Not quite sure what you mean by this comment, but there's lots of talk. But most of seems to me to be deflections from admitting that we need to change zoning rules that keep developers from building new housing. The common refrains are things like "developers won't build affordable housing", "it's because of financialization", "I'm all for more density---just not in this neighbourhood", "I just don't think it's fair for people who already own their own home to pay for the infrastructure needed to build new housing", etc. I've put a lot work into researching this subject for a lot of articles, and when I looked into all of these things I found that they really aren't the problem---it's the nest of legalization that makes the process of home-building super slow and piles a lot of unnecessary costs onto the developers.

Unfortunately, a great many 'progressives' are baby boomers who already own their own homes and they simply don't understand the housing crisis because it doesn't directly affect them.

[–] vinceman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And I would not describe a bunch of boomers as the only progressives. Am I going crazy or the people calling to house the homeless and build affordable housing not the progressive people? Or is that suddenly a strictly liberal thought somehow? Who, if not progressive people, are trying to help homeless people?

[–] CloudwalkingOwl@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I've never liked the word 'progressive' because it's a classic case of loaded language: a way of speaking that assumes a disputed point in the words used. That's why I put the term in scare quotes whenever I use it. Because of all the loaded language, the self-described 'progressives' I'm talking about (who totally dominate the NDP and Green Parties) dismiss anyone who disagrees with their assumptions out of hand.

I was recently at a rally where Charlie Angus spoke and it was just assumed---totally without any discussion at all---that Bills C-2 and C-5 were evidence that Mark Carney's govt are total and complete sell-outs. That's just like the people I meet who would think they were grooviest, most compassionate, 'progressive' people possible---yet fight like Hell against any changes that would speed up the supply of new housing.

One of the people who spoke at that rally is an NDP Council member. I've talked to him about housing in the past. I asked him why the city's official plan has nothing in it about making sure that there's enough housing for everyone in the city and he flat out refused to consider this. He said it just isn't the city's job to think about housing. He also said that the only solution would be if the federal government paid for enough social housing to get everyone a home. That's flat-out insane as it would cost an astronomical amount of money and there's no way there would ever be enough public support for it. This is what happens if a political movement substitutes aspirations and process for actually getting the job done.

I suppose what I hope Carney will be is something of a Canadian Deng Xiaoping. He was famous for saying "I don't care if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice".

[–] kbal@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago

Speaking of flashbacks to almost 20 years ago, Paul Krugman used to talk about what he called Flatland and the Zoned Zone. The same forces were at work then, they've just gotten steadily worse and I guess as suburban sprawl took over across the land, almost every place in Canada where it makes any sense to build (and many where it doesn't) got itself to some extent "zoned."