At least you are thinking. Individual responsibility has it's limits. Do you expect people that had to take the jab to work and then got severely disabled to house themselves? Also you are not considering how Toronto will almost certainly have to operate with less energy going forward. If North Korea is any indication, when elevators don't work reliably, the upper floors of our high rises will become very unattractive. https://energyskeptic.com/2023/skyscrapers-a-bad-idea-as-energy-declines/ With less energy many other aspects of our ability to support Toronto's current population levels will become problematic.
This article. like I find all your articles, is very well written! Being a libertarian at heart "maybe government just needs to get out of the way" resonates with me.
Unfortunately, as you have shown time and time again your stubbornness (refusing to play "the game") is what is preventing your message from reaching out to a wide audience. Hopefully one day you'll put aside what's holding you back, which will inevitably result in more people hearing your POV.
Anyways, a well throughout article I hope some Torontonians read.
Aside from the usual point that euphemistically-called "government solutions" (aka. violent coercive ones) always make things worse, there is also the bigger picture question about whether we even want more people living in the city - too often it's just assumed that that's a positive goal. The more tempting we make it for people to live in Toronto, the more overcrowding there will be. Similar to adding more lanes to highways - it doesn't solve the traffic problem, it makes it worse. Currently almost a quarter of Canada lives in this one mega-city. (Which imho is already way too big and sprawling.)
We should question why so many people flock to Toronto - it's probably hurting those other places they're coming from - brain drain. I'd much rather live in an ancap town, but the evil federal gov doesn't allow those. It also doesn't allow towns to exist without roads (like Toronto Island, which is the unique grandfathered-in exception). If people were free to build their own style of community, there would be more competition between cities/citadels, thus relieving the load on the one mega-lowest-common-denominator-city, that receives preferential treatment by govs as a result of it's disproportionate "political influence", thus exacerbating the problem.
Also, we shouldn't punish "speculators/hoarders" - they're just a symptom of the problem of inflation/money-printing. Nobody wants to bother with property management and problematic tenants, or gamble in stock markets, but they're currently forced to because their savings are constantly being eroded away by money printing, as govs bribe their key donors.
Hi Brian, I read your op-ed. I don't disagree with many of your points here, yet I still stand with my article. What you raise are important issues that would need to be considered and addressed on the way to having a different and less regulatory approach, including a vacancy tax that is more meaningful and well implemented than the one we have now. I also agree that if population growth in our cities is unmanageable then we can't accommodate it no matter how many or how few zoning laws we have. Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments.
At least you are thinking. Individual responsibility has it's limits. Do you expect people that had to take the jab to work and then got severely disabled to house themselves? Also you are not considering how Toronto will almost certainly have to operate with less energy going forward. If North Korea is any indication, when elevators don't work reliably, the upper floors of our high rises will become very unattractive. https://energyskeptic.com/2023/skyscrapers-a-bad-idea-as-energy-declines/ With less energy many other aspects of our ability to support Toronto's current population levels will become problematic.
This article. like I find all your articles, is very well written! Being a libertarian at heart "maybe government just needs to get out of the way" resonates with me.
Unfortunately, as you have shown time and time again your stubbornness (refusing to play "the game") is what is preventing your message from reaching out to a wide audience. Hopefully one day you'll put aside what's holding you back, which will inevitably result in more people hearing your POV.
Anyways, a well throughout article I hope some Torontonians read.
Thanks Nick!
Hi Sarah. I would love to be able to talk to you about issues within our city. Do you take phone calls?
Hi! Send me an email at info@votesarah.ca and we can set up a chat.
Aside from the usual point that euphemistically-called "government solutions" (aka. violent coercive ones) always make things worse, there is also the bigger picture question about whether we even want more people living in the city - too often it's just assumed that that's a positive goal. The more tempting we make it for people to live in Toronto, the more overcrowding there will be. Similar to adding more lanes to highways - it doesn't solve the traffic problem, it makes it worse. Currently almost a quarter of Canada lives in this one mega-city. (Which imho is already way too big and sprawling.)
We should question why so many people flock to Toronto - it's probably hurting those other places they're coming from - brain drain. I'd much rather live in an ancap town, but the evil federal gov doesn't allow those. It also doesn't allow towns to exist without roads (like Toronto Island, which is the unique grandfathered-in exception). If people were free to build their own style of community, there would be more competition between cities/citadels, thus relieving the load on the one mega-lowest-common-denominator-city, that receives preferential treatment by govs as a result of it's disproportionate "political influence", thus exacerbating the problem.
Also, we shouldn't punish "speculators/hoarders" - they're just a symptom of the problem of inflation/money-printing. Nobody wants to bother with property management and problematic tenants, or gamble in stock markets, but they're currently forced to because their savings are constantly being eroded away by money printing, as govs bribe their key donors.
Hi Brian, I read your op-ed. I don't disagree with many of your points here, yet I still stand with my article. What you raise are important issues that would need to be considered and addressed on the way to having a different and less regulatory approach, including a vacancy tax that is more meaningful and well implemented than the one we have now. I also agree that if population growth in our cities is unmanageable then we can't accommodate it no matter how many or how few zoning laws we have. Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments.