individuals who own 5 or more homes.

 

Stripping that away is effectively shattering our economy at worst, or outright informing business, investor and entrepreneurs that their asets can be taken away at any time which is....(come on now, starts with an S, an A or a C) ism's 

 

The amount of homes owned by these groups/entities is genuinely insane.  How the f**k can the government allow for a single developer, and not a large one; to own hundreds of homes.  Homes that were previously built and paid for by the Ontario government, sold to this company for a pittance of their current value only to be flipped as is at a massive mark up?

 

More so, how can people look at this, realize how much of this is happening in Canada and still think the government or immigrants are the actual problem?

So who approves this Hippy?  Developers can only play by the rules. Who makes the rules?  When rich people avoid paying taxes, how are they able to do that? Again, who makes the rules?  
 

Going after people who are simply following the rules of the game to make as much money as possible for themselves doesn’t fix the problem. The problem lies with the people who created the rules of the game to begin with. 

Edited July 9 by Elias Pettersson

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

All of this is why I've said for years leasehold buildings on crown land is the only viable path if we want to actually build new affordable homes in the range of hundreds of thousands of new units over the next few years.

 

It doesn't effect any current owner either.

 

 

Not only crown land but also on Indigenous land. Aquilini has built thousands of properties in conjunction with Indigenous leaders that is basically leasehold property. Go look at what they did in Tsawwassen and are doing in Squamish to name two examples. 

[Optimist Prime]

The problem with leasehold land on reserve is the very people who would benefit from reduced purchase price of the house, without owning the land under it can't get banks to loan them money for a home on that kind of land, not without having the means and credit score to outright buy something with its own land in the first place. So the target audience of the sales pitch end up not being the buying audience of the final home: the ones that buy it then rent it out at good profit levels to the original target audience. 

[Bob Long]

17 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Not only crown land but also on Indigenous land. Aquilini has built thousands of properties in conjunction with Indigenous leaders that is basically leasehold property. Go look at what they did in Tsawwassen and are doing in Squamish to name two examples. 

 

It's a great model for folks who have never been in the market.

 

If we can just get our building codes to allow more prefab we'd be in business.

[Elias Pettersson]

35 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

The problem with leasehold land on reserve is the very people who would benefit from reduced purchase price of the house, without owning the land under it can't get banks to loan them money for a home on that kind of land, not without having the means and credit score to outright buy something with its own land in the first place. So the target audience of the sales pitch end up not being the buying audience of the final home: the ones that buy it then rent it out at good profit levels to the original target audience. 

 

CMHC covers these types of loans so the banks will lend on that land.  I know Vancity does...

 

Loans for On-Reserve First Nation Housing Projects (cmhc-schl.gc.ca)

[Optimist Prime]

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

CMHC covers these types of loans so the banks will lend on that land.  I know Vancity does...

 

Loans for On-Reserve First Nation Housing Projects (cmhc-schl.gc.ca)

in general yeah but the folks who need cheaper homes to purchase don't get favourable nods from the banks to buy houses on leased land, its too great a risk for the bank, my buddy JUST last month sold his condo in Abbotsford to buy one of these in the interior and even with a decent down payment the banks he talked to wouldn't do it for him, the deal fell apart. If they had more household income they could have bought a place that wasn't on leased reserve land...but they didn't so they tried to buy one of those and from what he told me the banks laughed him out of their offices.

CMHC covering something doesn't equal 'lower income buyers' getting the loans.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

3 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

in general yeah but the folks who need cheaper homes to purchase don't get favourable nods from the banks to buy houses on leased land, its too great a risk for the bank, my buddy JUST last month sold his condo in Abbotsford to buy one of these in the interior and even with a decent down payment the banks he talked to wouldn't do it for him, the deal fell apart. If they had more household income they could have bought a place that wasn't on leased reserve land...but they didn't so they tried to buy one of those and from he told me the banks laughed him out of their offices

 

 

That sucks.  The government needs to reign in these financial institutions who make billions of dollars a year and get them to help more of the average Canadian.  It's bullshit how many hoops you have to go through as a consumer in order to get financing for a property.  

Edited July 9 by Elias Pettersson

[Master Mind]

8 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

I think the concept of 'most qualified' gets used a lot, but it really doesn't have a lot of meaning for most jobs after basic competence is met. If a person can do the work, thats enough. People are just too different from each other to go much farther than that, imo. You can replace a muffler, or you can't. You can sell cosmetics, or you can't. You can work at ICBC, or you can't. Etc, etc.  For most jobs, it's kind of moot once you have the basic skills. 

 

Sure there's a few gigs like a fireman that can carry someone, or logger, etc. but those are the exceptions. 

 

 

thats certainly possible. I guess I'd ask you for groups like First Nations folks that really have undergone such awful discrimination, and still do, whats the better idea? We know that there will be bosses out there that just won't hire someone from a marginalized group. How do we deal with that fairly? 

 

I've run into this with consulting. A while back, a certain amount of federal work was set aside for some groups. Sure it made the remaining work a little more competitive for me to try to get, but I'm OK with it, if it helps to build up representation in the workforce. 

 

I see DEI as a temporary bridge to achieving a workforce that looks like our population. I understand your concerns about it for sure, but I haven't seen a better idea yet.

 

Yes for entry level jobs the skill gap is much smaller. We can say some gigs are exceptions, but I think it becomes a bigger issue when the practice bleeds into those fields. It's magnified the higher the skill is required, and/or when other people depend on you.

 

Generally speaking, I think the better idea is to hire based on merit. Granted, you'll never get bosses to do that fully. They'll of course offer a position to their kids for example even when they're less qualified. Someone is going to get the job and someone isn't -- ideally it's as merit-based as possible.

 

You may have been ok with it in your scenario, assuming you had enough savings to get by? Someone living paycheque to paycheque may not be ok with it.

 

As I've said previously, it's good to have more diversity in the workforce when it happens naturally. Forcefully applying it has drawbacks. My main sticking point was seeing that being against DEI considered solely a negative position. However as we've discussed, it isn't so cut and dry. It's lame seeing all-or-nothing mindsets on any political topic. There's almost always nuance.

[Elias Pettersson]

NATO is losing patience with one of its own members — and it’s not who you think - POLITICO

 

NATO is losing patience with one of its own members — and it’s not who you think

This week’s summit in Washington will get uncomfortable for Canada as allies press for more cash commitments.

 

Canada has been dodging its commitment to NATO for a decade. It may not be able to hold out for much longer.

 

Over the past several years, Ottawa has become an outlier among the 32-member alliance. It has failed to hit domestic military spending goals, has fallen short on benchmarks to fund new equipment and has no plans to get there.

 

It’s a stance that has frustrated allies far and wide — from the White House to the halls of Congress to capitals all over Europe.

 

And it’ll be on members’ minds when they gather this week in Washington for the NATO Summit, where they are expected to press Ottawa to come up with the cash while warning that things could get much worse if Donald Trump returns to the White House.

 

“What’s happening now that everyone is spending more, the fact that the Canadians aren’t even trying has become obvious,” said Max Bergmann, a former State Department arms control official.

 

It’s perhaps surprising that Canada is a laggard on spending even though it’s proven to be a strong ally in other arenas, from its purchase of U.S. weapons to its close coordination with the U.S. in defending North America to its deployment of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

But interviews with a half-dozen diplomats from NATO countries make clear that when it comes to defense spending, allies are fed up.

 

“They’re going to continue to be obstinate” because there is no real penalty for failing to meet the alliance goal, said one U.S. congressional staffer, who like others quoted in this story was granted anonymity to speak freely about a close ally. “Europeans are frustrated that they’re being criticized and Canada is not feeling the same pressure from Washington.”

 

One of the 12 founding members of NATO, Canada readily signed the 2014 pledge to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea in Ukraine. The alliance as a whole might have been slow to get there, but this year, 23 of the 32 NATO members will hit the mark as fears grow along the alliance’s eastern front over Putin’s plans.

 

Two of the holdouts are Canada and Belgium, both of which are not only failing to meet the 2 percent goal but also the requirement to spend 20 percent of that on new equipment.

 

Unlike Canada, however, Belgium says it’ll get there by 2035. When will Canada? They won’t say.

 

The Canadian case is particularly frustrating, the diplomats say, because of Ottawa’s seeming lack of urgency, despite significant problems with its aging military equipment and its strong economy. Its military is so underfunded that half of its equipment is considered “unavailable and unserviceable” according to a leaked internal report.

 

“The Canadian public doesn’t really see the need,” said Philippe Lagassé, Barton chair at Canada’s Carleton University. “If forced to choose between defense spending, social programs or reducing taxes, defense would always come last. So there’s no political gain to meeting the pledge.”

 

Canada’s stance prompted a bipartisan group of 23 U.S. senators to take the exceedingly rare step of sending a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May saying they were “concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada’s most recent projection indicated that it will not reach its 2 percent commitment this decade.”

 

And the situation could get much worse if Trump is elected.

 

At the NATO Summit, members are expected to press Ottawa to come up with the cash while warning that things could get much worse if Donald Trump returns to the White House.

 

While Trump targets Germany and France have pledged billions more in weapons buys and are upgrading their armed forces, years of underinvestment have left Canada’s military underequipped and unready. And if the former president comes back to the White House, he’ll notice.

 

“Allies who do not spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense seriously undermine their own credibility and common deterrence posture,” an adviser to one NATO defense ministry observed, noting that the failure of a small and dwindling coterie of nations to even outline a path to get there has serious political consequences in the United States and beyond.

[Boudrias]

7 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

NATO is losing patience with one of its own members — and it’s not who you think - POLITICO

 

NATO is losing patience with one of its own members — and it’s not who you think

This week’s summit in Washington will get uncomfortable for Canada as allies press for more cash commitments.

 

Canada has been dodging its commitment to NATO for a decade. It may not be able to hold out for much longer.

 

Over the past several years, Ottawa has become an outlier among the 32-member alliance. It has failed to hit domestic military spending goals, has fallen short on benchmarks to fund new equipment and has no plans to get there.

 

It’s a stance that has frustrated allies far and wide — from the White House to the halls of Congress to capitals all over Europe.

 

And it’ll be on members’ minds when they gather this week in Washington for the NATO Summit, where they are expected to press Ottawa to come up with the cash while warning that things could get much worse if Donald Trump returns to the White House.

 

“What’s happening now that everyone is spending more, the fact that the Canadians aren’t even trying has become obvious,” said Max Bergmann, a former State Department arms control official.

 

It’s perhaps surprising that Canada is a laggard on spending even though it’s proven to be a strong ally in other arenas, from its purchase of U.S. weapons to its close coordination with the U.S. in defending North America to its deployment of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

But interviews with a half-dozen diplomats from NATO countries make clear that when it comes to defense spending, allies are fed up.

 

“They’re going to continue to be obstinate” because there is no real penalty for failing to meet the alliance goal, said one U.S. congressional staffer, who like others quoted in this story was granted anonymity to speak freely about a close ally. “Europeans are frustrated that they’re being criticized and Canada is not feeling the same pressure from Washington.”

 

One of the 12 founding members of NATO, Canada readily signed the 2014 pledge to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea in Ukraine. The alliance as a whole might have been slow to get there, but this year, 23 of the 32 NATO members will hit the mark as fears grow along the alliance’s eastern front over Putin’s plans.

 

Two of the holdouts are Canada and Belgium, both of which are not only failing to meet the 2 percent goal but also the requirement to spend 20 percent of that on new equipment.

 

Unlike Canada, however, Belgium says it’ll get there by 2035. When will Canada? They won’t say.

 

The Canadian case is particularly frustrating, the diplomats say, because of Ottawa’s seeming lack of urgency, despite significant problems with its aging military equipment and its strong economy. Its military is so underfunded that half of its equipment is considered “unavailable and unserviceable” according to a leaked internal report.

 

“The Canadian public doesn’t really see the need,” said Philippe Lagassé, Barton chair at Canada’s Carleton University. “If forced to choose between defense spending, social programs or reducing taxes, defense would always come last. So there’s no political gain to meeting the pledge.”

 

Canada’s stance prompted a bipartisan group of 23 U.S. senators to take the exceedingly rare step of sending a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in May saying they were “concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada’s most recent projection indicated that it will not reach its 2 percent commitment this decade.”

 

And the situation could get much worse if Trump is elected.

 

At the NATO Summit, members are expected to press Ottawa to come up with the cash while warning that things could get much worse if Donald Trump returns to the White House.

 

While Trump targets Germany and France have pledged billions more in weapons buys and are upgrading their armed forces, years of underinvestment have left Canada’s military underequipped and unready. And if the former president comes back to the White House, he’ll notice.

 

“Allies who do not spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense seriously undermine their own credibility and common deterrence posture,” an adviser to one NATO defense ministry observed, noting that the failure of a small and dwindling coterie of nations to even outline a path to get there has serious political consequences in the United States and beyond.

Where will the money come from? What part of the budget will be cut to free up funds for military expenditure? Debt service cost federally are to exceed $45 billion per year and the provinces are not far behind. A substantial % of domestic mortgages are rolling over into higher rates. Small business are not like consumers as they often pay + 10% on their operating loans. These are often demand loans which can be called at any time. If GDP growth is less than 1% government doesn't get an increase in revenue that a 2-3% growth gives them. The era of adding debt is ending. I don't know where the money will come from. Eby seems to be giving the nod to LNG Canada Phase 2 which is a good thing IMHO. 

[Bob Long]

10 hours ago, Master Mind said:

 

Yes for entry level jobs the skill gap is much smaller. We can say some gigs are exceptions, but I think it becomes a bigger issue when the practice bleeds into those fields. It's magnified the higher the skill is required, and/or when other people depend on you.

 

Generally speaking, I think the better idea is to hire based on merit. Granted, you'll never get bosses to do that fully. They'll of course offer a position to their kids for example even when they're less qualified. Someone is going to get the job and someone isn't -- ideally it's as merit-based as possible.

 

You may have been ok with it in your scenario, assuming you had enough savings to get by? Someone living paycheque to paycheque may not be ok with it.

 

yes in my case I've haven't worked paycheque to paycheque for a very long time, its been all basically freelance project based, so I'm used to competing for work.

 

10 hours ago, Master Mind said:

As I've said previously, it's good to have more diversity in the workforce when it happens naturally. Forcefully applying it has drawbacks. My main sticking point was seeing that being against DEI considered solely a negative position. However as we've discussed, it isn't so cut and dry. It's lame seeing all-or-nothing mindsets on any political topic. There's almost always nuance.

 

its certainly not all or nothing, and has a lot of really complex issues attached to it, its one of those "wicked problems" that doesn't just have a one sentence answer.

 

If that PEW Research poll I posed above is accurate, thats good news imo since that shows a good amount of support for whats actually happening out there in the workplace. Media stories can be so full of crap these days it's good to have another source. 

[Satchmo]

Conservative MP attacked online after praising police for arrest in alleged homophobic crime

 Michelle Ferreri applauded arrest of man after Pride flag was torched

A 48-year-old man was arrested last week on two charges of criminal harassment after he was accused of stealing a Pride flag, burning it and — according to police — "screaming" anti-gay epithets.

The arrest demonstrates that "hate has no place in our community and our country and will not be tolerated," Ferreri said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.

One social media user, Shawn Quenneville, told Ferreri in an online post that "they're pedophiles" — an apparent reference to members of the LGBTQ community.

The decades-old claim that gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals has been repeatedly debunked.

"The liberal agenda with Bill C-16 has gone to far. They want to walk around naked in front of kids. And the cops let them. They want to go to schools in drag costumes and read story time. Thankfully I never had kids," Quenneville said.

Ferreri fired back at Quenneville, saying that gay people are "not pedophiles. Pedophiles are pedophiles, don't lump the radical woke with them."

"The movement supports them," Quenneville said in response, with his tweet drawing more than 100 "likes" on X.

Other social media responses to Ferreri called her "pathetic," a "fake Conservative," some accused her of being a "groomer" who holds "liberal, red tory values" and suggested police ignored other offences to go after this "woke, vote getting 'crime.'"

Another X user asked if Ferreri had ever considered "going to bat for the straight white people who voted you into office."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-mp-homophobic-hate-crime-1.7257454

[Bob Long]

12 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Conservative MP attacked online after praising police for arrest in alleged homophobic crime

 Michelle Ferreri applauded arrest of man after Pride flag was torched

A 48-year-old man was arrested last week on two charges of criminal harassment after he was accused of stealing a Pride flag, burning it and — according to police — "screaming" anti-gay epithets.

The arrest demonstrates that "hate has no place in our community and our country and will not be tolerated," Ferreri said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday.

One social media user, Shawn Quenneville, told Ferreri in an online post that "they're pedophiles" — an apparent reference to members of the LGBTQ community.

The decades-old claim that gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals has been repeatedly debunked.

"The liberal agenda with Bill C-16 has gone to far. They want to walk around naked in front of kids. And the cops let them. They want to go to schools in drag costumes and read story time. Thankfully I never had kids," Quenneville said.

Ferreri fired back at Quenneville, saying that gay people are "not pedophiles. Pedophiles are pedophiles, don't lump the radical woke with them."

"The movement supports them," Quenneville said in response, with his tweet drawing more than 100 "likes" on X.

Other social media responses to Ferreri called her "pathetic," a "fake Conservative," some accused her of being a "groomer" who holds "liberal, red tory values" and suggested police ignored other offences to go after this "woke, vote getting 'crime.'"

Another X user asked if Ferreri had ever considered "going to bat for the straight white people who voted you into office."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-mp-homophobic-hate-crime-1.7257454

 

Good for the MP to take a stand, its important.

 

So, how much of the online reaction to this is Russian and Chinese troll farms?  how much is actually real people in Canada? 

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/jonathan-pedneault-resigns-from-green-party-leaving-elizabeth-may-as-sole-leader/ar-BB1pFRHK?bncnt=BroadcastNews_BreakingNews&ocid=msedgdhp&FORM=BNC001&cvid=9963895acdf84f599c2b916a5bcfcc80&ei=7

"

OTTAWA — The man who was chosen by Green Party members to be co-leader with Elizabeth May says he's resigning.

Jonathan Pedneault says he is leaving for personal reasons and that it’s been an honour to serve beside May and the party’s other member of Parliament, Mike Morrice.

Pedneault, who does not have his own seat in Parliament, says he is proud to have worked on rebuilding the party and stabilizing its base.

May says she is "heartbroken" by his decision and she remains committed to the co-leadership model she sought after the 2021 federal election.

In the party's 2022 leadership race, May and Pedneault were chosen to lead the party together pending a change to the party's constitution, with Pedneault formally serving as a deputy leader since then.

May also confirmed today that she plans to run in her Vancouver Island riding in the next election.