When asked by reporters if he thinks home prices need to go down, he told reporters: “No, I think that we need to deliver more supply, make sure the market is stable.”
Robertson said his work as housing minister will focus on building up supply of affordable housing in Canada.
“We need to be delivering more affordable housing. The Government of Canada has not been building affordable housing since the ’90s and we’ve created a huge shortage across Canada,” he said.
He sure did say a lot more than “No” didn’t he Global News?
Keeping prices high is consistent with the policy the LPC proposed during the election.
The consolation prize of “more affordable housing” is unclear. Affordable means different things to different people, and I haven’t seen an explanation of who will get access to it.
As someone who is trying to figure out how to afford a home, this isn’t the answer I wanted to hear.
Keeping prices high is consistent with the policy the LPC proposed during the election.
Which policy exactly is consistent with keeping prices high?
The consolation prize of “more affordable housing” is unclear. Affordable means different things to different people, and I haven’t seen an explanation of who will get access to it.
Well if what we have currently is “unaffordable” I think it is safe to assume that “Affordable housing” means less than market.
Who do you believe will get access to it?
As someone who is trying to figure out how to afford a home, this isn’t the answer I wanted to hear.
As someone who has never had a hope of owning a home in their lifetime, you can get in line behind the people without a place to live and wait with the rest of the middle class.
Which policy exactly is consistent with keeping prices high?
The statements around increasing supply without discussing lowering prices.
In the election platform, increasing supply was discussed separately from affordable housing.
Well if what we have currently is “unaffordable” I think it is safe to assume that “Affordable housing” means less than market
From what I’ve seen, “affordable housing” typically refers to government owned and managed housing that is rented out below market cost. That’s consistent with the language used in the LPC election platform. Usually there is a waiting list to get it, and some sort of means test or qualification (like being homeless, etc) to get onto the list.
I’d distinguish that from making open market housing more affordable, either through rent caps, subsidies, changes to tax law, flooding the market, etc. That would lower the cost of housing on the open market.
I think that distinction is real because neither Carney nor the housing minister have said “we will make housing cheaper and more affordable”. Instead, they’re using Affordable Housing like a proper noun and talking around a very straightforward question.
Who do you believe will get access to it?
I don’t know. I haven’t seen an explanation of what the Liberals plan.
If spaces are very limited, I hope for a means test, prioritizing people on disability, or the homeless.
If spaces are kind of limited, I hope they limit it by income. Poorer people would get access first.
If it’s abundant (which hasn’t been promised), I hope that it would be open to all. But that seems really optimistic.
It’ll be defined at some point. We’ll see then.
As someone who has never had a hope of owning a home in their lifetime, you can get in line behind the people without a place to live and wait with the rest of the middle class.
You correctly pointed out that the headline takes the quote out of context so I parodied the headline by taking the quote even more out of context. It’s a joke!
Though, in OP’s defence, their sarcasm points out that the cabinet minister can’t think outside the box for finding solutions to help with the housing crisis.
I, myself, am disappointed because Carney said that the government should get back in the business for building affordable housing. I was hopeful he would hold on to that idea. However, it looks like they will keep relying on the greedy private real estate industry to keep building cheap inhumanly small deluxe condo units in huge buildings instead.
It’s centrally important and means that they are still in denial. Real prices must come down — as you say, due to basic principles of supply and demand — if the problem is going to be solved. But they cannot be allowed to come down, because that’s another financial crisis waiting to happen. And nobody wants more general inflation either, when we’ve so recently been reminded how much it sucks. It’s quite a dilemma.
It’s centrally important and means that they are still in denial. Real prices must come down — as you say, due to basic principles of supply and demand — if the problem is going to be solved. But they cannot be allowed to come down, because that’s another financial crisis waiting to happen. It’s quite a dilemma.
The current problem is that housing prices are too high and must come down. Getting the government back into the business of directly building affordable housing is one effective way to accomplish that. If whatever they do doesn’t bring prices down then they haven’t done enough, and the problem remains.
The Globe and Mail pointing out the obvious a year ago: “Cutting shelter costs while ensuring that homeowners’ property values remain high could be viewed as contradictory.”
He sure did say a lot more than “No” didn’t he Global News?
Keeping prices high is consistent with the policy the LPC proposed during the election.
The consolation prize of “more affordable housing” is unclear. Affordable means different things to different people, and I haven’t seen an explanation of who will get access to it.
As someone who is trying to figure out how to afford a home, this isn’t the answer I wanted to hear.
Which policy exactly is consistent with keeping prices high?
Well if what we have currently is “unaffordable” I think it is safe to assume that “Affordable housing” means less than market.
Who do you believe will get access to it?
As someone who has never had a hope of owning a home in their lifetime, you can get in line behind the people without a place to live and wait with the rest of the middle class.
The statements around increasing supply without discussing lowering prices.
In the election platform, increasing supply was discussed separately from affordable housing.
From what I’ve seen, “affordable housing” typically refers to government owned and managed housing that is rented out below market cost. That’s consistent with the language used in the LPC election platform. Usually there is a waiting list to get it, and some sort of means test or qualification (like being homeless, etc) to get onto the list.
I’d distinguish that from making open market housing more affordable, either through rent caps, subsidies, changes to tax law, flooding the market, etc. That would lower the cost of housing on the open market.
I think that distinction is real because neither Carney nor the housing minister have said “we will make housing cheaper and more affordable”. Instead, they’re using Affordable Housing like a proper noun and talking around a very straightforward question.
I don’t know. I haven’t seen an explanation of what the Liberals plan.
If spaces are very limited, I hope for a means test, prioritizing people on disability, or the homeless.
If spaces are kind of limited, I hope they limit it by income. Poorer people would get access first.
If it’s abundant (which hasn’t been promised), I hope that it would be open to all. But that seems really optimistic.
It’ll be defined at some point. We’ll see then.
I’m waiting right along with you.
Should home prices go down? “No…we need to…make sure the market is…huge” says Canada’s new housing minister
What is your plan to fix the housing crisis that does not include building houses?
You correctly pointed out that the headline takes the quote out of context so I parodied the headline by taking the quote even more out of context. It’s a joke!
Jokes are usually humourous. :P
lol ouch!
Though, in OP’s defence, their sarcasm points out that the cabinet minister can’t think outside the box for finding solutions to help with the housing crisis.
I, myself, am disappointed because Carney said that the government should get back in the business for building affordable housing. I was hopeful he would hold on to that idea. However, it looks like they will keep relying on the greedy private real estate industry to keep building cheap inhumanly small deluxe condo units in huge buildings instead.
He used more words, but “no” is the important one there.
It is only important if one wishes to ignore the basic economic principle of “Supply and demand”. More supply, less demand, lower price.
It’s centrally important and means that they are still in denial. Real prices must come down — as you say, due to basic principles of supply and demand — if the problem is going to be solved. But they cannot be allowed to come down, because that’s another financial crisis waiting to happen. And nobody wants more general inflation either, when we’ve so recently been reminded how much it sucks. It’s quite a dilemma.
Can you elaborate?
The current problem is that housing prices are too high and must come down. Getting the government back into the business of directly building affordable housing is one effective way to accomplish that. If whatever they do doesn’t bring prices down then they haven’t done enough, and the problem remains.
Is this not the plan?
To quote the minister, “no.”
The Globe and Mail pointing out the obvious a year ago: “Cutting shelter costs while ensuring that homeowners’ property values remain high could be viewed as contradictory.”
To properly quote the Minister.