Thanks for this, Justin. Policy aside, you mention what I think is one of the biggest problems - the gatekeepers are homeowners like me. A few examples from my Toronto suburb:
- An ad for a new condo building on Facebook attracts a bunch of negative comments. Some are about the per unit expense, but others are along the lines of "condos a…
Thanks for this, Justin. Policy aside, you mention what I think is one of the biggest problems - the gatekeepers are homeowners like me. A few examples from my Toronto suburb:
- An ad for a new condo building on Facebook attracts a bunch of negative comments. Some are about the per unit expense, but others are along the lines of "condos are ugly," "the roads can't handle more people" and "this place is getting too crowded." Even one next to the 401 with the best access to transit in the area, same thing.
- Similar comments about new subdivisions on the outskirts - "what about the farmland?" And of course, the roads. The municipality is accused of greed for allowing any of this.
- Even my local Facebook town heritage group (I'm old) is awash in comments about how it sucks that this former small town is now basically a city and how it's "too crowded." The best ones are complaining when a non-interesting / non-historic local building gets torn down and replaced by housing. Basically "that building was there when I was a kid. How dare they tear it down to house people."
- I read the Globe & Mail and am afflicted with an urge to look at the comment section. Every article on housing or zoning immediately turns into a b*tch-fest about immigration. Putting aside the obvious subtle and not so subtle stuff of what people say about immigration, there's also an underlying "we shouldn't have to make these changes to our cities to accommodate people who aren't me or who don't live in a single detached house like me."
- A specific example from my town. There's a proposal to replace a retail plaza with a multi-storey residental building in a predominantly single family detached area. It'll basically be the same footprint, but the neighbours are suddenly advocates for the daycare centre in the plaza and how tragic it would be to lose it. Straight up NIMBY.
It's constant and I think this is typical of every city. And it's infuriating when Poilievre talks about liberal city gatekeepers when his suburban voters basically say the same things. Red tape and barriers to housing are there because we want them there.
I work with a bunch of millenials. They have decent jobs and work hard, but a dispiriting number of them either have huge mortgages or worse, still have to live with their parents. It's really sad. Strictly a matter of timing and luck that I bought my house for a good price many years ago.
Turning into a bit of a rant, sorry. I'll add that development charges are a symptom of the bigger problem of funding municipal government in this country. They're supposed to help pay for the growth - developers build the streets and infrastructure in a subdivision, but not the higher capacity needed for roads or transit to get people to the subdivision's gates. Or additional water / sewage capacity. Or arenas, fire stations or libraries. Depending on how it's done (e.g. sprawl), I've read that adding housing can be a loss for municipalities in the long run. But of course, adding $50-100k to a house right out of the gate is a huge barrier to affordability. Stable funding for municipalities from other sources would be a big help.
I share your frustration with these little outgrowths of NIMBYism. I've definitely heard *a lot* of this over the years. "We need more affordable housing, not new development!" is a common one.
The bit of optimism that I'll add, though, is that we successfully created a cultural/political identity to serve as an answer to NIMBYism: YIMBYism/urbanism. I wrote about how the YIMBYs were finally creating a movement that people could identify with a year ago: https://www.bugeyedandshameless.com/p/the-wonderful-propaganda-of-more
I think the fact that both the Liberals and Conservatives are, basically, on the same page is a clear sign that the YIMBYs are winning and the NIMBYs losing. Hurrah!
Thanks for this, Justin. Policy aside, you mention what I think is one of the biggest problems - the gatekeepers are homeowners like me. A few examples from my Toronto suburb:
- An ad for a new condo building on Facebook attracts a bunch of negative comments. Some are about the per unit expense, but others are along the lines of "condos are ugly," "the roads can't handle more people" and "this place is getting too crowded." Even one next to the 401 with the best access to transit in the area, same thing.
- Similar comments about new subdivisions on the outskirts - "what about the farmland?" And of course, the roads. The municipality is accused of greed for allowing any of this.
- Even my local Facebook town heritage group (I'm old) is awash in comments about how it sucks that this former small town is now basically a city and how it's "too crowded." The best ones are complaining when a non-interesting / non-historic local building gets torn down and replaced by housing. Basically "that building was there when I was a kid. How dare they tear it down to house people."
- I read the Globe & Mail and am afflicted with an urge to look at the comment section. Every article on housing or zoning immediately turns into a b*tch-fest about immigration. Putting aside the obvious subtle and not so subtle stuff of what people say about immigration, there's also an underlying "we shouldn't have to make these changes to our cities to accommodate people who aren't me or who don't live in a single detached house like me."
- A specific example from my town. There's a proposal to replace a retail plaza with a multi-storey residental building in a predominantly single family detached area. It'll basically be the same footprint, but the neighbours are suddenly advocates for the daycare centre in the plaza and how tragic it would be to lose it. Straight up NIMBY.
It's constant and I think this is typical of every city. And it's infuriating when Poilievre talks about liberal city gatekeepers when his suburban voters basically say the same things. Red tape and barriers to housing are there because we want them there.
I work with a bunch of millenials. They have decent jobs and work hard, but a dispiriting number of them either have huge mortgages or worse, still have to live with their parents. It's really sad. Strictly a matter of timing and luck that I bought my house for a good price many years ago.
Turning into a bit of a rant, sorry. I'll add that development charges are a symptom of the bigger problem of funding municipal government in this country. They're supposed to help pay for the growth - developers build the streets and infrastructure in a subdivision, but not the higher capacity needed for roads or transit to get people to the subdivision's gates. Or additional water / sewage capacity. Or arenas, fire stations or libraries. Depending on how it's done (e.g. sprawl), I've read that adding housing can be a loss for municipalities in the long run. But of course, adding $50-100k to a house right out of the gate is a huge barrier to affordability. Stable funding for municipalities from other sources would be a big help.
I share your frustration with these little outgrowths of NIMBYism. I've definitely heard *a lot* of this over the years. "We need more affordable housing, not new development!" is a common one.
The bit of optimism that I'll add, though, is that we successfully created a cultural/political identity to serve as an answer to NIMBYism: YIMBYism/urbanism. I wrote about how the YIMBYs were finally creating a movement that people could identify with a year ago: https://www.bugeyedandshameless.com/p/the-wonderful-propaganda-of-more
I think the fact that both the Liberals and Conservatives are, basically, on the same page is a clear sign that the YIMBYs are winning and the NIMBYs losing. Hurrah!