This past week at Collision Toronto, Canada unveiled a new "Tech Talent Strategy" that includes a number of initiatives designed to attract more human capital across the science, technology, engineering, and math sectors. (Sidebar: The STEM sectors are great, but I'm really a fan of STEAM.)

At a high level, these measures are intended to continue to grow Canada as a hub for global tech talent. So they cover things like promoting Canada as a destination for digital nomads, improving the Start-up Visa Program, and dunking on US immigration policies by creating an open work permit stream for H-1B specialty occupation visa holders.

Overall, it seems great.

But there are people who are concerned about the pace of immigration in Canada. Over the past year (ending in Q2-2023), the country added about 1.2 million people. This is a record. And perhaps the greatest concern, is that we simply aren't building enough housing and related infrastructure.

But I don't get this logic. Canada is a relatively small country. Attracting smart and ambitious people from around the world is good for us. And there are simple ways to address these concerns: build more housing and related infrastructure. I'm pretty sure that we can figure out how to do that.

Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers made the claim this week that land values in some areas of the Toronto region are down 25%. He then shared a chart from Alan Leela showing how various factors have increased or decreased land values since 2020.

Broadly speaking, a revenue increase and/or more development density should increase land values; whereas something like inclusionary zoning, which is a cost to the project, should decrease land values. Indeed, this is one of the arguments in favor of inclusionary zoning: "Don't worry about the additional cost to the project because landowners will simply pay for it through reduced land prices."

In theory, all of this is correct.

Land is (or should be) the residual claimant in a development pro forma. Start with your revenue, subtract your costs, and then see what is left over for the land. (Though keep in mind that what is left over for the land could be $0 or even a negative number.)

But as I have argued before in the context of inclusionary zoning, I don't think things always play out so neatly in the market. Put differently, if the cost impact of inclusionary zoning is