Read on Twitter
An argument you see from time to time against zoning reform is that, "we need land for all kinds"
If you aren't immersed in housing policy, it might even sound like a reasonable, way of thinking about land.
Let's see why it's not, and then consider a modest proposal...
If you aren't immersed in housing policy, it might even sound like a reasonable, way of thinking about land.
Let's see why it's not, and then consider a modest proposal...
Problem is it's one way nature - suggesting city should designate land "only for rich" but sidestepping that those fortunate souls still get to buy/rent anywhere else *also*
Reserving Shaughnessy isn't abt making space for "all kinds", it's about keeping "most kinds" out
Reserving Shaughnessy isn't abt making space for "all kinds", it's about keeping "most kinds" out
But there is a kernel of wisdom we can use for modest proposal: if some want Shaughnessy only for rich ...ok.. fine, they can have it.. but w/1 catch:
It has to be ONLY place wealthy can live.
You may think this irrelevant to the housing needs of the many but......
It has to be ONLY place wealthy can live.
You may think this irrelevant to the housing needs of the many but......
43K households in @cityofvancouver earn above $150k. If all were required to move to Shaughnessy...
1. Shaughnessy would have to quickly 15x their housing
2. ~40K housing units outside Shaughnessy would become available for the rest of us
Seem harsh? ok, let's do $200k..
1. Shaughnessy would have to quickly 15x their housing
2. ~40K housing units outside Shaughnessy would become available for the rest of us
Seem harsh? ok, let's do $200k..
23,310 hh in @CityofVancouver earn above $200K compared to only 2,850 households living in Shaughnessy.
Once again - the onus would be on Shaughnessy to build a lot more housing quickly, rather than the West End or Fairview, while ~20K homes would become available elsewhere.
Once again - the onus would be on Shaughnessy to build a lot more housing quickly, rather than the West End or Fairview, while ~20K homes would become available elsewhere.
Is this a serious policy proposal? No of course not - forcing tens of thousands of people to move to satisfy utopian ideas about land use would be terribly unjust...
... and yet ... isn't that exactly what we have been doing to lower income people for generations?
... and yet ... isn't that exactly what we have been doing to lower income people for generations?
The notion that ppl should only live in detached housing is no less utopian than the idea that rich ppl should confine themselves to Shaughnessy.
The only difference between my scenario and the status quo is which end of the income distribution is asked to do the moving.
The only difference between my scenario and the status quo is which end of the income distribution is asked to do the moving.
So notion that rich need govt to make room for them doesn't hold water. If you ended up on top of the pyramid, whether through hard work or dumb luck, you'll be able to buy/rent anywhere you please. There's no reason the rest of us should subsidize land for your duchy.
