hucksplat
Member
APC, the anti-poverty coalition, being those whom I have a beef with.
Now given that the federal and provincial governments have for long
insisted that the availability of long-term housing is a key concern,
it does NOT say that it is the role of government to provide subsidized
rental properties for homeless derelicts, NOR does government contend
that affordable housing should be in downtown core sectors of highly
desirable real estate value.
The PRIVILEGE of affordable housing is an objective that the
federal government has pursued through changes to the national housing
act and through mortgage-regulation engineering. However, this
privilege is extended to citizens who are contributing members of
society (and with incomes that can support such mortgages) but whom are
pressed beyond the ownership of homes because of burgeoning demand and
volatile financial factors.
But what right do sub-poverty level individuals have to claiming
the most desirable property locations in metropolitan Vancouver? It is
my contention that they have NO such right nor privilege. It is called
market forces in action and regulatory intervention has generally
created more problems than it has fixed.
Rather than subsidizing sub-standard properties for street beggars,
I find it better that we develop the cesspools of crime in the downtown
eastside in the objective of promoting economic growth and the well
documented standard of living enhancements that accompany such growth.
Tragically, individuals who cannot afford elevated levels of rent WILL
be squeezed out of the market (and into Surrey, jk). However, I believe
this is better for them as they will be forced into a market with a
more suitable cost of living to their capabilities and it will be
better for society in general as economic and social objectives will be
attained.
We should not impede the improvement of society for the sake of
protecting a special interest group that shows few signs of redemption.
For their sake, and society's sake, I argue we must allow economic
forces to work. We could develop social housing for these individuals
in other locations at a lower cost to government and to those
individuals. Furthermore, the real estate will be able to put to a
better alternative use.
I am all for gentrification and find it enhances total social
utility as well as improving standards of living, economic growth, and
socially desirable outcomes (a potential pareto improvement to say).
Dear APC, bite me.
Now given that the federal and provincial governments have for long
insisted that the availability of long-term housing is a key concern,
it does NOT say that it is the role of government to provide subsidized
rental properties for homeless derelicts, NOR does government contend
that affordable housing should be in downtown core sectors of highly
desirable real estate value.
The PRIVILEGE of affordable housing is an objective that the
federal government has pursued through changes to the national housing
act and through mortgage-regulation engineering. However, this
privilege is extended to citizens who are contributing members of
society (and with incomes that can support such mortgages) but whom are
pressed beyond the ownership of homes because of burgeoning demand and
volatile financial factors.
But what right do sub-poverty level individuals have to claiming
the most desirable property locations in metropolitan Vancouver? It is
my contention that they have NO such right nor privilege. It is called
market forces in action and regulatory intervention has generally
created more problems than it has fixed.
Rather than subsidizing sub-standard properties for street beggars,
I find it better that we develop the cesspools of crime in the downtown
eastside in the objective of promoting economic growth and the well
documented standard of living enhancements that accompany such growth.
Tragically, individuals who cannot afford elevated levels of rent WILL
be squeezed out of the market (and into Surrey, jk). However, I believe
this is better for them as they will be forced into a market with a
more suitable cost of living to their capabilities and it will be
better for society in general as economic and social objectives will be
attained.
We should not impede the improvement of society for the sake of
protecting a special interest group that shows few signs of redemption.
For their sake, and society's sake, I argue we must allow economic
forces to work. We could develop social housing for these individuals
in other locations at a lower cost to government and to those
individuals. Furthermore, the real estate will be able to put to a
better alternative use.
I am all for gentrification and find it enhances total social
utility as well as improving standards of living, economic growth, and
socially desirable outcomes (a potential pareto improvement to say).
Dear APC, bite me.
