Quote:
Originally Posted by goodgrowth
I have repeatedly said on here that one of the biggest issues with the Greenbelt was that it was unconditional. And this example just highlights that:
 |
The basic problem with housing in Canada is that we have:
- Significant & costly restrictions on infill redevelopment.
- Significant & costly restrictions on greenfield expansion.
- Extremely high population growth rates.
The contradictory demands that these factors impose are enough to create the perfect storm of bad housing policy; but then just to top it off we pour even more fuel on the fire by also having:
- Very little spending on public housing relative to our peers.
- Low taxes & investment rules that induce demand & favour using real estate as a speculative investment instead of just a place to live.
In other words, you're right - we can't just limit sprawl without adjusting the other levers accordingly and expect to maintain a healthy housing market. Either one of the first three factors needs to give, or all 3 (in combination with the latter 2) need to be tinkered with to restore some sort of equilibrium. At the opposite extreme, "fixing" all of them all would turn housing into a depreciating asset.
So, it
can, in theory be a logically coherent position to oppose both infill and sprawl if one also accepts stagnant population growth, for example. Personally, I prefer a more balanced approach though: moderate growth rates while making both infill and greenfield development rules somewhat easier, but still protecting ecologically sensitive and agriculturally important areas.