@dangainor @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer I would settle for legalizing triplexes. Here is some of what’s going on in Canada if you are curious: torontolife.com/deep-dives/str…
English
Tom Stringham
1.1K posts
@TomStringham @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer Well, that strategy I could build a gun range and point it at your home. Or build a dump next-door to high end condos. What I do on my land impacts everyone else.
English
Another aging, out of touch, Canadian boomer who pretends everything is fine while dismissing evidence to the contrary by saying "I'm not buying it," as if that answers the question.
I live in Regina, and everything @Bsbcaer is 100% true, and she simply denies it.
Vicki Campbell🇨🇦@merry123459
@Bsbcaer No. I’m not buying it.
English
@dangainor @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer It used to be that if one owned property one had the right to build on it more or less as he pleased; since then there is more of a communitarian/socialist idea that neighbors should have a veto over a person’s right to build on his property.
English
@TomStringham @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer No. There are areas appropriate for development and some that aren't. Most American cities used to have vastly larger populations. They have the infrastructure (roads, sewer, etc.) for larger population, instead of foisting apartments on suburbs that lack those amenities.
English
@dangainor @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer “In appropriate areas” or, in other words, somewhere other than in my backyard. That’s the idea, no matter where you go it’s somebody’s backyard and they don’t want development there, they want it somewhere else. Makes it hard.
English
@TomStringham @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer We are overwhelmed with illegals and that's a big issue for housing. What people claim is NIMBYism is simply people liking the character of their community and wanting to keep it. It's possible to support that and still want more homes in appropriate areas.
English
@dangainor @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer It’s both a demand and supply story yes but you have done your part to constrain supply. Fortunately supply is not as bad in the US as it is in Canada.
English
@TomStringham @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer The US, where I live, had about 20 million illegals when Trump took office. THAT is a big reason for no housing.
English
@dangainor @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer I’m not trying to be hard on you specifically but it’s very hard to build enough housing in Canadian cities for population growth, because wherever you try to build there are established owners who try to shut it down. Makes life better for them but worse for younger people.
English
@dangainor @wokal_distance @Bsbcaer NIMBYism in Canadian cities is the main reason for the severe supply constraints. And you appear to be a devoted NIMBY
Dan Gainor@dangainor
@wojiowskidonksa @conor64 Developers wrecked one of my favorite communities by over-building. Developers don't have automatic right to build. Communities set the rules.
English
@wokal_distance @Bsbcaer Boomers are not your enemy. We had it hard and we also recognize it’s hard now. I’d love to help. I want to let everyone refi college loans and pay for it by taxing college endowments. Send home illegals and housing gets better too.
English
@Hashboz @The_Chip_Marce Point is yes of course sprawl will continue (assuming population keeps growing) and land costs will continue to rise for fundamental reasons.
English
@TomStringham @The_Chip_Marce It’s way more valuable as residential than farm land. Just look at the Boise Sprawl
English
I’ve been arguing with millennials all day about the perceived “impossibility” of buying a starter home and it baffles me that it’s not a single person has even considered buying a condominium as a starter home.
Amazing.
Mahershalalhashbozy@Hashboz
@punished_bobda So buy a condo closer to the city. Condos are nice starter homes.
English
@Hashboz @The_Chip_Marce Again, though, land costs will rise, because land occupied will be quadratic relative to land on the boundary.
You can found new cities in unoccupied areas but these are also getting more expensive because good land is useful for growing crops.
English
@TomStringham @The_Chip_Marce Incorrect. A city grows. Then suburbs grow and flourish and then suburbs of suburbs are developed by the next generation. They become their own cities and then the next generation moves to the suburbs and the cycle continues
English
@Hashboz @The_Chip_Marce OK but this has well-known limits. If a city grows in proportion to its size, then it grows quadratically in the radius, while the perimeter of the city grows linearly in the radius. The amount of bordering land per resident declines over time.
English
@The_Chip_Marce This is not any different than any other generation this is how it has always worked. The kids move outside the area their parents raised them n and develop that area. Then the next generation spreads out and develops that area etc etc
English
@AS_Cunningham @colbycosh The grandfather rule could be repealed unilaterally by Parliament under section 44, it’s not a necessary part of the system at all. The 1915 senatorial rule is unfortunately written into the 1982 constitution but expanding the HoC could make it have less bite.
English
@AS_Cunningham @colbycosh If you compare the disadvantaged three provinces to the rest taken together, their votes have about a 20% discount. I think that’s substantial and enough to conclude we simply don’t have rep by pop.
Tom Stringham@TomStringham
Successive rule changes have eaten away at the principle of rep. by pop. on which the House of Commons was established in 1867. Alberta, BC and Ontario have their votes discounted by 20% relative to the other provinces. With 2024 pop. figures it would be even worse.
English
Alberta wasn't underrepresented in 1905. At that time the fixed seat allocation was more than proportionate, not less.
Martyupnorth®- Unacceptable Fact Checker@Martyupnorth
Would they have a headline like this if they though Alberta separatism was just a fringe movement. And by the way.... "Recent data show Alberta, B.C. remain underrepresented in House of Commons and Senate on a per capita basis". Who's the moron who wrote that? Alberta has been underrepresented, by design, since 1905.
English
@AS_Cunningham @colbycosh Forget the Senate; the HoC was founded on the principle of rep by pop but successive rule changes have eaten away at representation for the three big Anglo provinces.
English
@mattyglesias More generally I think a pro-“colorblind” message would be wildly popular
English
@mattyglesias I keep saying it’s odd that while the public supported the SCOTUS ruling on college admissions and is solidly against racial preferences, not a single elected Dem has expressed this POV. It should be an obvious move for a swing state Dem.
English
Today in the New York Times with the help of state of the art political science, I tackle the question “who should Democrats throw under the bus to win?”
They did a large experiment to show which policy moderations move the most voters.
nytimes.com/2026/03/16/opi…
English
@jasonc_nc @patbahn @Perrid13 @mattyglesias Also, single-stair is only being done for buildings small enough that fire ladders can reach the top floors.
English
Which further proves why proposed single stairs are ultimately safer.
There is no long corridor to fill with smoke. The exit times, distances to leave before a fire grows are MUCH shorter.
The occupancy load is much lower.
The stairwell has positive pressure requirements to prevent smoke build up.
Etc etc.
Jason,@jasonc_nc
@aaron_lubeck Travel distance and occupant load. Travel distance and occupant load. Travel distance and occupant load.
English
I hate this headline, the point is that there are no bona fide fire safety benefits to rules that create long two-staircase corridors.
English
@somsai @mattyglesias Note this rule is only for buildings up to three stories, some places have it up to six. Fire truck ladders can easily get to people at three stories.
English
@mattyglesias what if one exit is blocked? Not being a contrarian, big buildings make me nervous.
English
@Preston___C @SenRonJohnson @MayaMacGuineas In political terms I get that the program has been sold as if it is a pension account you are paying into, but it isn’t. The funds you put in are long gone, paid out to earlier generations of retirees.
English
@Preston___C @SenRonJohnson @MayaMacGuineas “The government” is on the hook just means whoever is of working age is on the hook. The program has been a transfer from workers to retirees since 1939. The retiree has no contract or account, the statutory entitlement can end any time, and benefits must be cut if funds run out.
English
As @MayaMacGuineas explains, right now we spend $6 on seniors for every $1 on kids under 18. When Social Security began, seniors were the poorest — today children are.
To add insult to injury, we have mortgaged their future with $39 trillion in debt and growing. It is immoral what we are doing to our children and grandchildren.
English