The rate was cut in a few of the years since 2019 (and raised once I think), forgot to add that

That could be relevant if HRM decided every first time home buyer should have taxes increase by no more than 10%

Second paragraph seems to suggest HRM can override core parts of the assessment framework. Have you seen this @landofsticks.bsky.social ?

Say that to a room full of 35 year olds with roommates as a politicians and see how many voters you win with careful scaling

Nobody else is wearing a MMT hat anymore, so I'm not keen to go down that rabbit hole. Taxes matter. Let's see just how efficiently gov't can build - if they build at all.

Right. But that builder is putting up their own money, and their investors money. It’s obviously different with tax money. And it speaks to the govts willingness to address the problem at scale (it is unwilling). Thus like it not the market is our best hope

Exactly

IMO that’s also why they claim to want a new fiscal deal or income tax revenue. But they really just want others to raise taxes for them. Most unserious level of government by far

Todd Veinnotte show?

lmao *geometry

Buyback clause was included and used in Texas for exactly this outcome
www.txdot.gov/about/newsro...

Agree that normally getting industry capital would be the biggest barrier. But how confident are you that there won't be a gov't backstop? IMO even Alberta could guarantee enough bonds to make some private capital willing to toss in a bit of equity to try?

The children of multi-millionaires have it very hard ok

The origin story of the CAP was that south shore legacy homes were increasing too much in value 🫠

Agreed, but I'd also trust Dal to decide for themselves above a heritage committee from HRM who has no stake in anything