So… okay. I’m not super well versed in the logistics of city budgets. But if I understand this, his plan is essentially to set a housing increase target. If a municipality fails to meet it, their federal funding (generally 30-40% of the cost infrastructure and development projects), will be reduced by the some amount. And vice versa (although the implementation of that is less clear).
So… how does this get anything done, is the question? Housing is a complex issue that requires action accross levels of government, but this would seem to shift the onus towards the municipal level, and then handicap said municipality’s ability to meet demand if they do not immediately succeed. I feel like the only scenario in which this doesn’t result in widespread austerity with minimal results is one where municipalities have been hoarding money they could’ve spent on housing. Which, I mean maybe? Municipalities definitely can and should be doing more to grow housing, but I’m skeptical that this is the case. (And even if it is, it seems to harm struggling and rural communities while only really benefitting the most well-off.)
I will admit bias though, as I am also skeptical that this, if implemented, would be anything but an excuse to cut funding.
Housing is a complex issue that requires action accross levels of government, but this would seem to shift the onus towards the municipal level, and then handicap said municipality’s ability to meet demand if they do not immediately succeed. […] if implemented, would be anything but an excuse to cut funding.
Agreed. It just seems to be setting up obstacles rather than helping. Currently, builders prefer to build condos or office towers, rather than rental housing. I don’t see these proposals as doing anything other than further frustrating the construction of rental housing.
So… okay. I’m not super well versed in the logistics of city budgets. But if I understand this, his plan is essentially to set a housing increase target. If a municipality fails to meet it, their federal funding (generally 30-40% of the cost infrastructure and development projects), will be reduced by the some amount. And vice versa (although the implementation of that is less clear).
So… how does this get anything done, is the question? Housing is a complex issue that requires action accross levels of government, but this would seem to shift the onus towards the municipal level, and then handicap said municipality’s ability to meet demand if they do not immediately succeed. I feel like the only scenario in which this doesn’t result in widespread austerity with minimal results is one where municipalities have been hoarding money they could’ve spent on housing. Which, I mean maybe? Municipalities definitely can and should be doing more to grow housing, but I’m skeptical that this is the case. (And even if it is, it seems to harm struggling and rural communities while only really benefitting the most well-off.)
I will admit bias though, as I am also skeptical that this, if implemented, would be anything but an excuse to cut funding.
Agreed. It just seems to be setting up obstacles rather than helping. Currently, builders prefer to build condos or office towers, rather than rental housing. I don’t see these proposals as doing anything other than further frustrating the construction of rental housing.