• cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Let me take a stab at this

    made it seem

    Nobody cares what it “seems” like or it “sounds” or “makes you feel”. All that is relevant is the technical and legal inputs.

    like a wide-spread Federal idea

    Again, this sentence means nothing. What’s with your “wide-spread”, wat does that even mean?

    no sign of…proposing…

    Don’t care what you see or don’t see and also this sentence means nothing. Stop rhetoricing and say something fact-based that is relevant to the discussion at hand or kindly please find another outlet

    so its indeed a Conservative idea

    What is? Tell me exactly or quote the article as support and explain why this is in any sense a “Conservative” idea(l)? I’m beyond skeptical but also open for you to redeem yourself for this quote

    [TO BE CONTINUED; TOO MANY THINGS TO DISCUSS HERE

    Downvoting !== Responding

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      [Preserved for Posterity] SamuelRJankins

      To start off Eby’s quote made it seem like a wide spread federal idea, but there no sign of Liberals proposing selling off any federal land. So it is indeed just a Conservative idea.

      In regards to why it’s a bad idea it’s because that’s how we got here. The Conservative government “saved” money by not building housing only for people to pay substantially more for it down the road. If there is any belief that we can just kick this can down the road till it becomes someone else’s problem aside from housing, that what was said for climate change, and healthcare as well,

      I’d also doubt selling thousands of buildings and large swaths of land would be fast, unless they go full Conservative and do a fire sale again like Harper did. Where Canadian get pennies on the dollar.