National (affordable) Housing Strategy
- Thread starter Hoid
- Start date
Another solution: build more pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and allow more mixed development to allow people to commute to work on foot or by bicycle so as to eliminate the need for the poor to buy a car.
I wonder how the folks in Attiwapiskat or the 10s of thousands of homeless in Canada feel about this wondrous initiative.
Some are very happy to learn they can afford 3 more crack rocks a month. Invest in crack now. The demand is about to rise.
The money is not due to be doled out until 2021, with any luck the current regime will be history and a more conservative approach will be taken that does not include specious statements about housing being a right.
The "10s of thousands of homeless" aren't the federal governments problem. As has already been pointed out on other threads, the City of Medicine Hat has eliminated homelessness.
They make this seem like a new, original concept. The Federally owned CMHC did exactly the same thing in the decade and some after WWII to house returning veterans and their young families. They left developments all across the country that are still in use.
We have no homeless in Kapuskasing.....
We even import some from Attawapiskat every summer and house them...
Some have even decided to stay year round.....
We even import some from Attawapiskat every summer and house them...
Some have even decided to stay year round.....
Robot watching, underwater basket weaving, and sowing the a$$holes onto teddy bears...
i see... So the extension of your logic is that the homelessness in Syria or any other foreign nation magically IS the responsibility of the Feds
Thanks for coming out, but there is no consolation prize small enough to compensate for your input
Keeping construction costs under control. Can't recall specifics but a few years back Vancouver had some prices for building low income housing that the sq.ft. Price to build was about double what it costs to build a decent single family house. And the city already owned the land.
The way I see it, the rich have a responsibility towards the poor, but the poor do not have rights.
It might seem contradictory at first read, but there is a subtle difference. If the rich have a responsibility to help the poor, but the poor don't have rights, that means that the rich have the responsibility to help the poor to the degree that their resources will allow; but the poor will have to make do with those resources.
If the poor have the right to a minimum of resources, then the state must borrow to make up the difference, and that cannot be sustained over time. If the rich have obligations but the poor have no rights, then that forces the state to help the poor in the best manner possible with the resources at hand, which may require tough love policies on occasion.
Any specific solutions for keeping construction costs under control?
It might seem contradictory at first read, but there is a subtle difference. If the rich have a responsibility to help the poor, but the poor don't have rights, that means that the rich have the responsibility to help the poor to the degree that their resources will allow; but the poor will have to make do with those resources.
If the poor have the right to a minimum of resources, then the state must borrow to make up the difference, and that cannot be sustained over time. If the rich have obligations but the poor have no rights, then that forces the state to help the poor in the best manner possible with the resources at hand, which may require tough love policies on occasion.
Any specific solutions for keeping construction costs under control?