I’m not sure that’s going to hold true with so many people being effectively inflated into poverty.

It’s going to get worse, a lot worse.

Strategically it doesn’t make sense. It’s better for him to run and lose intentionally, then step down after the loss.

That allows the people to get their hate out, and resets the playing field for the next election cycle when people realize the Conservatives haven’t done shit all to make life more affordable.

The core problems Trudeau is being blamed for aren’t really his fault. They’re global trends happening everywhere, including places with conservative governments.

The person who makes the original assertion needs to prove it, not the one that “asserts something logically stronger”

I can also just point to the fact that we’ve tried a bunch of these policies at a smaller scale, other places have tried a bunch of these policies at various scales, and as far as I know there isn’t a developed country that has declining home prices in cities, or that have managed to keep any of their bigger cities affordable.

No, but It’s still a bad thing to sell something that’s got a negative global effect. This measures that effect.

We sell a very large amount.

You’re using the “no true scotsman” defence right now. There is no other country comparable to the size of Canada in the world other than Russia, so does that mean we can only look at them for policy?

“I don’t know about this place so I’m not going to be able to even consider it’s policies” - That’s an ignorance argument.

Where’s your proof that any of the policies you’re suggesting will work? Do you have a single example of them working elsewhere?

This is just objectively false.

Japan didn’t have single family zoning, anyone could build dense housing anywhere residential in any of the major cities and they absolutely did, and yet it was never affordable. They have massively walkable cities, with great public transportation, and yet… not affordable unless you want to live in a 100 square foot closet that most north Americans couldn’t even fit through the door on.

A bunch of US cities have no zoning and are still not affordable.

Zoning is a slight bottleneck, but it’s not even close to the core problem.

I’m not saying don’t change the zoning, go ahead, but expecting things to become affordable in a few years is an absolute pipe dream.

BC just did it, and developers are just shit talking the policy saying it doesn’t change anything.

Their population hasn’t increased at all in the last 6 years, so how does a lack of land explain the cost increases of housing they’re seeing over that period?

You don’t improve walkability by spreading things out, you actually want the exact opposite.

Speculation is harder if there’s more of something available.

Social housing… I fail to see any connection to the amount of land in a country.

Again, what does having abundance of land have to do with policies like Walkability, Speculation, or Social housing?

Your comparison has no relevance. What does total available landmass have to do with anything related to the policies in question?

Because 99% of the Canada landmass is rural, and a city is a city.

Also, last time I checked, Montreal (the first city mentioned in the article) is an island.

surprising literally no one.

I’m championing land value taxes, but they won’t pass until ownership rates drop another 20-30 percent over the next 20-30 years.

Honestly, the best option for my children (who are still quite young) right now is for me to try to make it worse faster so that we can make such a radical change sooner.

Singapore.

None of those are solutions. They’re all Band-Aids. No matter how much you do any of those things you proposed, prices will continue to climb.

Not a single developed country has managed to rein in prices, no matter what tactics they’ve tried. There are places with all of those suggestions, and still… expensive housing.

Social housing can never be the true solution. The government doesn’t have enough money to make it have an impact. Even in cities in Europe that have 30-40% social housing, they are still having housing crisis situations where people can’t move, people wait years to affordable units, and private housing is still astronomically expensive.

There is a proper fix, but it destroys almost all of the equity in the existing housing market which means voters will never go for it. Far too many people still own houses and would lose hundreds of thousands or even millions.

So instead we get this pandering shit, and prices will continue to rise for the next few decades.

Objectively, no it isn’t.

The best thing an individual can do for the climate crisis is switch their home heating to an electric heat pump powered by renewable energy sources, in combination with better insulation and increasing the density of their housing (apartments require less heat/cooling per person than townhouses, which use less energy per person than detached houses)

Home heating/cooling is the single largest source of emissions for an individual (on average) in developed countries.

It sounds like you already eliminated or significantly reduced the personal car, which is the second highest average individual source.

The emissions from the food you eat is usually the third largest individual source.

100% Veganism globally would be expected to drop global emissions by about 17%, but even switching to just replacing 75% of red meat with other meats would still drop global emissions by 10%, and full vegetarianism (no meat) would drop it by 14%. Veganism is definitely the most reduction, but it’s not necessary at all if we just reduce the red meat and fix some of larger heating/cooling and transportation issues.

There are plenty of activities you could be doing that would have a hundreds of times more impact than going Vegan. You’re right that your individual consumption actions don’t really make a difference in the grand scheme, but that’s not true for other actions you could be taking though.

You could work in the field of birth or population control, every baby you prevent being born is likely worth more than your entire lifetime consumption.

You could become a research scientist and work on recycling, pollution reduction, carbon capture, etc.

You could work together with others to purchase and protect large swaths of land or water.

Even your existence and diet causes plenty of that. Yet you continue with your own life, and will likely even reproduce.

Plenty of good reasons to be vegan, but that ain’t one of them.

I really don’t mind eating Vegetarian meals, but Vegan is too far for all but a handful of meals.

The lack of dairy is my cutoff point.

That being said, I’m not a Vegetarian, I just make vegetarian meals regularly for my family because they enjoy them. I also make a lot of reduced meat meals, where it’s a flavour component rather than a significant nutritional component. Like throwing 30g of Bacon in a stew per serving, or halving ground beef with tofu on a rice bowl.