Promises mean nothing. We'll start talking once we get some contract written up.
That, and why 2050? It only takes 10 years to build nuclear plants, so why can't it be 2040? Or just pump in more money into the joint effort into SMRs?
Honestly, until I see money exchange hands, this is no better than China commiting towards climate change goals while simultaneously building up a dozen new coal power plants.
Probably more like 4x that, but on the other hand, this is finally a project that is starting to get a little close to the level of added housing that is needed in a single city (presuming this is concentrated around central Vancouver, not being placed around smaller towns or something stupid like that.
Most proposals only amount to 10% those numbers, and 10 years is a realistic time scale as building homes takes time in the first place.
I once ran the numbers, and it turned out that even if all my other bills are quadrupled, if my rent alone is halved in return, I'd come out vastly on top. How come one bill come out to more than double of all my other bills combined?
Culpability party. The whole point is to enact laws that make people culpable for the things they say. If a member of parliament accuse something, and it's found not to be true, they get some sort of penalty. If they promise something during elections and it doesn't happen after they get elected, they and their party gets a punishment.
And not just some sort of slap on the wrist, but something substantial enough that repeat offences can be career ending within the field of politics. Politicians need to be responsible for what they say, as words are their weapons of choice, and with the level of power they have, they should also carry that level of responsibility.
While there is something to be said about saying something wrong due to ignorance, it's another matter to say something with authority on a subject one is ignorant about. You can't just say something like abortions should be outlawed because women can just turn off their fertility (yes, a politician actually said that).
No I think the op-ed is trying to say that no matter how many homes we build, it won't matter because those who already have homes can just leverage those homes to take on loans to buy more homes, preventing those who don't have them from actually buying homes since they're always at a deficit compared to those who are effectively already rich.
What I'm saying is that if the supply of homes increase by something like 40% across the board, it won't matter if many of these people buy a second or third home, as it's not like every person with a house is going to buy more. And even if they do, they'll resort to renting them out because a home they're not actively using is nothing but a cost that has a high chance of costing more than anything they can sell it for in a few decades due to property taxes. If they do rent them out, they'll be competing with a massively increased rental market, lowering prices or else dealing with property that is costing money rather than making money.
A net win even if everything this person says comes true. And if it doesn't, we have a massive influx of homes that'll push down prices. The only issue is that we'll be dealing with a new and long term recession as the retirement plans of millions go out the window. It's a risk but taking this risk is the only way to prevent this problem from increasing perpetually, or else the housing prices crashing due to the bubble popping anyways.
While I understand the views of this article, I don't believe it. It's true that if we build 100k homes in each province, it'll do little to dent housing prices. We don't need 100k new homes, we need like a million in each major city. People keep talking about how big of a deal building a few thousand homes are, but they're literally a drop in the bucket at this point when we should be increasing the supply not by 1-2%, but a good 20-40%.
And while I agree that not everybody would be looking to get their own personal house, increasing housing would vastly let up the pressure on rentals as well. And making rentals cheap enough that you could get one while working part time as a student would also mean that the moment you get a full-time job, you'd have the free time to do everything you could want to improve your life. The fertility crisis we're having wouldn't be such a big deal either, not to mention all the stress the young are dealing with since they know that moving out of home before 30 is a pipe dream for most of them.
I agree when it comes to transporting goods, but low speed rail isn't good enough to transport people. Remember, isn't actually that insanely fast. They start at 200km/h, so aren't anything too amazing at the lower end.
That said, if we can get some more low speed rail for goods installed, the tax revenue from that alone should give the governments more than enough to set up high speed rail lines soon after. Canada has a serious internal trade problem. Every single province trades more with the US than their neighbouring province. More cargo rail would help fix that.
In addition, since cargo and passenger rail is combined right now, passenger trains need to wait hours for cargo trains to pass through sections of it because they have priority. Just building a new cargo line would significantly reduce this one problem even if cargo trains are still allowed to use the old lines.
Don't forget the cost of insurance, maintenance, fuel, etc. According to TechAltar it costs about half a million euros to own something like a VW Golf at the low end, 1.5M euros on the higher end. It's estimated that the average person spends 30-40% of their lifetime income on their car.
People only see the initial purchase price (which is often ignored because of various deferred payment offers that further increases the price), and the price of gas. Gas alone is starting to reach the price of renting an apartment, yet somehow people still can't see themselves living without a car.
Insane.
Just need speed bumps. Speed bumps every few blocks on every street where the limits are below 60km/h. There's no more sure way short of rebuilding the entire roads.
Woo, 20 years. Makes me feel old.
I think I just lazed around the entire time. It was weird breaking out the radio back then. Not sure I even have one now.
The parents of the youtuber Technology Connections life on a farm, yet they own an EV, and apparently they never use charging stations as the range on a second hand one is more than good enough for regular trips despite going to an entire city over.
Modern EVs have a range starting at 400km nowadays, and I did say that highway rest stops should have charging stations. No matter how quickly you need to get somewhere, it can't be so desperate that you can't afford a half hour stop every three or four hours. And if it is, it sounds like something you probably shouldn't be driving yourself for and instead be calling for an ambulance or helicopter.
In the end, my argument is that all this shit about not having enough fast charging stations is going about things backwards. Charging stations shouldn't be concentrated in cities, but instead along the highway, as EV range is great enough that daily transit doesn't require charging along the way, or even at the destination.
Agree on all points. Frankly speaking, part of the reason housing prices are as high as they are is because it's so cheap to continue owning one. And by not selling as often, the market prices soar and it becomes more difficult to have more efficient housing options replace single detached homes.
Not only that, but by increasing housing density, it further increases the city's revenue and reduces cost of the infrastructure since a similar amount of infrastructure can service several times as many people.
Frankly, I hope that this not only passes, but keeps going for a few years. Homes should never be treated as investments, but necessities of life. Unlike investing in businesses, investing in homes puts greater burden on the economy rather than expanding it, and it's only a matter of time before the bubble bursts, causing millions to love everything.