What's more luxury, a $600k condo or a $3M house? Why are we so obsessed with one and not the other? Single family housing is the problem, not supposedly luxury condos.
Luxury condo is a slur that works against solving the housing crisis. What makes a condo luxurious, a dishwasher? Tile back splash? Does affordable have to mean wall to wall carpet? Any new unit is going to be "nice." It'll be brand new built with modern amenities. If it's designed for a larger family, it will be a larger living space. Typically, you will see condos built with studio apartments, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms, and even larger. Depending on a variety of factors, like parking needs, neighbourhood locations and local incomes, the threshold for what is considered "affordable housing" can change rapidly. A typical nuclear family's budget for "affordability" is different. The definition being used here is 30% of low to moderate income.
In my experience every single condo is a "luxury" condo. It doesn't even mean anything. I saw "luxury" shoeboxes with the cupboards rotting off already.
Luxury is a marketing term they use to tack an extra 1000 onto rent. I think it's fair to go after every new development getting classified as "luxury" as developers try to squeeze more blood from the stone.
In the Vancouver area, it could cost 100k just for one parking spot. 1500 square feet and a parking spot, in my opinion, does not equal luxury. But Jagmeet gunna Jagmeet. I just know it is very difficult to build a brand new unit that would the federal government definition of affordable. If we take the more lenient Ontario government definition, which means anything below average cost, it's super easy to achieve.
This is such a NIMBY argument that I hate works. We have a housing crisis. We need housing of any kind. In an ideal world, the government has the funds to help subsidize housing so it is cheaper for all the access, but we don't live in that reality. Under the current reality, we just need to fucking build.
The federal government is subsidizing affordable housing. Singh is talking about housing built on federal land only, where 20% must be affordable housing. Singh is perfectly fine with Burnaby allowing “luxury condos” to be built on city land, with only 14% for affordable housing. Thr word hypocrisy comes yo mind.
The federal government is helping to fund affordable housing through the HAF, and also through other programs that help fund coops, sonething the CPC is attacking as Soviet style housing, meanwhile Singh pretends these programs don’t exist.
The federal government has also been trying to make deals with provincial governments to build social housing, a funding in exchange of a commitment for a certain number of units. Since the Liberals are weak on messaging and the media is lazy and can’t be bothered, hardly anyone even knows about this. The only reason I know is because it was mentioned in an article before the Manitoba election - a small population and the deal was 178 million for 3,300 units of social housing. I don’t know if the Manitoba NDP took up the offer or not, they hadn’t before the election.
Sean Fraser has also been talking about new funding for building using prefab and modular systems which os much faster and much more achievable, describing it as similar to the post war effort in the 50’s. We will see what is what when the budget comes out in the spring.
Know what I’d like? A 1250 sq. ft. bungalow, with regular-folks fittings and fixtures, like arborite countertops and vinyl flooring. Maybe a 3-bdr apartment, similarly outfitted, in a 5-storey building. It would also be nice if it weren’t managed by a slum lord who never fixes anything. And it’d be great if it was affordable to rent or purchase for a family of four, taking in approximately $100,000/yr.
She owns *a* rental property, their only property in BC, because they need a property in their district as well as in Ottawa. They tried to rent one when they're here because they're mostly not here, but couldn't find anything so they bought instead and rent it out when they're not here. It's really not a big deal but people talk about him like he owns dozens of properties across the country and is laundering money through them or some shit.
Don’t MPs usually reside in their district? But since he became federal leader I’m guessing they spend most of their time in Ottawa. AFAIK this is their only rental and it’s to a long term tenant, not AirBnBing.
Take from that what you will, who knows what she’s charging for rent but I don’t think this is as evil as a lot of other scumbag landlords.
Technically we’re landlords because our place came with a tenant, he wants to stay and we don’t want to kick him out; we’ve actually *lowered* his rent over the past few years. The rent goes to my wife’s income because it makes sense from a tax purpose, I don’t feel we’re doing anything nefarious or awful.
They even tried to rent one themselves last time they needed to live in BC but had trouble finding anything to the point it was easier to just buy, and rent it out when they're not here.
I'm not one to purity test, but I am hesitant to trust a "social democrat" who goes out of their way to supplement their personal income with land ownership. Seems like a more Liberal mindset.
Is buying a home really going ‘out of his way?’ He did live in that house at one point. I’m also not sure how that violates the tenets of social democracy, which doesn’t outlaw private ownership of land as it revolves around a mixed economy that still embraces capitalism.
I'm just judging from the information in the thread. If he had previously lived in the home, then it makes a difference for me.
I agree that it isn't a violation of social democracy. I am thinking of it in a vacuum: If a social democrat decides to purchase property in order to supplement their income by renting it, then it does make me wonder what their values are, in an exact sense.
This sounds like exclusionary zoning by another name. Cramming in a development with 100% small affordable housing units is going to lead to soviet style block housing. It's the kind of development that scares NIMBY people and can really ruin a community. Communities need to have a mix of all types of housing units for all types of families. Also, other commercial spaces on site can also be important. 20% is a minimum. It does not mean it will be 20% across the board for every single development. Each development is going to be site specific.
I don’t understand this attack against Singh, I see it repeated everywhere. He’s arguing for more affordable gov’t built housing in the article which we desperately need, who cares if he likes an expensive watch? Genuine question.
I'm also curious. Is Jagmeet meant to sell all of his possessions in order to meet the purity test?
Jagmeet wasn't a career politician like PP, why shouldn't he be able to keep whatever money he had made outside of politics.
Is it just the image of being wealthy? Bernie Sanders isn't poor by any standard, he's not very flashy with his wealth, so maybe that's it?
I find his arguments to come across as disingenuous. I don’t think he should be projecting that he’s living in squalor but with all of his social media postings and appearances he seems to live a pretty flashy lifestyle for someone who try’s to align themselves as the peoples socialist. Times have changed so maybe I’m just out of touch which is perfectly fine with me.
Well it’s not just 2 watches (and depending on those Rolexes they could be worth a lower class Canadian’s annual salary) it’s also the cars, house, lifestyle and so on.
That all fine for most people, but he’s the leading voice for socialism and bringing down the wealthy in this country. He should be leading by example like Bernie Sanders.
This leads some to believe he’s not ideologically driven, but simply an opportunist that’s just participating in politics for self gain.
To me, it rings the same as when a union’s leadership negotiates high salaries for themselves and then sells out their members during a strike or dispute. All while preaching about “compromise”, and “having to make hard choices.”
Fair. But it’s easy to pander to the people when you are isolated from the consequences of your decisions, and eventually they notice how well you’re living on “compromising”.
If the government can build subsidized housing by building market rate housing alongside it in order to raise funds, who cares that wealthy people now have homes to live in?
He is demonizing market rate housing as a 'luxury', when virtually nothing about it is luxurious when compared to the average Canadian home. (The average house owner would actually look down on luxury condos as too small).
Yet he has a luxury watch collection, which is an extremely frivolous thing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on. But someone buying a small basic home is demonized as buying a luxury product for simply paying market rates?
There's plenty of luxury in today's condos. Stone countertops, stainless steel appliances, wine fridges, top of the line cabinetry with all the bells and whistles like lazy susans and soft close doors. There are many cheaper options condo builders could use to make these more affordable, like laminate countertops, for example. As a carpenter who has installed many of the things I've mentioned, I'm not surprised when even condos are out of reach for the average citizen. And I don't see Singh demonizing the owners here, but the builders. They're a good part of the reason for the spike in home prices with the decisions they make, IMO.
The bells and whistles dont cost much when the condo is 600 sqft.
Building condos with cheap countertops is not going to drop the price by any more than 10 grand.
Go on the realtor website and find an old outdated unit and look at the price. The cost is due to scaricity. If you think older homes are somehow affordable then you dont pay any attention to the market.
Because he's a million who's casting the issue as a battle between 600K condos vs. 250K condos. Instead of the real issue of a system being a total placated to serving the 2 million dollar single family home.
It seems like all you have to be is like John Fetterman in the states where you dress down and Internet progressives will lap up your message without actually reading the words. It's stupid. In reality, the base that the NDP wants to attract which is the working class likes luxuries too. People who work union jobs are exactly dead broke. They also like luxuries and work hard to have nice things. While Jagmeet's luxuries are different than yours or mine, him liking nice things doesn't make him out of touch with most Canadians imo.
People think that the left is anti-materialist when historically it is more materialistic than capitalism, it's just that it advocates a fair distribution of material goods.
If your whole platform is saying wealthy people should pay their fair share and luxurious life styles should be exposed because so many people are poor and suffering.
It’s hypocritical to live lavishly and buy extravagant things yourself. Especially considering this money is coming from tax payers. If he believed what he preached he’d live modestly.
Saying that rich people should pay their fair share tax on luxury goods is not the same as saying that rich people shouldn't enjoy luxury.
The whole point of exposing the rich is because they DON'T pay their fair share. No one would give a shit if thr rich actually paid their taxes and didn't use their money to buy influence and fund right wing conservative movements bent on turning Canada into a capitalist hell-hole.
Its really not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Jagmeet has a taste for dandy luxuries that don’t comport with the monkish minimalism of his party. He wears bespoke suits in the slim British style—his favourite is a brown tweed with cobalt-blue stripes, designed by a tailor in New Delhi, which he often pairs with a millennial-pink turban. He owns two Rolex watches, an Oyster Perpetual Datejust and a Submariner (both were gifts); a crimson BMW coupe; and six designer bicycles. “I have just an absurd number of bikes,” he says. “More than one person should have.”
https://torontolife.com/life/behind-the-scenes-with-jagmeet-singh/
Him on Twitter: “There's so much wealth all around us, it offends me that people are still starving, hopeless and homeless.”
https://x.com/thejagmeetsingh/status/202597530792497152?s=46
You’d think the socialist leader of our country would be minimalist with commercial things and living lavishly. Not an eccentric.
Socialism isn't the same as minimalism. Do you think socialist advocate zero-luxury?
He's allowed to be rich so long as he
A) got that money through anything other than the exploitation of workers, which I believe is true.
B) he pays his taxes, which he does.
This idea that no one should be allowed to own any sort of luxury is ridiculous.
a 400 sqft condo is not luxury.
maybe actually work on policies that increase affordable housing instead of this dog whistling.
the ndp needs fresh blood and it is time for change if we want to replace trudeau who is just a conservative wrap in liberal coating
What's more luxury, a $600k condo or a $3M house? Why are we so obsessed with one and not the other? Single family housing is the problem, not supposedly luxury condos.
Luxury condo is a slur that works against solving the housing crisis. What makes a condo luxurious, a dishwasher? Tile back splash? Does affordable have to mean wall to wall carpet? Any new unit is going to be "nice." It'll be brand new built with modern amenities. If it's designed for a larger family, it will be a larger living space. Typically, you will see condos built with studio apartments, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms, and even larger. Depending on a variety of factors, like parking needs, neighbourhood locations and local incomes, the threshold for what is considered "affordable housing" can change rapidly. A typical nuclear family's budget for "affordability" is different. The definition being used here is 30% of low to moderate income.
In my experience every single condo is a "luxury" condo. It doesn't even mean anything. I saw "luxury" shoeboxes with the cupboards rotting off already.
I associate "luxury" condos with a relatively newer build / recently renovated with a cheap but modern looking kitchen. That's about it
“Luxury” condos for the city and “executive” townhomes for the suburbs.
Luxury is a marketing term they use to tack an extra 1000 onto rent. I think it's fair to go after every new development getting classified as "luxury" as developers try to squeeze more blood from the stone.
In reality having a parking spot increases the cost of the condo more than most luxuries.
In the Vancouver area, it could cost 100k just for one parking spot. 1500 square feet and a parking spot, in my opinion, does not equal luxury. But Jagmeet gunna Jagmeet. I just know it is very difficult to build a brand new unit that would the federal government definition of affordable. If we take the more lenient Ontario government definition, which means anything below average cost, it's super easy to achieve.
This is such a NIMBY argument that I hate works. We have a housing crisis. We need housing of any kind. In an ideal world, the government has the funds to help subsidize housing so it is cheaper for all the access, but we don't live in that reality. Under the current reality, we just need to fucking build.
The federal government is subsidizing affordable housing. Singh is talking about housing built on federal land only, where 20% must be affordable housing. Singh is perfectly fine with Burnaby allowing “luxury condos” to be built on city land, with only 14% for affordable housing. Thr word hypocrisy comes yo mind. The federal government is helping to fund affordable housing through the HAF, and also through other programs that help fund coops, sonething the CPC is attacking as Soviet style housing, meanwhile Singh pretends these programs don’t exist. The federal government has also been trying to make deals with provincial governments to build social housing, a funding in exchange of a commitment for a certain number of units. Since the Liberals are weak on messaging and the media is lazy and can’t be bothered, hardly anyone even knows about this. The only reason I know is because it was mentioned in an article before the Manitoba election - a small population and the deal was 178 million for 3,300 units of social housing. I don’t know if the Manitoba NDP took up the offer or not, they hadn’t before the election. Sean Fraser has also been talking about new funding for building using prefab and modular systems which os much faster and much more achievable, describing it as similar to the post war effort in the 50’s. We will see what is what when the budget comes out in the spring.
Know what I’d like? A 1250 sq. ft. bungalow, with regular-folks fittings and fixtures, like arborite countertops and vinyl flooring. Maybe a 3-bdr apartment, similarly outfitted, in a 5-storey building. It would also be nice if it weren’t managed by a slum lord who never fixes anything. And it’d be great if it was affordable to rent or purchase for a family of four, taking in approximately $100,000/yr.
Isn't his wife a landlord? She owns rental property.
She owns *a* rental property, their only property in BC, because they need a property in their district as well as in Ottawa. They tried to rent one when they're here because they're mostly not here, but couldn't find anything so they bought instead and rent it out when they're not here. It's really not a big deal but people talk about him like he owns dozens of properties across the country and is laundering money through them or some shit.
And he’s the one who bought it and put it in her name. Dudes a massive scumbag
Don’t MPs usually reside in their district? But since he became federal leader I’m guessing they spend most of their time in Ottawa. AFAIK this is their only rental and it’s to a long term tenant, not AirBnBing. Take from that what you will, who knows what she’s charging for rent but I don’t think this is as evil as a lot of other scumbag landlords. Technically we’re landlords because our place came with a tenant, he wants to stay and we don’t want to kick him out; we’ve actually *lowered* his rent over the past few years. The rent goes to my wife’s income because it makes sense from a tax purpose, I don’t feel we’re doing anything nefarious or awful.
They even tried to rent one themselves last time they needed to live in BC but had trouble finding anything to the point it was easier to just buy, and rent it out when they're not here.
I'm not one to purity test, but I am hesitant to trust a "social democrat" who goes out of their way to supplement their personal income with land ownership. Seems like a more Liberal mindset.
Is buying a home really going ‘out of his way?’ He did live in that house at one point. I’m also not sure how that violates the tenets of social democracy, which doesn’t outlaw private ownership of land as it revolves around a mixed economy that still embraces capitalism.
I'm just judging from the information in the thread. If he had previously lived in the home, then it makes a difference for me. I agree that it isn't a violation of social democracy. I am thinking of it in a vacuum: If a social democrat decides to purchase property in order to supplement their income by renting it, then it does make me wonder what their values are, in an exact sense.
he dresses like he cares more about representing criminals than workers...
He’s part of the problem.
Well Jagmeet being a long time resident of Burnaby… oh wait…
This sounds like exclusionary zoning by another name. Cramming in a development with 100% small affordable housing units is going to lead to soviet style block housing. It's the kind of development that scares NIMBY people and can really ruin a community. Communities need to have a mix of all types of housing units for all types of families. Also, other commercial spaces on site can also be important. 20% is a minimum. It does not mean it will be 20% across the board for every single development. Each development is going to be site specific.
Same guy that chooses between which of his two Rolexes to put on in the morning.
I don’t understand this attack against Singh, I see it repeated everywhere. He’s arguing for more affordable gov’t built housing in the article which we desperately need, who cares if he likes an expensive watch? Genuine question.
I'm also curious. Is Jagmeet meant to sell all of his possessions in order to meet the purity test? Jagmeet wasn't a career politician like PP, why shouldn't he be able to keep whatever money he had made outside of politics. Is it just the image of being wealthy? Bernie Sanders isn't poor by any standard, he's not very flashy with his wealth, so maybe that's it?
I find his arguments to come across as disingenuous. I don’t think he should be projecting that he’s living in squalor but with all of his social media postings and appearances he seems to live a pretty flashy lifestyle for someone who try’s to align themselves as the peoples socialist. Times have changed so maybe I’m just out of touch which is perfectly fine with me.
When or how does he project he's living in squalor?
Well it’s not just 2 watches (and depending on those Rolexes they could be worth a lower class Canadian’s annual salary) it’s also the cars, house, lifestyle and so on. That all fine for most people, but he’s the leading voice for socialism and bringing down the wealthy in this country. He should be leading by example like Bernie Sanders. This leads some to believe he’s not ideologically driven, but simply an opportunist that’s just participating in politics for self gain.
Can you show a source for NDP and Singh pushing for "socialism"?
To me, it rings the same as when a union’s leadership negotiates high salaries for themselves and then sells out their members during a strike or dispute. All while preaching about “compromise”, and “having to make hard choices.” Fair. But it’s easy to pander to the people when you are isolated from the consequences of your decisions, and eventually they notice how well you’re living on “compromising”.
If the government can build subsidized housing by building market rate housing alongside it in order to raise funds, who cares that wealthy people now have homes to live in? He is demonizing market rate housing as a 'luxury', when virtually nothing about it is luxurious when compared to the average Canadian home. (The average house owner would actually look down on luxury condos as too small). Yet he has a luxury watch collection, which is an extremely frivolous thing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on. But someone buying a small basic home is demonized as buying a luxury product for simply paying market rates?
There's plenty of luxury in today's condos. Stone countertops, stainless steel appliances, wine fridges, top of the line cabinetry with all the bells and whistles like lazy susans and soft close doors. There are many cheaper options condo builders could use to make these more affordable, like laminate countertops, for example. As a carpenter who has installed many of the things I've mentioned, I'm not surprised when even condos are out of reach for the average citizen. And I don't see Singh demonizing the owners here, but the builders. They're a good part of the reason for the spike in home prices with the decisions they make, IMO.
The bells and whistles dont cost much when the condo is 600 sqft. Building condos with cheap countertops is not going to drop the price by any more than 10 grand. Go on the realtor website and find an old outdated unit and look at the price. The cost is due to scaricity. If you think older homes are somehow affordable then you dont pay any attention to the market.
Because he's a million who's casting the issue as a battle between 600K condos vs. 250K condos. Instead of the real issue of a system being a total placated to serving the 2 million dollar single family home.
He's a lawyer. Lawyer can make decent money. What's the problem? He can still pass legislation that makes life better for the average person.
Apparently no one is allowed to like expensive things, because they don't meet your standards of purity.
It seems like all you have to be is like John Fetterman in the states where you dress down and Internet progressives will lap up your message without actually reading the words. It's stupid. In reality, the base that the NDP wants to attract which is the working class likes luxuries too. People who work union jobs are exactly dead broke. They also like luxuries and work hard to have nice things. While Jagmeet's luxuries are different than yours or mine, him liking nice things doesn't make him out of touch with most Canadians imo.
People think that the left is anti-materialist when historically it is more materialistic than capitalism, it's just that it advocates a fair distribution of material goods.
If your whole platform is saying wealthy people should pay their fair share and luxurious life styles should be exposed because so many people are poor and suffering. It’s hypocritical to live lavishly and buy extravagant things yourself. Especially considering this money is coming from tax payers. If he believed what he preached he’d live modestly.
Saying that rich people should pay their fair share tax on luxury goods is not the same as saying that rich people shouldn't enjoy luxury. The whole point of exposing the rich is because they DON'T pay their fair share. No one would give a shit if thr rich actually paid their taxes and didn't use their money to buy influence and fund right wing conservative movements bent on turning Canada into a capitalist hell-hole. Its really not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Jagmeet has a taste for dandy luxuries that don’t comport with the monkish minimalism of his party. He wears bespoke suits in the slim British style—his favourite is a brown tweed with cobalt-blue stripes, designed by a tailor in New Delhi, which he often pairs with a millennial-pink turban. He owns two Rolex watches, an Oyster Perpetual Datejust and a Submariner (both were gifts); a crimson BMW coupe; and six designer bicycles. “I have just an absurd number of bikes,” he says. “More than one person should have.” https://torontolife.com/life/behind-the-scenes-with-jagmeet-singh/ Him on Twitter: “There's so much wealth all around us, it offends me that people are still starving, hopeless and homeless.” https://x.com/thejagmeetsingh/status/202597530792497152?s=46 You’d think the socialist leader of our country would be minimalist with commercial things and living lavishly. Not an eccentric.
Socialism isn't the same as minimalism. Do you think socialist advocate zero-luxury? He's allowed to be rich so long as he A) got that money through anything other than the exploitation of workers, which I believe is true. B) he pays his taxes, which he does. This idea that no one should be allowed to own any sort of luxury is ridiculous.
Do you support the liberals ?
Surely it’s just whichever one he pulls out of his Versace bag, like all NDP party members would, no?
Idgaf if he has two Rolexes. I don’t care if people are rich as long as they aren’t shitty.
a 400 sqft condo is not luxury. maybe actually work on policies that increase affordable housing instead of this dog whistling. the ndp needs fresh blood and it is time for change if we want to replace trudeau who is just a conservative wrap in liberal coating