Misalignment of policy

This is Joseph.

As a follow-up to my prior discussion on housing supply due to this article, I want to discuss a more delicate topic. Canada has an aggressive immigration target at the federal level. Immigration is good. You always want to the country that ambitious people move to and create new wealth in. It creates economic growth, supports old age pension plans, and helps bring in an important diversity of perspectives to allow for fast and effective growth. It is good.

But it needs to be properly supported. The conservative idea that the people who live in a neighborhood should have the ability to shape how it changes in character is a serious problem. It is not that any one place resisting change is a problem or that any specific rule is bad, it is a slow and cumulative effect. Mark has this example of a rule that will not great, really isn't making a big impact in this instance and the net effect of this specific tax policy is a good approximation of zero. 

Let me give an example. When I first visited Winnipeg I was shocked by the traffic. Everything was slow and congested -- key arteries were simply on the verge of being nonfunctional in the winter (adding ice to construction and congestion). Then the pandemic hit and driving, in the very same places, was just fine. Almost pleasant. The drop in traffic volume made for massively faster commutes and far better user experiences when doing basic tasks like parking. Then the traffic came back and the problems returned.

Which car was it that tips the system over? Which short sighted infrastructure decision was it? None of them.

Instead it was a collection of small decision, all justifiable, and all made with an intent to be sensitive to communities.

But there is a housing shortage and a large planned immigration coming. All of a sudden, you have the problem that 500,000 new Canadians (per year) need a place to live. That's a 1.3% annual population growth from immigration alone. Greater efficiency of existing housing could clearly absorb this for a year, or two years . . . But eventually, realistic plans for new housing have to exist. 

Unless the laws of geometry change, that involves more density in existing settlements, expanding the borders of settlements (sprawl), or creating new settlements. The first involves changing the character of at least some neighborhoods. The second involves accepting traffic jams. The third involves finding new sources of employment for these new places. All of them require an alignment of goals between the different levels of government.

Again, no single rule is bad and many are good. But there does need to be a plan that avoids increasing Canadian homelessness and that, to be blunt, requires homes.