Affordable housing a personal election issue for tenants facing eviction

[White_Unifier]

Affordable housing a personal election issue for tenants facing eviction | CBC News

Rent controls aggravated the problem and removing rent controls is what will solve the problem in the long term by encouraging builders to build more homes to address the shortage (though I grant it could cause more harm in the short term and every party is looking to the short term). Way to hurt the poor, silly twits!

These are politicians running to run the province. I question the competence of any politician who doesn't understand the basic concepts of price ceilings, equilibrium price, and how price ceilings affect the market.

Not one party leader is more clued-in than the other it seems. And what about the voters? Don't they have a basic understanding of economics either? Price ceilings have been tried in NYC, Paris France, and elsewhere, and again and again they've caused more harm than good. Can't they learn from history?

If you want to produce more affordable housing, remove parking requirements, allow for higher-density mixed development, allow lot splitting and building smaller accommodation, and build more talking and cycling paths. Deregulate and let the market adapt.

Idiots! Idiots! Idiots! Why not impose price ceilings on apples too while we're at it. It worked wonders in the former USSR if I recall.

 

[Hoid]

There is no way to encourage a builder to built less expensive homes short of paying him to do so

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Don't forget to outlaw sex.

 

[White_Unifier]

There is no way to encourage a builder to built less expensive homes short of paying him to do so

Another one who doesn't understand price ceilings and their effect on the market. If you remove rent controls, then you give a landlord an incentive to pay a builder to build more properties because he can actually make more profit.

Now I'll bring up another complicated concept: supply and demand and its impact on the equilibrium price. If builders build more homes, then supply expands to meet the demand. You see how that works?

Don't forget to outlaw sex.

How's that supposed to solve anything? I would agree with banning fornication though. It would reduce the risk of becoming a single mother which can be quite expensive.

Banning fornication could save the taxpayer money in STI prevention.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

How's that supposed to solve anything?

It won't. But you're hellbent on it anyhow.

 

[White_Unifier]

It won't. But you're hellbent on it anyhow.

On outlawing sex? I've been consistent on the matter, so I challenge you to quote me.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

On outlawing sex? I've been consistent on the matter, so I challenge you to quote me.

Yep, fornication was a criminal offense in most states.

Right around the same time as Jim Crow and lower pay for the same work for women.

We grew up some.

WU's Dream: Judge Robin Camp dismisses charges against accused rapist and orders victim prosecuted for fornication.

 

[White_Unifier]

Yep, fornication was a criminal offense in most states.

Right around the same time as Jim Crow and lower pay for the same work for women.

Non sequitur.

WU's Dream: Judge Robin Camp dismisses charges against accused rapist and orders victim prosecuted for fornication.

By definition, fornication requires at least consent at least on the part of the accused. If the woman did not consent to the sexual act, then while the man could be found guilty of fornication (assuming it's proved beyond reasonable doubt that he at least consented to the act), she could not be found guilty of fornication without proof beyond reasonable doubt that she consented too. So if there is reasonable doubt about her consent, how could she be found guilty of fornication?

There are solid economic and other arguments for making fornication a misdemeanor punishable by a heavy fine that doubles for each repetition of the offence. For one thing, it would help to curb the spread of STIs, something taxpayers must pay for.

Money that could go towards helping the poor.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

By definition, fornication requires at least consent at least on the part of the accused.

What definition is that? The definition I'm familiar with is "sex outside of marriage."

Got a reference to where it has to be consensual?

 

[White_Unifier]

What definition is that? The definition I'm familiar with is "sex outside of marriage."

Got a reference to where it has to be consensual?

Seriously? Certainly if we were to criminalize fornication, we'd want that as a minimum legal definition regardless of what the dictionary says, no?

Generally, speaking, a person is responsible for actions they commit, not actions done to them.

Now back to price ceilings, don't politicians understand that that deters construction of new rental units?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Seriously? Certainly if we were to criminalize fornication, we'd want that as a minimum legal definition regardless of what the dictionary says, no?

Generally, speaking, a person is responsible for actions they commit, not actions done to them.

Well, let's see. Victim claims rape. Rape is sex without consent. Judge Camp acquits accused. Ergo, there was sex but no rape. Ergo, sex was consensual. Ergo fornication.

That, my little turnip, is thinking like a prosecutor. Accused is shielded by double-jeopardy rule, but accuser has not been charged with anything, so is fair game.

That's just one shining example of pure Canadian justice that could result from your ridiculous idea.

 

[White_Unifier]

Well, let's see. Victim claims rape. Rape is sex without consent. Judge Camp acquits accused. Ergo, there was sex but no rape. Ergo, sex was consensual. Ergo fornication.

That, my little turnip, is thinking like a prosecutor. Accused is shielded by double-jeopardy rule, but accuser has not been charged with anything, so is fair game.

That's just one shining example of pure Canadian justice that could result from your ridiculous idea.

Ah, but you forgot guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt about the man raping the woman, does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt that she consented; so in principle, they could both be acquitted. Let's look at the following scenario:

Woman accuses man of raping her. He denies the allegation and takes it one step further by accusing her of having sexually assaulted him. In other words, they are each claiming to not being a willing participant.

If a sexual act is proved beyond reasonable doubt, we must conclude that at least one of the two at least consented and maybe even coerced the other. But unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt who was a willing participant, a judge might have no choice but to acquit both.

However, the fact that the prosecutor would no longer need to prove coercion would make it at least somewhat easier to ensure a finding of guilt for at least something along with a heavy fine to serve as a deterrent. It would still be difficult to prove, but easier than sexual assault.

 

[Hoid]

Another one who doesn't understand price ceilings and their effect on the market. If you remove rent controls, then you give a landlord an incentive to pay a builder to build more properties because he can actually make more profit.

Now I'll bring up another complicated concept: supply and demand and its impact on the equilibrium price. If builders build more homes, then supply expands to meet the demand. You see how that works?



How's that supposed to solve anything? I would agree with banning fornication though. It would reduce the risk of becoming a single mother which can be quite expensive.

Banning fornication could save the taxpayer money in STI prevention.

There isn't a lot to know beyond more is better.

Builders build according to what the market will bear.

They, for some reason, want to make more money as opposed to less

 

[White_Unifier]

Let's take another example. Let's say there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that sex occurred and that A was a willing participant but there is reasonable doubt about whether B was a willing participant, then even in the absence of proof of A raping B, A could still be charged with fornication due to proof beyond reasonable doubt of his being a willing participant but B would be acquitted due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt of B being a wiling participant.

There isn't a lot to know beyond more is better.

Builders build according to what the market will bear.

They, for some reason, want to make more money as opposed to less

Price ceilings take money (or at least legal money) out of the market.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Ah, but you forgot guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt about the man raping the woman, does not mean proof beyond reasonable doubt that she consented; so in principle, they could both be acquitted. Let's look at the following scenario:

Woman accuses man of raping her. He denies the allegation and takes it one step further by accusing her of having sexually assaulted him. In other words, they are each claiming to not being a willing participant.

If a sexual act is proved beyond reasonable doubt, we must conclude that at least one of the two at least consented and maybe even coerced the other. But unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt who was a willing participant, a judge might have no choice but to acquit both.

However, the fact that the prosecutor would no longer need to prove coercion would make it at least somewhat easier to ensure a finding of guilt for at least something along with a heavy fine to serve as a deterrent. It would still be difficult to prove, but easier than sexual assault.

Sorry, WU, I don't have time this evening to go into how many ways, legally, theoretically, and practically that's wrong. Maybe later.

 

[White_Unifier]

Sorry, WU, I don't have time this evening to go into how many ways, legally, theoretically, and practically that's wrong. Maybe later.

You haven't even addressed the OP yet.

 

[Hoid]

Let's take another example. Let's say there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that sex occurred and that A was a willing participant but there is reasonable doubt about whether B was a willing participant, then even in the absence of proof of A raping B, A could still be charged with fornication due to proof beyond reasonable doubt of his being a willing participant but B would be acquitted due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt of B being a wiling participant.



Price ceilings take money (or at least legal money) out of the market.

Again you over complicate a simple premise: what gets built is what makes the most money.

It is entirely practical

 

[White_Unifier]

Price ceilings cut into landlords' profits. So landlords have less incentive to buy more rental properties to rent to tenants. As a result, builders lose business. Builders build less, resulting in less supply to feed the demand. As demand grows and supply stagnates, it won't take long before tenants start to offer extra money under the table to get a place. And then it will probably be even more expensive than without price ceilings since without price ceilings, more rental properties would have been available.

Now in theory, once a landlord learns that his tenants are willing to pay more under the table, he might then be willing to get more properties built... but in part for a underground rental market. Then we're promoting a black market.