this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

Canada

10012 readers
435 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There wouldnt be a housing crisis if there was no government zoning, zoning which is intended to increase property values and block new entrants. Its like a rhetorical question as to whether they should increase density to the people trying to decrease density, their answer will of course be no.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

So basically, they're funneling tax money into holding lightly used parking lots right now. Yes, they should absolutely sell that land for someone to do something with, and then take the funds and put them into non-stupid programs.

More than $100 million in land value,

I know it's Toronto, but that still seems like a very significant amount.

Deputants also said New Toronto needs the parking lots due to poor transit access.

I bet people say they don't need public transit because there's so much parking, too.

New Toronto resident Matt Lawrence criticized the city-owned land-use policy, saying that “ rich neighbourhoods get pools and community centers. Poor neighbourhoods get subsidized housing and shelters.”

I'm kind of interested in this quote. Is Matt implying these are both bad things, or that it should be the other way around? It seems to me the latter, at least, is a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

On the one hand housing is good.

On the other hand, getting rid of on-street parking and moving those cars into off-street stacked lots is good as it provides space for dedicated bike and transit lanes. Plus, the faster it is to move throughout the city, the more effective space the city has to work with (i.e. a home 45m from a downtown job is a home 45m from a downtown job, regardless of whether that's at Ossington because traffic is a nightmare or whether it's at Jane because it's not).

Ideally we'd bury the parking and build housing on top, though that's not feasible for a bunch of the lots that are built on top of the subway (like along Bloor).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Every city should be repurposing every above ground parking lot.

Housing, open plazas, parks, transit systems, 5+1 housing everywhere.

If you want a parking lot in a city it should be below ground and taxed out the ying-yang.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You want to tax a city owned parking lot? Who would the city be paying that tax to?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Very few of the pots in my city are city owned. They're all private. They refuse to build anything else since using it as a parking lot has very low taxes so the profits are good, plus the land value goes up so just waiting makes them millions.

Tax them like crazy or all you get is downtown Houston in the 1980s.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah, but in this case we're talking about Green P lots which are owned by the City of Toronto, not privately owned lots.