Michael Ruge on Bureaucracy and the Housing Crisis

Ask most people why housing costs so much and you’ll probably hear a familiar list: expensive land, higher construction costs, interest rates and labour shortages.

All of those can matter.

But Michael Ruge believes another part of the Housing Crisis deserves far more attention: what happens before construction really gets moving.

Permits. Approvals. Development charges. Planning requirements. Inspections. Building codes. Waiting.

Especially waiting.

After 45 years in housing development, Ruge has seen the approval environment change considerably. His experience, described in Building Hope in Housing, has convinced him that reducing unnecessary delays could be an important part of getting more homes built.

Why Time Matters in Housing Development

A development doesn’t become expensive only when construction begins.

There are costs while land is being held, financing is in place and professionals are working through the approval process. When a project takes years instead of months to move forward, those costs accumulate.

According to the chapter, estimates discussed by major financial publications have put bureaucracy-related costs at roughly 30 to 40 per cent of total development costs in some circumstances. Ruge points to permits, approvals, development cost charges and extensive regulatory requirements as contributors.

He contrasts today’s environment with his early years in the business, when approvals could sometimes happen in weeks. Some projects today, he says, can take as long as five years.

Whether you’re a developer or a renter, that’s worth paying attention to.

Developers have to account for project costs. Ultimately, those expenses can influence what buyers and tenants pay.

The Housing Crisis Isn’t Simply a Government Problem

Building Hope in the Housing Michael Ruge It would be easy to turn this into a government-bashing argument.

That’s not the most useful conclusion to draw from Ruge’s broader message.

Rules exist for reasons. Communities need safe buildings, proper infrastructure and thoughtful planning. Nobody benefits from eliminating necessary standards just to build quickly.

The issue is whether every step in the process is necessary, predictable and efficient.

Ruge’s approach is interesting because he has learned not to spend all his energy fighting the system.

Instead, he looks closely at where governments and municipalities already want development.

If an area has been identified for greater density, and a proposed development fits that direction, there may be fewer battles over rezoning and approvals.

That’s a much more practical strategy than buying a property first and hoping officials will eventually agree with your vision.

Go Where Housing Is Going

Ruge uses a hockey lesson to describe his development philosophy.

Wayne Gretzky famously explained his success in terms of going where the puck was going to be. Ruge applies a similar principle to property development: go where the apartments are going to be.

That means understanding municipal plans before assembling land.

Rather than treating planning policy as an obstacle to overcome, a developer can use it as information.

Where does the city want density?

Where are apartments and townhouses likely to be welcomed?

Which areas have the infrastructure to support more residents?

Where can existing properties be assembled into a viable development site?

Answer those questions early enough and a developer may avoid years of unnecessary conflict.

Land Assembly Without the Hardball Approach

Michael Ruge’s land-assembly strategy is another example of trying to work with people instead of against them.

His team buys individual houses in areas where future development makes sense, keeping them as rentals while assembling enough land for a larger project.

Importantly, he says they don’t want to pressure homeowners into selling.

Instead, the aim is to give owners time and a financial reason to participate. A homeowner may be able to plan a move over several years, find another property, downsize or relocate rather than being pushed into an immediate decision.

Ruge describes the objective very simply: everybody involved should benefit.

The homeowner needs a worthwhile deal. The eventual developer needs suitable land. The land assembler needs to be compensated for putting the opportunity together.

That doesn’t mean every assembly works.

One lesson Ruge says he learned the hard way is never to buy a property unless it also makes sense on its own. If the neighbouring owner refuses to sell, the original property should still have a viable use.

It’s a small detail, but it reveals something important about his approach to the Housing Crisis: optimism works better when it is backed by risk management.

Better Processes Can Help Create More Housing

Canada’s housing shortage is measured in millions of homes. No single approval reform is going to close that gap.

But unnecessary delays aren’t harmless either.

If it becomes easier to build the right kind of housing in the places communities have already identified for growth, more projects may become viable.

That is where Michael Ruge sees opportunity.

The Housing Crisis needs builders, investors, governments, homeowners and communities pulling in roughly the same direction. They don’t have to agree about everything.

They do need a process that makes it possible to turn good housing ideas into actual homes.

Because plans don’t house anybody.

Finished homes do.

Michael Ruge’s new book “Building Hope in the Housing – How to Solve the Rental Affordability Crisis” will be realeased this fall (2026).