I'd only be on board with kicking out the residents of Ward's Island if all the houses remain and are converted into a really cute district of indie shops, cafes, restaurants, and other cultural uses. NO CORPORATE CHAINS.
That's an interesting notion, a way to preserve the quaint community feel, while addressing the issue of generally (not exclusively) very affluent residents with very favourable land lease terms.
I actually see merit in retaining the unique flavour of Ward's Island while addressing the same issue.
I wonder, if residential uses were retained, about the gov't buying the houses (the land is government) and shifting the tenure to rent-geared to income, but within a mixed income context.
So, the rich folks can stay, but if you're earning $300,000 per year, you get to pay $90,000 per year in rent ($7,500 per month) plus utilities. That's 30% of household income.
But if you earn $50,000, in theory, you get to pay $15,000 in annual rent or $1,250 per month. There could be some floors put in to make sure its not a total giveaway, as well as to reflect different sizes of buildings.
Existing 'tenants' could stay, but if they choose to exit, the first few units to come up would be prioritized for families in need of affordable housing.