r0ssar00

Gov’ts do this very, very badly from anything I’ve seen.

Can you share some details?

I don't personally believe government-run projects are inherently doomed to be bad simply because they're government-run: private industry shits the bed on a fairly regular basis, yet we give it a pass here, so what makes government special here? Both can (and do!) fail in exactly the same ways, and just because it's government or private doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a chance: we've tried the private way for a few decades and look where it got us.

I can see the argument for not having qualified experts available in every municipality and that leading to poor outcomes, but that's a people problem and not a government problem, and also not something unique to government (and the idea that every private industry expert is qualified is absurd: plenty of idiots in private orgs too).

The problem space is the same actual space for both, not a similar space, the exact same. If anything, Canada needs an "Army Corps of Engineers" or something to build infra+housing for municipalities.

More or less: the government would out-compete the investors and builders, leaving only those with sustainable business practices left to build the difference (I say this part because a healthy business can (ideally) compete on only the merits, as opposed to trying to cheat the market and hiding costs that way as quite a few do now).

There's a whole ton of asterisks here, and we should probably steal a few ideas from Singapore (not everything, because there are things there that don't apply to here, and vice versa), but it's the general idea.

(Back-of-the-napkin ideas from a nerd who has way to much time on their hands to read about stuff like this)

Does everyone live in social housing or is there just a lot of social housing with a secondary open market?

likely the second: it's human nature to have preferences for things, and if you don't accommodate for people wanting something outside the norm, it'll just end up on a gray or black market. That's not a defeatist "what's the point in even trying" statement ("why ban xyz?? People will just get xyz anyways!" is not what I'm trying to say), just acknowledging the realities of people being an extremely diverse collection of individuals and how to work that fact into on-the-ground policy. If you're in a position to be able to afford something else, you should be able to build it - so long as the external costs such as utility hookups and roads and so on are factored into "can afford" (property taxes should be replaced with a land value tax, or in lieu of that raised to cover the costs of infra to get to your home).

Are there restrictions on investing in housing, such as you may only own 1 home or maybe 2?

This would help slow the bleeding, but I don't see it being a solution: numbered corps "suddenly" on the rise after that happens. The only real solution is for the government to build a ton of social housing themselves and not P3 it or leave it to the market, since we're trying to leave it to the market and it's obviously failing to deliver and P3s are a waste of money.

it makes me wonder if the operators of this public broadcaster are the ones that actively want it to be eroded and eliminated

IIRC, this is largely the case with the BBC and how it's quality and relevance has diminished over the years: wolves were put in charge of the henhouse.

Eta: my point: it wouldn't be the first time a formerly respected public broadcaster had it's reputation undermined and (eventually) ruined. If we want to keep it, we have to get people out to vote: nothing we can do until the next election, but in the meantime, we can point to it and say "you enjoy the CBC? What about the radio version? D'you like knowing that such-and-such is a scam because of a CBC Marketplace piece?" (IIRC marketplace does those types of pieces)" and relate it to people on a personal level.