• BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Vienna has decade long waitlists, you have to live in the city to get on the waitlist in the first place, AND private housing is still expensive.

      The only people it works for is the people who already have a unit, and not even many of those because once you get one, you can’t move if for example you have a kid and need more space.

      https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2024/vienna-housing-lessons/

      People keep using it as an example, but it has failed at this policy too.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Vienna has decade long waitlists

        Your own source disagrees with you:

        At last reading, some 25,000 Viennese were on waiting lists with approval times varying between two months and two years.

        And the conclusion is:

        Vienna’s model does not rescind the law of supply and demand. Vienna was able to keep costs low for many years in large part because demand remained low.

        Which I fully agree with. As the report shows, in recent years Vienna has also failed to keep up with demand. Vienna isn’t perfect, but if their model is actually followed, and supply scales with demand, then costs can be low.

        • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Now, do one final calculation.

          How much would it cost the BC government to purchase or build 40% of the residential properties to replicate what Vienna has in terms of accommodations?

          Residential properties in BC have a total value of around 1.5 TRILLION dollars in 2023. 40% of that would be $600 billion.

          There is no realistic way to reach even 4% social housing in BC, let alone 40%, and that’s all to achieve something that as per the article I linked, isn’t actually enough to keep the market in line.

          There are better options than social housing for the province to spend money on if they wish to address this problem. With the amount of money they can reasonably spend, as per my original comment, it’s nothing but a lottery for poor people. It’s a “look, we’re doing something” which doesn’t actually benefit anyone who doesn’t receive a unit. The only path to affordable housing for everyone is to force ALL housing prices down, and a lottery will never impact that.

          I’m sick and tired of the government spending my tax dollars on a policy which only helps a minute fraction of people. I want it to help everyone.

          • n2burns@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            The cost of real property to governments is almost inconsequential. Governments can often get loans against assets at below inflation, and usually well below the increases in real estate market value. There are many cases of municipalities that bought property, then changed their plans and resold that property for a profit, even when factoring in maintenance, legal fees, and borrowing costs.