This country saw a lot of good, cheap, affordable housing built in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. Much of it was due to two things: federal dollars directly into social housing and federal tax laws that encouraged people to invest in private-market apartment buildings.
Many of the region’s minimum-wage or low-income households are holding themselves together in those three- and four-storey apartment buildings and social-housing projects all over the region.
The tax incentives got killed, so rental stopped. In 1994, the federal government ended its support for social housing, so it was left up to the few provinces willing (largely Quebec and B.C.) to keep building some.
But there was still money going into the old social-housing projects, through 30- and 40-year agreements signed when those projects were built a few decades ago. That money is still flowing, for the most part, but it’s due to start ending, as various agreements come to the end of their terms.
My story here looks at what people are fearing the consequences might be and what they’d like to see as a solution — no, not more money. Just the same amount that’s been going in all these years.
64 responses so far ↓
1 MB // Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 am
Conservative Party solution to poverty:
Learn Mandarin. Move to Fort McMurray.
2 boohoo // Oct 30, 2012 at 11:10 am
Hey come on MB, those Canada Action Plan billboards (16 million was the last report for the first quarter of 2012) and reliving a 200 year old war (upward of 30 million) aren’t going to appear on their own!
3 teririch // Oct 30, 2012 at 11:25 am
…..Many housing operators are facing a situation where the subsidy they are providing for renters is higher than the current mortgage payment. So they will still be behind, even when the building is paid off.
As well, the original federal agreements often didn’t allow operators to build up reserves or allocate enough money for maintenance.
So those operators are also facing big bills for repairs once the mortgages are paid off.
*****
Sorry, but I am confused by this. If the mortgages have been paid off, and I am guessing the land value has increased – which provides equity in itself…
Doesn’t it mean that monies paid for rent can now go into a general revenue account for repairs? Can’t this part of the ‘agreement’ be amended?
4 West End Gal // Oct 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“Doesn’t it mean that monies paid for rent can now go into a general revenue account for repairs? Can’t this part of the ‘agreement’ be amended?”
Quite right. Problem is, look what happened all over the world after the “socialist type housing” ended in those countries. The Real Estate sharks moved in! Same here! Best example… Little Mountain Housing Coop. They are not out of the “danger zone” yet…
5 teririch // Oct 30, 2012 at 1:16 pm
@West End Gal #4
If you have a moment – head to the Mainlander dot com and read the article on the long establihed community gardens that are slated for ‘condos’.
It is truly sad. Yet, Vision gives slumlords like the Sahotas tax breaks for a ‘community’ garden lot in the DTES. But then again, the two gardens in harms way are not working with/benefiting with SOLE foods, Save on Meats, SHIFT cargo service etc. no ‘connections’ to rely on.
6 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 30, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Frances, I’m waxing nostalgic…
I’m ‘Over There’ fighting WWI—or more to the point—WWII. Then, I come home… to what?
Chances are that I am male, in my 20s, and starting a new life.
Are government subsidies—energy, transportation, schools, recreating centres, cultural programs—pointing me to buy a home in Coquitlam, get a job in Burnaby, and raise my family outside the metropolitan hub (Vancouver) but, within driving distance of the new pipeline: the Freeway?
Where are those incentives now?
Do we need another Hitler in Berlin to shake us awake to realizing that market forces alone cannot capture the full spectrum of values that constitute Canadian culture? Is it not the role of the public sector to smooth out the necessary aberrations that come with a profit-centered private sector economy?
7 West End Gal // Oct 30, 2012 at 1:53 pm
teririch #4
Thanks, been there already. Agreed. There are so many different shades of “green” with this phony Green Vision Council. Their favorite green shade though, is the US $ green! Wouldn’t you know it, eh?
8 MB // Oct 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm
@ Lewis, well said.
9 waltyss // Oct 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@terrich: #5. I know facts should not interfere with a good rant. However, I am curious, how does ” Vision give slumlords like the Sahotas tax breaks for a ‘community’ garden lot in the DTES?” You have stated your allegation as a fact; got anything to back it up?
10 Bill // Oct 30, 2012 at 3:29 pm
@MB#1
Where do you think the Feds get the money to dole out back to the Provinces? Us. And if you think we are going to be net beneficieries of any Federal housing program you are dreaming in technicolour. BC is a “have Province” and it is our dollars that are going to pay for services in other Provinces. Far better the Feds get out of these types of programs and reduce taxes to create taxing room for the Province. Not only does this stop the Feds from targeting money for political gain, it also creates savings by eliminating the leakage that is spent on administering the Federal programs. (you may see this as a negative, MB, as it would reduce employment in the public sector. )
11 Dan Cooper // Oct 30, 2012 at 4:51 pm
@waltyss:
I always wonder when people demand that someone else “back up” their allegation, when the proof is available, in fact glaringly obvious, with a few seconds of googling. From the horse’s mouth, as it were:
“The land [for the SOLEfood garden] was donated by Astoria Hotel owners the Sahota family, for which they will receive a tax break on city property taxes, said [Seann] Dory [of sponsoring agency United We Can].”
http://projectsinplace.org/2011/06/06/links-to-solefood-articles/
As for the rest of the allegation, type “sahota s” in google and see what comes up.
There may be very valid arguments for doing exactly what the city government has done in this case. If so, by all means make them. (I can think of one or two myself.) However, don’t simply try and deny the obvious facts.
12 waltyss // Oct 30, 2012 at 5:06 pm
@Dan Cooper. I am not questioning that the Sahota’s are slum landlords or that they will get a tax break on the property.
The point was the assertion, repeated by you, that it is Vision or the City government who gives the tax break. The City does not provide a different mill rate on property that is used for community gardens. Rather, BC Assessment Authority which is a provincial not a city agency assesses the land at a lower rate and therefore they pay less in taxes. Neither Vision nor the city government gives the tax break.
13 Adele Chow // Oct 30, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Let the record be clear: it was the Liberals that gutted social housing in the 90′s–with of course Reform/CRAP/Con blessings.
14 teririch // Oct 30, 2012 at 6:06 pm
For waltyss:
From Vancouver 24 hours:
Downtown Eastside landlords notorious for owning troubled SRO hotels may be the next commercial land owners in Vancouver to get a whopping tax break by designating property as a community garden.
The Sahota family who own the Astoria Hotel on East Hastings Street through a company ( Yang-Myung Holdings Ltd.) are benefiting from a program that allows commercial properties to be re-classified as a public park or garden. The so-called “ Class 8” property classification permits owners of commercial property to pay onefifth of their normal tax bill.
Tax breaks totaling in the millions of dollars have been given to developers and commercial property owners during a year where the City of Vancouver is facing a multimillion dollar budget shortfall. The Sahotas were approached about using their property by a community organization named Greening the Inner-City looking to create an “ urban farm” to train up to a dozen area citizens as food gardeners.
Empty lots beside the Astoria Hotel ( 769 East Hastings) to Hawks Avenue have an assessed value of $ 8.3 million. The normal tax bill would be approximately $ 165,000. As a Class 8 property the tax bill could be reduced to as low as $ 33,000, providing an annual savings of $ 132,000.
The Astoria Hotel has been the centre of several complaints by tenants over the years.
.
15 teririch // Oct 30, 2012 at 6:10 pm
@Adel Chow #13:
Hmmm, wondering how the Liberals managed that as they were the ‘offical opposition’ party from 1991 – 2001.
The NDP was the party in power.
Nice to see you back with your ‘version’ of politcal history in tow.
16 Frances Bula // Oct 30, 2012 at 7:05 pm
@Teri. You’re getting a bit mixed up. It was the federal Liberals who killed housing programs in 1994. That’s what Adele meant, I’m fairly sure.
17 Chris Keam // Oct 30, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Surely you don’t expect your readers to wade a whole four sentences into a post before rendering their opinion Frances?
18 waltyss // Oct 30, 2012 at 9:41 pm
@teririch: Frances has pointed out one area where you are mixed up. The other area where you are mixed up is your incorrect assertion that it is the city (Vision controlled or not) that determines either the Class within which a piece of property falls or the assessed value of that property. Both of those are done by the BC Assessment Authority.
What happens is that landlords, whether the Sahota’s or an oil company or someone else who has a vacant property will approach or be approached by someone who wants to use the property for a community garden. If they reach agreement, the landlord then applies to the Assessment Authority to have the property assigned to a different Class. Hence your reference to Class 8 which simply means that the land is then assigned by BC Assessment Authority to that class.
City has nothing to do with it. The culprit, if there is a culprit, is the BC Assessment Authority and the provincial government who passes the legislation and regulations that allow what you are describing to happen.
I am not sure of this but the city actually opposed this way of property obtaining a class designation taxed at a lower rate.
So you are right to be concerned but wrong with regard to whom you are assigning responsibility.
19 waltyss // Oct 30, 2012 at 9:53 pm
@teririch:
So strong is your hatred of Vision that you will almost certainly not believe what I say. Maybe just maybe you will believe BC Assessment Authority on one of their fact sheets where they say:
BC Assessment places property in one or more of nine classes, typically based on the property’s type or use. Municipal zoning does not determine property class, though it may be a factor in some cases.
You could also read the Assessment Act and the applicable regulations.
I will wait patiently for you to retract your statement at #5 that: “Yet, Vision gives slumlords like the Sahotas tax breaks for a ‘community’ garden lot in the DTES. ” I will not hold my breath however.
20 Trish French // Oct 30, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Am I the only one reading Frances’ story who is concerned about what she’s actually reporting–the threat to existing social housing projects posed by possible end to Federal funding? I’d like to see one of the major national policy think tanks do some analysis of the impacts of this on the country as a whole, socially and economically. It also has very interesting possible political consequences nationally: something for the NDP and Liberals to get their teeth into. Not to mention what impact the cancellation might have in giving the PQ a cause in Quebec.
21 waltyss // Oct 30, 2012 at 10:12 pm
@teririch.
The BC Assessment Authority Fact Sheet is at :
http://www.bcassessment.bc.ca/public/Fact%20Sheets/Classification%20of%20Property.aspx. There you will find the classes of property as well.
The property was probably Class 6 which is hotel motel and also anything that does not fall into other classes.
IF the property in question is assessed as Class 8, then at a value of $8.3 million, the 2012 taxes would have been $14,936.61. (The City’s mill rate for Class 8 property in 2012 was $1.79591. If it were classified as Class 6, taxes would have been $72,881.97 )(2012 mill rate $8.78096).
22 Adele Chow // Oct 30, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Yes, I was referring to the Liberals in Ottawa during the 1990s, because we were talking about federal housing policy. The BC government under the provincial NDP and Liberals have tried to maintain some support for social housing.
23 Tessa // Oct 31, 2012 at 8:33 am
Alas I can’t read the article anymore as I’ve reached my limit for free articles this month. I had thought that the Globe was going to exempt visitors who came through a link from a website such as this one, so it wouldn’t count towards that? Or was I mistaken?
24 teririch // Oct 31, 2012 at 10:10 am
@Frances #16:
Thank you for the correction – my interpretation was wrong.
(Too many hours with work travel and well….work!)
Cheers,
T.
25 brilliant // Oct 31, 2012 at 10:17 am
@MB 1-Move to Fort Mac?! Shock, horror! Considering most of us are descended from folks who made far longer and more perilous journeys to make a better life, forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for those too lazy to leave their subsidized homes to travel a few hours to get a good job.
26 Frank Ducote // Oct 31, 2012 at 11:02 am
Trish – thank you. While you’re likely not the only one reading who feels this way, you’re certainly the only one so far who has stayed on topic rather than translating everything as an evil Vision plot.
Frances’ blog has unfortunately devolved into a place where the same few adversarial and mostly anonymous voices make it not only tiresome and predictable, but also useless to try and stay on topic.
Thanks again for trying to do so and pointing a way forward for opposition parties at the national level, for the need for a national housing policy but, perhaps, a more comprehensive urban policy and, shall I say, vision.
27 Silly Season // Oct 31, 2012 at 12:05 pm
What @Frank Ducote at #26 said…
28 MB // Oct 31, 2012 at 12:27 pm
@ Bill 10, Adele 13 + Frances 16,
A little fiscal history.
The federal Liberals under Chretien + Martin brought the rampant deficit spending under control in the 90s. It was Trudeau who started the deficit trend but left office when the national debt was well under $200 billion. It was Mulroney who first jacked the federal debt and annual defits to record proportions in the 80s and early 90s, followed by the fiscal roller coaster c/o Harper + Flaherty a couple of decades later with a confusing melange of cuts to key revenue sources (e.g. GST) followed by the highest deficit in Canadian history, followed by deeper cuts, all termed “fiscally responsible.”
It seems if you need truly responsible (i.e. less unstable) fiscal management in Canada, then vote Liberal. Conservatives have surely lost their way since Mulroney on what used to be one of their central planks.
Paul Martin cut deeply because he had to (too deeply into health care in my view, and something he later regretted), but he still left a remnant social housing program in place, notably reduced cooperative housing and the occasi0nal drop of funding into singular projects, along with a budget surplus.
Harper sank the surlpus, and will now remove all related subsidies and grants and make Canada stand out as the only industrialized country on Earth that does not fund social housing, amongst other things.
Now our friend Bill may favour a collection of powerful fiefdoms called “provinces” and a purposely weakened federal government, but going too far in this direction during the current global economic climate will ultimately result in …… well, gawd only knows as the US falters under its own tragic fiscal mismanagement and Canadian power devolves to the regions, each with their own debt challenges.
Maybe Cascadia will arise after all on the West Coast by mid-century from the fiscal ashes and political rubble in North America.
29 MB // Oct 31, 2012 at 12:34 pm
@ Trish French 20:
Am I the only one reading Frances’ story who is concerned about what she’s actually reporting–the threat to existing social housing projects posed by possible end to Federal funding? I’d like to see one of the major national policy think tanks do some analysis of the impacts of this on the country as a whole, socially and economically. It also has very interesting possible political consequences nationally: something for the NDP and Liberals to get their teeth into. Not to mention what impact the cancellation might have in giving the PQ a cause in Quebec.
Well said, Trish.
No, you are not the only one. The way things are going there will be political consequences for Harper on this and several other files.
30 MB // Oct 31, 2012 at 12:43 pm
@ brilliant 25:
… forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for those too lazy to leave their subsidized homes to travel a few hours to get a good job.
I forwarded your comment to my 87-year old mother who is disabled and lives in subsidized housing with subsidized care, made possible in part with federal grants.
Her response was unprintable.
I know many people in co-ops and other federally subsidized housing who are unable to work due to age or physical / mental disabilities.
There seems to be a direct connection between your simple speech centre and your jaw / typing fingers that bypasses the rest of your brain.
31 MB // Oct 31, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Thank you Frank (26). I’ve noticed this downward trend in quality too, even though I remain an anonymous commentor myself.
I’m not sure if there is a way to legislate a constructive conversation, but I am heartened to read some really good contributions.
Though I may not agree with all their conclusions, I do appreciate a stimulating discussion of ideas by key individuals here, especially if they are well-crafted.
32 Joe Just Joe // Oct 31, 2012 at 2:37 pm
People seem to want it both ways, ultimately there is one taxpayer. The feds lowered taxes and cut funding to a bunch of social programs. The provinces are always crying about wanting more power, there is nothing stopping them from increasing taxes by the same amount the feds cut them to pay for whatever program they desire. Instead the provinced decided to do the same as the feds and cut taxes too. No one wants to be the one to raise taxes so here we are.
33 teririch // Oct 31, 2012 at 3:11 pm
@Joe Just Joe #32:
Very true point.
It is too bad that tax payers are unable to see a ‘list’ of sorts of all programs supported by tax dollars – Provincially to start with.
I know in the past that certain programs have had funding cut and I can honestly say I had been caught off guard as I never thought they would have got government funding to begin with.
Perhaps a realigning of priorities is badly needed where the basic needs of the people are looked after first and then things like arts/sports (and I am only using these as examples) fall to a secondary tier.
Just a thought.
34 Dan Cooper // Oct 31, 2012 at 4:02 pm
@waltyss:
I agree with your point, upon clarification of what specific part of the original statement you were objecting to: that it is not the city but the provincial authority that determines the tax category. (We could argue whether the city could oppose some classification decisions and/or valuations more strongly, a prime example being the many acres of prime False Creek property currently assessed at a supposed value less than that of one single bedroom apartment despite their developer-owner running a profitable business upon them as well as regularly renting them out for short periods at a fee each time of many multiples their supposed total worth. But I certainly would not digress in such a way.)
That being said, I still think your point would have been more effective, initially, not as, “”I dare you to prove your allegation!” but rather, “You are simply wrong; this is determined by the province not the city.”
Cheers!
35 waltyss // Oct 31, 2012 at 4:33 pm
@Dan Cooper. I did not say “I dare you to prove your allegation” but “You have stated your allegation as a fact; got anything to back it up?” However, that said, I accept your point and certainly I could have been clearer.
Unfortunately, there is a history where teririch is fond of alleging matters as fact that have little more foundation than her ideology. My lack of clarity arose out of that and for that, I am sorry.
36 Bill // Oct 31, 2012 at 5:11 pm
@MB #28
On the one hand you credit the Chretien Liberals for balancing the books yet on the other hand you acknowledge they did this by slashing transfer payments to the Provinces for programs that were the responsibility of the Provinces to deliver which is a pretty strong argument supporting my position. Of course Provinces are quite happy to receive funding from the Federal government because they don’t get blamed for the taxes necessary to provide the funding.
I am not sure how you make the connection of a weakened Federal government to the US fiscal mess (nor in fact how staying out of service areas they have no constitutional mandate to provide weakens the Federal government) but let’s say it is good for national unity to transfer money from the haves to the have nots (although you have to wonder about the state of the country when the two largest provinces are have nots). Why not have one transfer payment that Provinces can spend on the services they are mandated to provide in any way they see fit?
As for the deficit spending by the Harper government, let’s not forget that he has led a minority government for most of his mandate including the 2008 financial crisis. The opposition parties criticised Harper for not spending more (and ridiculed him when he said that the stock market crash provided a buying opportunity as Canada was strong – very profitable advice for those of us who took it). Let see what happens during the balance of his majority mandate.
37 Adele Chow // Oct 31, 2012 at 6:14 pm
The federal Liberals campaign on things like housing and daycare but when in power never do any different from the Conservatives. Sometimes they go further than the Conservatives in gutting programs that help low income Canadians.
38 MB // Nov 1, 2012 at 7:42 pm
@ Bill 36,
The cooperative housing intiative and social housing in general has had federal support for the better part of a an average lifetime while the economy grew.
If you are implying that the provinces will maintain national standards on this file when the feds vacate … um, create ‘tax room’ … and leave it up to a cadre of premiers to find the funds for an obvious nation-wide challange, then you’re dreaming in black and white.
Ditto for believing that government should elevate the management of money and bin social policy.
Federal money earmarked for certain uses has ended up in provincial general revenue coffers to be used at the pleasure of the premiers on other things, an ironic standard practice the Taxpayers Federation loves second only to lowering all taxes, with notable exceptions.
Why then would the absence of money transfered to the provinces for social housing fulfil the expectation that the provinces will create their own?
Downloading stops at cities, Bill, not the provinces. And BC cities have very little if any leverage given that it is illegal for them to tax beyond the rules set up by the province, or to run deficits. [Exception: Vancouver and the athlete's village.]
I predict there will be even greater disparity between provinces concerning social housing, that the hands of cities will be cuffed while they, not senior gocvernments, are forced to deal with the consequences of a purely ideological fiscal decision, and that more tragedy will arise as the disadvantaged compete for fewer housing options.
Perhaps Metro Vancouver should separate and form its own nation.
39 Bill // Nov 2, 2012 at 10:30 am
@MB #37
“And BC cities have very little if any leverage given that it is illegal for them to tax beyond the rules set up by the province, or to run deficits.”
This is actually a strength and not a weakness. We don’t need another level of government to rack up deficits we can’t afford and if you allowed cities to tax income or sales you would only be providing jobs for accountants and lawyers structuring their affairs to minimize taxes. If you think allowing Provinces to fund and deliver services will result in unacceptable disparities between Provinces, what do you think would happen if cities were given the same right? Don’t you think there would be even wider and more dysfunctional disparities between neighbouring cities? Your obvious bias and lack of objectivity because of your employment is crystal clear on this one.
40 Mira // Nov 2, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Social housing, assisted housing, senior housing, coops… are all there for a reason, and they fulfill a very good task. It’s not only a social but an economic one as well.
We don’t live in Dickensian times, and this is not some third world country, on the contrary is one one of the richest countries (province, city) in the world.
All I’m saying is it takes $70,000 per year per person to keep a homeless person… on the street!
With a fraction of that you can house, cloth and fed anyone you want. If the idiots in government want to create a bigger problem and a bigger deficit, just because some ‘entitled’ ones feel over taxed a little, wait for this to come. MB, tell you what, why don’t you start taking in your home, transitory homeless, to show your appreciation for the government and to put your money where your mouth is?
41 brilliant // Nov 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm
@MB 30-thank you for that touching story however you know full well my comment was directed toward the ablebodied who take advantage of subsidized housing.
42 MB // Nov 2, 2012 at 2:58 pm
@ Bill 39
You’ve pretzeled what I said.
I never said, nor did I imply, that cities should be allowed to run deficits. What I did actually say was that they cannot deal with yet another download from above, this time social housing.
You accuse me of “bias and lack of objectivity” while being ignorant yourself of what has actually occurred at the municipal level. One example is having to up municipal budgets (hence tax draw) a few years back when major roads were downloaded to cities by the province without consultation.
Roads are not cheap to maintain, especially big ones. Nor is social housing.
Cities are at the end of the dowloading chain, and cannot be cavalierly dismissed as just part of a giant public sector bureaucracy. They are under the foot of both senior governments, yet they are also one of the nation’s most important economic loci.
And you have not addressed my other point, that maintenance of national standards on several files is very important, social housing being one of them.
43 Dan Cooper // Nov 2, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Adele Chow notes, “The federal Liberals campaign on things like housing and daycare but when in power never do any different from the Conservatives.”
Good point. I always find it strange that people talk about a potential merger of the NDP and Liberals federally on the basis of them both being supposedly left/progressive/who-knows-what, when the very same Federal Liberals go ranting about Free Trade Coalitions and Evil Socialist NDPers the moment they get back to BC. I just read that another former Federal Liberal MP is officially proposing to run for the legislature as a BC Liberal.
(Actually, the entire idea of a “Free Trade Coalition” is curious to me. Essentially, the members are saying, “One of us may believe for example that abortion is murder, and another for example that not housing the poor is immoral, but both are willing to give up addressing those or any other goals in the greater and indeed single cause of Everything Possible Being Done By Private Business.” Odd stuff. Personally, I see myself as belonging to the “Human Worth and Wellbeing” coalition, that being my bottom line!)
44 MB // Nov 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm
@ Mira 40
Can you please clarify the point of your post?
First you state that various forms of subsidized housing fulfils an important role. Ahhh, you’re bleeding heart, eh?
Then you go on to say we are one of the richest countries and can afford to supply subsidized housing, starting with the 70K per homeless person in shelters. Oops, you’re now a socialist, but you need to provide a reference for that figure.
Then you state that you feel you can house/feed/clothe individuals for a “fraction” of 70K without providing any further information that that has actually been accomplished in Vancouver if only gov’t idiots wern’t involved. Well, if not gov’t, then who, Mira?
Me, you say? Ha. Ha. Ha. Why not you? After all, you’re the one with the numbers, like you’ve got it all figured out.
So, you’re quite the Shifter, Mira, from bleeding heart through to hard heart. Can you please settle on one over the other just to slow the spin of your personal merry-go-round down a bit?
Thanks.
45 MB // Nov 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm
@ brilliant 41
Your original comment was directed at people in subsidized housing without a defined break down. I took it at face value.
And can you please cite some research as to how many able-bodied employable people in social housing are actually not gainfully employed?
My guess is that it remains in the single digits. Kicking them out will statiate your revenge motive for a few minutes, or as long as it takes you to not get that.
Come to think of it I wouldn’t cry either.
46 brilliant // Nov 2, 2012 at 6:01 pm
@MB 45-too easy. Those socialist paragons Jack Layton and Olivia Chow lived in subsidized housing when pulling down $120k a year.
47 gman // Nov 2, 2012 at 6:57 pm
brilliant #46
Sweeeet lol
48 Frances Bula // Nov 2, 2012 at 8:49 pm
@ brilliant. Oh my god, I can’t believe people are still flogging that old chestnut. I realize we’re living in an age of “post then think after,” but do you not realize that, since the failures of the public housing projects of the 1950s, most social housing has been specifically built to have a mix of incomes and that people making $120,000 pay market rent? About a third of the building’s residents get what is called a deep subsidy, so their rents are reduced to welfare-shelter rate. Another third, people making in the minimum-wage bracket, get a light subsidy. And then a third are rented out to whomever will pay the going market rate.
49 waltyss // Nov 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm
@Frances Bula: you fail to understand. gman and brilliant not believe only whatever fits their ideology and reject all else. Someone once told them Layton and Chow lived in subsidized housing. It fit with their looney ideology and so they will ever believe it. Tell them the truth. Well, because it don’t fit with their ideology; they will not believe you. If you remember that, they will bother you somewhat less.
50 F.H.Leghorn // Nov 3, 2012 at 12:24 am
Oh waltyss, waltyss, waltyss. Layton and Chow did indeed live in social housing. They’re not the only ones. Locally, those well-known champions of the little guy, MP Libby Davies and Jim Sinclair lived for many years in 3-bdrm townhouses in Adanac co-op. At the time Ms. Davies, as NDP house leader, received a salary in excess of $150K while paying $750/month in rent (the effective “market rate” at that particular co-op. That’s around 6% of income in a riding where almost half of her constituents pay 50% of income for shelter. It was not until this threatened to become an issue in the 2004 federal election that Ms. Davies moved into a house.
gman and brilliant may, as you state repeatedly, be captives of their ideology, but at least they have the intellectual honesty to live by it, unlike the Leftoids who care so deeply for the underprivileged.
51 waltyss // Nov 3, 2012 at 12:56 am
Ah Foghorn: The statement made was that they lived in subsidized housing, with the implication that their rent was subsidized. Frances pointed out that that was untrue. Which it is.
With regard to gman and brilliant not, I have no idea whether they live by their ideology. Do you? My point which I stand by is that the only “facts” they accept is those that agree with their ideology. “Intellectual honesty” has nothing to do with their posts which are neither intellectual or honest.
52 teririch // Nov 3, 2012 at 9:38 am
@Frances Bula #48:
I appreciate it is an ‘old chestnut’ – but it is the overall perception of the Layton’s taking advantage of social housing – while fighting for social housing.
It just looks bad, all the way around. And I would feel no different if it were a Conservative or Liberal MLA or party leader.
When you are making well above what others are making as were the Layton’s and Davies, you don’t take advantage of a program, because you can.
53 brilliant // Nov 3, 2012 at 9:45 am
@Fabula 48-Layton & Chow paid $880 a month for a 3bedroom town house. A couple months before the article broke they started voluntarily paying another $300. Coincidence…?
@waltyss-your lectures on blind ideology are always amusing. After all there isn’t a turd that falls from Gregor’s lips that doesn’t become gold before it hits your ears.
54 Michael Geller // Nov 3, 2012 at 10:21 am
This is a very important topic and I’m glad Frances has written about it.
While theLayton/Chow anecdote is an old chestunut, it does raise a number of questions for me that relate to whether the units are being operated in accordance with the Operating Agreements that were entered into at the time the projects were approved.
More specifically, how many 2 and 3 bedroom townhouses are being occupied by a single person who is paying rent geared to income?
How manyof the residents own other properties, that are their principal residences, while remaining in the coops and non-profit rentals?
How up to date is the income data upon which the rents are determined?
How do the rents for the ‘non-subsidized’ units in the project compare with market rents in the area?
I suspect that few people know the precise answers to these questions. However, based on my past experiences with CMHC, I am satisfied that there are a significant number of people in each of these three camps.
By addressing the inbalances, and adjusting rents to market where appropriate, the subsidy bills can likely be reduced for most projects to something equal to or less than the savings that will arise when the mortgages are paid off.
In other cases, there will be financial challenges. However, this is where more creative solutions may need to be found. In some instances, it will be possible to infill new market and non-market units.
In others, it may be appropriate to knock down some townhouses and build a mix of market and non-market apartments to better meet the housing needs.
In other instances, it will be possible and necessary to change the demographic profile of the development over time.
There will remain problems, however. In many instances these projects have not been as well maintained as they should have been (in order to keep rents low). This is going to cause problems.
However, I do agree with Frances, Trish , Frank and MB above that there is a need for some comprehensive planning to help coops and non-profits address the future challenges.
55 Mira // Nov 3, 2012 at 10:39 am
Michael,
“How do the rents for the ‘non-subsidized’ units in the project compare with market rents in the area?”
Do not compare apples to oranges.
Do not compare a greedy landlord to this kind of housing, where the tenants own shares and volunteer.
FYI, members of any coop put an average of 48 to 80 volunteers hours per year/ per unit every year! In areas like family support & activities, membership policies selection, maintenance( cleaning/ repairs), conflict resolution, finance, landscaping…
At the end of the day, there is no way to compare market rental housing in the area with anything like this… unless you are in the appraisal and/ or development business. Thanks.
MB…
I was very clear… take a tenant, all included.
56 gman // Nov 4, 2012 at 12:52 am
Waltyss#51
” My point which I stand by is that the only “facts” they accept is those that agree with their ideology. ”
No shite Einstein how very astute of you.
Waltyss I notice your obsession with me is growing more and more unhealthy and Im starting to worry about you.Perhaps a little couch time might be of some help to you.Do try and get some rest.
57 teririch // Nov 5, 2012 at 10:19 am
Changes also need to be made to the Strata Act.
Even though I am an owner, I cannot rent my place out. There are only 5 units in my building that can be rented – those originally bought from the contractor.
One gentleman on my floor is currently working overseas and will be for the next 2 years. He wanted to rent his place and can’t so his place sits empty.
It makes no sense when there is a shortage.
58 IanS // Nov 5, 2012 at 2:18 pm
@teririch #57,
I don’t think the Strata Property Act mandates any rental restrictions. IIRC, that is a matter for the the bylaws.
59 waltyss // Nov 5, 2012 at 2:20 pm
@teririch: The Strata Property Act does not prohibit rentals. It does allow the owners of the strata properties to limit or prohibit rentals. Given that many people feel that the feel and maintenance of a building with rentals is different, why would you advocate the owners not being able to limit or prohibit rentals if they so chose. Should the owners not be allowed rentals and now they want to do so, they are free to change the bylaw.
What is the issue? Living in a strata property almost by definition involves compromise.
60 teririch // Nov 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm
@IanS #58
Thank you.
I see there have been changes to the Act surrounding rentals (2010 and on the Gov. website).
Regardless of bylaw restictions you cannot be stopped from renting to a family member or requesting to renting your unit for hardship reasons.
61 teririch // Nov 5, 2012 at 2:56 pm
@waltyss #59
Thank you for the lecture. As I have lived in my ‘strata’ building for 20 years now and am an owner, I am familiar with issues/concerns surrounding rentals.
You are playing to the stero type that all renters are problem causers.
Oddly enough, we have had more issues with owners than renters in my building.
62 Joe Just Joe // Nov 5, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Going away for 2yrs seems and being unable to rent out the unit it’s almost benefical to sell the unit and buy back a similar one upon return. There must be a legal loophole to exploit. I know some presales are sold to limited companies and then to avoid the assignment fees, the owners sell the limited companies, the owner of the condo remains the same, hence no assingment fee. Perhaps something similar could be down with transfering the unit to a limited company and not renting it out but transfering ownership for a 2yr period for a set amount of money. Mind you the legal paperwork (if even possible) might make it cost prohibitive.
63 waltyss // Nov 5, 2012 at 5:50 pm
@teririch. I am not saying renters should be prohibited and I have no preconceived views of renters. I am only saying that the owners should have the choice to decide whether to allow renters or not.
.
64 Bill Lee // Nov 15, 2012 at 5:59 pm
@Joe Just Joe // Nov 5, 2012 at 3:54 pm #62
Meanwhile assignments are hidden in Toronto
“Data on condo speculators prove elusive”
by TARA PERKINS – REAL ESTATE REPORTER
The Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, Nov. 14 2012, 5:00 AM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 14 2012, 1:03 PM EST
An effort to get more information about the influence of some speculators in Toronto’s condo market has collapsed after developers refused to take part, leaving policy makers in the dark.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/data-on-condo-speculators-prove-elusive/article5258051/
Urbanation Inc., a data-research firm, has pulled the plug on a survey that it had tried to conduct, with the support of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., to quantify how many “assignments” are taking place in the market.
An assignment is when a buyer who has bought a condo in a building that’s not yet finished, or registered, assigns their right to buy the unit to someone else.
Urbanation officially called off the study Tuesday, after the vast majority of developers who were asked for information did not give it. The study could have shed light on an aspect of the condo market that economists and policy makers have been worried about, as they have sought to get a handle on just how overheated the market might be and what risks it might pose to home buyers and the greater economy.
“There aren’t any good numbers on the amount of properties being used for investment purposes,” said Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Craig Alexander. “It’s very hard to assess risk in the market when you don’t have insight on that.”
Urbanation had sent a letter to developers in August, notifying them that it would be conducting this “very important data collection exercise” with the support of CMHC.
Ben Myers, executive vice-president at Urbanation, said he sent the survey to more than 100 developers that had launched condo projects in the past five years, asking them for either the percentage of units or an exact number of units that had been assigned before the condo buildings were registered. “We wanted to know what’s happening with this shadow market; there’s no real way to track it,” he said.
He said that one person he spoke to, outside of the developer community, speculated that “because some of the people assigning units are not paying capital gains taxes on that, developers may not want the government looking into that any further.”
Leave a Comment