As support for the Trudeau government declines, it’s surprising that the federal New Democrats have failed to make significant gains in the polls, especially among young voters. To revitalize the party, addressing the housing crisis seriously may be the key.
So far, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has not provided credible solutions to this national housing crisis, which is necessary for his party to remain relevant. Singh’s inadequate grasp of housing policy became evident in a recent media interview in which he criticized “luxury condos” and suggested that 100 percent of residential units on public land should be reserved for affordable housing. His comments reveal that he is out of touch both culturally and economically.
The term “luxury condos” is often used to describe new housing that is not necessarily extravagant. These units are often smaller than single-family houses, making them viable options for middle-class buyers priced out of other parts of the market. Despite their relative modesty, these units are sometimes labeled as “luxury” by homeowners who oppose neighborhood changes, allowing them to block condos for younger Canadians under the guise of social justice.
Singh’s embrace of this rhetoric is tone-deaf. Millennials and Gen Z homeowners don’t need to be told that their cramped housing, which they can barely afford, is extravagant, especially not by a politician criticized for his taste in luxury items. This is bad optics.
Singh’s opposition to market-rate housing is shortsighted and economically unsound. High prices are a result of a national housing shortage, and evidence from other jurisdictions shows that increasing market-rate housing supply leads to price reductions.
His vision of 100 percent affordable housing lacks credibility. A substantial body of literature demonstrates that requiring too many units to be sold below market rates makes residential development financially unsustainable, leading to a decrease in construction and fewer homes for everyone. Most experts recommend that only a minority of units in any development be reserved for affordable housing, as market-rate units keep projects profitable and help subsidize below-market homes.
When asked about viability, Singh offered no response beyond vague references to “incentives.” His plan would require unprecedented public spending that Canada cannot afford, especially considering the current inflation crisis.
Singh’s lack of understanding and inability to articulate clear solutions on housing are perplexing when contrasted with the policies being embraced by his political allies and rivals. Across the spectrum, experts and politicians are demanding that governments reduce red tape, streamline approval processes, and reform zoning policies to address the housing crisis. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, in particular, has gained popularity by advocating for housing reforms with clarity and effort.
Progressive politicians are also addressing housing issues while remaining sensitive to economic realities. The B.C. NDP, Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, and even the Trudeau government are embracing pro-supply reforms and investments in public housing.
In conclusion, leadership on the housing crisis is essential, and politicians from various backgrounds are already taking action. Singh must join them to stay relevant.
