Hey maybe we can do what almost every other developed country does, what we used to do during past housing crises? Build public and non-market housing alongside the market stuff. Just like healthcare, there’s no reason, even in theory, to think that the “free market” alone will provide everyone with adequate housing.
To continue that analogy: there are private not-for-profit builders, just like hospitals are private not-for-profit healthcare providers. So the metaphor is closer than you think.
And when you listen to those builders, what do they say? They say the problem is that city hall either won’t let them build, or drags out every decision for years.
So effectively, this is like if municipalities said they didn’t want hospitals anywhere. Government can fund it all they like. There can be enough staff. But if there’s nowhere you’re allowed to build one, none of that matters.
Free market, not for profit, federal funding, public builder, etc. none of that matters as long as municipal governments keep deciding to foot-drag and pander to NIMBYs.
I agree, a lot of the problems are regulatory. Especially NIMBYism, community consultations, and restrictive zoning. It can take a decade to build a multi-unit building of any kind in Canada, whereas the same building would be done in months in many parts of Europe or east Asia.
That said, the non-market aspect of housing has specific economic benefits. It tamps down speculation on land value, keeps markets competitive, and ensures a safety net of minimal housing. In Scandinavian countries, Austria, and Japan, public housing can be spacious, comfortable, and beautiful. It’s for everyone, including the middle class.
Hey maybe we can do what almost every other developed country does, what we used to do during past housing crises? Build public and non-market housing alongside the market stuff. Just like healthcare, there’s no reason, even in theory, to think that the “free market” alone will provide everyone with adequate housing.
The free market shouldn’t be providing healthcare.
Yes. In case it wasn’t clear, that was precisely the point of my analogy.
To continue that analogy: there are private not-for-profit builders, just like hospitals are private not-for-profit healthcare providers. So the metaphor is closer than you think.
And when you listen to those builders, what do they say? They say the problem is that city hall either won’t let them build, or drags out every decision for years.
So effectively, this is like if municipalities said they didn’t want hospitals anywhere. Government can fund it all they like. There can be enough staff. But if there’s nowhere you’re allowed to build one, none of that matters.
Free market, not for profit, federal funding, public builder, etc. none of that matters as long as municipal governments keep deciding to foot-drag and pander to NIMBYs.
I agree, a lot of the problems are regulatory. Especially NIMBYism, community consultations, and restrictive zoning. It can take a decade to build a multi-unit building of any kind in Canada, whereas the same building would be done in months in many parts of Europe or east Asia.
That said, the non-market aspect of housing has specific economic benefits. It tamps down speculation on land value, keeps markets competitive, and ensures a safety net of minimal housing. In Scandinavian countries, Austria, and Japan, public housing can be spacious, comfortable, and beautiful. It’s for everyone, including the middle class.