Monday Morning Quarterback: Forcing Seniors From Their Homes Isn’t The Answer!

Opinion | July 24, 2023

Once upon a time, I would pen a “Friday Rant” or a “Monday Morning Quarterback,” hit Publish, and just sit back and relax.

Those were the days.

Am I getting saltier, angrier, and more out of touch with the readership, or has the readership simply expanded and evolved?

The whole purpose of TRB, from the very get-go, was to think different, be different, and act different, and within all this, was to express myself however I saw fit.

Discussing politics is always a sticky subject, and when you consider that no election has ever resulted in one party receiving 100.00% of the vote (at least outside of North Korea, China, or Russia…) , I suppose it’s fair to assume that no matter what is thought, written, or spoken about politics will always result in dissent.

But today, I’m doubling-down!

Today, I feel like the general thoughts expressed in this blog will be met with 100% support!

Perhaps the path I take to get there and the examples used might still result in dissent, and some of my eventual conclusions like, “Canadians are so willing and ready to give up their rights and freedoms” will undoubtedly result in pushback, but alas, you can’t win ’em all…

Much has been made of our “housing crisis” in Toronto, Ontario, and essentially across the entire country.

It’s been going on for over a decade, and multiple politicians at all three levels of government have offered their “solutions” at times, with varying ideas, at various times.

We’ve spent time looking at the demand side of the problem, with the Bank of Canada and CMHC enacting legislation to attempt to reduce demand in the marketplace.

And of course, we’re now spending time looking at the supply side of the problem, with every level of government talking about “doubling” housing output, or building 1.5 Million new homes in ten years, or whatever other impossible “solutions” are being offered.

You’ve heard my thoughts on all of the above for quite some time now.  And by “thoughts” I suppose I’m being polite.  My frustration, my disdain, my complete and utter disbelief, and so on.

But there’s one such “solution” that I find the most offensive and the fact that many people in society are on board with this is so disheartening.

But first, this…

Last month, my golf clubs were stolen.  It sucked.  Not just because of the cost to replace them, which is probably triple what I spent on them over the years, but also because of everything that was in that bag.  For example, I lost my ball-marker, which wasn’t a piece of plastic but rather an ancient Roman coin that bought at a flea market when I was a kid and have used to mark my ball on every green for almost thirty years.  My Scotty Cameron putter was also the first big purchase of my adult life back in the year 2000, and I’ve used it religiously since then.

I was in my office one day telling my team about how my clubs were stolen and somebody across the office, to whom I wasn’t speaking, chimed in and said, “You can afford to buy new clubs.”

Man, I really, really hate that line of thinking.

There’s an undertone of justification in that thought.  It’s as though a crime or simply a “wrong” can be justified depending on the situation and the individuals involved.  That’s a very, very slippery slope, as we’ve seen before when the pendulum swings the other way.

When the Titanic sub disaster dominated the news cycle last month, I was shocked and, again, disheartened to see so many people lacking sympathy for those who died, many of them acting as though those who died somehow “deserved it.”  There was this undertone of “serves them right” because they had the means to pay $250,000 for an underwater trip, or because the 16-year-old had the audacity to be born into a wealthy family, or because several men founded and operated successful businesses and profited from them.

“Stupid billionaires,” went the logic.

The world is changing at a faster pace than many of us can keep up with, and I’m constantly amazed by the sentiments expressed by certain segments of society that are stripping away at values that we used to hold near and dear.

Now, it seems that the ire of many in society is pointed at the most vulnerable members of our communities, who are seemingly ready to be punished for living freely, quietly, deservedly, and comfortably.

A few weeks ago, I read this article in the newspaper:


“Unable To Downsize, More Seniors Are Living In Larger Homes With Empty Bedrooms”
The Globe & Mail
July 5th, 2023


It was disgusting.

Right from the get-go, where the headline said “unable to downsize,” which infers that every senior wants to downsize, I knew where this was heading.

Because it’s not “unable” that many people lament, but rather “unwilling.”

As I remarked at the onset, I really, truly believe that there’s no other place in the world than where we live in Canada, where people are so ready and willing to give up their rights and freedoms.

“Rights and freedoms” sounds American.  It sounds Tea-Party-esque, so I’m opening myself to a strawman argument in opposition, here but let’s not lose sight of the thesis:

No person should be in any way forced, coerced, or taxed into leaving their home.

Especially not one of our most vulnerable populations.

Especially not those who have worked, paid taxes, paid proverbial dues, and now are living out their Golden Years and Sunset Years.

When I wrote about Oliva Chow’s plan to enact the first right of refusal on residential property sales in Toronto, some of the TRB readers took issue with the fact that I was complaining about something that had yet to happen, or that I was acting like it’s a foregone conclusion.

But the point missed was that once you open a door, it’s impossible to close.

I would not put it past a Mayor, say, ten years from now to use that power in a very different way from which it was intended, not to mention that, according to one mortgage broker on Twitter last week (I searched for the comment but could not find it), Ms. Chow would like this fund to represent the ability to purchase as much as 12% of the sum total of real estate transactions in Toronto every year.

So again, tell me that I’m overreacting to the concept of the uproar over seniors living in “underused” houses, but I’m telling you, if we open that door, I really, truly fear where it’s going to lead.

From the article:

“It does speak to the underuse of housing. The question is what do you do about it and what can you do about it,” said Aled ab Iorwerth, deputy chief economist with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., the federal housing agency.

“The concern is maybe the people with all these spare bedrooms would like to move somewhere in their community but there is nowhere more suitable for them to live in,” he said.

What does “underuse” mean?

And who gets to define “underuse?”

If a senior lives in alone a four-bedroom house, who says what uses are appropriate?

Bedroom #1: Primary bedroom
Bedroom #2: Guest room for grandchildren
Bedroom #3: Computer room, sewing machine, arts/crafts/easel, family photos
Bedroom #4: “Den” for the television, a la 1976.

Who’s going to stand up and tell a 75-year-old home-owner, in their 35th year of owning this house, having paid income tax for 58 years, that this house is “underused” and that it’s unjust?

That question is supposed to be rhetorical, but sadly it’s not.  Because there are a lot of people that would claim this house is “underused” and that sickens me.

It sickens me in the same way that people suggest, “Jeff Bezos should have his wealth taken away.  Nobody needs all that.”

This might be true, but Jeff Bezos’ wealth belongs to Jeff Bezos.  It’s his.  He created it.

Who gets the final say?

In the absence of God, I don’t know that that right should be given.

From the article:

“It appears to be too many rooms for too few people,” said Mathieu Laberge, who helped implement the country’s federal program to improve housing and is now an adviser with KPMG consultancy.

Who defines “too many rooms?”

Should we force seniors from their 3-bedroom homes and into rooms into 150 square foot rooms in nursing homes?

The article mentions, “Policy experts and large city mayors are not suggesting that seniors should rent out their rooms en masse to better use the extra space,” but the undertone of the article suggests exactly that.

You can’t write and opine, on and on, that there’s too much “underused” housing via seniors, then take it back and say, “Oh, no, we’re not suggesting you need to leave…”

The “Vacant Home Tax” was the first shot across the bow here.

And a future “Underused Housing Tax” could be the second.

Oh yes, I’m aware that there’s already a tax called the “Underused Housing Tax,” which is defined as follows:

The Underused Housing Tax is an annual 1% tax on the ownership of vacant or underused housing in Canada that took effect on January 1, 2022. The tax usually applies to non-resident, non-Canadian owners. In some situations, however, it also applies to Canadian owners.

The intent of this tax is certainly not to penalize seniors for living alone in 6-bedroom houses.

But when will it be?

I know, I know, you think I’m being an alarmist.

My opponents will liken this to my suggestion that Olivia Chow’s “right of first refusal” could destroy the housing market.

But anything short of blind, wilful loyalty to a government for having the population’s absolute best interests at heart must make you consider it, no?

I’m reminded of an interview that Finance Minister Chyrstia Freeland did back in December of 2020.

In that interview, she talked about the economic recovery ahead and talked about “unlocking” Canadians’ savings, which many people, myself included, took to mean that she simply wanted their money.

Here’s her quote:

“Some Canadian households, and it tends to be the better-off households, do have quite a lot of money that they’ve saved because there hasn’t been much to do in the pandemic and certainly it would be great if that money could go toward driving our recovery and I want to make an offer now to all of your listeners: if people have ideas on how the government can act to help unlock that pre-loaded stimulus, I am very, very interested.”

Yeah, no kidding you’re “interested.”

There’s a lot to pay for after the federal government has spent money like drunken sailors over the past three years, so “unlocking” that “underused” wealth is a solution.

So too, however, is “unlocking” that underused housing that seniors are holding onto as tightly as the neat fold in their shirts after hours of Sunday laundry.

Here are a couple of choice comments in response to the Globe & Mail article:


Re: “More seniors are living in larger homes with empty bedrooms” (Globe and Mail)

Suggesting that I, or anyone else, should vacate my home to accommodate the government’s increasing immigration levels, is infuriating.

These are our homes. This is where we worked our lives to live.

We will leave when we’re ready, and not a second before.

The “housing crisis” is not ours.

Dianne Aziz Kingston



Are we really at the stage where people with a spare bedroom — in their own homes — are labelled “overhoused?

Let people live as they want and show that we still respect a free society.

Rob Konduros Cambridge, Ont.


I couldn’t possibly agree more.

Whether the housing crisis is being created by or exacerbated by the increasing immigration levels, is either here nor there.

It doesn’t matter what the cause of the housing crisis is.

In fact, it doesn’t matter how bad the housing crisis gets.

At no point, ever, should seniors be forced or coerced to leave their homes, nor should they be disincentivized from staying…

Back To Top

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


  1. RPG

    at 8:01 am

    People that don’t have are always going to want what others have. It’s just human nature.

  2. Francesca

    at 8:18 am

    My parents were living alone in a five bedroom home for many years. With my sister living in the US the extra guests rooms came in handy for when she would visit with her kids or when my parents relatives or friends would visit from Italy. My parents only sold the house and moved into a very large condo two years ago when my mom who has Alzheimer’s could no longer handle the stairs or tend to her beloved garden. We actually offered to move into my parents house to help them since they had so much room but we came to the conclusion that for better relationships it was in all of our best interests to live in separate dwellings. Now my mom has moved into a nursing home and my father finds himself in a unit too large for him and he has no interest in downsizing again. In his building there are many seniors living alone or with a spouse in huge apartments so should there be an argument that seniors should also vacate larger condos if they are over housed? Toronto has always been a city where unfortunately some households are living in places too small and some too large. It’s usually related to luck, incomes, and time they purchased. Nobody should be penalized or forced to leave a place they are comfortable in just because the government thinks they should offer it to sale to a larger family who probably can’t afford the larger home anyway so in the end what difference does it make? Would it not make more sense to see if they want to rent a spare room or a basement or create a laneway or garden suite rather than force them to move?
    Also it’s not just seniors who may be living in too big of a house. For 12 years we lived in a huge house in the burbs that was totally too big for a family of three. We sold it to a single young man! Talk about being overhoused! He out bid an immigrant family of six who also wanted the house. Should we have not sold to him or should he now be penalized for taking away a house that he really should not be living in?!! Maybe the government needs to look at its immigration policies before blaming Canadians for the existing housing crisis.

  3. Sirgruper

    at 9:53 am


    Let’s look at this in reverse. What about incentives. No LTT for seniors that reduce square footage or bedrooms by 50%. Nah, no government revenue so useless. I thinks seniors are safe though. Governments don’t touch seniors because they vote!

  4. Nobody

    at 9:54 am

    We shouldn’t be forcing people to move whether by taxes or expropriation.

    We should be enabling far more development by streamlining zoning and planning processes and eliminating all taxes on infill units – HST, development, etc.

    That will increase supply and bring down the costs so that near by condos are a legit option for 1 or 2 people in a 5+ bed across 4 floors including basement.

    You see some units near Rosedale, Forest Hill, and Lawrence Park that are targeted at this market but prices and condo fees make it unattractive unless you’re selling something on Chestnut Park or Old Forest Hill Rd. This buyer still wants a 2-3 bed so that kids& grandkids can visit and there’s enough room for family to come over for dinner. It’s a 1500-2500 ft type unit not a 640ft 2 bed of your typical new build. That’s just INCREDIBLY expensive to buy and run, compared to a paid off house where you only have property tax, insurance, utilities, and somebody to handle lawn and snow. Can delay all but emergency maintenance until after a sale to keep the costs super, super low.

    Hardly anyone does this kind of move unless they have a serious health event or spend winters down south plus maybe summers in Muskoka so the city house isn’t used much at all and they have substantial assets to handle the transition.

    1. Vancouver Keith

      at 11:30 am

      There’s a fundamental error in your solution, one that isn’t being discussed. Every time someone mentions the pace and cost permitting, they make a legitimate point that everything from a minor renovation to a high rise takes far too long and costs far too much money because of the municipal government process.

      It’s interesting that there is an assumption that lowered costs would be passed on to the consumer. In a complete buyers market, clearly that would be the case. In a complete sellers market, which is where we are most of the time, none of those cost savings will flow through to the consumer, the builder/developer will pocket them.

      Even at the current dizzying price levels, developers sit on land for years. Their profits are high enough they don’t have to develop everything all at once. I’ve seen big parcels in Vancouver sit for a decade or more.

      A better zoning and permitting process is certainly something that we need, but for genuine affordability it won’t have much impact. Multifactor problems require multifactor solutions.

      1. Nobody

        at 7:21 pm

        Vancouver specifically takes more than 10 years to get approvals. So your “holding” is just going through the legal process.

        When a project can take more than a decade and needs endless lawyers, you HAVE to go for a massive project at high prices.

        All of the delays and restrictions make it a sellers market. Eliminate them and you get far more competition and far faster projects, which will change the dynamic.

        It’s like arguing with environmentalists about nukes. At the end they’ll say “well whatever nukes are too expensive and take too long to build” which is ENTIRELY because of decades of activism by anti-nuclear communists forcing unnecessary construction standards and program reviews plus never ending law suits.

        Far fewer people can get a 50 floor project with 500 units together that’s going to take 10 to 20 years from property purchase to people moving in than can do a 5 floor 50 unit building that takes 4 years. When you have to do 500 units because of lawsuits, planning, and taxes then you get far fewer competitors.

        The Well is a great project but it’s been 11 years since RioCan and Allied bought the site. Hopefully retail opens in November. This is something that sailed through approvals thanks to its location and the ridiculous firepower of the people involved. Still needed 4 of the largest real estate firms in the country to work together and 5 different architecture firms plus a landscape firm!

        You don’t get low prices by having a JV of 2 of the largest residential builders. You get them when they’re competing with each other and tons of smaller new entrants.

        1. Vancouver Keith

          at 9:11 pm

          Over ten years, I don’t think to. One of two projects in this century to not get approved, a very controversial Chinatown site just got approved in a bitter battle. They started in 2017, got rejected and still resubmitted and got approved. Six years and a double process. The developer can afford to go through the process with the city twice, and they are still going ahead. The hassles of bureaucracy are real, but even an expedited process isn’t going to create affordability by itself.

  5. Libertarian

    at 10:10 am

    I agree that nobody should be coerced. On the flip side, I think it’s Vancouver that waives property taxes until death/house is sold. I don’t agree with giving anybody favours. Owning a home comes with costs and responsibilities. If you can handle those, live their as long as you want. If you can’t, then downsize or move in family or rent out rooms, etc. You still have to be a contributing member of society.

  6. Bryan

    at 10:41 am

    This seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Reading the article, I don’t see anything that even vaguely suggests an undertone of “man, we should kick these retirees out of their homes because we could fit 4 families in there instead”. Suggesting that this is the central thesis of the article or the people in it seems pretty disingenuous to me.

    The key quote in this article is this one (IMO as suggested by the headline), and is completely left out of this commentary:

    “Toronto realtor Lisa Bednarski, who works with seniors, said many of them have the equity in their homes to downsize and make a purchase, but they are deterred by the dearth of appropriate housing available.”

    IMO, this article is saying “Jeeze, there are a lot more seniors these days that live in larger places than they did before…. this probably means that we haven’t built enough housing of the type that might appeal to them… if we did, perhaps they would move into it and the people that bought their larger houses could turn them into duplexes or triplexes if we also made that easier. Thus the strategy should be: Build more housing seniors may like by loosening zoning, and make converting large houses into multi-unit dwellings easier”

    Not sure quoting random commentors on a globe and mail article makes for a strong argument. Commentors here are much smarter 😛

    1. Ace Goodheart

      at 4:57 pm

      Be careful of folks who want to “help” you by identifying a problem that you do not have.

      There do not appear to be too many seniors complaining that their houses are too big and they would like to be put into something smaller.

      There are a lot of wannabe communists/socialists who are complaining that seniors are taking up valuable real estate that could be better used by their own supporters.

      1. Bryan

        at 12:52 pm

        No idea where you are getting ” there do not appear to be too many seniors complaining….” from. Conversely, from where I am sitting there appear to be many many people who have contemplated the idea of downsizing and pulling equity from their homes only to say “why on earth would I pay $XYZ for a postage stamp where I have to also pay $800 a month for a pool I won’t use”. The fact that keeping a home they may want equity out of and living somewhere they don’t want are the only two options for them is not good. That’s what the article is saying… and it’s right! We talk all the time about the market being inefficient for first time homebuyers etc… I do not see why it is inappropriate to point out that it is also inefficient for other groups of people.

        I would be far more inclined to buy your theory on the communist boogeyman if the solution posed in the article wasn’t to loosen building restrictions to build more houses for this market segment and then to loosen zoning restrictions so anyone who bought one and wanted to turn it into 3 homes could do so more easily. Sort of the antithesis to communism…

        1. Ace Goodheart

          at 3:58 pm

          If I want to sell my house and downsize, I will.

          Never had a problem finding a place I like.

          Don’t need the government “helping” me out of my home.

          Seniors are quite good at taking care of themselves.

          There is no problem for the communists to “solve” here.

          Move along….

          1. Bryan

            at 9:48 am

            Congratulations! Many are not so lucky. The article was not written about you personally…. but rather about a subset of people that the article statistically demonstrates the existence of.

            Let me summarize the article’s position as I understood it: The statistics show that more people are staying longer in larger houses. Is this because of a large scale societal shift in priorities for seniors (brought on perhaps by the lengthening of lifespans and healthspans)? Probably in part. Is this also likely due to a complete lack of inventory for (and thus exorbitant price of) anything in between a 3+ bedroom house and a condo? Almost certainly. Thus, this piece of data tells us there is yet another in a long list of reasons to build housing in the “missing middle” (ie duplexes, triplexes, townhouses etc). To do that (not just for seniors but for many people seeking this type of housing), cities are trying to decrease zoning burdens so the industry can create more housing…. in what is ideologically one of the least “communist” policies I could think of.

            The people you and David are talking about certainly exist and definitely deserve to be argued with but when we bring out the communist boogeyman over what is a reasonable proposal, it diminishes society’s ability to argue against legitimately terrible policies (like Chow’s first right of refusal). We needn’t be the boys who cried communist here….

    2. Katie

      at 6:40 pm

      I’m with David and Ace here.

      You two are right that the article wasn’t suggesting we turf old people out of their homes but the whole idea of others defining if a person’s home is “underused” scares the bejeezus out of me.

      “Too many rooms for too few people.” That’s one person’s interpretation but I shouldn’t be up to anybody but those who dwell in the dwelling.

      1. Bryan

        at 1:18 pm

        The term “underuse” appears exactly one time in the article (David uses it 13 times)…. and it is immediately followed in that quote with “The concern is maybe the people with all these spare bedrooms would like to move somewhere in their community but there is nowhere more suitable for them to live in”. People move out of their homes because they think it is underused all the time (“we/I don’t need all this space! I only go in that bedroom to clean it! Why pay all this tax! ” etc). They are the ones that get to decide if they are not utilizing their entire home. Rather than wanting to prescribe the condition of underuse, the author (of both the article and quote) is actually concerned that people who feel this way have no viable alternatives!

        The entire point of this article was to say the following: 1) More people are living in homes with more spare bedrooms than ever before (this is a statistical fact), 2) This is likely driven by the fact that the supply of the type of housing someone may be looking for if they want to pull equity from their home and downsize is nonexistent, 3) This means that we should build more of that type of home to make the market more efficient for this type of person, and 4) Making the market more efficient for this group of people will make the market more efficient for everyone (as it would with any group of people) because the place they lived in before will go on the market as will the place of the people who buy it etc etc.

    3. Ron

      at 5:17 pm

      Love this article. Spot on. We have a whole class of Canadians that are ready to jump on anyone with a bit of wealth. Terrible what our politicians and a lot of the population have become. But I know my pronouns and I have two words for them one is a verb and one is a pronoun. 🙂

  7. Marianne

    at 10:57 am

    This is quite appalling.
    First I have heard of it but I am not pleased.
    We have been in our home since 1982. We birthed three children, raised them, saw them out the door and into adulthood, and have been living happily here ever since. This will be our final resting place. As determined by us and influenced by nobody else.

  8. TOPlanner

    at 12:13 pm

    I take the point of the article as the importance of choice and variety in housing options. No need to force out any senior who doesn’t want to downsize. It’s more about offering a range of options to those who do want to downsize between a large house and a small high-rise condo.

    I think ground-related units and accessible design will be really important here. As we see garden suites and multiplexes ramp up in Toronto, will they be designed and built in a way that makes them attractive to a range of users, including seniors? E.g. barrier free access, wide enough doorways to accommodate wheelchairs, etc.

  9. Adrian

    at 2:10 pm

    My reading of this article made me think of my in-laws, who own a detached home with a pool and would be interested in downsizing to release some equity in their home and also not have so much property to clean and care for at their age. But similar new build townhomes or smaller property homes are not even that much cheaper than their detached home and after commissions and land transfer tax, downsizing doesn’t make that much financial sense.

    When people reach a certain age it’s normal to want to take some equity out of their home and relieve themselves of the responsibility of caring for a large property. Because there’s not a lot of downsizing options, these people who can’t take care of their properties anymore are stuck with them until their eventual move into a seniors’ home. I don’t think the current under-supply of housing serves anyone well, including seniors.

  10. Ace Goodheart

    at 2:16 pm

    Likely what will happen is there will be an “under used housing tax” whereby we have to declare how many rooms in our house, and provide proof that each room is actually occupied. For example, a family with two parents and two kids, would be allowed a three bedroom house without penalty, but if there was a fourth bedroom, they would need to provide proof it was rented, or face some sort of a yearly levy.

    This will be hard on seniors no doubt, as they have fixed incomes and cannot afford these massive tax increases.

    However, I don’t know what you do about this? Whenever we have an election, the propaganda machine kicks into action. They relentlessly tear down anyone who does not support “woke” policy. It is amazing that Doug Ford has lasted as long as he has, because they hate him. When he won, they immediately began publishing articles to the effect that he didn’t really win, because he didn’t get a majority of actual votes, just a majority of actual seats in Parliament (contrast this with Trudeau, who is firmly supported by the woke propaganda machine – he won a minority and did not get popular support at all, and did not get a majority of seats).

    To stop the never ending erosion of our rights, we have to stop the propaganda machine. Otherwise yes, any senior citizen you know is going to have to start declaring available bedrooms in their home and paying tax on them. They started this with the empty homes taxes and they will just keep pushing it.

    To stop the propaganda machine, you have to cut off its food supply. Have a look at where the media outlets get most of their revenue. It is not from advertising. It is from the Federal government. Publish stories in favour of the woke agenda, and you get funding from the Feds. The more stories, the more money. They are being fed. In China, this is called “Xuanchuan”. The state funded propaganda that tells people what to think.

    We are headed that direction in Canada. You pay people to write stuff, they will write it. Everyone goes into life feeling that they will do what they know is right, and they will stay true to their inner self. Then you hit age 25 and you realize there is this thing called money…

    I don’t see any way to stop what is coming, and it is sad that old people are going to be getting pushed out of houses they have paid property taxes on for 30 or 40 years, that they paid off mortgages on, that they renovated and paid for themselves, so that young folks can live in them. We disrespect our elderly in a comprehensive and, I must say, stunning way in Canada and this has been getting worse lately. But what can you do?

    1. Izzy Bedibida

      at 9:33 pm

      That’s what my windowed mom and her friends in the “widow’s club” are terrified of.
      They fear that they will be targeted because they are not well politically and legally connected. Combined with very limited English skills, they feel that they will be prime targets while the “widow’s of the English Establishment’ will be left alone.

  11. Ace Goodheart

    at 3:59 pm

    Meanwhile, in Federal La-la land, where money grows freely on money trees, and you just have to reach up and pick some if you need more…..

    Google “Jagmeet suggests subsidize mortgage holders” and you will see what I mean.

    Jagmeet suggests a solution to the problem of people who bought houses they could not afford, and are now facing massive increases in mortgage payments.

    The solution: taxpayer funded Federal subsidies!

    Yup, that is right. If you can no longer keep up with your mortgage, no problem at all. The Federal government will just borrow the money that you need, forward you a direct deposit once a month, and you can pay your mortgage that way.

    The expense will just be added to the Federal debt (what is it now, 1.5 trillion, 1.6 trillion? What is another trillion anyway? Who cares right?) and then taxpayers will pay the interest on private mortgages!

    Yup, that is right. A person living in a home they own privately, can have their mortgage interest, and principal, paid for by other people’s taxes!

    Many of those taxpayers might not even own houses. They might not be able to afford a down payment (and now they really will never afford one, because their taxes are going up to pay someone else’s mortgage!).

    What a crock of utter horse caca this one is. Can you imagine? You want to buy a house, but you can’t, because you have to pay income tax, to pay another person’s mortgage?

    Wow. Just wow.

  12. brodg

    at 5:30 pm

    My first thought was… This is what socialism looks like.

  13. Anwar

    at 6:05 pm

    The Feds politely told Olivia Chow to f*** off today so Toronto’s housing situation isn’t going to get any better.

    “Chrystia Freeland shoots down Olivia Chow’s demand for more money, saying Toronto should not be crying poor“

    1. Nick

      at 11:24 am

      Amazing, they cause a situation that stresses the city’s resources(all cities in fact) and they tell them to figure it out. I really had higher hopes for Freeland.

      Disgraceful people.

  14. Nick

    at 11:23 am

    I don’t think this is about forcing seniors out. I think its about gaining options for the seniors that would like to opt out of the large house with the big lawn.

    This is happening throughout the suburbs right now. Many adults want to stay in their home. That is their right, I support this.

    But many are facing the increasing challenges of maintaining(cost, cleanliness, lawns, snow removal). They are open to moving but love their community, a place they have spent decades building and being part of, but within those communities our policies don’t allow them. They also can’t do the nonsense micro condo cause 2400sq. ft plus basement to 500 just is not doable(I wouldn’t myself).

    One example is my fathers neighbourhood in Ajax. Its about 25 years old, many of the residents are empty nesters. There is a walkable grocery store, drug store, couple of restaurants, bank, lovely park. Bus line directly to the GO station, which means relatively easy access to Downtown, concerts, ball games, exhibition events, etc.

    But the houses are for the most part four bedrooms, some even five. A mixed use condo maintaining the grocery store, drug store, adding a couple more restaurants on the same exact site of the current commercial space, while adding hundreds of new two and three bedroom units would entice some of these buyers to move while enabling new young couples and families to move in.

    This also would not be seniors homes so the new units would be a mix of young couples, seniors, young families, etc.

  15. E. Crober

    at 4:08 pm

    I am a senior who agrees 100%. Canada is going downhill on many fronts. Housing, healthcare, transit, increased prices for everything including groceries.

  16. Jane

    at 8:00 pm

    Seniors should stay in their homes as long as they can afford to. If in their age, they can’t maintain the home on their own, and they can’t afford home care/personal support workers, home cleaning, home food delivery, snow removal, grass cutting
    THEN they should really sell and downsize into a condo or a assisted living home.
    I’m sick and tired of state subsidies to help people age in place when they have no business living in a home with stairs when they can’t even walk up and down the stairs on their own

  17. KatLyn

    at 1:03 pm

    Why just target seniors? What about the young single person who owns a three bedroom house? Or a rich family who live in one of the huge megamansions in Forest Hill or Bridle Path? There are lots of people who live in larger spaces, which they might be “underusing”.

    1. Izzy_Bedibida

      at 5:06 pm

      As in my previous comment…seniors are easiest to target. They are supposedly sitting on a “goldmine” of equity that took decades to pay off and they are the easiest to bully.

  18. Ron

    at 5:00 pm

    Love this article. Spot on. We have a whole class of Canadians that are ready to jump on anyone with a bit of wealth. Terrible what our politicians and a lot of the population have become. But I know my pronouns and I have two words for them one is a verb and one is a pronoun. 🙂

  19. Avinash

    at 10:24 am

    It is up to the owners of the houses to decide, not the government. It is not the job of the government to decide what anybody does with their private property.

Back To Comments