News   Mar 28, 2024
 246     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 628     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 375     0 

Going backwards

Given the high overlap between class and race, this could pretty closely resemble Jim Crow segregation.

We'll see what happens. The more we rely on private developers to build subsidized housing, the more pressure there will be for things like this in Toronto. We already have people (including many on this board, as well as our mayor) complaining about the fact that poor people are being allowed to live downtown. I seem to recall people complaining in the CityPlace threads about how they paid $400,000 for their condo and why should they have to share it with poor people, etc. It's really sickening.
 
Last edited:
What's really sickening is that a lucky few people get to live in fancy new condo buildings subsidized by everyone else. The waiting list for TCHC housing is thousands of people long, yet we are spending money on high-end units in prime locations. The city could have sold that CityPlace land for millions of dollars and bought up many more older apartment units in other areas. What of the working poor who pay their own way to live in aging apartment buildings throughout the city? Not everyone can live in a waterfront condo, so what better way to decide than by allowing people to buy units? Would you prefer we have a city-wide lottery to decide who got subsidized units?
 
What's really sickening is that a lucky few people get to live in fancy new condo buildings subsidized by everyone else. The waiting list for TCHC housing is thousands of people long, yet we are spending money on high-end units in prime locations. The city could have sold that CityPlace land for millions of dollars and bought up many more older apartment units in other areas. What of the working poor who pay their own way to live in aging apartment buildings throughout the city? Not everyone can live in a waterfront condo, so what better way to decide than by allowing people to buy units? Would you prefer we have a city-wide lottery to decide who got subsidized units?

Or we could just push the poor into the most isolated, economically depressed areas of the city. That worked so well for Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans,.....

How is it economically rational for TCHC to start buying up old, dilapidated apartment buildings? There's a reason that they're tearing down all of Regent Park. It's cheaper to build new buildings than try to maintain 50-year old ones. And as far as I understand, the subsidized apartments on the waterfront are being built by the private sector, not by TCHC (I'm not sure what the CityPlace agreement is, but I assume that building is being built by Concord in exchange for permission to put up all of its other highrises).
 
I remain of the opinion that the primary issue in providing 'affordable' housing is addressing 'income'.

For the employed, that means higher minimum wages; and tightening the labour supply so that all wages rise (ie. 3 week paid vacation by law, means a need for more workers to achieve the identical outcome, depending on how much the added time off adds to productivity)

For the retired, it means a higher CPP/GIS (I would largely finance this by raising the retirement age to 67, something I think is long overdue given rising life expectancy)

For the unemployed, particularly the short-term unemployed and or the severely disabled (mental or physical), more generous benefits.

Obviously the long term unemployed also need to be housed and/or having higher income, but of course that is more complex.

***

I do think we are long overdue however to make a few moves that would incent private-sector rental housing and more affordable condos for ownership.

The first is property-tax reform. Multi-residential, (existing) not just new, should be brought into line, 1:1 with single-family property tax rates.

The second is reducing the requirements that are either un-necessary or have the effect of driving up costs w/o producing a significant advantage.

Minimum parking standards, amenity space requirements, even parkland dedication. If you think that most of the more affordable apartments, built during or prior to the 1960s faced fewer (or no)
such requirements, it is a factor in cost. I'm not suggesting giving 'luxury' buildings a free pass; but for purpose-built rental; and for 'affordable ownership' I think a more relaxed set of requirements might be helpful.

Direct TCHC ownership is the most expensive way to address the issue from both a capital and operating cost point of view.

I'd also like to see the air let out of the property market balloon; by either restricting the ownership of multiple single-family properties within the City and/or raising the down payment requirements back up (say 10% across the board, but 25% for second/investment properties)
 
Or we could just push the poor into the most isolated, economically depressed areas of the city. That worked so well for Detroit, St. Louis, New Orleans,.....

It seems to work pretty well for New York, London, Paris, Hong Kong, and so on. The whole point of subsidized helping should be to help as many people as possible, and you don't do that by spending a lot per unit. The City could just have easily taken a cash payment from Concord, it's all the same to the developer.

TCHC is tearing down Regent Park because the land has become valuable enough that it makes more sense to tear down and build up while making some money off the redevelopment.

It would be so much better off if the city got out of the housing business and started a voucher system instead. How about giving people the choice where they want to live, and let professional landlords (instead of the incompetent slumlord TCHC) manage buildings? Our current system is obviously broken given that we have so many lifelong TCHC residents while those in greater need are stuck on waiting lists...
 
For the employed, that means higher minimum wages; and tightening the labour supply so that all wages rise (ie. 3 week paid vacation by law, means a need for more workers to achieve the identical outcome, depending on how much the added time off adds to productivity)

Essentially you want Canada to become Spain/Greece/Italy.
Higher wages means employers will hire fewer workers as they are not stupid and you can't force banks to hire more people, can you?
I don't know how you plan to "tighten labour supply", competitive cities are worried about labour shortage, and you want to create an artificial shortage just to boost wage.
You know why Germany is doing well while PIGS are not, German labour cost is relatively low. Yet you propose to artificially raise wage across the country - I am sure that will make Canada a lot more competitive.

Providing affordable housing is not a responsibility of private sector companies - they only care about profits and rightly so. If rich people don't want to live in apartments sharing the same amenities with the poor, they can simply not buy those properties. Forcing developers not to cater such need and disrespect market demand won't be not helpful. What will you do next, require the rich to invite the poor to their parties at least once a month?

People of similar financial means always tend to live together, and you simply can't change that in general. Will you for example be willing to volunteer and move to Jane and Finch and make it a mixed income neighbourhood? And how to make Rosedale and Moore Park home to more working class? Simply not gonna happen.

Human nature doesn't change and ask the government to do this and that against it is not gonna be fruitful.
 
Funny, when you tell conservative Americans to embrace Canadian standards they come back with:

"Essentially you want America to become Spain/Greece/Italy".

I can't speak for Greece and Italy, but the Spanish crisis was caused to a huge extent due to the failure of neoliberal politics, especially in the real estate and construction sectors.
 
Last edited:
Funny, when you tell conservative Americans to embrace Canadian standards they come back with:

"Essentially you want Canada to become Spain/Greece/Italy".

I can't speak for Greece and Italy, but the Spanish crisis was caused to a huge extent due to the failure of neoliberal politics, especially in the real estate and construction sectors.

Real estate trouble is only part of the problem.
Spain's fundamental problem lies in its rigid labour market - it is too hard and too expensive for companies to fire workers (max payment 42 months of salary!), and therefore, companies simply choose not to hire. Plus, the unions demand too much which makes employers reluctant to recruit young employees.

http://www.economist.com/node/21547831
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-10/spain-economy-labor-laws/55507548/1

You might think, well, why not pay the workers more so that everyone is happy, plus firms shouldn't be allowed to fire workers easily (because companies are evil and workers are good people) - i think it is pretty typical Canadian way of thinking - so that we can have a solid "middle class", not workers who work for minimum wages.


Reality is far from this simple. When you give too much protection to workers, companies lose to nimbleness and if companies can't fire people when needed, or it is too costly to, they simply choose to hire fewer because once the workers are in, they stay forever.

In establishing high obstacles for companies to fire people, the government essentially create a two tired worker system, those that are already in the system enjoying superb benefits and security they don't necessarily deserve (such as our hydro workers in Ontario for example), and those outside it who find it extremely hard to find a decent job. Your idea was to put everyone in the first category so that everyone is happy, but no country can afford doing that, and inevitably most will end up being losers.

This is also what happened to Greece. Debt and spending is one thing, but its problem is far from just that. The industry is so heavily regulated and those incumbents are so protected that the whole system is both expensive and inefficient.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/02/regulating-cabs-0

Isn't it exactly the same situation in Toronto, where cab fare is higher than cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, Paris and almost as expensive as London? This is what happens when you do too much to "protect the poor workers" and artificially raising barriers to increase their income. The thing is, now everyone is paying more due to limited supply, it is hard to find a cab, and the outsiders who want to drive a cab simply can't. Is that fair to them?

http://www.torontolife.com/informer...s-the-20th-most-expensive-taxis-in-the-world/

I don't want to argue too much about economic policies as too many people are in the illusion that the working poor is being taken advantage by evil corporations who care nothing except evil profits and that the government should do everything to punish companies and their CEOs to raise workers' wage and entitlements, and I will not be able to convince them otherwise (they often feel noble believing such theory because they care about the poor). Many countries do that and that usually don't end well. You help 20% of the poor while the rest 80% suffer even more. When a whole country becomes less competitive, can't produce products at reasonable cost, when companies simply can't lay off workers when they can hardly survive, what path do you think the economy will follow?
 
I mistyped the quote. I have corrected it now.

And yeah, regulation is evil and bad for business. That's why the likes of Australia, Canada, Denmark, or Germany are horrible, unhappy, and economically depressed places compared to the mighty America and Hong Kong.

I mean, yes, it's easier to work with dignity, raise a family, live in a nice and healthy environment, and obtain a good education, but their cabs are so stupidly expensive: It's not worth it. [/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, high taxi fares are probably one of the best indicators of human development and quality of life out there.
 
Essentially you want Canada to become Spain/Greece/Italy.
Higher wages means employers will hire fewer workers as they are not stupid and you can't force banks to hire more people, can you?
I don't know how you plan to "tighten labour supply", competitive cities are worried about labour shortage, and you want to create an artificial shortage just to boost wage.
You know why Germany is doing well while PIGS are not, German labour cost is relatively low. Yet you propose to artificially raise wage across the country - I am sure that will make Canada a lot more competitive.

Providing affordable housing is not a responsibility of private sector companies - they only care about profits and rightly so. If rich people don't want to live in apartments sharing the same amenities with the poor, they can simply not buy those properties. Forcing developers not to cater such need and disrespect market demand won't be not helpful. What will you do next, require the rich to invite the poor to their parties at least once a month?

People of similar financial means always tend to live together, and you simply can't change that in general. Will you for example be willing to volunteer and move to Jane and Finch and make it a mixed income neighbourhood? And how to make Rosedale and Moore Park home to more working class? Simply not gonna happen.

Human nature doesn't change and ask the government to do this and that against it is not gonna be fruitful.


At no point did I suggest a 'centrally planned economy' nor did I suggest any change to severance laws. I didn't propose any obligations at all on private developers ( I proposed eliminating several actually)......

So before commenting on my posts, please read them, in full.

Second, ALL countries in the EU, including Germany, require a minimum of 4 weeks paid vacation by law. With the exception of Saskatchewan, no Canadian province requires more than 2, which is in fact lower than any developed country except the United States. When considering paid vacations laws and statutory holidays, Japanese workers get more time off!

I didn't even suggest matching this..........just three weeks. Keep in mind, most high-skill workers in transferable jobs actually already get 3 weeks or more (myself included); the impact is on fast food and retail workers whose jobs, largely aren't movable. (you are not going to Buffalo to get your Big Mac).

Likewise, I am not suggesting a minimum wage increase that would impact value-added, high-skill jobs. Australia (a politically conservative nation by global, developed country standards), with a similar economy to Canada's; has a minimum wage of around $14 per hour Cdn.

Suppose we raised the ON minimum wage to $13 per hour? The average fast food labour cost is 11% of your meal. So about $1 on $9 and change combo.

A wage increase of about 17% ($2 per hour) would raise the cost of your meal by a whopping .20c; .40c if you allow for various mark-ups.

In other words, you pay an extra less than 4% extra, if the full cost of the increase were passed onto you as a consumer.

Would their be layoffs? Not in the short term, as it costs 'x' to get you to buy the burger; these places aren't charities now. Might the move to self-serve pop, sure, they're doing that already, that's 'productivity' but still produces a net gain for society.

The most successful economies in the world do not compete on low-cost labour.

They compete on high-skill labour.

But all economies have 'entry-level' income folks; and the question is not whether they need enough to get by; the question is how, as a society we close that gap to get them what they need. I would argue that providing them with adequate compensation for work; subsidized health and education is more dignified and productive that 'ghettoizing' in large blocks of expensive to maintain and operate government housing at 'charitable' rents.
 
It seems to work pretty well for New York, London, Paris, Hong Kong, and so on.

You mean Paris and London where race riots have been breaking out? You mean New York, the original topic of this thread, where subsidized housing IS being provided by private developers (who are then forcing the poor to go through a different entrance so that the rich don't have to look at them)?
 
Referring back to the original article, I can understand the New York developer Extell proposing their plan, as they are working within the city's Inclusionary Housing program, as noted in the article. What surprises me, however, is that the segregated entry was approved. I think setting aside units for affordable housing is very different than creating a different entrance for those particular units. Restricting those people from accessing the gym and swimming pool further add to the nonsensicality of it all.

I think what the developer really is doing here is building 2 different buildings. One consists of the 219 luxury units and the other consists of the 55 affordable housing units. They then wrap the 2 "buildings" up into one entity for development purposes. Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that the divide between rich and poor is becoming as wide as it has. Toronto is not at Manhattan levels yet but one only has to look at other cities to get a glimpse of what our city might have to face in the near future.
 
You mean Paris and London where race riots have been breaking out? You mean New York, the original topic of this thread, where subsidized housing IS being provided by private developers (who are then forcing the poor to go through a different entrance so that the rich don't have to look at them)?

I don't know what's wrong with that. The rich paid market price. The poor paid subsidized price. Do you honestly truly believe they should have equal access to the exact same amenities? Doesn't that make the rich feel like fools? Providing a separate entrance is a compromise. The developers might not be able to sell the market priced units without doing so, and if not sold, the poor will have nobody to subsidize them. It is the market demand and you can't force your ideology on others. There are plenty of highend properties with no subsidized units. The rich could easily buy those. There is absolutely nothing wrong about feeling uncomfortable living with people of much lower social status. People are allowed to have a choice.

I honestly don't know what's to complain about here - the poor were able to live in much nicer apartments than they can afford, at other people's expenses. Isn't that a sweet deal for them? I don't think a separate entrance is so humiliating for them. They are less successful, less wealthy, probably with less education and possess fewer skills and pay less tax. Why do they expect to be treated exactly the same? I want to live in the Four Seasons Yorkville too, but too bad I don't have the means. I don't blame anyone. If someone says hey you can live there for half the price with a different entrance, I would gladly take the offer.

Don't we complain too much?
 
In my humble opinion, I think subsidized housing units in a high end condo building is not appropriate. Were it not for the incentives, I'm certain that the New York developer wouldn't have included them. Just for a counterpoint, here is an article with a contrarian view on this very case:

http://www.businessinsider.com/in-d...affordable-apartments-with-river-views-2013-8

In Defense Of The 'Poor Door': Why It's Fine For A Luxury Condo Developer To Keep Its Low-Income Units Separate

JOSH BARRO

AUG. 19, 2013, 4:22 PM 22,482 35

Imagine if the federal government abolished food stamps and replaced them with need-based price mandates on supermarkets.

That is, supermarkets would be required to make a percentage of their sales at regulated "affordable" prices to needy families. The regulated prices would often be below cost, so supermarkets would raise prices on everybody else to make up for the loss.

Since we don't want any "classist" dietary divisions, the regulated products would span the range of tastes and prices: if rich people are buying lobster, so must poor people, even if that means the program can feed fewer people overall.

Supermarkets would probably complain about the cost of all this, so the federal government would give them compensating tax breaks.

It would also contain their losses by capping participation in the "affordable food program" and creating a waiting list. Once you got in, you could buy cheap food as long as you want it, but until then you'd be stuck waiting and hungry.

Why make this change? Well, food stamps cost money, but this program would have no direct cost to taxpayers. And while food stamps often lead to poor people buying food from cheap supermarkets in poor neighborhoods, this program would end food segregation, ensuring that people of all economic classes eat similar foods from similar sources.

This idea probably sounds insane to you, because it is. But it's roughly the same as New York City's "inclusionary zoning" strategy for providing affordable housing.

We require and incent developers who build market-rate housing to also sell or rent some units in the same developments at cut-rate prices. The idea is that affordable housing shouldn't just be affordable and livable; it should be substantially similar in location and character to new luxury housing. If rich people are getting brand new apartments overlooking the Hudson River, so should some lucky winners of affordable housing lotteries.

Hence the outrage over the "poor door" at a planned luxury condo project that Extell will build on Manhattan's Upper West Side: market-rate buyers will use one entrance, while tenants in the project's affordable housing component will use another. Affordable apartments will also be on low floors and, unlike many of the market-rate units, they won't face the Hudson River.

Getting mad about the "poor door" is absurd. The only real outrage is that Extell had to build affordable units at all.

New York's housing advocates are right about one very important thing: upzonings are a windfall for landowners and the city should be asking for something in exchange for allowing more development. But what it should be asking for isn't luxury apartments with river views to give out by lottery. It should be asking for cash.

That is: Upzone land so more housing units can be built to meet supply. Let developers decide what to build and what to charge for it based on market forces. Charge developers substantial fees to access those newly-created development rights. Collect full-freight property taxes on new property that gets built. Use tax and fee proceeds to pay for projects of broad use to New Yorkers, including housing subsidies.

Even though they are an artificial creation, it is probably best to think about development rights in New York City as a natural resource. If there's oil under your land, the value of the land is the value of the oil less the cost of extracting it. If you have buildable land, its value is what you can sell a developed property for less the cost of construction. When the city upzones land, it creates value out of thin air; the instinct to demand something from landowners in exchange for this creation is perfectly reasonable.

But windfalls from upzoning are a limited resource: You can charge the developer the value of the windfall, but if you charge more he won't bother to build. And the more you charge in the form of a mandate (such as an affordability mandate that reduces rents generated by a development) the less you can charge in tax.

Let's imagine that the city forces Extell to get rid of the "poor door" and spread the affordable units throughout its new project. Since the affordable units will therefore be on higher floors with better views, Extell will earn a smaller profit. Now, the deal economics are probably so compelling that Extell would build anyway. But all that indicates is that the city could also let Extell proceed with the "poor door" plan and charge them an additional fee, revenues from which could have been used to create more affordable housing elsewhere in the city.

Or, it could simply let Extell build whatever it wants and charge an even larger fee and even more in tax.

The city's choice to impose so many mandates is undermining its tax base. Often, the city awards tax abatements to developers in exchange for building affordable housing. As of 2012, property tax abatements in New York City lead to $2.9 billion in annual lost revenue, about 20% of actual property tax collections in the city. About half of those abatements relate to programs that promote new construction of affordable housing.

That is, even though they are off-budget, New York's inclusionary zoning programs have a very large fiscal cost.

Inclusionary zoning looks like a much worse deal when you realize it's not free. If the city received an extra $10 million to spend on affordable housing, it would be crazy to spend that upgrading the views of existing subsidized tenants rather than helping more people afford more apartments. But that's effectively the choice the city makes by pursuing inclusionary zoning instead of just permitting and taxing market-rate development.

Our country's nutritional support programs recognize that food is a market good and the way you make it affordable is by helping people buy it on the open market even if they have few financial resources. New York would do well to realize that applies to housing, too—and to stop freaking out about the poor door.
 

Back
Top