TCHC fire sale?

[cdr108]

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...0&Temporal=2006&THEME=0&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=


All GTA households [baseline scenario]:
---------------------------------------
GTA Median household income (2010 $): 69,738.45
GTA Average household income (2010 $): 95,503.22

GTA Households with Children
--------------------------------------------------
GTA Median household income (2010 $): 95,349.88
GTA Average household income (2010 $): 126,280.22


http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/vitalsigns/article/703740

The median income for families in 2006 in the city of Toronto was $51,200, below the national median of $58,300 and way below the provincial median of $62,200.



http://www.omaccanada.ca/en/market/toronto/default.omac

Income
2010 Total Income Estimate $ 200,876,775,679
% Above/Below National Average +10
% Canadian Total 18.39
2010 Average HH. Income $ 99,268
2010 Per Capita $ 35,446



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2008/05/01/tto-census.html

New information from the 2006 census released Thursday indicates the median income for families in and around Toronto was $75,829 — a decrease from the 2001 census, when it was $77,693 when adjusted for inflation.

The 2.4 per cent decrease compares to a national increase in income of 3.7 per cent and a provincial increase of 1.4 per cent.

Individuals in the metropolitan Toronto area had a median income of $26,754. Five years earlier, the median income was $28,700.

The census data also indicates the gender wage gap decreased.

Men in the Toronto region typically earned $51,235 compared to $41,284 for women — meaning women made on average only 81 per cent of what men earned. Five years earlier, the gap was 78 per cent in favour of men.

People aged 25 to 34 — generally the age range when younger people are getting established in the workforce — had a median income of $29,961. Senior citizens in and around Toronto had a median income of $20,724.

 

[SimonP]

Public housing is supposed to be provide adequate housing solutions until an individual is able to get on their own two feet and fend for themselves, not a lifelong subsidized rent pad.

Is your average senior on CPP going to be a great deal wealthier in ten years? How about a single mother working at Wal-Mart? Or a learning disabled 30 year old who washes dishes?

It would be great if our society was structured so that poverty among seniors, single mothers, and the disabled was a rare and temporary thing. But it isn't. Most people who are poor now will also be poor ten years from now.

Community housing is not a homeless shelter, it's point is precisely to give people long term affordable housing. Ideally social housing allows the working poor to raise families in a stable environment.

 

[SimonP]

FYI, there are very few 'bay street' types in cabbage town. As someone that grew up and went to school with people in the area, they are a mix of writers, professors, teachers, doctors, professionals, etc (all would be considered 'middle-class' canadians in the 90's). The realestate market is the culprit that created the idea of 'glitz and Glam' of cabbage town.

The Cabbagetown you grew up in is not the Cabbagetown of today. In 1990 the income of the area was about the Toronto average. Here's the StatsCan tract for northern Cabbagetown today. Income in 2006 was 166% of the Toronto average. A full time earner in Cabbagetown earns $75,000 a year average, versus $45,000 across the city.

In just a few years the neighbourhood has seen tremendous change. Cabbagetown is now closer to South Rosedale's income of $90,000 than it is to the city average. I'm sure 30 years ago the average income in Rosedale would have been triple that of Cabbagetown.

 

[js97]

Is your average senior on CPP going to be a great deal wealthier in ten years? How about a single mother working at Wal-Mart? Or a learning disabled 30 year old who washes dishes?

It would be great if our society was structured so that poverty among seniors, single mothers, and the disabled was a rare and temporary thing. But it isn't. Most people who are poor now will also be poor ten years from now.

Community housing is not a homeless shelter, it's point is precisely to give people long term affordable housing. Ideally social housing allows the working poor to raise families in a stable environment.

Yes, those are exeptions that as a society, we should take care of. On the flip side, the single mother of 2 should not be having more kids if she is unable to have support her two kids (yes restrictions to new pregnancy). Poor people should NOT be having kids. It's irresponsible. Having children is a privilege (anti-poverty groups can jump on me) it's not a right. Just because you're poor, doesn't mean you should be irresponsible. If you can't afford to pay for yourself, you should not be in a position to bring another depedant to this world and expect someone else to pay for them.

FYI, 90k average household income in todays gender equal society where women also work is peanuts. A couple can make that in the non-profit sector.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Wow, you went from conservative to fascist really quickly with that post.

 

[SimonP]

FYI, 90k average household income in todays gender equal society where women also work is peanuts. A couple can make that in the non-profit sector.

$90K is individual income, not household. It is double the GTA average, and I think earning twice as much as the average pretty clearly qualifies one as wealthy.

 

[js97]

Wow, you went from conservative to fascist really quickly with that post.

Is it unreasonable to ask if you're not in a position to provide for your children, you don't go creating more, and expect the state to take care of? Obviously this will never be policy, but why is that such a fascist thing to say? I'm in no way saying that government should limit the right for individuals to procreate, just cut the ambilical cord if you continue to act irresponsible.

Also, think of the excess carbon footprint that kid will weigh on our environment

p.s. The whole idea of social housing is the government intervening and 'protecting' those most vulnerable, so why not take a step further and 'help' individuals focus their priorities. The whole paternal concept of government intervention should go both ways. If you want to prescribe to the idea that government should not stipulate individual choices, but create an environment where the individual will best succeed in his/her endevours, then limiting children in social housing is a superior solution. Slightly lacking in compassion, but effective.

Resistance is futile... lol

 

[GraphicMatt]

I'm very much in favour of improving access to birth control and sex education for at-risk youth and within low-income communities, but rules and restrictions on if or when someone living in public housing can have a child is a dangerous road. What are you going to do if someone breaks the rules -- throw mother and child out onto the street? It's just going to end up costing the system more.

 

[ShonTron]

Are there no poorhouses, no prisons?

 

[gristle]

And what of forced sterilization and the redistribution of excess children to factories and lowly service jobs?

 

[jaycola]

I would take a portion of the money garnered from the sale of the houses and offer low interest loans to private individuals for the construction of accessory apartments within their own residence. The money could be used for fire separation, smoke alarm systems, 2nd/3rd floor additions, basement lowering, accessory entrances or anything required to create a decent livable space.
Invoices would have to be provided to ensure the work was completed.

In order to qualify for the loan, guaranties must be made to rent to a tenant on the cities housing support program for a specific period of time. The funds would have to be repaid in full if the property is sold unless the new owner agrees to continue with the program. Rent subsidies could be paid directly to the property owner.

This would do a number of things. It would help increase density in some lower density areas. It would provide additional income to residents struggling to make tax/utility payments. You would have an increase in supported housing units and you would provide a boost to the construction/renovation industry.

One issue I can see would be friction between owners, neighbours and tenants but some additional resources may be required in order to match up owners and tenants to ensure a good fit and to deal with disputes.

 

[TrickyRicky]

"Ideally social housing allows the working poor to raise families in a stable environment."

I sense that many of the "working poor" themselves, particularly single mothers would prefer rental subsidy to living in subsidized housing (I use the word subsidized housing not community or social or affordable for an explicit reason). Speak to some single mothers yourself. Surprisingly they, like any rational human being, tend to in my experience not to want their kids to grow up in subsidize housing and to avoid it if possible. They want to live in the best neighbourhoods they can afford, have their kids go to the best schools possible, and to associate with the kind of people who have the most potential to provide a positive influence on their children's lives.

In other words, while I am not advocating a hard line like "the city should get out of the business of housing", I think the actual people who use the system would prefer some kind of mixed housing and rental subsidy system. The counter argument that I could see being made is that rental subsidy is easier to take away than physical housing. That is, cutting payment programs is easier than selling off assets where people are entrenched. Like cutting bus routes is easier than cutting subways, the legitimate fear could be that oscillating government mandates could create instability in the level of assistance individuals can expect to count on.

 

[Torontovibe]

Are there no poorhouses, no prisons?

And how much do you think it costs to throw someone in prison? Do a Google search and you'll quickly discover that TCHC housing is the much cheaper option. Of course, throwing people in prison would make some people feel a whole bunch better, so the much higher costs might actually be worth it. (self-righteous indignation is sweet!)

 

[Eug]

And how much do you think it costs to throw someone in prison? Do a Google search and you'll quickly discover that TCHC housing is the much cheaper option. Of course, throwing people in prison would make some people feel a whole bunch better, so the much higher costs might actually be worth it. (self-righteous indignation is sweet!)

Are you just yanking our collective chains, or did you really miss that reference?

 

[archanfel]

I would take a portion of the money garnered from the sale of the houses and offer low interest loans to private individuals for the construction of accessory apartments within their own residence. The money could be used for fire separation, smoke alarm systems, 2nd/3rd floor additions, basement lowering, accessory entrances or anything required to create a decent livable space.
Invoices would have to be provided to ensure the work was completed.

In order to qualify for the loan, guaranties must be made to rent to a tenant on the cities housing support program for a specific period of time. The funds would have to be repaid in full if the property is sold unless the new owner agrees to continue with the program. Rent subsidies could be paid directly to the property owner.

This would do a number of things. It would help increase density in some lower density areas. It would provide additional income to residents struggling to make tax/utility payments. You would have an increase in supported housing units and you would provide a boost to the construction/renovation industry.

One issue I can see would be friction between owners, neighbours and tenants but some additional resources may be required in order to match up owners and tenants to ensure a good fit and to deal with disputes.

Why can't we just let the market decide what's best instead of imposing it on the market? There are plenty of accommodations for responsible tenants. And vice versa. Good landlords are favored by tenants whereas bad ones tends to not have a stable income. Let the tenants decide what's "decent livable space". My standard is probably vastly different from your standard. If we have to help the market, then make sure the information is available. Put up a webpage to rank tenants and landlords alike, much like ebay.

As for subsidy, we already have Ontario Works, why bother with an additional subsidy just for housing? And whatever we do, the important thing is that it's a short term assistance, not a life time dependency.

And is it me or the ads on top got bigger?