From: warmerda@pci.ists.ca (Frank Warmerdam)
Subject: Re: house apartments
Organization: PCI Inc.
Distribution: ont
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:55:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul20.718.2841@dosgate> "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com> writes:
>This consultation package ...

It is my understanding that feedback on this issue in this forum is
actually being collected on behalf of the relevant goverment 
organisations.  This is a chance for USENET pundits to direct 
feedback to the powers that be.

>  - there could be a terrific stimulation to the construction
>    industry thus creating many jobs & economically stimulating jobs
>    in other sectors
>  - new home buyers would be able to suppliment their mortgages with a
>    rental, thus stimulating home construction and the realty sectors

I am quite dubious on these points.  Most likely any growth in home
construction made possible by renting basements and the such will be
offset by the number of people able to delay purchasing their own 
homes.  In the grea scheme of things, allowing more people to 
inhabit the existing quantity of housing will not cause lots of
new construction.

>  - rents for these apts. could be half what most people now pay, thus
>    adding a huge shot of healthy competition to the market, and
>    perhaps resulting in doing away with rent controls

I agree that rent control is largely a function of the artificial
demand caused by development restrictions.  Municipallities impose 
restrictions on construction and intensification within existing 
urban areas, as well as restrictions on development into rural areas.  
The result is that developable land prices rise, and prices for the
houses that are built, or apartments that are available are driven
exceptionally high.  

>  - more tax revenues will be generated
>  - property taxes for homes with apts. will be higher, as probably
>    will other public services. But, what if taxes go up for everybody
>    and not just for those with a rental in the home

I don't believe that municipal taxes collected would be linear in the
number of occupants, while demand on public services would be close
to linear in the number of occupants.  I would anticipate little
municipal tax gain.

>  - car traffic on a street with a significant number of apts. could
>    possibly be higher
>  - your street could be filled with young couples just starting out
>    in life; school students; violent sex fiends; drug dealers; ?

This is a problem of almost any kind of urban intensification.  The
other alternative is expensive urban sprawl.

>  - seniors could live affordably with their children and
>    grandchildren without actually being 'underfoot' and maintaining a
>    separate life of their own instead of being shoved into
>    institutions, or suffering violent crimes in unsafe
>    neighbourhoods. On the other hand, what if it's an in-law you
>    can't stand - would they run around naked on the streets trying
>    to find out where their keys are - 'mother died in the backyard'

I really feel that this could improve the quality of life for lots
of seniors that are now stuffed into old folks homes.  Where this
is practical for the children and parents, I think it is wonderful.

>  - there are very few Canadians these days who can ever dream of
>    finding affordable apartments, let alone houses.

This is an overstatement.  Apartments are expensive, but not ludicrous.
There is lots of affordable housing in rural Ontario.  But it is
true that housing prices in Metro Toronto are artificially high.

>  - homes with apartments could be revenue makers instead of just
>    mountains of debt that the bank seizes for non-payment of
>    mortgage, or the municipality seizes for taxes. And coupled with
>    work-at-home movement could drastically cut down on car pollution

I am not sure what the legislation has to do with the work at home
movement.

> Well, I've mentioned all that I can think of. No doubt, this list has
> stimulated your little gray cells, and you'll even come with others.

This is rather insulting.  Insult of this kind is not the best way
to get responses from USENET readers.


In my mind, urban intensification is a good thing.  It allows more 
efficient utilization of public transit, and slows the consumption
of rural ontario by suburbia.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Warmerdam | Who can give them back their lives | warmerda@pci.ists.ca    
Software Artist | and all those wasted years? - Rush | Frank.Warmerdam@rose.com
Newsgroups: ont.general