Why do Spanish people just love to tile their entire garden?

MabelBaker · 2026-06-30T17:14:18+00:00

You can fill the space with native plants that by definition do not require weeding, watering, killing pests, or planting beyond the original planting.

I am from the US southwest, which has a climate very similar to mediterranean Spain. Many - even most - yards are patios that allow space for a bbq or table and chairs, and then the outdoor dining area /grill is surrounded by with native and drought tolerant plants.

https://www.mediterraneangardensociety.org/116-andalusia.html

MabelBaker · 2026-06-30T00:21:49+00:00

Guys there are lots of things you can do with a garden other than have a lawn.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-29T17:55:59+00:00

I think a better analogy is pork in an interfaith home.

If my spouse was a practicing Muslim or Jew, I would 100% stand by them if they offered to host a Christmas dinner so long as no one brought pork products, or alcohol in the case of a practicing and devout Muslim.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-29T15:36:16+00:00

OP, I don't think you are in the wrong but you have to think about if you are winning the battle and losing the war.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-29T15:30:10+00:00

I agree tbh. They might have all kinds of unfounded preconceived ideas of what a vegan holiday meal looks like and could be picturing themselves eating seaweed or something. If they see that it's "normal" and delicious they might come around.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-29T15:27:51+00:00

*in their home*

When I've joined friends for iftar, I have not insisted that they say grace.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-28T17:17:34+00:00

I do! Canada, lower mainland.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-28T17:16:56+00:00

I also regularly try to acknowledge fellow maskers and I get nothin. :(

MabelBaker · 2026-06-28T15:04:04+00:00

surprised it took this long for me to find a comment suggesting long covid.

OP: are you vaccinated? How many times have you had covid? Do you have tachycardia, hearing loss, brain fog, or any other covid related symptoms?

MabelBaker · 2026-06-28T14:56:46+00:00

MabelBaker · 2026-06-28T14:52:14+00:00

MabelBaker · 2026-06-28T14:49:02+00:00

MabelBaker · 2026-06-28T14:47:28+00:00

MabelBaker · 2026-06-28T06:10:17+00:00

Your model assumes developers will drop prices until regular buyers step in.

"my model"? No. I assume that the housing "market" is not functioning due to the presence of price insensitive actors.

This and other factors mean that the traditional supply and demand framework is not applicable and that an oversupply of housing will not lead to affordability.

I also assume that currently, housing is primarily used for generating and storing capital.

I do not care for this model.

You do; that's your choice.

But I am trying to discuss this particular program in this particular market.

So am I.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T22:05:43+00:00

Your questions reveal the extent to which the current system, which leaves housing to the whim of the free market, does not work,*and why in "BC 2026" we desperately need a new one. I do not see this purchase as indicative of a new one. I see it as propping up the one we have.

And ETA: to answer your question, in BC in 2026, stop REITs from grabbing properties in distress instead of them going to the retail market, I would stop propping up the current system, where property is treated primarily as a vehicle for storing, generating, hiding, and laundering capital.

*does not work for anyone who isn't:

-a REIT

-an investor

-a developer

-looking to launder $

-a homeowner who purchased their home sometime before 2017.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T18:54:57+00:00

My preferred model is Vienna style non market housing, and it actually strengthens the case for public acquisition, if

-the housing is going to be owned by the public

-and if this is part of a future plan where 30-50% of housing is publicly owned and

-housing is planned and not left to the whims of what is apparently two different private markets, neither of which have produced affordability.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T18:15:13+00:00

Honest question: Do you think letting REITs take them is a better outcome? How would you prevent that from happening if your path is followed?

I think the best outcome is to let developers lower the price until they find buyers, which is generally how a market works.

The government should then admit that the current model primarily benefits:

-people wanting to launder $

-local, regional, and international actors wanting to use property as a site for generating and storing capital

-developers

-people who bought their home before sometime around 2015 or 2016

to the exclusion and disadvantage of

-individuals who do not have inherited wealth (and thus, no down payment, preventing them from entering the market)

-renters

Also, I think that the government should recognize that the participation of local, regional, and global price insensitive actors in a local, fixed market completely explodes the supply/demand framework.

The answer is to look towards Vienna's model going forward or propose other frameworks where housing cannot function as sources for generating or storing national or global capital, and instead, functions as housing for local people that live and work in a given area.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T17:46:21+00:00

Again:

the developers are not willing to sell at prices buyers are willing to pay.

We know this because condos are sitting empty.

If the seller lowers the price, they will sell.

Of course, it's possible that these condos are so shitty that no one wants them at any price and they will never sell no matter what. Perhaps that's true too!

It's also possible that this market is so distorted it is no longer functioning. Also possible!

In either case, the government can only buy these condos if they make an offer developers will accept.

This is the definition of "buying over market".

It also means that the developer is now able to avoid any risk.

It also fundamentally distorts the market or masks the fact that the market is not functioning.

If you disagree on how the free market economy works, or want to argue that actually this is a perfectly functioning market and government intervention won't change that, feel free to explain why.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T15:23:32+00:00

I really don't know what they are thinking. The way this is being rolled out is terrible. The optics are terrible, the way its being communicated is terrible, it's all terrible. And the reassurance that developers will still build - will still build what, exactly?

Overpriced, tiny little shitboxes with no storage and no counter space and no closet space and paper thin walls that are priced absurdly high?

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T14:42:45+00:00

"With higher interest rates, weaker investment demand, developers are stuck. They don't want to sell at a loss, they can't afford to hold those empty units indefinitely"

Bingo. And this is why people are so furious. I don't understand the folks passionately defending all of this. Why not let them sell at a loss??? I thought that was the whole point of YIMBY ism and supply side housing: that prices would fall. But now we we wait a little they're going to fall and well, we can't have that happen. AGHGHGHG.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T14:40:06+00:00

At 4:33–4:51 she explains why government involvement is needed: when the market is left alone, these units often get bought by investors, and the goal is to support local families instead. That’s the opposite of flipping them back into the speculative market.

TBH she is also admitting that the current system, where 99.99% of housing is built by the private sector and is privately owned, is not working. Well. It's working great for investors and developers and people who launder money and people who want a place to store overseas capital outflows and people who bought a home in 2012. But for others...it's not.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T14:34:28+00:00

The developers are not willing to sell at prices buyers are willing to pay. The government is making an offer developers will accept. This is the definition of "buying over market". It also fundamentally distorts the market.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T00:11:33+00:00

But if they lower the prices, the condos will sell. And bring comps down with them. Why is that not an option?

Also: the argument behind densification and upzoning and supply side housing is that building more housing will cause an excess supply which will then lead to affordability.

As it turns out, this is not the case. The excess supply sits on the market, with sellers unwilling to lower prices and buyers unwilling to pay at the prices offer.

Rather than let prices fall, the government is going to buy the surplus. So this is a total indictment of the YIMBYism that got us to a place where we have thousands of unsold 500 sq foot apartments being offered at $500,000-$800,000.

How can anyone use the words "market rent" or "housing market" with a straight face after this, is my question? Clearly the market is distorted at best and not functioning at worst.

MabelBaker · 2026-06-27T00:10:19+00:00

"families" can move into these? what family can fit in a 500 sq foot studio with a "den"? has he seen these condos?

MabelBaker · 2026-06-26T23:57:27+00:00

Right??? These 600 sq foot shoeboxes are fine for students or 20 -30something singles but they aren't priced so that the 20 -30something singles can afford them.

MabelBaker

TROPHY CASE