Re: Housing and Homelessness Report (News, March 4). Eleanor Zichy’s article correctly notes that the federal government largely withdrew from housing policy in the 1990s. But that shift did not occur in isolation. It was part of the broader turn toward austerity under the Chrétien–Martin governments, when Ottawa prioritized sustained budget surpluses.
The Bay of Quinte Greens Speaker Series has hosted two economists who help illuminate what is happening in our economy: Mario Seccareccia in 2024 and Blair Fix last fall.
Mr. Seccareccia explained that when the federal government runs persistent surpluses the private sector must run deficits. During the Chrétien–Martin years the burden shifted to households, as private borrowing replaced declining public investment. He further showed that the impact of austerity lands hardest on the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, while the top 20 percent actually benefits.
The result has been a steady rise in household debt in Canada — now among the highest in the western democracies — forcing an increasing share of income to the financial sector and deepening poverty at the bottom of the income distribution.
Mr. Fix examined inequality and housing. Average house prices have roughly tracked average incomes over time; the problem, again, lies not in the average but in the distribution of income. What has changed is how many people at the bottom can no longer reach the housing market at all. Since 1970 the share of people earning less than 5 per cent of the average house price has almost tripled. The number earning less than 1 per cent of the average house price has increased by over ten-fold, and the number of renters earning less than 20 per cent of median rent has also increased ten-fold.
Housing affordability is not — as we are endlessly told — simply a supply problem. It is also an income problem. Unless minimum and lower-end incomes rise significantly, many Canadians will remain structurally unable to afford housing no matter how many units are built. The result is not only homelessness but food insecurity, health and mental-health challenges, and hardship that can persist across generations.
At its root, this crisis reflects economic choices that increasingly benefit the wealthy while too many at the bottom are left behind.
Don Wilford, Picton
I am writing to voice my extreme concern and dismay regarding the questions around the size of council that will appear on the ballot this fall.
The questions, whether worded inadvertently or intentionally, will lead to a failure of the motions. The first question refers to having a third party review the issue of council size. I feel strongly about reducing the size of council but I also feel strongly about paying someone to do this again!! Herein lies the rub!!! We have already dealt with this issue and the support was there but the follow through wasn’t!
The second part of the question requires 50 percent of registered voters to vote in favour of the motion. Sadly, the voter turnout in PEC seldom reaches over 50 percent. As a result the motion again seems bound to fail. The threshold for the question to pass will be virtually impossible to reach!
The question on the ballot should simply read: Do you agree that PEC Council be reduced to to 10 members consisting of a Mayor and 1 representative from each of the 9 wards. A 50 percent yes vote would be required for the motion to pass.
In closing, if you care enough, get out and VOTE!
Judy Blemkie, Picton
See it in the newspaper
5° Cloudy
