2014 Municipal Election: Toronto Mayoral Race

[kEiThZ]

A nice idea in principle, but in practice it doesn't work. Everyone knows which houses (and which families) are public housing, and children are very good at finding ways to stigmatize and exclude each other. The best way to avoid stigma is to give people the cash and let them live where they want; that way nobody knows where the money comes from.

Fully agree. I don't get why a rental income supplement is such a difficult idea in this city. Just look at the massive backlog for subsidized housing. A lot of that backlog could be eliminated by simply providing the individual/family with assistance.

You don't think people will then gravitate towards areas based on affordability and settle among people of similar economic position anyway?

Indeed they will. Except it won't be social housing. You'll get people of a similar income strata living together (like they do today anyway). Except that some will be working poor. And some will be families on rental supplements. You won't know who's who. This might also allow for options like families renting basements, which so many immigrant families or young singles do today, but somehow isn't supported for those on subsidized housing.

 

[typezed]

I'd agree that much of what Chow focuses upon as solutions shouldn't be municipal decisions. Which is why I probably wouldn't be choosing her (if I still lived in Toronto). Which is why when I was there and paying more attention to city council I could sometimes find councillors like Davis, Fletcher, Perks almost as irritating as the Ford propping zombies like Crawford or Cristiani. Toronto can't be the NDP government that will never find support at the provincial or federal level. However, politicians who are aware and concerned about the struggles of citizens do on every question make different decisions than those who can only see home-owning suburban taxpayers. Take transportation policy for example. The 'left' sees biking and walking as valid economic choices that some people can make to allow them to live more affordably in the city, choices that also benefit the city by lessening the costs of vehicle congestion. They make decisions to support diverse choices. Other politicians seem to see wider transportation choice as a threat to their lifestyle and those fo their constituents. Maybe I'm out of sync, but it seems to me one person earning $60,000 has a responsible, stable place in society and should be able to support a family. Two people each earning $30,000 are working hard, making an effort to contribute, and should be able to get by comfortably. The city used to be able to accomodate working people, why can't it now? They deserve a better response than "$60,000, hah, get real."

 

[kEiThZ]

Thank you for that link. It pretty much confirms what I suspected already. Factoring in my family's monthly expenses and debts, between 90 to 100,000$ household income is needed to live comfortably in the city. John Tory nailed his answer.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew John Tory nailed his answer. My fiancee even thought his answer was conservative. She argued that if you are talking about "comfortably" that would mean $120k at least in the downtown core. She was suggesting $100k for a family of four in the downtown core is enough to be just beyond subsistence and poverty.

Chow's answer was just bizarre. But I guess $60k might be enough with subsidized housing?

 

[kEiThZ]

I'd agree that much of what Chow focuses upon as solutions shouldn't be municipal decisions. Which is why I probably wouldn't be choosing her (if I still lived in Toronto). Which is why when I was there and paying more attention to city council I could sometimes find councillors like Davis, Fletcher, Perks almost as irritating as the Ford propping zombies like Crawford or Cristiani. Toronto can't be the NDP government that will never find support at the provincial or federal level. However, politicians who are aware and concerned about the struggles of citizens do on every question make different decisions than those who can only see home-owning suburban taxpayers. Take transportation policy for example. The 'left' sees biking and walking as valid economic choices that some people can make to allow them to live more affordably in the city, choices that also benefit the city by lessening the costs of vehicle congestion. They make decisions to support diverse choices. Other politicians seem to see wider transportation choice as a threat to their lifestyle and those fo their constituents. Maybe I'm out of sync, but it seems to me one person earning $60,000 has a responsible, stable place in society and should be able to support a family. Two people each earning $30,000 are working hard, making an effort to contribute, and should be able to get by comfortably. The city used to be able to accomodate working people, why can't it now? They deserve a better response than "$60,000, hah, get real."

First, I absolutely share your frustration about the left at the municipal level. They seem to want to right the wrongs of Queen's Park and Ottawa, on the backs of the municipal ratepayer facing a regressive tax regime. Can't implement child care nationally? Well then, ram it through at City Hall and get municipal ratepayers to pay for it.

Next, about surviving on $60k. A lot of this is simply the function of macroeconomic factors beyond the city's control. If Ottawa hadn't opened the CMHC spigot, housing prices wouldn't be anywhere as high, and $60k for survival might not be such a tough sell. Beyond that though, there is the reality of supply and demand and competition for resources. There are only so many spaces to live in the downtown core and more people that want to live there, than there are places. Rents and home sale prices will go up as a consequence. Want prices to come down? Flatten neighbourhoods like Cabbagetown and put up more condos in the core. Keep putting up condos till home sale prices tank and rents follow. That would not be appealing policy to most.

Otherwise, it's time to recognize that there are tradeoffs. A family of four can live in Toronto on $60k per year. Just not in the downtown core. And it's time to recognize that there should be no entitlement to such a lifestyle. Many Torontonians want to compare Toronto to places like New York and Chicago. Try living in core of those cities on anything less than six figures. Average apartment rent in Manhattan is over $3000.

 

[BurlOak]

Thank you for that link. It pretty much confirms what I suspected already. Factoring in my family's monthly expenses and debts, between 90 to 100,000$ household income is needed to live comfortably in the city. John Tory nailed his answer.

My first thought was a 500k mortgage at 3.5% and 1/3 of income on housing. That worked out to $90k. You are correct, Ford (75k - 100k) and Tory (100 k) nailed it.

 

[nfitz]

Thank you for that link. It pretty much confirms what I suspected already. Factoring in my family's monthly expenses and debts, between 90 to 100,000$ household income is needed to live comfortably in the city. John Tory nailed his answer.

So John thinks that if you don't earn $100,000 a year, you shouldn't be living in Toronto.

Well, we know who his target audience is then.

I'll take the person who doesn't think you have to be rich to live in Toronto.

Obviously a lot of people are doing quite well without taking out $500k mortgage. I took out a $250k one, and the payments were about 30% higher than the rent I was paying on virtually the same house (well except for the basement apartment someone else had). And I had to start paying property taxes ... and the never-ending repairs and maintenance ...

Surely comfortably doesn't equal getting a half-million mortgage.

 

[WislaHD]

So John thinks that if you don't earn $100,000 a year, you shouldn't be living in Toronto.

I think that John thinks that macroeconomic factors such as supply and demand are beyond his control as mayor and that he shouldn't lie to the people about the reality of living in a big city like Toronto.

 

[nfitz]

I think that John thinks that macroeconomic factors such as supply and demand are beyond his control as mayor and that he shouldn't lie to the people about the reality of living in a big city like Toronto.

No. That's not it. It's more about John Tory's overly self-entitled definition of comfortable.

 

[Ramako]

So John thinks that if you don't earn $100,000 a year, you shouldn't be living in Toronto.

Well, we know who his target audience is then.

I'll take the person who doesn't think you have to be rich to live in Toronto.

Simply recognizing the costs of living in downtown Toronto is not the same as endorsing those costs as being fair and reasonable in an ideal world.

 

[Ramako]

According to the CBC compass my political alignment is 66% Tory, 60% Chow and and 50% Ford.

 

[nfitz]

Simply recognizing the costs of living in downtown Toronto is not the same as endorsing those costs as being reasonable. I don't believe that Tory's guilty of the latter.

It's entirely possible to live comfortably in Toronto for less than $100K. Now you might have to do without luxuries such as a car, high-speed Internet, and eating out 3 times a week ... but it get's down to John Tory's overprivileged view of the world, more so than anything else.

 

[WislaHD]

No. That's not it. It's more about John Tory's overly self-entitled definition of comfortable.

My family can barely maintain a lower-middle class standard of living with 100k household income (granted we have debts), which hardly buys us a comfortable life, just enough to get by. If we can barely accomplish that on a 100k, you would have us attempt the same with 60k, an extra teenage child and in downtown?

John Tory may be in a whole different income bracket than me, but his notion of a comfortable life in the city is way more in touch with reality for the majority of the city than Chow's is.

 

[nfitz]

My family can barely maintain a lower-middle class standard of living with 100k household income (granted we have debts), which hardly buys us a comfortable life, just enough to get by. If we can barely accomplish that on a 100k, you would have us attempt the same with 60k, an extra teenage child and in downtown?

Remember that the 40K between 60k and 100k is taxed at up to 43%. You only get to keep about 25k of that 40k.

How much are you paying for your apartment? I assume you have no car.

There's always places to cut ...

 

[Ramako]

It's entirely possible to live comfortably in Toronto for less than $100K. Now you might have to do without luxuries such as a car, high-speed Internet, and eating out 3 times a week ... but it get's down to John Tory's overprivileged view of the world, more so than anything else.

I just looked up the original question - for some reason I was under the impression that it was 'how much it would cost a family of four to live comfortably in downtown Toronto?'. I agree, less than $100,000 shouldn't be too much of a problem in many parts of the city, but in downtown housing costs alone would eat up a huge portion of that.

 

[kEiThZ]

So John thinks that if you don't earn $100,000 a year, you shouldn't be living in Toronto.

Well, we know who his target audience is then.

Did you actually listen to the debate or are you just spouting off?

As has been posted several times here, the question was "What should the income of a family of two parents and two teenagers be, to comforably live downtown?"

Tory's answer was rather direct. He said it would take $100k. And then he went on to elaborate that there were going to be tradeoffs, such as families having to accept a condo lifestyle if living in the core.

Note that the question was not about what anybody thinks the income level should be. It was about what you perceive is necessary at this very moment to live comfortably in the core. And it was specific to the core, not all of Toronto.

Again, did you listen to the debate and the question?

I'll take the person who doesn't think you have to be rich to live in Toronto.

Was there ever any doubt on who you would vote for?

Obviously a lot of people are doing quite well without taking out $500k mortgage. I took out a $250k one, and the payments were about 30% higher than the rent I was paying on virtually the same house (well except for the basement apartment someone else had). And I had to start paying property taxes ... and the never-ending repairs and maintenance ...

Surely comfortably doesn't equal getting a half-million mortgage.

None of Chow's policies would change that reality for most working families. All her policies do is ensure a lucky few have cheaper rents in the core. None of her policies would remove the need for half-million dollar mortgages in this city. It's moronic to expect mayors to solve problems over which they have zero jurisdiction and policy control.

Incidentally, there's also been zero discussion on whether home ownership in the core (or anywhere else) is an entitlement. Who says comfortable automatically means an entitlement to home ownership? With price-rent ratios well above historic norms (indicating that homes are severely overpriced) owing largely to government policy, it's rather bizarre to argue that government should manipulate the market even further. Look at New York's rent controls. We all know what they accomplished. Low rents for the lucky few who haven't moved in decades. And $3k rents for one bedrooms in Manhattan for everybody else. This is how government policy backfires. It encourages irrational economic behaviour. With price-rent ratios where they are, more people should be renting.

In any event, if Olivia Chow thinks that you can buy a home in Toronto on $60k per year, she's even more out-of-touch with the realities of most working families than I thought.