• Rocket@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Where’s the logic in that?

    Houses are like cars. When you build an expensive house (or car) for someone who is rich, they leave a lower-cost used home (or car) behind, available to be filled by someone who is not so well off. The more ‘unaffordable’ homes you build, the more affordable homes come onto the market when the people leave their old home to move into the new home.

    But the fine means that developers have to limit themselves to only the most profitable houses, which means the still pretty profitable houses, but not attractive enough once the fine is paid, go by the wayside. And, therefore, fewer affordable homes come onto the market.

    Was council trying to make housing even less accessible?

      • Rocket@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Reality: rich people are entering the market (via immigration or coming of age) without a house or already have expensive houses.

        That is ultimately the same situation. If you don’t build them an ‘unaffordable’ house then they will outbid the poor for what otherwise would have been an affordable house, taking the affordable house away from someone of lesser means. These rich people are not going to go without a house.

        It remains that fining developers for building houses is not going to incentivize developers to build more houses. Council recognized that the only way to get more affordable housing on the market is to build new houses, but then disincentivized the activity for some reason. It is like they wanted to make housing less accessible.

          • Rocket@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you only increase supply for the rich

            Affordable housing only increases the supply for the rich. After all, if they are affordable, they are especially affordable for those who are rich. The only way to break out of that is to construct so many homes that the rich no longer want any more. Policies to scare developers away from building homes does not get you there.

        • Rocket@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Regan? What? Are you struggling to spell (Will) Rogers? It is he who coined ‘trickle down economics’ – as a joke – and it was in reference to Hoover. Regan enters the picture nowhere. He has no connection to trickle down, housing in Montreal, or anything to do with Canada at all.

          • Nik282000@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ronald Reagan’s economic policies, dubbed “Reaganomics” by opponents, included large tax cuts and were characterized as trickle-down economics.

            • Rocket@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Characterized by who? Trickle down economics isn’t an actual thing, just a joke that made fun of Hoover’s engineering background making him familiar with water tricking down, but not realizing that money ‘trickles up’.

          • LeafOnTheWind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Trickle down economics was not a joke to Reagan (publicly anyway). His plan called for massive tax cuts to the rich so their growth would “trickle down” to everyone else through more jobs from business expansion.

            A remarkably stupid idea that has only worked out for the rich…

    • Kichae@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, of course! If we just build luxury housing for the rich, the rich will just vacate their current luxury housing (for the rich), which will open it up for someone else! Who will be able to afford luxury housing (for the rich).

      This is the thinking of someone who’s never struggled to pay a bill in their life.

    • HLB217@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Houses are like cars. When you build an expensive house (or car) for someone who is rich, they leave a lower-cost used home (or car) behind, available to be filled by someone who is not so well off.

      Except they hang on to the lower cost used home and rent it out at extortionate prices to help pay for the expensive house.