All posts by Adam Smith

The Death of the Queen St East Urban Design Guidelines

Councillor Bradford and the Planning and Housing Committee have made it official: the Queen St E Urban Design Guidelines are a sham and they have no intention of honouring them. Regardless of those guidelines being developed 14 years ago, they still reflect the sentiment of residents, and the majority of developments that were supposed to be subject to those guidelines have violated them. Now they’re basically obsolete, if they ever were truly valid. I contend the entire process of developing the guidelines was a farce in order to stop residents challenging developments and there was never any intention of following them.

You can read my full deputation below. Councillor Bradford had absolutely nothing to say about any of the stats I brought up, in particular future supply and demand, all he could focus on was the guidelines and one out of date photo. He seemed to take the whole thing very personally, and at one point even had to be put in his place by the chair when he pounced on me and wouldn’t let me finish answering. He also tried to make a motion about my out of date photo, but that got shot down too.

Ironically he made it seem my only focus was the Lick’s condo when he was the one who couldn’t stop talking about it, while my actual concern was the current development and I only mentioned Lick’s to give context to the guidelines. Worst however, was when he projected some kind of false pretense on me, saying, “I think that comes across as misinformed at best or maybe even misleading at worst.” I’m not sure what precisely was misleading about stating the factual history and content of the guidelines and the expectation they would actually guide development. Here is Bradford’s statement with my rebuttals:

“So Adam Smith likes to come down here from time to time with good intentions, but I feel like whenever I listen to his deputations it’s always like opening up a time capsule [I’ve never before spoken of the guidelines or the history behind them until this deputation]. We talk about the Lick’s development from so many years ago, when there was a lot of ink spilled at the time about that. You know I go down to Queen St all the time, I think it looks fabulous, you know [see below for a pic of the empty brick wall]. And so when you have individuals who come down and make deputations it’s almost misleading like these guidelines from 14 years ago are the law [as part of the Official Plan they still a legal document, and as the name suggests, they are meant to GUIDE, that is their purpose], completely ignoring the planning paradigm and the provincial planning statutes that the city is statutorily required to comply with [the province has imposed many inequitable and unjust things on the city since Ford took power, it doesn’t mean we roll over and take it just because Ford says so]. Whether we like it or not we’re not living in 2012 anymore. I think that comes across as misinformed at best or maybe even misleading at worst [the only thing misleading is the guidelines themselves misleading the public]. And I don’t think that’s how we build cities [the current policy of overdensity is strangling the city], I don’t think that’s how we build community [communities are already strained with too much demand for too few services], and I don’t think it’s particularly helpful in the Beaches. So a position like that would likely come at the expense of affordable units for families, for seniors, for workers, that our community so desperately needs [we need CURRENT housing to be affordable, building new affordable housing does nothing for EXISTING tenants]. A position like that would probably come at the expense of the enhanced childcare spaces, on the work that we’re doing in the public realm [one daycare does not justify 350+ more units]. And again I remind folks, these positions and decisions that we make are difficult, but we have to consider all of the factors on front of us, try and come up with a balanced position, and one that moves the city forward, not one that’s handcuffed to a world we were living in 15 years ago [some people want to preserve their neighbourhood, and there’s nothing wrong with that!].”

The other deputant James Gray was clearly a plant, apparently he is part of the pro-development group More Neighbours. He had nothing to say other than, “I live 300m away and I support this development” so that Bradford could then lob leading questions at him.

The last deputant Mark Richardson is the creator of HousingNowTO, which uses affordable housing as thinly veiled advocacy for development in general. If Richardson advocated for fully public affordable housing (not P3s) and rolling back the loss of rent controls his stance would have more credibility; as it stands he comes off as shilling for developers to profit the housing industry under the guise of providing affordable housing.

There was an interesting moment during the first item on the agenda, about tree protection and development. A city staffer said, “Fundamentally, a tree that’s protected by the tree bylaw and it is in healthy condition, forestry staff will generally use the process to protect that tree. However, there’s been very clear direction from council in the past that if a tree would be removed as a result of development that is permitted by zoning, including zoning that’s varied as through a minor variance, that we should not stand in the way of development. We should allow that tree to be removed.” This just goes to show the development-at-any-cost ideology of council.

It really doesn’t matter what information is thrown at council that calls into question the sustainability or need for further development in our already strained city, they will rubber stamp pretty much any development. The real question is, is it because they feel it’s fruitless to resist the province and Premier Ford, because he has gamed all the laws in favour of development, or because they are in on the game?

Here is my deputation with supporting links:

Hello, my name is Adam Smith, resident of Beaches-East York. 1631 Queen E and 1080 Eastern is yet another development that makes a mockery of the Queen St E urban design guidelines.

The guidelines were a reaction to the Lakehouse Beach Residences at 1960 Queen E, aka the Lick’s condo, which saw a 6 storey condo rise up over a row of one storey retail shops, leaving a massive empty brick wall looming over the streetscape. This chicken bone development, whereby corner buildings are much larger than the buildings mid-block, used to be considered bad planning, but it seems Toronto has completely discarded what used to be good planning principles.

The guidelines intended to rein in plans at Queen and Woodbine, the Heartwood condos, aka the Shell Station, and while they were being developed there was a moratorium on development applications. The city held massive meetings with the community, planners, and developers present, and the resulting guidelines residents thought were in good faith. Then a funny thing happened.

During a short window when the guidelines were submitted but yet to be approved by council the moratorium was lifted, and the developer snuck in their application during that window, and discarded the guidelines. The guidelines required a setback at 3 storeys and to preserve the view of the historical clock tower, but the developer ignored this to build 6 storeys straight up, the sad irony being that the guidelines still contain this violated requirement. No amount of testimony at the OMB mattered, it was ruled that the guidelines didn’t apply because the development application predated them.

The Murphy’s Law condo at 1684 Queen E also violates the guidelines, and so does this development. While the Queen St building only goes an extra storey, putting an 18 storey tower directly behind it completely negates the purpose of the guidelines in keeping building heights in line with the character of the neighbourhood.

As you can see, the tower planned on Eastern will dominate the landscape for blocks, and any claim this doesn’t set a precedent is false. The community was told the Licks condo was not supposed to set a precedent, but when it came to the Shell station application the developer cited the Licks condo as an example. As if this development isn’t paving the way for another 18 storey tower next door where the Beaches Cinema is. The official plan may have changed, provincial planning laws may have changed, but what hasn’t changed is the community’s desire to preserve the nature and character of our neighbourhood.

The completely useless deception of the urban design guidelines aside, there are more important issues with this development. Like the majority of recent development applications this is another example of overdensity. The WestBeach condo has 89 units, the Queen and Ashbridge condo added 551 units, the Murphy’s Law site has 216 units planned, and now with this development we are supposed to absorb another 328 units? This is not a major transit hub, have any of the planners tried to take the 501 or 503 downtown during morning rush hour? Have any of the planners tried to get childcare in this area, or fought to be first in line to sign their kids up for extracurricular activities? Duke of Connaught is the only public school in the catchment area, and it’s fully at capacity.

If we project future demand none of this makes sense. I won’t go into each item on this list, but if you look at the vacant units section, there are over 46,000 units vacant or under construction.

VACANT UNITS

Units for rent: 8864

Rental units under construction: 5475

Unsold condo units under construction: 10,000

Vacant homes: 2161

Vacant under appeal: 17437

TCHC vacant/under repair: 2770

TOTAL: 46707

The next 30 years will also see over two hundred thousand units become available as the Boomers move on. When you add up all the aged care beds currently and under construction, and then look at the 65 and over population, a generously conservative estimate of all remaining seniors being coupled up in homes means there will be potentially 223,000 housing units that will be vacated within the next 30 years. When the 447,000 seniors not currently in aged care need that type of housing, why are we focused on rentals when the real demand is for senior living communities?

AGED CARE

Private retirement homes: 8996

Long-term Care: 15184

Under construction: 5364

TOTAL: 29544

HOUSING VACANCY PROJECTION

Population 65 and older: 476990

Pop. 65 and older minus aged care beds: 447446

Potential newly vacant units next 30 years: 223723

Canada also just depopulated due to the drop in immigration targets combined with our below-replacement-value birth rates, rates that are declining world round since the 70s. Project these numbers and it makes no sense to build more units for a population likely to plateau or even decline in the next decades. Do these numbers ever enter into calculating how many units we actually need to serve future demand, or are we just blindly building?

Then there is the ongoing issue of affordability. Less than a third of these units are slated to be affordable, and according to staff at the Oct consultation they haven’t even determined what type of affordable that will be. Market rates are unaffordable to anyone not in the top 30% of incomes, if we’re not building ALL units to be affordable we aren’t serving the needs of residents.

I ask every city planner and councillor, how does any of this development frenzy qualify as good planning? It wouldn’t have ten years ago. It’s not based on evidence or best practices or projections of demand, it is purely ideological to prop up flagging economic growth and the profits of the housing industry. Toronto should be fighting the province at every turn, not caving to their environmentally destructive and unsustainable developer-driven agenda. Thank you for your time.

Adam Smith, 21st Century

Refuting 6 Dawes Rd

On Nov 27, 2025 I deputed at Toronto and East York Community Council regarding yet another oversized development planned for 6 Dawes Rd. You can watch the deputation here:

Councillor Moise interrupted me twice, first when I called out Mike Harris and Doug Ford for removing rent controls, and again when I called out the influence of developer donations on the premier, councillors and mayoral hopeful Councillor Bradford.

When Moise first interrupted me I thought there was a technical issue, but people watching live told me nothing happened. The second time it was clear he didn’t like me calling out politicians. What other opportunity does a citizen have to speak truth to power in Toronto other than a deputation? I broke no rules, and if my words are considered slanderous that’s for a court to decide, not the chair of the meeting. The first woman to speak said, ““The Toronto and East York Community Council is a sham, a kangaroo court. Why should we spend our precious time deputing for you? Why should we lend any credibility to your puppet show?” and yet she was not stopped.

Doug Ford is provably in the pocket of developers, the Greenbelt Scandal illustrates this well enough if his rabidly pro development-at-any-cost-policies don’t make it clear. Councillor Bradford too, as developers held a $100K fundraiser for his failed mayoral bid. I didn’t know anything about Councillor Moise until this meeting, and when I looked him up, lo and behold, he is also taking massive amounts of donations from developers, over $10K out of $90K. Not to mention improprieties with a developer appointment to a Moss Park Arena board, his behaviour when imposing the unilateral renaming of Dundas Square, and concerns have led to multiple groups opposing him to spring up, one straight up called stopchrismoise.ca (which has a more comprehensive list of his exploits).

What’s worse, Moise’s developer backers are from Fitzrovia, and who is the developer behind 6 Dawes? Fitzrovia! I can now see why he was trying to muzzle my deputation.

There is no argument that can be made that explains why developers who are neither friend nor family nor constituent would donate to a politician unless it’s to get something in return. That is the definition of being in someone’s pocket, and if Moise wants the same level of financial support in the next election he’s going to protect those developer interests.

Below is my full 5 min deputation (due to the huge number of deputations they reduced speaking time to 3 mins), fully sourced. You can find even more information on the reality of housing in my 2022 platform. If you share my understanding of housing policy destroying the livability of our city please like and share.

Hello, my name is Adam Smith, resident of Beaches East York.

Housing policy in Toronto is unhinged from reality, and 6 Dawes is a prime example, however my comments can apply to most recent development applications in the city, like 985 Woodbine Ave.

The condo boom was built on the notion that small-time investors would buy units and rent them out. But costs were too high for affordable rent, and now many would-be landlords are unable to rent and make a profit. The panic to sell off units has created a glut in the condo market with prices falling dramatically.

Because of this failure developers are scrambling to pivot to building rentals. The 6 Dawes development went from a reasonable 17 storey condo to a massive 56 storey rental tower. Developers don’t build to provide housing, they build to make profits for their investors. A rental building takes far longer than a condo to turn a profit, so the only way to satisfy investors and lenders is to build MUCH larger and charge high rents.

At the community consultation the developer admitted it will be unaffordable to 70% of Torontonians. To put it in context, the average income for a Torontonian is $62,000, and market rent for the average 719 Sq ft unit is $2909, which to be affordable at 30% of income requires making $116,000, nearly double the average. With the condo market crashing with plenty of supply and prices coming down, why would the top 30% of incomes spend their money renting when they can own?

The real source of rentals being unaffordable is a lack of rent controls, in particular vacancy decontrol, thank you Mike Harris. And increasing supply only lowers the price of rentals on the market, it does nothing for existing renters who have seen their rents skyrocket due to a lack of rent controls on newer buildings, thank you Doug Ford.

There is still the question of demand, doing the math between vacant units, units mid-construction, and changing population and demographics. We currently have 6914 apartment rentals on the market (according to Realtor.ca), 6952 condos for rent (according to  Realtor.ca  ), 5,475 rentals and 11,000 unsold condos mid-construction, 2161 vacant homes declared by owners and a whopping 17,437 deemed vacant but under appeal, and TCHC has 679 vacant units and 2091 units vacant but in need of repair. Our homeless population is estimated to be 15,400 people, we could house them all and still have room for future demand.

The next 30 years will also see over a hundred thousand units become available as the Boomers move into retirement homes or pass away. There are 8996 beds in private retirement homes (with 1243 units for couples) and 15,184 LTC beds, for a total of 24,180 beds for seniors. Currently there are only 5,364 new beds under construction for a potential future total of 29,544. At last census in 2021 Toronto has 476,990 people 65 and older. Taking a very loose and generous estimate, if every bed in aged care is taken up post-construction, and the remaining seniors are all coupled up, there are 223,723 housing units that will be vacated within roughly the next 30 years. The real question is, when the 447,446 seniors not currently in aged care need that type of housing, why are we focused on market rentals when the real demand is for senior living communities?

There is also the drop in immigration targets combined with our below-replacement-value birth rates, rates that are declining world round since the 70s. Project these numbers and it makes no sense to build more units for a population likely to plateau or even decline in the next decades.

Take investor profits out of the equation, the current economics still cannot create housing that is affordable. Labour and materials are too expensive, and the more builds the more demand will increase their price. Add in the cost of shoring up our inadequate infrastructure, in particular stormwater drainage and sewage, and the externalized cost of the increase in pollution and carbon emissions, not just from the construction of the building, but also the embodied carbon in all its materials (which we currently exclude). And our lack of electricity capacity, not just for new builds, but also increased demand from electric vehicles and electrification of transit, the phasing out of natural gas, and hotter summers with more A/C usage. All with no clear plan for where Toronto’s future electricity is going to come from.

When you include the other new towers planned around Main Square, it assumes Main Station and Danforth Go can handle thousands more people without ever taking into account the picture from the ground. Morning rush hour crowding at Main Station is returning to pre-lockdown levels, and the Relief Line will be no help farther west. Don’t look to Danforth GO to get downtown, which only has frequent service between 7:13-8:43am and 4:03-5:35pm and is really only good for going to and from Union Station.

Considering all the costs, the lack of infrastructure, a more realistic projection of demand, and the mismatch between incomes and rents, take it from an Adam Smith, the economics don’t add up.

With a premier and councillors and mayoral hopefuls openly and unabashedly in the pocket of developers the city’s hands are tied. Resisting developers will trigger ministerial zoning orders to ram development down our throats. When do we stop catering to the destructive and impossible infinite growth economy and start focusing on a sustainable circular economy?

Housing has become an economic crutch for the flagging growth of secular stagnation, and the powers that be see no other way to keep profits flowing than to just double down on overdensity in the hopes people will keep moving to Toronto, despite the cost of living making it increasingly unattractive. Our urban area population centers are already the densest in North America, but it’s still not enough.

The only rationale that explains why 17 storeys is now required to be 56 storeys is that 6 Dawes is not about housing people, it’s about profits for the housing industry. More density only worsens the livability of our city and takes us further from ever creating the kind of system we need to weather the coming storm of climate change. We need to focus on the 3 Rs: repair, renovate, retrofit, and where it is appropriate to build anew, the economics are clear, only a public housing model can ever provide the affordable housing we need.

Thank you for your time.

Restore the Wards

Hello, my name is Adam Smith; lifelong Toronto resident, father, activist, and two-time candidate for Toronto councillor.  I created the Restore the Wards campaign to convince provincial parties and candidates that restoring Toronto’s wards prior to Ford’s 2018 mid-election slashing was an important issue in the 2022 Ontario election.  Sadly, it was not.

You know the elite have won when the people reject democracy. In 1975, two years into our last era of high inflation triggered by the OPEC oil crisis, Rockefeller and his fellow elites at the Trilateral Commission published a paper called “Crisis of Democracy”.  Do you know what they felt the crisis of democracy was?  An “excess of democracy”.  Yes, ironic as that sounds, they found that too many people exercising their democratic rights was interfering with the elite’s ability to impose their agenda.  Sounds diabolical?  It’s easily found:

The Crisis of Democracy

“some of the problems of governance in the United States today stem from an excess of democracy…  Needed, instead, is a greater degree of moderation in democracy…  the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups.”

47 years later and it would seem they’ve accomplished their goal.  Voter turnout for the provincial election was an all-time record low at 43%.  With Ford getting 40.88% of the popular vote that means 17.58% of eligible voters gave Ford 100% of the power.  Due to the distortions of our archaic first-past-the-post electoral system, the NDP had just shy of quadruple the number of seats of the Liberals, and yet the Liberals had more of the popular vote, while the PCs now have a super majority, controlling over 66% of seats.

The Restore the Wards campaign was a dismal failure.  Not only did it not pick up steam with the public, very few candidates beyond the NDP pledged to restore the wards, and only two Liberals and nearly a dozen Greens pledged.  From reactions on social media I can tell you that the majority of people seem to think less democracy is a good thing, that less politicians is always a move in the right direction. 

Cynicism and distrust is super high, people who complain about never being heard and having no say are ironically clamouring for less representation and more concentration of power.  And whether they realize it or not, that means they are asking for even more elite and unaccountable politicians, because with larger wards it will be even harder for someone lesser known and independent to ever get a foothold  against a candidate with elite connections and a deep election war chest.  City hall will become even more overtly partisan.

The longer Toronto stays in 25 wards the more likely it will remain this way, and we will continue to have the least amount of municipal representation for a city our size in the developed world.  It’s always been obvious to some that we don’t actually live in a free and democratic society, that ultimately the elite run the show and we’re all just along for the ride.  Unfortunately more people are finally waking up to that reality, it’s just too late to do anything about it.

It’s a shame to end this campaign on such a sour note.  I truly believed what Ford did to Toronto was a travesty and an attack on democracy, but very few seem to agree, and so many seem not to care.  Which is exactly where the elite want us.  They strived for “apathy and non-involvement”, now it’s clear they have it. 

I will continue trying to fight for increased democracy and a more equitable society, I encourage others to do so too, but the elite have the public so well-divided and thinking only of themselves that such a goal seems ever more a fantasy.  Stay well everyone…

Adam Smith, 21st Century

The bedfellows of development and neoliberal ideology

This article was so incredibly off-base in so many regards it requires a whole blog post to debunk it. It is rife with pro-developer neoliberal ideology, and one of the sources is quite surprising (ie disappointing).

It’s not clear if the author is 1) just reporting what these “experts” have told her completely oblivious to the fact they’re feeding her neoliberal propaganda and that it’s one-sided, or 2) she’s aware of the neoliberal bias because she shares it and is knowingly offering a slanted perspective, or 3) she is just talking to the people she was told to talk to and reporting on the subject she was told to report on and her only option to balance the information was the comment on investors at the end. Here is the article in question:

How Canada’s new immigration targets will help housing recover — and push prices higher long-term

https://www.thestar.com/business/2022/11/03/home-prices-will-benefit-from-record-high-immigration-targets-for-years-to-come-economists-say.html

I will go quote by quote debunking this claptrap…

“A record number of immigrants are slated to arrive in Canada over the next three years, potentially lifting the housing market from its current slump by bolstering home prices long-term and labour shortages in the sector, economists say.”

A record number of immigrants… only because the feds are opening that gate as wide as possible in a misguided attempt to feed the destructive and unsustainable growth economy. And anyone who’s done any deeper reading on economics knows it’s all just made up, economists live in a fantasy world of their own devising, with formulas that never match up to reality and teachings that are no more than neoliberal ideology in service to the wealthy elite. There was not one heterodox voice in the article.

Lifting the housing market from its current slump… a slump that is both natural and unable to be controlled. It is natural because of “secular stagnation“, a natural plateauing of the economy. This has happened before in the early 70s, right before our last inflationary storm triggered by the OPEC oil crisis. The slump is unable to be controlled because it’s less about a lack of housing demand than it is about the skyrocketing costs of labour (low supply) and inflation and supply chain issues of materials (high costs and low supply). These cost-raising variables make new builds a non-starter for developers, and no amount of new immigrants will change those issues.

Bolstering home prices in the long term… is desirable WHY? It’s desirable to existing homeowners worried about their equity, especially those foolish enough to have taken a new mortgage in an incredibly over-priced market the last couple years, but does nothing to counter the previously mentioned reality: THAT WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLY OVER-PRICED HOUSING MARKET. It’s quite the irony when you have politicians lamenting how unaffordable housing is yet they wish to maintain high housing prices.

Labour shortages… so we’re depending on new Canadians to build our new housing? We’ve got all kinds labour shortages in far more crucial areas (like healthcare) but the hope is that new Canadians can fill the gap in house building? Considering we don’t recognize most education from abroad I guess it’s fitting we expect new Canadians to take lower skill harder labour jobs upon arriving here. The irony is these new Canadians will be building the very rent traps that will ensure the immigrants that follow may never own property.

“But Canada’s already strained housing stock will struggle to keep pace with swelling demand.”

Um, yeah, BECAUSE THE FEDS ARE CONSCIOUSLY CRANKING UP IMMIGRATION TO FEED THAT DEMAND. It kills me how they make immigration seem like some kind of inevitable unstoppable wave of people we must prepare for, instead of acknowledging the reality that immigration is a POLICY CHOICE, and if it’s moving faster than we can absorb then the feds can just turn down the taps and let us catch up a little.

But they won’t do that because of the aforementioned secular stagnation, policymakers keep sticking to the inherently unsustainable growth economy model to which secular stagnation is kryptonite, and rather than transition into a non-growth economy that could handle the so-called stagnation, they keep doubling down on growth. The question is, is that because of a total lack of imagination, or because only the growth economy feeds the profits of the elite?

“A revamped skilled-immigration system will help target candidates with the required skills and qualifications in sectors facing acute labour shortages — such as health care, manufacturing, building trades and STEM (science, technology, engineering and math).”

So, rather than train or retrain under/unemployed Canadians, we’ll rely on people coming from afar to fill these gaps. I’m not anti-immigration, but I do have qualms with not expanding our native supply of skilled labour in favour of importing it.

“Adding newcomers skilled in building and construction will help boost housing supply, said Robert Hogue, a senior economist with the Royal Bank of Canada.

“Right now we don’t have nearly enough construction workers in the market to build the amount of housing we need, so this could be a significant help in the market,” he said.”

The amount of housing WE need? “We” meaning developers, investors, and banks, Canada has more vacant units than homeless people, the housing we existing Canadians need already exists, it’s just controlled by parasites. And even with housing every homeless person, we have ample vacant supply left, it’s just being sat on by investors and speculators.

“Ricardo Tranjan, senior researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, agreed that immigration is necessary to generate economic growth, which can be done by building more homes.”

This was the disappointment, I guess the CCPA has gone full neoliberal now if they’re blindly supporting the environmental destructiveness of the growth economy and development. The irony is that they’re supposed to the the Centre for Policy ALTERNATIVES, not parroting neoliberal ideology. This reminds me a bit of the co-opting of the NDP and Greens to neoliberal interests, they had to in order to get more donations from deeper pockets. Being “progressive” in the developed world really only means being nice about things, it does not mean challenging neoliberalism and the growth economy, that’s heresy!

“Long-term, population growth also boosts home prices and values, which may help to bring the real estate market out of its slump”

I won’t bother repeating what I said above about home prices in an inflated market and secular stagnation, but I will add that we have come to rely too heavily on development for economic growth. The last few years housing’s share of GDP has grown 5 times faster than the rest of GDP. That’s a warning sign, a risk factor that we’re putting too many of our economic eggs in the housing basket.

And if we keep relying too heavily on housing to buoy up the economy eventually those chickens will come home to roost and the economy will crash simply because we couldn’t just keep adding people and housing forever. What happens to all those companies and workers that sprang up to build homes when there simply isn’t any more demand? Policymakers seem willfully oblivious to the fact that population growth the world ’round is slowing, the secular stagnation is a result of this.

“With the cost of borrowing spiking, most newcomers will likely rent upon arrival and try to purchase a home later on. (Skyrocketing rent prices could also make it difficult for newcomers to save to buy a home, Tranjan added.)”

That’s the whole plan, investors buy the housing and rent to new Canadians. It’s not at all about new Canadians ever owning, it’s about investors making permanent renters out of them. They even state the irony right there, that high rents (unreasonably high, primarily from our almost complete lack of rent controls) will prevent home ownership.

“The housing market is expected to crash — with home prices forecast to drop by at least 30 per cent by spring of 2023 — offering some relief for newcomers who are able to purchase upon arrival. “

This is wishful thinking at best, and at worst, either naivete or just plain propaganda. What we’ve seen so far with housing sales dipping is not so much a lowering of prices but rather a delisting of units. People are not going to sell at a loss, or even at a lower price than the peak, they are going to wait it out, we’re already seeing this. And with competition high, whether from existing or new Canadians, and distorting things like blind bidding still in place, there is little reason to believe house prices will really lower that much.

““Hopefully, cooler inflation will allow mortgage rates to ease in 2024, and open up a window that allows some now waiting on the sidelines to jump in,” he said.”

The only ones waiting on the sidelines who will get their chance are investors, because they have the collateral of existing homes to ensure the best buying price and the easiest-to-obtain mortgage. Banks will always be eager to give new mortgages to existing owners over new ones because the risk is less. It’s not potential homeowners competing with other potential homeowners, it’s investors competing with potential homeowners and other investors.

“While it’s unlikely the GTA and Vancouver will see prices drop drastically enough to ensure home ownership is affordable, it may force newcomers to locate to other parts of Canada that have historically seen less settlement, alleviating pressure from the country’s core urban centres, said RBC’s Hogue.”

EVERYONE knows this is a load of hooey, that’s why they keep pushing for ultra-density in urban centers, because they KNOW the vast majority of immigrants all move to the city. No new Canadian is going to realize the big city is all full up and then take the risk and move to some white-bread podunk small town where they know no one and no one speaks their language, follows their religion, or has the same colour skin as them. Not gonna happen, sadly they will sooner just all pile into the same cramped apartments as they historically always have been. That inequitable dynamic is precisely why COVID hit low income immigrants harder than every demographic except the elderly.

“Record-levels of immigration will strain the limited housing stock in Canada — forcing all levels of government to push harder on building more housing supply.”

To reiterate, this sounds like immigration is inevitable and unpreventable, instead of the reality it is a POLICY CHOICE BY THE FEDS. The only reason this is being forced is because of their desperation to keep afloat the growth economy and their inability (or unwillingness) to accept that the growth economy couldn’t last forever and we desperately need to transition into a sustainable circular economy. If record levels of immigration are going to cause strain then just TURN IT DOWN A NOTCH.

“Toronto will be expected to build 285,000 additional units by 2032. It’s a lofty goal to build on average 150,000 houses a year, since the largest number of annual housing starts since 1987 has been 100,000.”

So, is this policy aspirational… or completely irrational? If in our best times of ideal conditions we could only build about 100K, how in this inflationary environment of high interest rates and labour shortages will we ever manage 50% more than that? I’d like to know who ultimately is pushing this insanity? Is it a small collection of powerful players, or is there some collective neoliberal delusion going on here?

““Having so many immigrants come puts pressure on all three levels of government to continue to remove obstacles to help housing construction and to prioritize supply,” Hogue said.”

And by extension worsen all the emissions and environmental impacts of development. But the government doesn’t like to talk about that. And, again, the feds are putting that pressure on themselves, it’s endogenous not exogenous, these aren’t floods of refugees uncontrollably spilling across our borders, the feds control the taps.

“In the GTA, a record number of condo units were build in the third quarter of 2022 and new condos that started construction were up 45 per cent year-over-year, a new Urbanation report found. This provides more rental units and opportunity for those looking to enter the real estate market.

“In fact, lack of supply isn’t only to blame, he added. There has been outsized demand in the pandemic due to historically low interest rates, resulting in ballooning investor demand.”

And therein lies the rub, they have inadvertently revealed the neoliberal truth: new condos are NOT about owners, they are meant to be bought by investors to rent out. This is NOT what condos were originally intended for, if the intent is to supply renters with housing then we should be building RENTALS, not condos for investors to build equity on the backs of renters.

Now that interest rates have risen quickly, investor demand has dampened, hopefully opening the doors for first-time home buyers and newcomers.

As previously mentioned, this is more wishful thinking/naivete/propaganda. Investors have more collateral than first-time homebuyers and newcomers, who will be paying the same rates as investors. Banks will ALWAYS favour investors.

““Once the froth is taken out of the market from investors it will offer relief to those who need housing the most,” Porter said.”

Ironically, or possibly a conscious decision by the author, it ends on a note of truth, that the real problem in the housing market, the “froth” so to speak, is the actions of parasitic investors.

This disappointing and highly biased article is nothing more than neoliberal propaganda, and a textbook example of how Big Media indoctrinates the public into neoliberal ideology. People read this, and read all those quotes from “experts” (many of whom I’m sure are oblivious to the fact they are experts in an invented false reality catering to the interests of corporations and wealthy elite), and they believe it, mainly because no alternative perspective is EVER given in mainstream media. And the few publications that do offer an alternative explanation do not have the clout, reach, and air of respectability that Big Media does, and so do not resonate with the public.

Unless and until the public starts searching for truth beyond the propaganda of Big Media, we will collectively be beholden to the unsustainable destructiveness of neoliberal ideology until it is the ruin of us all. And by then there will be no websites or social media left for me to say, “I told you so.”

Adam Smith, 21st Century

Sept 10, 2022 10am-11:30am Meet & Greet in Woodbine Park

 Join mayoral candidate Sarah Climenhaga and Ward 19 council candidate Adam Smith on Saturday September 10th at 10 am, we’ll be meeting by the bandstand. Other mayoral candidates and council candidates have been invited and will be added to the event description as they confirm. #voteoctober24

For more information on who the candidates in attendance are:

https://votesarah.ca

Facebook event:  https://www.facebook.com/events/1404539186697975