“If I put a four-storey tower beside you and your neighbours, they’d lose their minds,” he said on one occasion. In a video he posted on X on March 22, Ford criticized Crombie’s proposal. The video starts with the sentence, “I will not override municipal planning to force 4-, 6-, 8-storey buildings in every neighbourhood across Ontario.” Which is pretty rich for a premier who passed a lot of legislation to allow the province to ride roughshod over municipalities. It seems that he might still be feeling the red-hot anger of his constituents from his building-on-the-greenbelt fiasco.
Crombie responded in a “tweet” with, “You’ve shown your true NIMBY colours, Doug. If you won’t build the housing Ontario needs, I will. #onpoli #cdnpoli.” Yet Crombie herself had been pretty darn NIMBY when she was mayor of Mississauga. Exactly two years earlier, in a video embedded in a March 24, 2022, tweet, she who now wants to enable four-storey fourplexes anywhere by any would-be builder warned that “…we could see up to four units or four storeys in a residential neighbourhood with no approvals or consultations needed. Or buildings, anywhere from 6 to 11 storeys in residential neighbourhoods on transit routes. These images are a bit alarming and I think it’s important that residents are aware of the changes the province could be exploring….”
What Crombie found alarming as mayor of a city facing provincially imposed growth in March of 2022, she proposes to make obligatory as out-of-power leader of a minority opposition party in 2024. And growth-embracing Premier Ford is clearly mindful of the slapdown his heavy-handed behaviour got him and is now at least pretending to listen to the concerns of the little people. Both are more cautious about advocating growth über alles when power is theirs to lose. Neither has shown an inclination to stand up to the federal government and demand a slow-down of immigration.
The Doug and Bonnie Show illustrates that Canada’s immigration policy is guided by profits and politics at all levels of government, with little concern about ethics or conservation.
Why are empty-nesters staying in their multibedroom homes?
In a video on his X account on April 6, the prime minister boasts about the mass-produced modular houses his government is sponsoring. The Canadian dream of owning a home, let alone one with a yard in a low-density neighbourhood, is dead for a large proportion of the millennials and GenZs.
Although it was the government that killed their dreams of home ownership, people for whom home ownership is out of reach might resent those who simply continue to live in homes that they bought a long time ago.
People like Dennis and Joyce Short, for example, a retired couple who (in 2018) continue to live in the London, Ontario, house they had bought for $32,500 forty years earlier, while approximately 700,000 millennials in that province are expected to be on the hunt for homes in the next decade. But the Shorts are not planning to sell. Aside from the costs of downsizing, anything else they bought would also cost a fortune. As Dennis notes, “We couldn’t rent a one-bedroom apartment for what it costs to run our household.”
The Shorts like where they live. “We like the privacy of our property. We have a big backyard. The street we are on is like a community,” says Joyce. The sort of things, in the words of Yvonne Ziomecki of the HomeEquity Bank, “that you can’t put a dollar value on.”
The article describing Dennis and Joyce Short’s choices has the title “More than five million spare bedrooms contributor to housing crisis, experts say.” Should people like the Shorts feel obligated to sacrifice their own quality of life to compensate for the consequences of a reckless federal immigration policy that drove population growth, which a BMO analysis from May 2023 shows to be closely correlated with the cost of housing? |
Leave A Comment