I think there is a place for planning in local governments if equity is valued. "Health, safety, and welfare" as Patrick says in this lecture... acknowledging housing as a human right, and using this principle in the creation of local laws and policies. But as you say these values have been skewed and planning is often used as a weapon that fosters inequality, pandering to those with wealth. It's sad to see how many municipalites just rely on amenities from developers that create speculative developments that dont serve the communities needs, and they go on to do very little with those amenities or put them towards things other than affordable housing - things that benefit the wealthy often. So many affordable housing agreements make up a small percent of newly developed units, and nowadays these agreements only seem to last for a decade or two. There is no true commitment to affordable housing. Regulations are needed around owning mulitple properties and residences as an investment. I think communites need to invest in community owned lands before property investors siphon it all up and residents have little say in the kinds of developments that take place. I'm glad people like Patrick are debunking the common belief of "more supply" will fix the problem. If we don't address the underlying problem of speculation and viewing housing as a commdity more supply is not likely to address housing unaffordability. The numbers projected for units needed in Canada are inflated based on the speculative housing market, so these projections actually require more units than we really need. If we just commited to building actually affordable units we would need to build a fraction of the units the CMHC claims we need to build. The amount of luxury units that are on the market right now in comparison to affordable units reflects this idea. There are plenty of rentals available, but no one can afford them. Building more units than we need is likely to have environmental impacts too, which is something we should avoid if we are to address climate change effectively.

@@swaddington9399 once again... why inflate the process with Gov, real-estate developers, and of course the agents who smile and cash their checks...? All planning=overhead cost$$$ How about land that is owned by somebody, and they dont live on that land, instead letting them hold it, some times for decades, paying peanuts for taxes as un-improved land, just waiting for a demamd for that area to grow and then develope before cashing in huge.... how about no more of that? While we're at it, maybe we humans can give having a little humanity in our lives. Put that forword in our minds before making decisions, instead the current state of our portfolios. Money isnt everything, and i have yet to here of anyone, who lying on their death bed looks to their loved ones and said, "Yep. It was all worth it." and yet people continue to live like the only measure of a man is his net. Society needs to change, and I am 100% positive, that governence WILL NOT, be the source of that change... Live on it, or live without it.

Yes give it a try always