Ontario’s municipalities want to build houses. Lots of them.
They also want to tackle the problem of housing by taking existing buildings and infrastructure and bringing them up to speed so as to enhance efforts to add to affordable and supportive housing in the province.
All of this is ambitious, and all of this costs money, plenty of it. And in the face of an economic downturn brought about by reckless and negligent trade policies originating south of the border, it may seem to be a hill with a slope that’s too tough to climb.
But that’s the point.
The Association of Municipalities in Ontario, or AMO, believes that this is precisely the time to beef up investment in housing starts and housing completions, along with upgrades to existing stock and buildings that seem to be lacking purpose.
The municipalities feel that this proposed injection of stimulus money, over and above current levels of funding, is just what the province and its citizens need in the face of troubling economic times.
It’s not a new concept, and it has worked before.
American president Franklin Roosevelt followed a similar path back in the 1930s during the Great Depression, where large infrastructure projects were funded by the government to keep people working and to provide tangible physical assets that could be used to grow the economy. Sure, Roosevelt’s New Deal was a big deal, much bigger than proposed here, but the idea was essentially the same, except today in Ontario the primary target is housing, or rather, the lack of it. Certainly the advent of World War 2 was the big jolt that got the American economy humming again, and nobody’s advocating going to war to help solve the housing crisis in the province, but nevertheless, the idea of pumping infrastructure dollars into the economy has positive merits of its own.
Two main things need to be highlighted.
It keeps people working, and it builds needed houses. Working people pay taxes and buy things at stores, they pay for services, and they grease the local economy. Houses fill an extreme need for shelter, something essential for the large number of Ontarians who currently find themselves without. Market housing, community housing, and supportive housing all target specific niches of need, whether that’s for a young family, a low income family, or people who need a little bit of help. And it carves a huge chunk out of the current homeless population.
Homelessness has unique demographics of its own, and not every homeless person is a fentanyl addict. If we can target specific populations within the broader homeless demographic, and remove them from the equation, it gives us a better opportunity to successfully deal with the demands posed by the remainder of that population, whether it be mental health, criminality, or substance abuse. It’s a peripheral benefit to the AMO’s plan.
Building houses is just good business and a good investment, both in terms of dollars and people.
Jobs are drivers of economic engines. Housing, or shelter, is the linchpin of everyone’s existence. In this case, we’re creating or maintaining current jobs, the former, to assist with the construction of a societal need in housing, the latter. Plus, workers need places to live.
It’s not rocket science, although anything that makes me think of a certain billionaire is unfortunate, but I suspect that clown isn’t a rocket scientist either.
This is what governments are for, the best interests of the citizenry, to provide support, to help when help is needed. We’re not Americans who have no problem with people dying on public streets, as if this were a time from centuries ago.
It’s what Stephen Harper and Mark Carney did in 2008 to help Canada absorb the economic crisis of that year brought on to the rest of us by the Americans and a banking and stock market industry that had gone out of control. It’s why Canada weathered the storm better than any of our G7 friends, including those losers down south on the other side of the fence.
This is enlightened government, proactive government, and as much as I’m coming across as a socialist here, good economic government.
And by the way, what in the hell is so wrong with being a democratic socialist? How did something so noble end up with such a dirty reputation? Helping others is a default response, or it should be. The fact that it makes economic sense makes it sound business through sound investment.
Capitalism, with its excesses, gets us into these messes. Socialism gets us out. Sorry grandpa, but it’s true. Maybe read a book.
We ought not let some stupid billionaire, or collection of stupid billionaires, do all our important thinking for us. That’s the American way. That’s not us.
And that’s something we need to proud of.
So good on Ontario’s municipalities, including our own, for having the courage to come up with non-ideological ideas and pitch them to government.
Doug Ford, as he seems to do, has risen to the occasion presented by that awful Filet-O’-Fish dummy in the White House. I hope he recognizes the merits of the AMO proposal, and funds a really good idea that’s just what the province needs at any time, but especially at this time.
To borrow from the jingle, this is a place to stand, and a place to grow.
This is what it means to be Ontario.
NEWSMAGRENFREW 