Present subsidized housing programs are marked by inconsistencies and inequities. Many families pay the same rent despite wide differences in income. A small increase in earnings may force the family to move, losing much more housing assistance than is gained in income. We have proposed a solution to many of these problems in the Housing Act of 1970. Rents would vary directly with income. A family would not be forced to move at some arbitrary income limit. We will offer this provision of the Housing Act to the Senate Finance Committee for its consideration.

Housing affordability — I think it would be fair to say — is the number one issue across the province. There are, of course, many other extremely important issues, but housing affordability seems to be at the crux of it all. In my community, over and over, I hear from renters who tell me that if they lose their home in their current rent-controlled apartment, they will end up on the street. In my community, there are 750 members of the population who are homeless.

Rent controls exist in many cities across the world. And I want our cities to have those powers too and tenants to have those protections.

The time has come for a wholly new approach to economic policy in Britain. The overriding need is for a long-term stabilisation programme to defeat inflation, recreate business confidence and provide a favourable climate for economic growth. At the head of such a programme must lie a firm commitment to a steady and gradual reduction in the rate of growth of the money supply, until it is consistent with our best guess at a potentially sustainable rate of economic growth. Only in this way can inflation be wrung out of the system. But this alone is not enough... An equally important part of a long term stabilisation plan has to be a reduction in the present Budget deficit... Indeed, something akin...to the old balanced Budget discipline needs to be restored: the secret of practical economic success, as overseas experience confirms, is the acceptance of known rules. Rules rule: OK?

The housing problem that generates homelessness has been linked to the aggression of rent control, zoning restrictions, building codes, and construction moratoriums, all of which limit the availability of inexpensive housing. When construction is limited and landlords can charge only a minimal rent, they naturally rent to only the most affluent ten-ants. rather than the poor who might be late in their payments. Once again, aggression hurts those it is supposed to protect.

City government is special. We are the level closest to the people, so we must do the big and the small. Every street light, every pothole, every park, every classroom lays the foundation for greater change. Not only is it possible for Boston to deliver basic city services and generational change, it is absolutely necessary in this moment. We'll tackle our biggest challenges by getting the small things right, by getting City Hall out of City Hall into our neighborhoods, block by block, street by street.
..
After all, Boston was founded on a revolutionary promise that things don't have to be as they always were. That we can chart a new path for families now and for generations to come, grounded in justice and opportunity. And we can take steps to raise us all up to that promise together.
..
The first time I set foot in City Hall, I felt invisible. But today I see what's possible in this building and I see all the public servants raising us up. Front line workers, first responders, teachers, bus drivers, building inspectors, city workers. I am deeply honored to work alongside you, and I ask everyone to join me in expressing our gratitude for your service.
..
Boston, our charge is clear. We need everyone to join us in the work of doing the big and the small, getting City Hall out of City Hall into our neighborhoods and embracing the possibility of this city. The reason to make a Boston for everyone is because we need everyone for Boston right now. We have so much work to do and it will take all of us to get it done. So let's get to work.

Misery knows no rent bracket

[ Proposition 13 ] would precipitate a revolutionary reform—one long overdue—in California state and local finance… People’s incomes are not closely related to their ownership or use of housing. Hence, the present tax system unjustly burdens the young family with large housing needs and the older couple who want to live in their family home or their retirement pensions. Stability of home or apartment occupancy is an important social goal. The present tax system weakens our society by threatening to force people out of their homes.

Together, we can build a Boston that’s more green than concrete. Where housing is a given, not a godsend, and mobility is the minimum, not a miracle. Where the things we build inspire—but don’t define—us; and where each generation shines brighter than the last.

Federal housing policy has actively encouraged homeownership, from Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act to George W. Bush’s ownership society. But in the Middletowns of the world, homeownership comes at a steep social cost: As jobs disappear in a given area, declining home values trap people in certain neighborhoods. Even if you’d like to move, you can’t, because the bottom has fallen out of the market — you now owe more than any buyer is willing to pay.

The cost of stability is often diminished opportunities for growth

I know that housing is top of mind for so many people in North Vancouver. Sixteen years of neglect have allowed our real estate market to get out of control, our rental rates to skyrocket. Waiting lists on our subsidized housing stock run miles long. This issue has generally left hard-working individuals and families behind. It is a huge mess. And now that we have a government made up of people who are ready to work for people, it also means that we now have a government that is actually interested in cleaning up that mess.

Opportunity is the key to stability. We don't have unemployment here because we attract the best talent and create an environment where people can excel.

This study partitions the total variance in rate of return among FTC Line of Business reporting units into industry factors (whatever their nature), time factors, factors associated with the corporate parent, and business-specific factors. Whereas Schmalensee (1985) reported that industry factors were the strongest, corporate and market share effects being extremely weak, this study distinguishes between stable and fluctuating effects and reaches markedly different conclusions. The data reveal negligible corporate effects, small stable industry effects, and very large stable business-unit effects. These results imply that the most important sources of economic rents are business-specific; industry membership is a much less important source and corporate parentage is quite unimportant.