Let me save you the reading - the whole article is just about the semantics of the word "crisis".

"THE WORD CRISIS suggests something that is infrequent, surprising, and widely undesirable—something that leads to dire consequences unless it is brought under control."

"In contrast, Canada’s “housing crisis” is a permanent state of affairs that harms people in, or in need of, rental housing; roughly one-third of the country’s households."

Ok, great - you're right, it's not infrequent, so it's just a very bad thing and not a crisis.

Pedantic title aside - The author feels correct that it’s a semi-perpetual issue and that some discussions serve to benefit landowners, property owners, etc. But what’s the alternative? Not talking about the issues, trying to get the media to not use clickbait “crisis” titles, or somehow communicating to the government that the idea of creating more supply serves to benefit property builders? More supply helps like the author says, but the other options seem impossible to overcome.

> Politicizing the issue is unhelpful. We need win-win solutions. The right policy mix, backed by adequate government funding, is the only way forward; it would benefit everyone.

Easy to say for sure, but what do we do to get there?

There is no crisis because it's been going on for a long time?

By this standard, what then is a crisis? Hurricanes? Normal state of affairs. Earthquakes ditto. Floods? Go look at any religion's mythology; same deal.

I suppose the AI cheating crisis is new, but it does sound like passing notes...

Semantics … I’m rolling my eyes so hard that the article’s main point is that affordable housing as a problem is not a “crisis” by the strict definition of the word.

How to lose badly at capitalism: work hard to create value for someone poor

How to lose at capitalism: work hard to create value for someone rich

How to win at capitalism: obtain property rights to scare resource, mismanage it to gin up scarcity, auction it back to people

Completely false. Look to Tokyo to see proof that supply works. No city in Canada or the US is building enough. Not even close. The hand waving of "well supply must not work because it's not working right now" (meanwhile production is still low compared to historical standards) is an unserious argument.

What this article fails to mention: prices are only crazy in certain areas (due to amenities, nightlife, etc). That has always been true, and always will be, and isn't a bad thing.

Lastly: the "zero-sum" argument of "developers and landlords" versus everyone else is wrong as well. The people really making money right now are the homeowners in areas in which supply is constrained - not "evil developers"

TL;DR: "Damnit, we don't need more housing! We need hand wavey arguments about the injustice of the current system with no actionable solutions! That way the value of the home I bought in 1980 can keep going up and I can keep feeling smug and morally superior without actually doing anything!"

Places that build enough housing to keep up with demand have lower prices. Denying this simple fact is willful ignorance on the same level as the crap you hear from the far right about womens' reproductive health. "Housing prices aren't related to supply" is on the same level as "a woman can't get pregnant from rape."

Hate to be so blunt and combative but we're going on two generations being economically ruined by NIMBY-driven real estate hyperinflation. No, housing has never been perfect but it was far more affordable 25 years ago before the post-2000 housing bubble that never really came back to Earth.

From what I've read Canada is much worse than the US since housing prices are similarly high but salaries tend to be lower.