Based on the summary it sound like they didn’t lie, just didn’t point out their own inability to deal with it in their own ridings

The police illegally surveilled her? This doesn’t seem good at all. She was voted in multiple times. This is almost opposite of what you are saying.

This is bad.

Sometimes home owners will sell their house after retirement for something smaller, live off the difference, then sell that house and use the money from that for long term care, or inheritance.

There’s also the obvious: they worked for something, possibly quite hard, why do they have to pay the price for others? Presumably they’ve been paying taxes all along, and have already been contributing to the greater good.

I guess my feeling is, it’s not so simple to just wreck housing prices. I absolutely feel like corporations, and probably some ultra wealthy don’t work that hard and get most of the rewards (or aren’t even people), like if the money has to come from somewhere there is a clear set of people who could afford to lose some wealth, and not materially effect their life; and that’s not necessarily single dwelling home owners.

I think what’s being said is: if housing prices lower, you are going to ruin some people’s retirement plan – at least some of those people will have worked hard their entire life to purchase and pay off that house. There’s been some incentive to save in this way as well (first time home buyer plan, tax deductions for more ecologically sound houses, that kind of thing).

I suspect he’s probably right, that letting house prices drop would over all make things worse in Canada. My goto solution would be to subsidize housing by increasing taxes on corporations and people/corporations that own more than one house. but i’m not any kind of expert

In most cases yes. However in the cases of fines poor people are more penalized than wealthy, so there should be some proportional consideration there.

I’m very lazy so I’d probably start by looking at filters on those sites, if i really wanted to tackle this with programming, i’d:

see if there’s an api, or rss feed for these sites, if so i’d pull that down with a cron job and do filtering locally with probably regex.

if not i’d scrape the html and pull out the relevant links with whatever the latest html parser is for the language i use (i.e. it used to be beautiful soup for python, but there’s i think a new better one).

but as i said i’m rather lazy, and haven’t been on the prowl for jobs for some time.

In my experience only kinda, and by convention (up is on), and three-way switches break this (indicator becomes the light itself).

oh yeah, not saying it’s a good thing at all…

To my limited knowledge (reading https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1551870) this seems to be the Canadian norm: you don’t own the land under your land

I haven’t read the article…yet (after a skim I agree with the article). I really don’t know how to feel about the gay/trans issue as I’m fine with my kids being gay or trans, but I don’t want anyone dictating to me what religion or philosophy I raise my kids with, so I feel like I shouldn’t get to say what the nut jobs believe it what they tell their children (to a point)… This is tough

You aren’t a parent are you? Cause children will actually hurt themselves badly, and really do need active care at an early age.

For older children setting boundaries for your children so they aren’t assholes is “determining best interests”.

I don’t want people telling me what religion or philosophy to raise my kids in, I kind of think of this as parents rights. Of course as kids get to be adults those go away.

Skim the article, it’s 20 large municipality’s, nowhere is 0 mentioned

It seems like you maybe thinking this is saying police do nothing, it isn’t.

No consistent association means the data doesn’t back up higher or lower funding having an impact on crime. It doesn’t say anything about rates when the funding is zero or when funding is very high.

I think it means can’t pay to reduce crime, or not pay and expect crime to go up.

Testing for zero would be extremely difficult, because we only have one Toronto sized city in Canada.

I’m guessing here but I suspect that there’s a significant number of places with zero police presence that have very little crime. And this article suggests that there are very well funded police presences where crime still happens.

How is it impossible to be true?

I’m not sure how you could make this argument without making assumptions about base crime rates.

Interviews are a crapshoot, and feedback from them is usually valueless. Good luck to you in your future interviews

I think I favour building lots of (hopefully well made) public housing, and taxes on non primary dwellings. I’m not in any way an expert though.

I don’t really understand why the statements in your second paragraph are true.

If you bought your house for $600k you should hopefully be prepared to pay that $600k over time, whether or not interest rates go up.

Unfortunate reality is sometimes rates jump, predicting 10 years out what your income will be, and how interest rates change is sort of impossible. IMO a lot of this uncertainty on the part of the buyer is mitigated by history, while the banks only have to take that risk in 5 year chunks (idk if there are longer renewal periods).

faster by kicking people out and foreclosing

short googling seems like people tend to declare bankruptcy first in canada. It all around seems like a terrible situation – and not one we’d want to encourage, hence: we probably shouldn’t actively lower existing housing prices to pandemic or 2010 prices.

Selling and purchasing aren’t the only time you’d feel it. Any time interest rates go up you’d also feel it (now you get to pay more on large amount). With very large principals you’d be paying it for longer. Anytime the mortgage goes up for renewal no bank would want to touch you, or maybe they’d love you, just with really unfavorable terms (idk much about banks).

Having a large mortgage when the asset tanks can be thought of having a big debt where the collateral for that debt is suddenly with way less.

I finally see what you are trying to say. You wouldn’t mind losing value in your house, so “the statement remains false” for you.

All i was saying originally is: lowering housing prices would be hard to pull off politically because there will be a significant portion of the 65% of canadians that own houses, that would mind losing that value.

Stagnation is way different then reduction, I’d also be fine with that, as i suspect would be other home owners.

Tank “to suffer rapid decline, failure, or collapse” is different from stagnate. The OP said:

In all seriousness, all levels of government are moving too slowly on housing affordability. They should be trying to reduce prices to prepandemic levels, or, even better 2010 levels.

This jives with tank, but not with stagnate.

The statement was all home owners want prices to increase.

This statement was never made.