296
submitted 10 months ago by girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

Two years after Valérie Plante's administration said a new housing bylaw would lead to the construction of 600 new social housing units per year, the city hasn't seen a single one.

The Bylaw for a Diverse Metropolis forces developers to include social, family and, in some places, affordable housing units to any new projects larger than 4,843 square feet.

If they don't, they must pay a fine or hand over land, buildings or individual units for the city to turn into affordable or social housing.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 105 points 10 months ago

Sounds to me like the fines need to be bigger.

[-] ladicius@lemmy.world 62 points 10 months ago

It's not a fine, it's a price.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 21 points 10 months ago

In that case the price needs to be uneconomical

[-] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 36 points 10 months ago

Just start seizing rentals already.

[-] jackoneill@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

Seriously. Everybody keeps their family home. Anybody with income earning property gets that turned over to the state to be converted into affordable state run family housing to give the market a reasonable floor and get more people able to own their own family home

[-] niisyth@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago

Probably start with the investment firms and mass landlords and we might never even need to get to individual landowners.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

1 to 3 units > can be owned by anyone

4 to 8 units > need to be registered as a company

9 units or more > owned by a non profit crown corporation

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ExLisper@linux.community 79 points 10 months ago

They will add this fine to the price of the apartments. It should be really simple: certain % of the units have to be social housing or you will not get building permit, period.

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 45 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yes, this is a prime example of why the neoliberal fascination with only acting on the market indirectly with tax/fee incentives instead of just making legal requirements or directly creating the goods and/or services the government wants is so foolish.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm sure there's a high enough fine that would make it more financially advantageous to build social housing, but there's also the problem of these developers be willing to take a hit on their very hefty profit margins if that means maintaining a "brand", so I'd wager policymakers underestimated the effective fine value by a factor of 10 at least.

[-] Nutbane@lemmy.ca 57 points 10 months ago

Quotes from Developer Nicola Padulo:

"If people can't afford it, they should not live in the city. The city is made for the privileged."

He says the city wants to "put its nose" in his business.

[-] yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 53 points 10 months ago

I'd love to see the privileged try to live in a city devoid of any service workers.

[-] Saneless@sh.itjust.works 20 points 10 months ago

My city is kinda like that. Stores have no checkouts open, fast food is bad and takes forever, and restaurants are never as good in other towns

They cry anytime affordable housing pops up yet don't understand why no one is around to stock the grocery store

[-] Kahlenar@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

That always cracks me up about Atlas shrugged. A colony of people who think they're too good to clean toilets, gonna go far.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 10 months ago

The right wing consistently shoots themselves in the feet and cry about how evil everyone else is for gently suggesting that maybe we at least switch to .22 rounds instead of buckshot

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

I love this point because they really don’t understand that if you put all the minimum wage employees 3 hours away from the city then they will need to drive 3 hours to get groceries

[-] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's not just out of touch rich assholes who think this. I have so many friends that love to say people who work at don't deserve to live in any city and should get a real job. The most ironic part is non of them know how to cook and rely on fast food for the majority of their meals.

People making under the median household income are the ones who keep the city functioning and they deserve to live in the city more than someone making 300k a year.

[-] nueonetwo@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Work at (insert service job) don't deserve...

Won't save my edit

[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

who the fuck says shit like that?

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 4 points 10 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 months ago

Well I certainly don’t want anyone in that city seeing my art then. My art is for the non-privileged thank you very much

[-] ggleblanc@kbin.social 36 points 10 months ago

From the article: "Those fees have so far amounted to a total of $24.5 million — not enough to develop a single social housing project, according to housing experts."

I don't know about construction costs in Canada, but in many cities in the United States, 24 million dollars could renovate at least 120 homes, assuming a cost of $200,000 per renovation. Renovation is more expensive than building new. You could easily build 240 modest homes on undeveloped land with 24 million dollars.

I've left them half a million for administrative costs.

[-] ExLisper@linux.community 19 points 10 months ago

Houses are not 'affordable housing' and definitely are not housing projects. Medium size apartment building can easily have 100 apartments. That's $240.000 per apartment which would be considered 'affordable' where I live. I'm guessing in Montreal it's more expensive so yeah, they don't even have money for 100 apartments which would be a small housing project.

[-] Afrazzle@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago

Montreal is a relatively big city, there's not much undeveloped land just sitting around there.

[-] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago

Due to the climate, houses need more isolation and heating that the typical US house. This leads to stricter regulations on house construction, which causes construction prices to rise even more...

Removing our reducing these regulations would simply allow promoters to botch the job without reducing price... So we're stuck with these prices but have houses that keep us warm in the winter.

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 3 points 10 months ago

It's Montreal, not Ice Station Zebra. $24m Canadian isn't enough to build warm housing of any size?

[-] blargerer@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

Of course you could trivially build a single house for that price (The solution to the housing crisis isn't lots of single family homes, its high density housing). But land is expensive and construction costs are high, 240 houses is waaaay overshooting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TemporaryBoyfriend@lemmy.ca 35 points 10 months ago

If it's less painful to pay the tax than to do the right thing, then the tax isn't high enough. Keep doubling it until it works, and in the meantime, use the tax revenue for the city to use as low-income housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago

They were stupid to give the developers an out. It's not hard to do some math and figure out what it would take to recoup the penalty in rent or sales compared to the much lower revenue stream of affordable housing.

Now the fine is just part of the cost of doing business. They'll either eat the fine, or more likely spread it out across whatever they were gonna charge for whatever they're building instead of the affordable housing.

You can't give greedy assholes an inch, or they'll take a mile and then bill you for it.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 30 points 10 months ago

Housing really is one of those aspects of the market that needs to be demonetized and handled by governments.

[-] starclaude@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

it is too late, it is already become rich people gold mine/golden egg that they wont let go no matter what because how stable the investment is, not to mention not taxable when empty

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago

I agree in principle, though I have a hard time seeing it going any other way than real estate developers getting even richer because now they just need to ~~bribe~~ lobby whatever politician is in charge of it for all the best deals

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 5 points 10 months ago

I mean nationalize the industry so no one makes money. Only government constructs housing. All real estate development firms are nationalized and taken over by government, all equipment seized, all construction workers now under employ of the government.

It might be the only real way to solve the problem.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Given a significant portion of politicians own investment and rental properties, I'd be nervous about how well they would actually handle owning all the housing supply. I think there are corruption issues and policies to protect the public needed before the government should own significant amounts of housing.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

AKA we need a new government and to annihilate the ruling class

It will be impossible to have any functional system until the dysfunctional humans are removed from play.

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

We already got that. Municipal governments have control of the housing market. It's called "zoning" and their opinion on housing is "no."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 15 points 10 months ago

Fines are just the cost of doing business. Fines should be a percentage of gross revenue and at a significant rate. Until then corporations will continue to pay the fine and laugh to the bank.

[-] Awkwardparticle@artemis.camp 15 points 10 months ago

Developers are the sleaziest slimmest sub-human peices of shit you will ever meet. I used to work in the industry, they are all the same. You could fine them half of the net revenue, and they would still pay the fine over doing anything to help society. It is so lucrative the fine would have to be absolutely enormous to make them not just pay the fine. The fine doesn't really matter anyways because everything is done in credit leveraged against previous projects.

[-] Dearche@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

Making for-profit private organizations do not-for-profit work will never work. They'll either find a way to get around it, or just not do it in the first place.

Won't be surprised if we suddenly see a host of new 4842 square feet projects, or maybe joint projects between multiple companies (all probably owned by the same guy) that split ownership so that nobody builds more than 4842 square feet on a single plot of land.

Or alternatively they'll just hand over useless land somewhere else in exchange for building that massive high value condo or something.

The only way to make affordable housing is to either rely on not-for-profit organizations, or the government to do it themselves.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Bylaw for a Diverse Metropolis forces developers to include social, family and, in some places, affordable housing units to any new projects larger than 4,843 square feet.

If they don't, they must pay a fine or hand over land, buildings or individual units for the city to turn into affordable or social housing.

According to data released by Ensemble Montréal, the city's official opposition, and reviewed by CBC News, there have been 150 new projects by private developers, creating a total of 7,100 housing units, since the bylaw came into effect in April 2021.

Benoit Dorais, vice-chair of Montreal's executive committee and the member responsible for housing, said the two-year review would be ready this fall, despite being promised this spring.

He says Montreal isn't a good city for investing in property: construction costs are high, there's too much regulation, and developers like him seek as much profit as possible.

AccèsLogis, the province's social housing fund, has only enough money to complete projects already in the works, and the Quebec government said last winter that it will be replaced with a program more attractive to private developers.


The original article contains 829 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
296 points (99.0% liked)

Canada

6926 readers
555 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


👒 Lifestylecoming soon


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Other


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here:

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No porn.
  4. No Ads / Spamming.


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS