201–207 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In 2022, Canada’s population grew by an unprecedented 1.1 million people, most of them permanent and temporary immigrants." From StatCan - The Canadian Census. "alt-right" my ass. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/3861-40-million-strong-... Your CBC news link 404's.
[flagged]
I'm not going to ban your account right now because it looks like you've also posted other things using HN in the intended spirit, but I saw quite a bit of this other kind of thing in your history too and that's definitely not ok.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would work better if people were forbidden from living in homes they also owned, or at least taxed extra for doing so.
Could you, please, give more details. This seems very unintuitive, to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The large companies just don’t account for very many homes. Once you control out for homes under construction, that just isn’t the issue. The issue is that we dramatically restrict how much housing anyone can build, specifically, upward.
The city I live in isn't restricting it. Condos are going up as fast as they can be built and the parks are still filling up with tent cities and rents are still doubling. Something just doesn't add up. I'm in Canada (don't want to give exact city, sorry).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Within capitalism, we could have some kind of system to provide equity to tenants. They are effectively already paying a mortgage (just not their own). Outside of capitalism? Many more possibilities.
> we could have some kind of system to provide equity to tenants This sounds interesting. Is this hypothetical? How does that equity get transferred/slowly leaked to the next tenant? How does one liquify it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that "funny"? The continued proliferation of cookie-cutter detached single family homes with useless lawns is big part of several problems we currently face as a society. Incentivizing denser housing is a good idea.
It is funny because people always pitch it in threads about investors. Investors are who will build more housing if zoning laws are changed. An LVT basically encourages investment in the land. I am in favor of this but it doesn't stick it to who everyone is complaining about here, it benefits them.