Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

Guest2553: Aug 3, 2012

I mean I could find a way to spend 70k on a vehicle but it would be some uparmored james bond level poo poo with changing license plates and caltrops.

# ? Jun 20, 2021 20:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 23:59

Purgatory Glory: Feb 20, 2005

qhat posted:

Not sure who that is tailored for, other than abject idiots. If only there was some kind of investment trust that targeted real estate. Hmm.

Who wouldn't want to sleep in a broom closet that they own and that got them on the property ladder?

# ? Jun 21, 2021 03:20

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

leftist heap posted:

Which things in the report do you think would make a big difference otherwise?

Most of the points in the document are around making it faster and easier to build housing, which should increase vacancy and make life better for renters.

#2 could be an improvement getting more housing built in all cities. It could prevent what we have now, where certain cities like West Vancouver and District of North Van are just like, "yeah no we're not gonna build any new housing other cities can do that."

quote:

...require local governments to use anticipated growth numbers from the Housing Needs Reports as binding minimum targets from which to determine land-use policies and decisions;

#3 is something yimbys and developers have been asking for forever, which is to ensure that cities actually pre-zone the land in alignment with their community plans. Right now we have the situation where Vancouver does a big consultation and plan to approve of some neighbourhood plan, saying for example, every lot in this area can be a 6 story building, but then doesn't change the zoning, so every lot that gets developed along to fit the neighbourhood plan needs to go through the rezoning process, which takes a public hearing and a bunch of time. It's effectively requiring another city council vote for every building on something the council already agreed on.

quote:

The B.C. government should also require all local governments to proactively update and orient zoning bylaws and infrastructure planning to reflect official community plans, as widely and as rapidly as possible. Practices such as adopting plans without pre-zoning land or orienting infrastructure planning to match those changes, and relying on privately initiated rezoning (spot-zoning) should be strongly discouraged

#4 could do away with insane multi-day meetings just to approve new housing, which could make housing get built faster

quote:

a) Provincial review of public hearings and consideration of alternative options for more meaningful, earlier public input and in different formats,

Lots of the changes toward Community Amenity Contributions are interesting. The authors of this report were definitely listening to developers critiques of the current system, because I know developers have been whining bout CACs forever. I've heard the biggest thing for developers is not necessarily that they have to pay, but the uncertainty about how much they have to pay, since these CACs are negotiated instead of being set standardized fees. Honestly the CAC stuff is complex and multi faceted enough that gently caress if I know if these recommendations are a good idea or not. I'm not a housing economist.

Right now since the Feds and Province underfund everything, the City of Vancouver pays for things that the higher order governments should be doing, such as affordable housing and childcare. The CoV is shy about doing this via property taxes, so they leverage CAC fees. Accordingly point #9 is probably the secret biggest bombshell in the whole report as it suggests restricting what revenue from CACs can be put towards.

quote:

the B.C. government phase out community amenity contributions, as suggested in the Development Approvals Process Review (DAPR) report, while expanding the definition of development cost charges in legislation to include a wider list of infrastructure and amenities directly tied to growth, such as those currently funded by CACs. The B.C. government should require any new or expanded fees or taxation of development to only fund capital expenses, and not operating expenses. The B.C. government should also require any new or expanded municipally levied fees or taxation of development to adhere to principles of �nexus� and �proportionality.� Namely, development fees should match the proportion of new amenity or infrastructure requirements directly generated by new development projects, rather than an exhaustive list of desired amenities. For further discussion of nexus and proportionality, see appendix 7.

Point 10 gets into the huge implications of this, which is that if cities want good amenities well they need to raise property taxes. (An alternative explanation is that the document is suggesting that we need new land value taxes on sale in addition to property taxes).

quote:

the B.C. government conduct a full review of local government revenue sources and spending responsibilities. This review should include consideration of additional or enhanced funding sources for infrastructure and amenities that are more predictable and do not rely on rezoning or the development process. Preference should be given to means that capture land value through taxation, rather than homebuilding;

By leveraging CACs cities have effectively been able to give their residents amenities beyond what they're actually paying for. If CACs are scaled back by new legislation, cities will have to make up the shortfall with higher property taxes, or scale back amenities. The troubling thing is that it's all too easy for politicians to ride a promise of low taxes! into power and this means a huge reduction of amenities. Maybe the province will pick up the slack and fund these amenities, such as social housing, instead, but lol probably not.

Also in the document is good idea stuff that is basically like, "the feds and province should actually do something?????" and these will probably get ignored. Point 13 is a good example.

quote:

The federal government make long-term funding commitments, as was done until the mid-1990s, rather than offering short-term capital grants. We recommend that the scale of these funding commitments reflects what is required for the construction of new social housing units to return to historic levels, when nearly 10% of all national housing starts were social housing units;

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Jun 21, 2021

# ? Jun 21, 2021 05:39

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

Femtosecond posted:

https://twitter.com/RobShaw_BC/status/1405639428001857536?s=20

lol if you think the BC NDP gonna do anything about housing.

Can someone remind me why CMHC is relevant for capital gains exemptions? Isn�t that just a CRA/legislature issue, really?

# ? Jun 21, 2021 11:43

mik: Oct 16, 2003; oh

qhat posted:

Not sure who that is tailored for, other than abject idiots. If only there was some kind of investment trust that targeted real estate. Hmm.

I like how they mention REITs, but they're like no, you should be even less diversified.

# ? Jun 21, 2021 13:15

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Femtosecond posted:

Point 10 gets into the huge implications of this, which is that if cities want good amenities well they need to raise property taxes. (An alternative explanation is that the document is suggesting that we need new land value taxes on sale in addition to property taxes).

By leveraging CACs cities have effectively been able to give their residents amenities beyond what they're actually paying for. If CACs are scaled back by new legislation, cities will have to make up the shortfall with higher property taxes, or scale back amenities. The troubling thing is that it's all too easy for politicians to ride a promise of low taxes! into power and this means a huge reduction of amenities. Maybe the province will pick up the slack and fund these amenities, such as social housing, instead, but lol probably not.

the correct way forward for BC municipalities to build "affordable" housing is to use existing permissions in the LGA, by either:

(1) pre-zoning land with specific density bonusing regulations, which essentially is the legal means of collecting amenities from developers in exchange for density; or
(2) using the new tenure zoning rules to pre-zone single-family residential neighbourhoods (ok single-family neighbourhoods, you can either have a fee-simple SFD lot or rental-only multi-family residential)

except none of that is going to happen, because land use planning is the biggest and most influential thing that Council gets to do (plus the public would be furious at not having their say), so lmao at the idea that they'd ever relinquish this power

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jun 21, 2021

# ? Jun 21, 2021 16:49

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Yeah if the city did this then the city planners wouldn't be able to stop everything because they have opinions about the patio rail design and soffit colours so we all know that's untenable.

# ? Jun 21, 2021 16:54

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Femtosecond posted:

Yeah if the city did this then the city planners wouldn't be able to stop everything because they have opinions about the patio rail design and soffit colours so we all know that's untenable.

except the city planners would still be able to do that, because the development permit process would remain unaffected

and don't forget the advisory planning commissions and advisory design panels who can pretty much do the same thing too

l o l

another edit: thanks for sharing the full report though

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 21, 2021

# ? Jun 21, 2021 16:57

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE SPEECH SUPPRESSOR

Remember: it's "antisemitic" to protest genocide as long as the targets are brown.

mik posted:

I like how they mention REITs, but they're like no, you should be even less diversified.

Most REITs skew commercial, though. If you've just got to have some exposure to residential real estate at less than the cost of one property, this is a way to accomplish that.

# ? Jun 21, 2021 19:37

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

tagesschau posted:

Most REITs skew commercial, though. If you've just got to have some exposure to residential real estate at less than the cost of one property, this is a way to accomplish that.

Not necessarily. You can find residential REITs. Even ETFs that skew heavily on residential. For example:

https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239545/ishares-residential-and-multisector-real-estate-etf

And for a tidy 0.48% fee.

# ? Jun 21, 2021 23:33

Cabbages and VHS: Aug 25, 2004; Listen, I've been around a bit, you know, and I thought I'd seen some creepy things go on in the movie business, but I really have to say this is the most disgusting thing that's ever happened to me.

RBC posted:

i dunno about fully compensated but i will always laugh at someone who thinks they need a 70k truck

It sort of depends on your use case.

For instance if you routinely need to move large amounts of I Beams, you may need an expensive truck. I feel like I do see more f350s with coolers in the back, than I beams, though.

# ? Jun 22, 2021 02:54

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

Anyway..

While we give all our money to homeowners, california is paying off overdue rent for tenants: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/california-rent-forgiveness.html

# ? Jun 22, 2021 12:21

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Should�ve told the landlords to go gently caress themselves for their rent

# ? Jun 22, 2021 16:04

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

In an ideal world, we would. But this is about as good as we'll get under capitalism.

# ? Jun 22, 2021 21:46

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1407292433231187970

not sure if these were the same people doing it in canada, but i assume the business model is the same

e: more

https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1402434266970140676

mila kunis fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Jun 23, 2021

# ? Jun 23, 2021 16:48

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

From the BC affordable housing report solutions and the government reaction to it, it's a clear signal to investors to buy housing, because either way you're gonna make money.

If the government rejects the findings and maintains the status quo, you'll make money because we will remain at near zero vacancy rates and a housing shortage situation where it is not at all risky to constantly raise rents. If the government commits to the supply side solutions and starts incentivizing new apartment development, well great, now you have the land that you can sell to developers (at a premium of course).

In this article below, that details how investors are piling into buying apartments, well I think that's a strong signal that investors think the government is going to do poo poo all. Investors are betting that the government isn't gonna help build lots of new housing, whether publicly owned, social or private for-profit. It's in this status quo housing scarcity case where existing lovely, decades old apartments retain their values the most.

(Just as a pre-amble before even starting reading this article, does anyone think that investors owning 20% of the housing market is a new, and novel thing? It's not like apartments are a new concept... Anyway.... )

quote:

Investors account for a fifth of home purchases in Canada. Are they driving up housing prices in a booming market?

Investors account for one-fifth of all home purchases in Canada, adding more fuel to the debate about their influence on the country�s soaring real estate prices and demand for housing.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, investor buying has rebounded to 20.1 per cent of all purchases in the country, with a slightly higher share in Toronto and Hamilton, according to data published in the Bank of Canada�s financial system review. That is lower than during the tail end of the previous real estate boom, but higher than in prepandemic days.

With the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) reporting the national average home price is 38 per cent higher than a year ago, real estate investors are being accused of driving up prices. However, housing experts and economists have not been able to quantify the investor effect on pricing, even though such a large volume of investor buying is bound to have an impact.

�Determining the precise level at which investor activity should be a cause for concern is difficult and requires further study,� Bank of Canada spokesman Alex Paterson said in an e-mail.

The Bank of Canada data is a rare and incomplete look at the amount of market activity driven by investors. It was disclosed in May in the bank�s latest financial system review. It defines investors as borrowers who obtain a mortgage to buy a property while maintaining a mortgage on another property. It does not include all-cash transactions and only goes back to 2015, when the country�s real estate market was already frothy.

It shows that the share of investor buying in Canada reached a high of 21.7 per cent in spring of 2018, before dipping just below 20 per cent in 2019. The most recent reading was 20.1 per cent in February. In the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton, two markets the bank has identified as exuberant, the share was 22.7 per cent in February.

�When investors go into the market in a big way, they can drive up the house prices,� said Aled ab Iorwerth, deputy chief economist with the federal housing agency, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, adding that the longer-term effect is that investors are often a source of financing to develop more housing and increase supply.

Jean-Philippe Deschamps-Laporte, chief of the Statistics Canada�s Housing Statistics Program, said investors will influence home prices. �People who prefer to buy rather than rent will have to compete harder. That is a fact,� he said.

Real estate investors have come under more scrutiny after news broke that a Toronto condo developer is planning to buy $1-billion worth of single-family homes in Canada to rent by 2026.

With the country�s rental vacancy rate below 3 per cent and an affordable housing crisis raging across the country, rental homes have become coveted assets for big investors who believe they can earn steady profits by increasing rents.

Toronto-based Core Development Group Ltd. is the first big investor in the country to establish a large-scale single-family home rental business. If Core succeeds, it could entice other institutional investors, such as private equity firms and pension funds, to join in a big way.

So far, those investors are spending billions of dollars to own apartment buildings, also known as purpose-built rentals. In the past year, there were $12.9-billion worth of apartment building deals, according to data from commercial real estate company Avison Young. That included two private equity firms, Starlight Investments and KingSett Capital, buying 27,000 apartment units and several hundred short-term rental apartments across Canada for $4.9-billion last November.

Martine August, assistant professor at University of Waterloo�s school of planning, said Core Development�s acquisition of rental units is low compared with the total of hundreds of thousands of apartments bought by other investors. However, she said both types of purchases are cause for concern and part of the same process of profiting at the expense of tenants.

�The business model is really about trying to drive more value for investors and that comes from tenants,� said Prof. August, who researches the financialization of housing � the process of turning housing into financial products.

Part of what has driven investors to buy rental properties is low vacancy rates and shortage of affordable housing.

Home prices have risen so quickly that cities that were once considered affordable are nearing the $1-million mark. More residents, including high income earners, are unable to buy and are forced to rent.

Andy Yan, housing expert and director of Simon Fraser University�s city program, said investors are able to take bigger risks than home buyers who intend to live in their home as the investors can tap their existing assets to offer higher prices. �They have a greater set of moves than homeowners.

They have more financing, more capital and higher risk capacities,� he said.

In Canada, it is difficult to define, quantify and measure real estate investors and their effect on the market. Publicly available housing data is mostly from the real estate industry.

The Canadian Housing Statistics Program, which was launched by Statscan after the 2016-17 real estate boom, is trying to fill data gaps and uses information from a bevy of sources, including property assessments, tax filings and census data.

One of the program�s most revealing reports is from 2019 and examined properties that were not �owner occupied� in three provinces. It found the highest level of investor ownership in the residential area near the University of B.C. in Vancouver, where 47 per cent of all property types were held by investors.

It also found that in Toronto, more than one-third of the condo market is owned by people who do not live in the units and who either rent them out or leave them empty.

Mr. Yan and other affordable housing advocates question the idea that there is a supply shortage when so many property owners are investors. �You will constantly hear it is supply supply supply, but supply for whom,� he said.

The demand for real estate has spurred more development. Multiresidential building construction is at record levels this year, most of which are new condo developments.

In Toronto, the price of a new condo averages $1,400 per square foot. That means that with a 20-per-cent down payment on a 500-square-foot one-bedroom, investors would have to lease their condo for over $3,000 a month to cover their mortgage payments, condo fees and taxes.

�I would love to know exactly how much supply has to come on stream before units become affordable,� said Leilani Farha, a former United Nations special rapporteur on adequate housing, who is now global director of the housing rights group The Shift and has blasted Core�s plan as profit mongering.

So far this year, Core has spent about $50-million on 75 properties in seven Ontario cities, including Hamilton and Barrie. That accounts for 0.06 per cent of the total number of seasonally adjusted sales in Ontario, year to date, according to CREA data.

The developer is adding basement apartments to its properties and turning houses into two rental units: a two-bedroom basement apartment renting for about $1,600 a month, and a three-bedroom above-ground unit at about $2,100 a month.

CMHC�s deputy chief economist said the Core model does not reduce the supply of housing. �They are shifting it from homeownership to rental,� said Mr. Iorwerth.

lmao what a POS Andy Yan is in this article.

Mr. Yan and other affordable housing advocates question the idea that there is a supply shortage when so many property owners are investors

This is really the crux of the gross ideological position of many demand siders. Housing for renters isn't real housing.

New supply, privately developed for purchase - Good, new supply
New supply, privately developed but rented - Bad, (because... not new supply?)

gently caress Yan for making GBS threads on the notion of building more housing while musing like a professor, "hm yes housing for whom" as if that is some meaningful statement. I'm pretty sure I know who this housing is for: renters that are paying a gently caress ton to investors because vacancy is near zero and they have few if any housing choices. There's no universe where building less housing is a solution to that renter's problem.

Perhaps musing about who all these condos were for was an interesting statement when we actually didn't know how many of these new condos were being left empty or being used as pied a terres, but um, we have empty homes taxes now and we have that data now. We added 8000+ empty homes to the market and developers have pivoted to rental instead of building condos for the international jet set.

If you're musing about toxic supply or empty homes or whatever the heck Yan is getting at here, you're really stuck in 2016 and need to get a grip.

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 23, 2021

# ? Jun 23, 2021 18:24

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

It�s clear that government will never do anything meaningful to change the situation. The response to the McPhail report was clear evidence of that. A good report with meaningful ideas to improve things cast aside for political expediency.

I don�t know about you guys, but I think rationality is dead in housing. Might as well grab your piece of it while you can. I know that�s where I�m at.

# ? Jun 23, 2021 23:20

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Mandibular Fiasco posted:

It�s clear that government will never do anything meaningful to change the situation. The response to the McPhail report was clear evidence of that. A good report with meaningful ideas to improve things cast aside for political expediency.

I don�t know about you guys, but I think rationality is dead in housing. Might as well grab your piece of it while you can. I know that�s where I�m at.

Pretty much. All the bears in this thread, myself included, were flat out wrong about how things would play out.

# ? Jun 24, 2021 00:32

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

There is never a 'while you can' and it would be nice if people stopped thinking this way. Housing prices will always adjust to however much capital is available to people at any point in time, which right now is a lot. But there is no more urgency now than there has been at any other time in history, other than people's own mistaken impression that they will forever be locked out of housing. This never actually happens.

# ? Jun 24, 2021 00:33

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

qhat posted:

There is never a 'while you can' and it would be nice if people stopped thinking this way. Housing prices will always adjust to however much capital is available to people at any point in time, which right now is a lot. But there is no more urgency now than there has been at any other time in history, other than people's own mistaken impression that they will forever be locked out of housing. This never actually happens.

While perhaps true, the price increases relative to earnings suggest many of us will be locked out if trends continue in the short term. I want security of tenure for the next 15 years while my kids get through school. That can�t really wait for me any longer, so that�s what I�m paying for. I�ve been waiting ten plus years for normality and if a global pandemic doesn�t force changes, nothing short of the apocalypse will. So, I give up and give in. I expect to join the ranks of the ridiculously mortgaged in the very near future.

# ? Jun 24, 2021 00:58

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

qhat posted:

There is never a 'while you can' and it would be nice if people stopped thinking this way. Housing prices will always adjust to however much capital is available to people at any point in time, which right now is a lot. But there is no more urgency now than there has been at any other time in history, other than people's own mistaken impression that they will forever be locked out of housing. This never actually happens.

It just slowly erodes at their quality of life as increasingly they have to pair down the budget in order to get a roof over their heads.

They aren't locked out though they are just serfs in their own homes.

# ? Jun 24, 2021 01:51

Crow Buddy: Oct 30, 2019; Guillotines?!? We don't need no stinking guillotines!

Mandibular Fiasco posted:

While perhaps true, the price increases relative to earnings suggest many of us will be locked out if trends continue in the short term. I want security of tenure for the next 15 years while my kids get through school. That can�t really wait for me any longer, so that�s what I�m paying for. I�ve been waiting ten plus years for normality and if a global pandemic doesn�t force changes, nothing short of the apocalypse will. So, I give up and give in. I expect to join the ranks of the ridiculously mortgaged in the very near future.

My kid is going to graduate university before it could hit a point where I could reasonably afford an actual house. By the time something may (or not) happen in my life, I will looking to downsize except I was never able to upsize in the first place.

In the course of history rationals for behaviour don't really help anyone during their actual life.

# ? Jun 24, 2021 05:39

Flater: Oct 20, 2006; Ask me about sucking Batman's dick

qhat posted:

There is never a 'while you can' and it would be nice if people stopped thinking this way. Housing prices will always adjust to however much capital is available to people at any point in time, which right now is a lot. But there is no more urgency now than there has been at any other time in history, other than people's own mistaken impression that they will forever be locked out of housing. This never actually happens.

I mean, what about investors buying tons of poo poo up and pump and dumping our real estate until smalltimers are wrung out then turning around and renting it back to us in the form of 17 shoebox apartments shoved into a house? I really think the times are changing and the potential for large investors to monopolistically buy and and set the price floor with other big buyers is huge and regulation doesn't protect us enough. That Core Development Group that was in the news is strategically buying up homes in neighbourhoods with plans to expand over time. When they own multiple neighbourhoods and another corp owns the others they will control local markets and be able to dictate prices. They will price fix rent prices like bread prices

# ? Jun 24, 2021 16:20

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

I, for one, welcome our real estate cartel. Fits in nicely with the telecom cartel.

# ? Jun 24, 2021 16:44

Crow Buddy: Oct 30, 2019; Guillotines?!? We don't need no stinking guillotines!

This was going to be the end game of a situation where the only worthwhile investment is housing.

I wasn't really expecting Blackrock to become the new landed aristocracy, but someone was going to be it, since our government was never going to try.

# ? Jun 24, 2021 18:09

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Fed Housing Secretary Vaughan basically saying housing values aren't allowed to go down

https://twitter.com/TOAdamVaughan/status/1408470309850787843?s=20

Buy property folks. The Liberals aren't going to do poo poo all.

If you're a renter still voting Liberal after seeing tweets like this, man I dunno what to tell you.

# ? Jun 25, 2021 22:24

leftist heap: Feb 28, 2013; Fun Shoe

I'm not sure what financial stability means in the context of one's equity lol.

# ? Jun 26, 2021 00:08

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

Time to max that HELOC!!! :hellyeah:

# ? Jun 26, 2021 00:41

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

Femtosecond posted:

Fed Housing Secretary Vaughan basically saying housing values aren't allowed to go down

https://twitter.com/TOAdamVaughan/status/1408470309850787843?s=20

Buy property folks. The Liberals aren't going to do poo poo all.

If you're a renter still voting Liberal after seeing tweets like this, man I dunno what to tell you.

Truth right here.

# ? Jun 26, 2021 04:33

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

"No government shouldn�t hurt one group to help another" No, you loving idiot, that is literally the entire job of government, to redistribute resources from one group to another. In this government's case, from less privileged to more. The depth of that man's ignorance is unbounded.

qhat fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jun 26, 2021

# ? Jun 26, 2021 04:43

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Oh hey here's Crystia Freeland in 2015 in opposition asking the government to do something about housing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4_53IAznaE

# ? Jun 26, 2021 06:15

Mandibular Fiasco: Oct 14, 2012

The Liberals are the biggest crowd of phonies ever.

Our leaders are imbeciles. Bring back hereditary monarchy. At least that fermented revolution from time to time.

# ? Jun 26, 2021 07:41

qhat: Jul 6, 2015

Honestly if there�s anyone to blame, it�s not the liberals, they obviously don�t need the votes of the have nots and can even to a degree rely on them anyway thanks to the totally incompetent opposition parties. How neither of these opposition parties have managed to scare the shits out of Trudeau yet is unbelievable, given the discontent in a huge portion of the population and the obvious bald faced cronyism at every level of government.

# ? Jun 26, 2021 08:18

Tsyni: Sep 1, 2004; Lipstick Apathy

qhat posted:

Honestly if there�s anyone to blame, it�s not the liberals, they obviously don�t need the votes of the have nots and can even to a degree rely on them anyway thanks to the totally incompetent opposition parties. How neither of these opposition parties have managed to scare the shits out of Trudeau yet is unbelievable, given the discontent in a huge portion of the population and the obvious bald faced cronyism at every level of government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07w9K2XR3f0

# ? Jun 26, 2021 14:38

Lobok: Jul 13, 2006; Say Watt?

Mandibular Fiasco posted:

fermented revolution

Hoo boy, I do NOT want to know what that smells like.

# ? Jun 26, 2021 15:21

Guest2553: Aug 3, 2012

Femtosecond posted:

If you're a renter still voting Liberal after seeing tweets like this, man I dunno what to tell you.

Until we have a better voting system, a less dumb NDP that can hold its own against the institutional disadvantage, or I come into enough money to be exempted from the system, it's less 'voting in liberals' than 'keeping out conservatives to minimize the chance some idiot rahowa supporters will helter skelter me'.