Four months ago, BC Premier David Eby and Housing Minister Christine Boyle received a letter signed by 27 housing and urbanist experts. Text of the letter follows:
We are a Metro Vancouver region-based group of urbanists, urban planners, architects, and UBC/SFU academics, most with decades of experience, some with a background in development, who have joined together to broaden the search for enduring housing solutions. While our primary focus is on Vancouver, our comments below are also applicable to cities across British Columbia that are also struggling with affordability issues.
On July 22, 2025, we sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney and Housing Minister Gregor Robertson, of which you were copied. BC and Canada’s housing crisis demands a reset in how we use public policy to achieve affordability. The current market correction presents an opportunity—not a threat. Governments should not bail out speculative development models. Instead, use this moment to invest in non-market housing, preserve existing affordability, ensure that public subsidies serve long-term public outcomes, and also reconsider BC Bills 44 & 47 (2023) for better affordability outcomes.
1. BC’s housing strategy must deliver affordability—not just more supply
BC’s housing crisis is, above all, a crisis of affordability. Supply has increased significantly in cities like Vancouver—where housing starts have outpaced population growth for decades—yet prices remain disconnected from incomes. Current inventory supply of unsold condos and new vacant market rentals are at record highs.
(THE 50-YEAR VANCOUVER EXPERIENCE ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY WITH ADDING HOUSING DENSITY)
Without addressing land value inflation, financial speculation, and tenure security, supply-side interventions risk worsening the very crisis they aim to solve.
2. Use the market correction as an opportunity—not something to resist
● Do not use public funds to bail out overleveraged speculative developments.
● Do not reflate prices artificially by reintroducing foreign capital, or reducing BC foreign buyer taxes, or by increasing investor speculation and demand, such as MURBs that use tax write-off subsidies.
● Thank you for Premier Eby’s recent statements in the media resisting opening foreign capital to BC.
● Take advantage of falling land costs and freed-up skilled labour to invest in non-profit, co-op, and public housing that will remain affordable long-term.
● Policy—not just construction—can influence affordability. Recent short-term rental regulations, adjusted immigration targets, bans on foreign buyers, and other demand-side measures have already helped reduce pressure on rents and sale prices as we are now seeing in the market.
3. Public subsidies must deliver public benefit outcomes
● Prioritize BC and federal financing and grants for co-ops, land trusts, and nonprofits.
● Since CMHC-backed programs like MLI Select are not producing the right kind of supply that is affordable and livable, while it puts CMHC at undue risk, work with the Feds for more of CMHC resources to go towards co-op housing with permanent affordable housing instead.
● Require minimum livability standards, especially for family-friendly housing.
● Ensure affordability is defined relative to local incomes, not market medians, and is long term permanently secured through strong covenants and housing agreements, not subsidies to REITs.
4. Preserve what’s affordable—don’t displace it
● Make tenant protection and zero net-loss of affordable units, mostly through protecting existing rental buildings from demolition, a condition for accessing BC and federal infrastructure or housing funds.
● Retain existing rental buildings by supporting rehabilitation and retrofits of existing rental buildings as climate-resilient, affordability-preserving alternatives to demolition.
● Recognize the human toll of displacement—the best tenant protections are to protect existing rental buildings.
● Ensure that public funds do not create the wrong kinds of supply that inflate land values and market rents, like CMHC’s MLI Select financing is currently doing, with the impacts on land values of tower development in particular, and instead work with the Feds to use more subsidies for true affordability.
5. Reform delivery and financing models to align with residents’ needs – amend BC Bills 44 & 47
● Provide tax, financing and policy incentives to encourage individual end-users to build more secondary suites and infill developments that can create both more rentals and mortgage helpers.
● Support gentle, ground-oriented density options that better match household needs and local context while supporting the forestry sector through the use of more affordable wood frame construction.
● Avoid making towers the default solution. Towers have their place—particularly in transit-rich areas— but they are not always the best form. The right supply is livable, secure, and suited to local neighbourhoods and larger units for families, without triggering demovictions.
● Reconsider the BC zoning Bills 44 & 47 (2023) & 18 (2024) that are not providing affordable housing. They are inflating land values, massive speculation, demovictions and displacement, while creating the wrong kind of supply that is mostly small expensive units in oversized market towers.
● Restore land use and planning authority to municipalities and regions, with more flexibility in how Official Development Plans and Transit Oriented Areas are implemented. Cities are built on grids, not arbitrary circles around transit which should only be a guide in principle, not for literal implementation. Allow more civic discretion for form of development near transit to better align with infrastructure, amenities, and community local context. Avoid one-size-fits-all approaches.
6. Rebalance costs and benefits between all orders of government
● The costs of growth—especially infrastructure and amenities—should not be downloaded to municipalities (i.e., local taxpayers and communities), with more funding for growth instead coming from the Province and the Feds, especially since their income taxes are collected from businesses and residents in municipalities. More of the tax base should go back to municipalities.
● Do not infringe on the municipal tax base by the province extracting land value and development based taxes, such as property surcharges, that municipalities need for funding services and growth.
Conclusion
We encourage and support building more affordable livable housing rather than continuing to build the wrong kinds of housing, in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons.
The Province of BC can lead the way on affordable housing by restoring affordability as the central objective of housing policy. That means resisting short-term pressure to rescue flawed models and instead embracing long-term investment in public, non-profit, and community-led housing. It also means preserving existing affordability, and building new homes that serve real people, not just markets.
We welcome the opportunity to meet with you to explore how these strategies can shape a more sustainable and just housing future for all British Columbians.
Signed:
| Ralph Segal, MAIBC (ret.) Former Chief Urban Designer, City of Vancouver |
| David Ley, OC, FRSC, PhD, Urban Geographer, Professor Emeritus UBC, Order of Canada. |
| Christina DeMarco, Urban and Regional Planner, former lead planner for the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. |
| Penny Gurstein, PhD, MCIP (ret.) Professor Emeritus and Former Director, School of Community and Regional Planning, Co-Director, Housing Research Collaborative, UBC |
| Larry Beasley, CM, FCIP, Former Co-chief Planner of Vancouver, author Vancouverism. |
| Ray Spaxman, ARIBA (Rtd), MRTPI (Rtd,) FCIP, Hon AIBC, LL.D, Director of Planning, City of Vancouver, 1973 to 1989 |
| Scot Hein, Retired Architect MAIBC/Former COV and UBC Senior Urban Designer and Development Planner/Adjunct Professor Urban Design UBC/SFU Faculty Continuing Studies/Founding Board Member Urbanarium/Board Member Small Housing BC/Housing Advocate |
| Brian Palmquist, Award winning architect and author, AIBC MRAIC BEP CP LEED AP |
| Arny Wise, B. Comm., M.Sc., RPP, MCIP (ret), urban planner/ retired developer (President, Synergy Develop., VP Development, Goldfan Holdings), Board of Directors Toronto Economic Development Corporation (1990-1999) |
| Sean McEwen, Architect, AIBC, FRAIC. Affordable housing advocate. |
| Patrick Condon, Professor UBC School of Landscape and Architecture, author Broken City. Former city planner, James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments |
| Barbara Gordon, Retired Architect AIBC and retired Director of Capital Planning, UBC |
| Lance Berelowitz, AA Dipl RPP MCIP, Principal Urban Forum Associates. |
| Elizabeth Murphy, private sector project manager formerly with the City of Vancouver’s housing and properties department, BC Housing and BC Buildings Corp |
| Bill McCreery, former registered architect AIBC & AAA, helped create North & South False Creek & thousands of units of developer, public & social housing in BC, Alberta & UK, developed several Vancouver residential projects. |
| Graham McGarva, FRAIC, Retired Architect AIBC, M.A. |
| Erick Villagomez, Lecturer UBC School of Community and Regional Planning, Principal, Mētis Design|Build,Editor-in-Chief, Spacing Vancouver |
| Norman Hotson, Retired Architect AIBC, FRAIC, RCA, HonPIBC |
| Andy Yan, FCIP, RPP, GISP Director, City Program, Lifelong Learning and Associate Professor of Professional Practice, Urban Studies Program, Simon Fraser University |
| Robert Renger, BES, MCP; Consultant City Planner; Former Senior Development Planner and City’s lead for UniverCity at SFU, City of Burnaby. |
| Mary Pynenburg MRAIC (Retired) MCIP (Retired) Former Director of Planning City of New Westminster, Former Director of Planning and Development City of Kelowna, former Director of Design / Development CP Hotels |
| Tom Phipps, Retired Senior Planner City of Vancouver (33 years) |
| Sandy James, former City of Vancouver City Planner, Managing Director Walk Metro Vancouver |
| Elvin Wyly, Urban Geographer, Housing Researcher |
| Mary Beth Rondeau, Ret Architect AIBC Former Urban Designer City of Vancouver |
| Frank Ducote, Principal, Frank Ducote Urban Design, former Senior Urban Designer, City of Vancouver |
| David Wong, Architect, AIBC; formerly with Engineering & Planning Dept. City of Vancouver |
Categories: Housing
in-sights.ca 
Yes. Boomers are needing Seniors Housing & Assisted Living. Outrageous prices or year(s) long waiting lists to go to another community. Losing social connections
LikeLike
What a novel idea. Focus on building subsidized affordable housing. The signatories of the above letter bring real, workable solutions to our housing crisis.
Another aspect with regards to government-owned affordable housing that never seems to be discussed is the fact that the government owns a cash generating asset. Twenty or thirty years down the road, once any loans have been retired, the housing complex should be generating positive cash flow for the government. In places like Singapore and Vienna a model like this is being deployed very successfully. Building affordable housing on existing government land would significantly reduce the construction cost.
An added benefit of the government being a major landlord is it keeps a lid on private housing rental rates.
I also like the fact that subsidized housing can be built in every municipality providing housing for low income residents in that region. This should cut down on long commutes.
LikeLike
Mr McCutcheon,
You post describes – a different government model choosing not only to outflank Financialization but tamp down rental costs by building affordable housing – that’s what Finland did in Helsinki.
https://world-habitat.org/blog/helsinki-is-still-leading-the-way-in-ending-homelessness-but-how-are-they-doing-it-2/
So what? Who benefits if rents are kept down and rent money is channeled to the government? Who doesn’t benefit? Landlords. Slum and otherwise. Consider economics 101.
Disposable Income=Total Income−Taxes−Mandatory Deductions
What’s missing from the formal DI equation? Rents.
When income still available (for everything else) is reduced what happens? For a typical Rational Economic Actor with reduced DI it is prudent to cut personal expenditure. In proportion the economy shrinks. As the market descends so too do the taxes government relies upon. Whether declared or not a crisis is unfolding. To sustain itself Government is forced to borrow.
Why increase disposable income? Dirt simple. Increased trust in Government elevates Public Morale.
Singapore? Similar deal. But their example is just “impractical” in uh… our Canada, busy drowning in Debt.
That said for most of century 20 affordable housing was not a problem in Canada. Why?
In an obscure economics review back in 2012 I read a lament about Canada being naive.
“Last week in Ottawa, the Canadian House of Commons passed the federal government’s latest round of budget cuts and austerity measures. Highlights included chopping 19,200 public sector jobs, cutting federal programs by $5.2 billion per year, and raising the retirement age for millions of Canadians from 65 to 67. The justification for the cuts was a massive federal debt that is now over C$ 581 billion, or 84% of GDP. “
“An online budget game furnished by the local newspaper the Globe and Mail gave readers a chance to try to balance the budget themselves. Possibilities included slashing transfer payments for elderly benefits, retirement programs, health benefits, and education; cutting funding for transportation, national defense, economic development and foreign aid; and raising taxes. An article on the same page said, “The government, in reality, doesn’t have that many tools at its disposal to close a large budgetary deficit. It can either raise taxes or cut departmental program spending.”“
(Obviously the economic logic is inescapable… Or?)
“Between 1939 and 1974, the government actually did borrow from its own central bank. That made its debt effectively interest-free, since the government owned the bank and got the benefit of the interest. According to figures supplied by Jack Biddell, a former government accountant, the federal debt remained very low, relatively flat, and quite sustainable during those years. (See his chart below.) The government successfully funded major public projects simply on the credit of the nation, including the production of aircraft during and after World War II, education benefits for returning soldiers, family allowances, old age pensions, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway project, and universal health care for all Canadians.”
(the link of public works completed is dead but it was enormous.)
“The debt shot up only after 1974. That was when the Basel Committee was established by the central-bank Governors of the Group of Ten countries of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which included Canada. A key objective of the Committee was to maintain “monetary and financial stability.” To achieve that goal, the Committee discouraged borrowing from a nation’s own central bank interest-free, and encouraged borrowing instead from private creditors, all in the name of “maintaining the stability of the currency.””
“The presumption was that borrowing from a central bank with the power to create money on its books would inflate the money supply and prices. Borrowing from private creditors, on the other hand, was considered not to be inflationary, since it involved the recycling of pre-existing money. What the bankers did not reveal, although they had long known it themselves, was that private banks create the money they lend just as public banks do. The difference is simply that a publicly-owned bank returns the interest to the government and the community, while a privately-owned bank siphons the interest into its capital account, to be re-invested at further interest, progressively drawing money out of the productive economy.”
“The debt curve that began its exponential rise in 1974 tilted toward the vertical in 1981, when interest rates were raised by the U.S. Federal Reserve to 20%. At 20% compounded annually, debt doubles in under four years. Canadian rates went as high as 22% during that period. Canada has now paid over a trillion Canadian dollars in interest on its federal debt—nearly twice the debt itself. If it had been borrowing from its own bank all along, it could be not only debt-free but sporting a hefty budget surplus today. That is true for other countries as well.”
Why did Canada take such a different path until 1972? The standard explanation: for exceptional service and heroic sacrifices returning war vets deserved a better deal than what they’d seen during the Great Depression. Economic orthodoxy was turfed.
On the Other Model Government theme there’s Japan. Japan’s Debt-to-GDP ratio is economically insane. There is no reason to believe Japan is now or ever will be solvent. Yet only China is rich enough to buy more US debt. If China and Europe ever decided to stop subsidizing the US it’s sayonara to Washington.
Here, in part, is one explanation of how Japan survives.
https://www.rathodm.com/post/japan-sovereign-debt-sustainability-analysis
“Avoidance of Austerity and Use of Stimulus: Unlike some countries that responded to rising debt with austerity, Japan often chose the opposite – increasing spending to stimulate the economy. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the government funded large public works projects (infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc.) and bank bailouts, adding to the debt. Even as the economy stabilized at times, Japan was reluctant to cut spending deeply, in part to avoid derailing growth. Tax increases were implemented slowly. (Notably, Japan did enact consumption tax hikes in 2014 and 2019 to raise revenue, but these were modest and came after many years of accrual of debt stlouisfed.org.) The net effect was a structural deficit: since 1998, Japan’s general government has run a primary deficit averaging 5% of GDP (and would have been in surplus if social security were excluded) stlouisfed.org. In essence, policy choices favored maintaining spending – especially on social programs and stimulus – even if it meant borrowing more.”
In short Japan’s debt is largely home-owned.
Yet today’s Japan faces a terrible choice. Tolerate punitive on-again off-again US tariffs while facing increased losses in a market of approximately 344,234,000 Americans. Americans facing their own self-inflicted declining income crisis.
Or shift to closer ties with the BRICS. Market population 3.3 billion.
For Ellen Brown, when Canada joined the Basel Committee’s declaration that only the private banks and private investors could provide loans to government, this closed The Debt Trap. The consequences would be recurring bouts of claw backs and Austerity.
And? A national debt now estimated at $1,266.5 billion at March 31, 2025,
LikeLike
Thank you for your insightful reply. There is a lot of fresh material in your post I need to digest, but this the commentary that needs to be pushed out to the public.
Clearly, government policy development favours wealth transfer to the elite. The rest of us are left scrapping up the crumbs. A recent Stats Canada report showed that the wealthiest 20% of Canadians control 67% of the country’s personal wealth while the poorest 40% have only 3%. This wealth gap continues to widen and is a direct result of the the 45 year neo-liberalism economic experiment. Trickle down economics is a myth.
As you mentioned above, a healthy economy can only be achieved if the population has a reasonable level of disposable income. This simple fact is obvious, and yet, our governments continue to build policy that separates us from our DI. There are solutions, but that is a topic for another day.
LikeLike
This response will be a tad lengthy..
Mr McCutcheon,
Imagine Canada, during 10 years of Great Depression and six of total war – BANKRUPT – breaking from economic and political orthodoxy.
From 1939 to 1955 various companies constructed affordable housing. Such units were called Victory Houses. What Ms. Brown’s essay above revealed about our current housing paralysis is not that building affordable housing could work, might work, or should work, if ever attempted. Such conjectures are irrelevant.
Millions of Canadians living today can verify that government subsidized affordable housing did work. For decades … until our politicians were brought to heel.. voluntarily.
Let’s begin with a graph. Note the peak (1970) and the decline.
https://www.retrospectivevaughan.ca/victory-housing-1
“During World War II, homes built in the style known as Victory Housing emerged in suburbs in several Canadian cities and towns. This small house type was abundant thanks to the Veterans’ Land Act of 1942, which was initiated by the Canadian Government to provide housing for returning veterans and their families. The act was designed to avoid the disaster of an earlier act in 1919, the Soldier Settlement Act, which failed to meet the needs of returning soldiers. The newer act put into place measures to build or finance housing for those returning from war. By 1947 nearly 38,000 houses had been constructed by Wartime Housing Limited.”
“Due to the large demand for new housing to accommodate workers and later veterans, the houses were designed to be sturdy but economical. Victory Housing employed a cheap and simple design. Much of the small building was prefabricated and then shipped to the sites to be constructed. This resulted in very homogenous and uniform developments that sprung up in almost every major city in Canada during the war and post war periods. The houses were often one and a half stories tall with gabled roofs and clapboard siding.”
https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0096317
“Wartime Housing Limited, 1941-1947 : an overview and evaluation of Canada’s first national housing corporationWade, Jill”
Abstract
“Between 1941 and 1947, a federal crown corporation called Wartime Housing Limited (WHL) successfully built and managed thousands of rental units for war workers and veterans. At the same time, an Advisory Committee on Reconstruction study (the Curtis report) described the enormous need for low and moderate income shelter throughout Canada and recommended a national, comprehensive, and planned housing program emphasizing low-rental housing. Instead, in 1944 – 1945, the federal government initiated a post-war program promoting home ownership and private enterprise; it neglected long-range planning and low income housing. Thus, an interesting question arises. Why did the federal government not reconstitute WHL as a permanent, low-rental housing agency to meet the huge need for low income accommodation following World War II? The thesis arrives at an answer through four steps: a definition of the 1940s housing problem; an examination of the federal government’s response; an evaluation of WHL’s performance; and an elucidation of the reasons preventing WHL’s transformation into a permanent low-rental housing agency. By 1944, supply shortages, replacement requirements, and overcrowding associated with pre-1939 conditions and the immediate wartime situation produced an immense unsatisfied housing need felt most keenly by low and medium income groups, even in urban centres like Greater Vancouver that had encountered no serious long-term problem. In 1941 – 1944, federal reaction to the housing problem emphasized a directly interventionist, economy-related program in which WHL played a major role. When public pressure forced it to continue temporarily its WHL operations after 1944, the Dominion government demonstrated that it could participate directly in housing with the intention of meeting social need. WHL was a smoothly operating, efficient operation according to the fulfillment of its program objectives and to the testimony of its officials and tenants. Negative response from vested interests could not diminish the success of this new player in the housing field. WHL1s reconstitution as a low-rental agency did not occur for several reasons: the resolution of a bureaucratic conflict between the Finance and the Reconstruction and Supply Departments; the consensus among Finance officials and the business community in support of market-related, indirect intervention; the divisions among groups agitating for improved housing conditions; and the ambivalence of many Canadians towards home ownership and low-rental housing. The government exhibited a firm and continuing commitment to the market and a hesitant and temporary recognition of social need. Only a major attitudinal shift towards social need would ever bring about any fundamental change to housing policy. Since the 1930s, this market-oriented perspective has hindered advances in housing policy in the same way that for decades the poor law tradition had blocked government acceptance of unemployment relief. Clearly, in 1944 – 1945, the federal government had the opportunity to include housing in the emerging social welfare system. It did not. Attitudinal changes making possible wartime advances in social security simply did not carry over to the housing field in any lasting way. Thus, WHL represented a successful but temporary experiment in publicly-built housing.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry_box_house
“During World War II, homes known as Victory Housing were built in suburbs in several Canadian cities and towns, including Toronto, Ottawa and Halifax to provide housing for workers in factories supplying items for World War II. [2] Many homes were needed for workers who relocated to work in new or expanded shipyards to build ships for Canada’s merchant marine. Outside Toronto, large projects include North Vancouver (683), and Pictou, Nova Scotia (400 – Victory Heights) and by the middle of 1943, nearly 16,000 houses had been constructed by Wartime Housing Limited. [3] this number had risen to 38,000 by 1947 when Wartime Housing Limited was wound down, having been replaced by Central Mortgage and Housing. [4] “
Wait. Canada’s Central Bank provided low-or-zero-interest funds to CMHC to build Victory Housing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Mortgage_and_Housing_Corporation
“By the end of World War II, serious housing congestion had developed in Canada’s main cities due to major shifts of population among war workers and service personnel and to shortages of construction supplies and labour. The housing situation was exacerbated by the demobilization of the Armed Forces, the influx of war brides from overseas, the rapidly increasing family formation rate, and the continuing short supply of building materials and workers. [11]”
“As such, there was an urgent need for a coordinated federal response to post-war housing shortages. This led to the creation of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as the successor to the Wartime Housing Limited, consolidating almost all federal housing programs into a single agency. [11] [12]”
“In December 1945, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was incorporated by act of the 19th Canadian Parliament, taking effect on 1 January 1946. [3] [12]”
“Its founding purpose was to find and create housing for returning war veterans and their families, as well as to lead Canada’s housing programs.[13] In broad terms, its three primary functions were to administer the National Housing Act, 1944, “to provide facilities for the rediscounting of mortgages by the lending institutions,” and to administer the Emergency Shelter Regulations (taking over this responsibility from the Wartime Prices and Trade Board). [12]”
“Along with administering the National Housing Act, it was also responsible for the Home Improvement Loans Guarantee Act and providing discounting facilities for loan and mortgage companies. The capital of the CMHC was set at CA$25 million (equivalent to $417,819,149 in 2023), and a reserve fund of $5 million ($83,563,830 in 2021) authorized to be accumulated from profits. 13]”
“In 1946, CMHC built the Benny Farm in Montréal, Quebec, becoming one of the first subsidized housing developments in Canada. [14]”
“In 1947, the WHL became an arm of the CMHC,[11] transferring its 30,000 houses (called “wartimes”) to the corporation to provide affordable housing for returning veterans. [10] [14]”
“Also that year, CMHC took over the financially unsuccessful Housing Enterprises of Canada Ltd, which was formed by major Canadian insurance corporations as a limited dividend company that attempted to build and manage moderately priced rental accommodation with CMHC’s approval for location, costs, and rents. [11]”
“Toward the end of the 1940s, the Government of Canada created a federal-provincial public housing program for low-income families, with costs and subsidies shared 75% by the federal government and 25% by the respective province. [13]”
Does this help confirm what Ms Brown stated in her lament?
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/why-housing-first-failed-in-canada
“Despite the tens of thousands of people housed by dedicated teams of social workers, more people are homeless now than ever before. It turns out Housing First can only end homelessness if people can be housed sustainably. No amount of time and money spent putting people into homes can compensate for an investor-captured housing market that pushes them out again.”
“If we want to understand how to make Housing First work in Canada, we could do no better than talk to experts out of Finland, a nation with one of the most successful Housing First programs in the world. This is exactly what happened earlier this year when federal Housing Minister Sean Fraser sat down with representatives from Finland’s Housing First system in a lecture hall at Carleton University.”
“As the panel discussion began key differences between the Finnish and Canadian approaches to Housing First quickly became apparent. “Housing First doesn’t work without having the housing first,” quipped Juha Kahila, head of international affairs for Finland’s foremost housing NGO, Y-Foundation. “So we have a quite sizable affordable housing stock in Finland, we have around 400,000 affordable homes in Finland [almost 15 percent of the nation’s housing stock].””
“Finnish policymakers understand that if homelessness is going to be brought to an end people need to be able to afford their homes. This means that speculators, financialized firms, and other predacious investors have to be kept in check. To accomplish this, the government made up-front investments to build, own, and develop housing as a state. The city of Helsinki, for example, owns its own construction company, constructs purpose-built housing designed specifically to accommodate low-income citizens, and owns 60,000 social housing units. One in seven residents of the city live in city-owned housing. This creates a price floor that keeps rents low for everybody. Juha describes Finland’s philosophy of affordability in action: “they [the city] own 70 percent of the land and their goal is to have 25 percent affordable housing in all the new living areas.” Additionally, low-income citizens receive Kela, or social security benefits, from the national government—a housing allowance which can cover up to 70 percent of housing costs, including rent, maintenance, water, and heating. Both renters and owners are eligible to receive this benefit. The Kela guarantees that housing stays affordable no matter your income.”
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/why-the-housing-crisis-is-not-an-immigration-problem
“Almost eight percent of our nation’s housing stock, 1.3 million homes, is sitting empty, collecting value for re-sale. Nearly a quarter-million residences are listed on popular short-term rental platforms representing 4.9 percent of the country’s long-term rentals. Large financial firms own 20-30 percent of Canada’s purpose-built rental housing (this is especially bad in Edmonton where 48 percent of all rental housing is held by financialized entities—up from 1.6 percent 30 years ago). Small and large investors own up to 40 percent of the nation’s total housing stock (variable by province).”
https://timmatthews.ca/2021/07/16/wartime-housing-in-canada-and-ontario
Except in corporate media there’s no shortage of evidence of what can be done with the right folks in charge. The facts are found most frequently in foreign media and on the internet. .
LikeLike
Thank you Road Belong Cargo. It was interesting to read that the federal government was temporarily in the affordable housing business before abandoning it to the corporate sector. What a shame. If the government had stayed on track we could have built out a robust affordable housing sector supporting the vulnerable in our society.
I have been following the Housing First model rolled out in Finland for many years. It is amazing how successful it has been and how much money it saves the taxpayer. It is a puzzle to me why Canada hasn’t adopted this model. Could it have something to do with disrupting the business interests that exist in this sector? Just asking!!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mr McCutcheon,
Housing First? Are you referring to Ted Clugston?
Backstory: In 2013 a newly elected Conservative Mayor confronted his Medicine Hat council and advisors. They want Housing First. He is opposed. He insists that his colleagues show him numbers which demonstrate what’s wrong with Medicine Hat’s welfare system, then justify their belief that the city will benefit financially from changing course radically.
They do ask asked.
Medicine Hat’s caring-for-the-poor system is incredibly expensive. Worse it acts like a cash cow milked into an absurdly dysfunctional condition. Multiple agencies are paid enormous sums simultaneously to provide identical services. Money meant to relieve Poverty goes straight to NGO competitors. The consequences are horrendous
Mr. Clugston alters his view. Almost immediately he becomes newsworthy. A Red Tory. A maverick celebrity? He is profiled throughout the world’s economic journals up to and including The Economist magazine, His pitch. If you understood that Housing First can save millions of dollars why wouldn’t you experiment?
https://www.economist.com/international/2014/11/15/one-home-at-a-time
https://www.mic.com/articles/118364/one-city-in-canada-had-an-ambitious-plan-to-end-homelessness-and-it-worked
His exposure and near-immediate success generates pressure in much larger cities. They must be seen to “investigate”, impartially evaluate. They do just that but conclude, regrettably, that there’s no way his system could work anywhere. Granted the current welfare mess is constantly at cross-purposes and unfit for purpose but ‘what we’ve got is all we can afford’. Except for? All the places where Housing First works.
You mention Finland? How about Houston Texas? From day one of its implementation the state government has tried to terminate HF. They haven’t. It works. Even in (gulp) TEXAS.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-houston-successfully-reduced-homelessness/
https://www.cato.org/blog/houstons-affordability-helps-reduce-homelessness
Forgetting the few North American exceptions to welfare-as-big-business the real story is Europe.
https://housingfirsteurope.eu/
“The Housing First approach in Europe prioritizes permanent housing as a foundation for recovery and social inclusion for homeless individuals. It emphasizes immediate access to long-term, self-contained housing along with supportive services tailored to individual needs. This model is being integrated into various polices, such as the Recovery and Resilience Plan, which aims to support marginalized populations. Across Europe, cities are adapting innovative strategies to combat homelessness, with Housing First being a key component of these efforts. Additionally, organizations like Housing Europe are actively involved in implementing and evaluating this model to enhance its effectiveness.”
What do Canadian politicians advocate to address our homeless crisis? Let’s make the poor, not Poverty, illegal. A homeless camp is located under an enormous concrete bridge? The camp is an “eyesore”. It’s a “fire hazard”. It’s a “health hazard”. Despite being “beneath a bridge” the camp is “dangerous to passers by”.
Priority One: Destroy the camp. Confiscate the residents’ belongings.
Priority Two, Inform the media that any day now the evictees may qualify for relocation to super-duper government-approved residences which, unfortunately, don’t exist just now and most likely won’t exist for years.
How does Canada’s pledge to uphold the UN’s Housing as a Fundamental Human Right work? It doesn’t. In Europe?
https://housingfirsteurope.eu/
“Housing is a right, not a commodity”
“Increasingly viewed as a commodity, housing is most importantly a human right. Under international law, to be adequately housed means having secure tenure—not having to worry about being evicted or having your home or lands taken away. It means living somewhere that is in keeping with your culture, and having access to appropriate services, schools, and employment.”
“Too often violations of the right to housing occur with impunity. In part, this is because, at the domestic level, housing is rarely treated as a human right. The key to ensuring adequate housing is the implementation of this human right through appropriate government policy and programmes, including national housing strategies.”
You conclude with “It is a puzzle to me why Canada hasn’t adopted this model. Could it have something to do with disrupting the business interests that exist in this sector? Just asking!!!!”
In theory Higher Education should provide a verifiable, easily accepted , coherent, nonpartisan and uniform view of life. Hearing certain classmates laugh at statements various professors made during lectures stimulated interest.
OK. What’s The Joke?
Most often these folks came from upper-echelon, upper-income families. After surviving boarding and private schools their next step? As Street Smart people must – tolerate what everyone else is expected to believe is Social Reality. Laugh while preparing to cash in on what really is going on.
Over the decades since then conversations with street smart people demonstrate a different approach.
For example: take our welfare system, “What is the disincentive for political insiders to abuse and exploit any part of any system, and “manage” it to profit themselves and their backers? See any? How do you cope? First you understand why things are the way they are. Then you find a niche.”
LikeLike
Interesting news about the relationship between Japan and the US.
As if the US reeling under President Trump’s tariff policies hasn’t suffered enough financial damage in domestic terms a larger and more destabilizing problem could arise from US debt: Since China doesn’t want it who on earth will be able buy enough of it?
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-own-the-most-us-debt/
“Over the past 20 years, Japan and China have owned more US Treasurys than any other foreign nation.”
“Between December 2000 and April 2024, Japan grew from owning $556.3 billion to just over $1.1 trillion. China’s ownership grew from $105.6 billion to $749.0 billion.”
As the following video explains, if Japan ever stopped buying US debt it would shock the US economy. For decades the US system depended upon Japan to keep America stable. What has Japan decided to do?
Step back from buying US debt.
Dated December 2025
Dated April 2025
https://thefulcrum.us/business-democracy/countries-buying-us-debt
“If foreign countries were to stop buying U.S. debt, the consequences could impact the daily lives of Americans in a variety of ways.”
“Here are just a few of the potential ripple effects:”
“Higher Interest Rates: A decrease in demand for U.S. Treasury bonds would likely lead to a drop in their prices and an increase in yields. This would make borrowing more expensive for the U.S. government, businesses, and individuals.”
“Recession: Higher borrowing costs could slow down economic growth as businesses might cut back on investments and consumers might reduce spending.”
“High Inflation: To compensate for the lack of foreign investment, the Federal Reserve might need to increase the money supply, which could lead to inflation.”
“Decline in the Dollar’s Value: Reduced demand for U.S. Treasury bonds could weaken the U.S. dollar, making imports more expensive resulting in higher inflation in the U.S. A weaker dollar may also increase the burden of dollar-denominated debt for foreign borrowers thus adding to our national debt problem. Admittedly a weaker dollar has advantages for US exporters since prices are lower for foreign buyers plus potentially increasing foreign investment in the US. While economists certainly don’t agree on the advantages versus disadvantages of a weaker dollar it is generally agreed that a sudden shift in the strength of the dollar can create uncertainty in the markets, leading to higher volatility and potentially triggering a sell-off.”
If that weren’t enough, there’s also the risk of global financial instability that could snowball into a world financial crisis. U.S. Treasury bonds are considered the safest investment. A significant shift in their demand could cause a chain reaction with catastrophic implications.
Additional Sources:
Dated July 2025
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=why%20has%20japan%20stopped%20buying%20US%20debt?&mid=47AC269A0F3648D8DFF547AC269A0F3648D8DFF5&ajaxhist=0
Dated December 2025
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=why+has+japan+stopped+buying+US+debt%3f&mid=9C95BA8FC0D81354E79B9C95BA8FC0D81354E79B&mcid=5D9B38C7E50F41C59AD6202C311F0B91&FORM=VIRE
LikeLike
Hello Norm,
So glad to read this! In a time when our cities are losing their
liveability and the future looks bleak for young people, the clarity and
intelligence of these letter writers is welcome indeed. Let’s hope Mark,
Gregor, David and Christine, and our civic leaders too, take note and
start delivering on affordability.
Glen Porter
LikeLiked by 1 person