Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Valerie's avatar

Great to see! Who pays for this spending is such an important question. I also think there's going to be strong incentives for governments to ignore that someone is still paying for (long-term) revenue-neutral, or close to it, programs like BC builds program for middle-income housing. On the one hand, it's great to see a plan to keep some of this housing in the hands of non-profits long-term. On the other hand, you are talking about households who in previous generations would have owned. They are still locked out, and while there's absolutely a benefit to the security of non-market housing even if it starts out close to market rents, instead of getting to build equity like previous generations did renters are effectively paying for housing that in the long-run will be socially-valuable below market housing. This is a little disappointing in combination with cuts for housing funding.

I did see that they might eventually also have a program for owned housing, so no complaints about starting somewhere though!

Expand full comment

No posts