A Housing Solution From 50 Years Ago?

TwinkoStar wrote: ↑ These are going for ~1mil now.

So they were built on taxpayers' dime for a lucky set of 2400 buyers, who then flipped them at market prices years later?

mrct1944 wrote: ↑ Very high housing costs are not a new phenomenon, it was also a problem in the early 1970’s. One solution was “zero lot line” homes in the Bramalea section of Brampton. This link gives a very good summary of the pros and cons of this concept 50 years ago.

https://bramaleablog.wordpress.com/2014 ... e-housing/

These starter homes were part of the H.O.M.E plan (Home Ownership Made Easy)
Important factors included:
-Lease the land with the option to purchase after 5 years at a known cost
-No purchases by investors, purchase by owners to actually live in
-Detached but 2 bedrooms (796 sq.ft) to 4 bedrooms (1370 sq.ft)
-low downpayments
-no garages

berrytree wrote: ↑ The only possibility is state housing - like in Europe.

There is no other solution. S***** lots are going for 2M + now and many are bought by developers. There is no way out

mrct1944 wrote: ↑ Very high housing costs are not a new phenomenon, it was also a problem in the early 1970’s. One solution was “zero lot line” homes in the Bramalea section of Brampton. This link gives a very good summary of the pros and cons of this concept 50 years ago.

https://bramaleablog.wordpress.com/2014 ... e-housing/

These starter homes were part of the H.O.M.E plan (Home Ownership Made Easy)
Important factors included:
-Lease the land with the option to purchase after 5 years at a known cost
-No purchases by investors, purchase by owners to actually live in
-Detached but 2 bedrooms (796 sq.ft) to 4 bedrooms (1370 sq.ft)
-low downpayments
-no garages

What do RFD’ers think, could something similar be done in 2022?

zakarydoks wrote: ↑ We don't have the money to fund socialist housing.

TwinkoStar wrote: ↑ The modern socialist housing is called private landlords, who are forced to host problem tenants for months on end with no recourse for getting the money back but still forced to do maintenance and repairs. As long as they still gain equity from the red hot market it's all good right?

It's just a different way of providing free housing. Tomato Tomahto (from the gov's perspective)

zakarydoks wrote: ↑ We don't have the money to fund socialist housing.

berrytree wrote: ↑ You seem to get triggered by anything deemed "socialist"

I hope you don't partake in the BC MSP - because that's very "socialist" by your standards

zakarydoks wrote: ↑ lol good one but try to stay on topic - the real estate market.

zakarydoks wrote: ↑ but try to stay on topic - the real estate market.

berrytree wrote: ↑ You get triggered any time by any thing that is "socialist" (according to you)

And you can't accept any constructs or real estate frameworks that you immediately discard because it touched your "socialist" button

So at least you can admit you live in a socialist country now - especially with regards to medical. If you don't believe in "socialism" please make sure you don't partake in the hospital system or the subsidized transport system.

I have a lot of respect for you but some of your blinders are a little odd - and very predictable.

Regarding the real estate market, the only option is the public private system - as per many European countries.

You'll have to do better than "I don't like it because I think I dont' like socialism"