Public Housing solutions

[js97]

As a general topic, is there ever a solution?

There are plenty of posters here that believe the solution is to build more public housing, but when one takes a look at the size of the waiting list (50k?), you quickly realise that solution is as improbable and cost prohibit as building subways across the city.

For those that continually decry about more public housing, have you ever considered a multi-pronged, more pragmatic solutions to the problem?

Sunset clauses to encourage people to move OUT of public housing? To create new spots from existing units
Economic policies to help those get off? To reduce the demand
Stipulations on additional children for those residents? If you can't afford to pay for your existing children, why have more?
Mandatory labour contribution for those that are living in Public Housing? Contribute to paintin, landscaping etc etc.

I almost feel like if you're on a waiting list 'more than 3 years' you've managed to survive that long, why would you need it?

 

[Peepers]

As a general topic, is there ever a solution?

There are plenty of posters here that believe the solution is to build more public housing, but when one takes a look at the size of the waiting list (50k?), you quickly realise that solution is as improbable and cost prohibit as building subways across the city.

For those that continually decry about more public housing, have you ever considered a multi-pronged, more pragmatic solutions to the problem?

Sunset clauses to encourage people to move OUT of public housing? To create new spots from existing units
Economic policies to help those get off? To reduce the demand
Stipulations on additional children for those residents? If you can't afford to pay for your existing children, why have more?
Mandatory labour contribution for those that are living in Public Housing? Contribute to paintin, landscaping etc etc.

I almost feel like if you're on a waiting list 'more than 3 years' you've managed to survive that long, why would you need it?

Here are some of the solutions that I would implement:

Eligibility Requirements: In order to qualify for public housing you should be a resident of Toronto for a minimum of five years. For example, we should not be providing taxpayer supported shelter to refugees almost as soon as they arrive at Pearson, nor should we providing social housing to people who come from other parts of Canada. Likewise disabled and elderly who cannot work should have priority over all able bodied persons.

Evicting Criminals: Change the rules so that it is easier for TCHC to evict anyone who is involved in criminal behavior on TCHC property. I don't care if it means throwing entire families out onto the street in the middle of winter. If they (or their children) are involved in crime and making the community unsafe they don't belong in subsidized housing. There are 10,000's of needy people that would happily take their place.

Eliminating Fraud: Identify fraudsters and evict them. For example those in RTG units who claim to be unemployed but in fact are working under the table.

Adopt Strict Code of Conduct: One thing that I have noticed is that Co-Op's are much better run and attractive than TCHC run buildings. I believe that this is because there are expectations placed on the tenants that they be good neighbors that we don't see in TCHC properties. Run all TCHC the same way Co-ops are run.

Limit Some Tenancies: Currently people who claim to be in abusive relationships get top priority for TCHC housing. For example women with abusive boyfriends or husbands can get immediate placement. These placements should be for no more than a year which is more than enough time for them to find another place to live.

 

[TOperson]

As a general topic, is there ever a solution?

Yes! Raise the minimum wage to a living wage so that more people can afford market housing, thereby reducing the demand for public housing. Tax the rich and corporations more to pay for more public housing - stiff cheese if they don't like it. Impose and enforce tariffs, regulations, laws, etc so that corporations can't just pack up their operations and move them to China or wherever because they don't like the tax rate.

All of this stuff has historical precedent in Canada and is currently in place in countries like Germany, Norway, Denmark, and it's working for them.

 

[SP!RE]

Here are some of the solutions that I would implement:


Evicting Criminals: Change the rules so that it is easier for TCHC to evict anyone who is involved in criminal behavior on TCHC property. I don't care if it means throwing entire families out onto the street in the middle of winter. If they (or their children) are involved in crime and making the community unsafe they don't belong in subsidized housing. There are 10,000's of needy people that would happily take their place.

Awful.

Throwing families out into the cold? Yeah, because THAT is sure to solve the complex underlying causes of crime in this city.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Some of the ideas listed aren't necessarily bad, but beware of unintended consequences.

Like - Eligibility Requirements: For example, we should not be providing taxpayer supported shelter to refugees almost as soon as they arrive at Pearson

By default refugees aren't a group of individuals with lots of resources to begin with (that's why they're refugees!). Some of them might be able to sustain themselves after a short period of acclimatization, others might not. Unless one's ultimate solution is to not take in any or just take in those with the potential to sustain themselves (which sort of defeats the whole humanitarian aspect of it), you are going to have refugees coming to Canada end up in destitution in no time.

Like - Limit Some Tenancies: Currently people who claim to be in abusive relationships get top priority for TCHC housing...these placements should be for no more than a year which is more than enough time for them to find another place to live.

Okay, you are assuming the abused individual is, beyond the point of being abused, are able to access resources and have to wits to otherwise figure a way out - which of course makes them that much less likely to be the victims of abuse in the first place.

Like Evicting Criminals: Change the rules so that it is easier for TCHC to evict anyone who is involved in criminal behavior on TCHC property. I don't care if it means throwing entire families out onto the street in the middle of winter.

Granted, TCHC shouldn't be in the criminal justice business, but what does it has to do with the families? Surely not everyone in the family are engaging in said activity? What would throwing the baby out with the bathwater achieve? If said crime is severe enough to warrant eviction, certainly it would be of a nature that would require prosecution.

AoD

 

[Peepers]

By default refugees aren't a group of individuals with lots of resources to begin with (that's why they're refugees!). Some of them might be able to sustain themselves after a short period of acclimatization, others might not. Unless one's ultimate solution is to not take in any or just take in those with the potential to sustain themselves (which sort of defeats the whole humanitarian aspect of it), you are going to have refugees coming to Canada end up in destitution in no time.
AoD

I believe that charity begins at home. As long as we have long term residents of Toronto who are in need of RTG housing we should not be letting refugees occupy ANY of these limited spaces. If Refugees cannot find support from members of their own ethnic communities or church groups then they shouldn't come to Canada. Simple as that.

Access to RTG housing is mostly on a first-come first-served basis but there are certain groups that get special priority. Among them refugees.

http://www.housingconnections.ca/HousingInfo/SpecialPriority.asp

In addition, the City of Toronto's local access rules ensure that individuals who are disadvantaged by a chronological system under the following categories will fill one in seven rent-geared-to-income vacancies:

homeless
separated families
newcomers who are homeless
youth who are 16 or 17 years old at the time of applying

So "newcomers who are homeless" (the definition of refugees) are given priority over - for example - a disabled or elderly Toronto resident who has lived their whole life in this city. How is this fair?

27,000 refugees came to Canada last year. About half of them settle in the GTA. There is no way that the city can keep up with the demand to house these people. They are taking up limited housing spots that should go to needy Canadians. I am amazed that there is no outcry over this from the people who advocate for the poor.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Before we get there though, I have to question the initial premise that the cost of more housing is "too high". Sorry, other advanced economies (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc) are able to support more than half of the population living in some form of public and public-to private ownership housing, and these are places where cost of housing, construction AND land in particular is exceedingly high. Besides, just how much have we put into housing say, since 1992? Not just social housing, but other forms, such as co-ops?

I believe that charity begins at home. As long as we have long term residents of Toronto who are in need of RTG housing we should not be letting refugees occupy ANY of these limited spaces. If Refugees cannot find support from members of their own ethnic communities or church groups then they shouldn't come to Canada. Simple as that.

I believe charity begins at the heart, regardless of where home is. If one is willing to dismiss the notion of contributing more - slightly more - just to ease the pressures for all with the slight of a hand, I have to question whether one's heart is really in charity. If they are truly refugees (which IMO is a bigger issue), and that they have been accepted by our government as part of our citizenry, then surely we are charitable enough to provide help. They are already "home".

27,000 refugees came to Canada last year. About half of them settle in the GTA. There is no way that the city can keep up with the demand to house these people. They are taking up limited housing spots that should go to needy Canadians. I am amazed that there is no outcry over this from the people who advocate for the poor.

You made it sound as if by default all of the units went to this population - when the link you yourself has cited - indicates that 1 in 7 unit is prioritized to 7 categories of individuals, one of which is refugees? And perhaps the advocates of the poor know that fighting over crumbs is exactly what those with motives other than "helping the poor" would like to see?

AoD

 

[Peepers]

Before we get there though, I have to question the initial premise that the cost of more housing is "too high". Sorry, other advanced economies (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc) are able to support more than half of the population living in some form of public and public-to private ownership housing, and these are places where cost of housing, construction AND land in particular is exceedingly high. Besides, just how much have you put into housing say, since 1992? Not just social housing, but other forms, such as co-ops?

Hong Kong and Singapore are perfect examples. Despite having virtually no natural resources these two countries are among the richest in the world in terms of GDP per capita (I believe Singapore is #2 in the world) and you know what? Neither of these countries accept refugees. They house them temporarily in detention centres until they can be deported to willing countries like Canada.

I believe charity begins at the heart, regardless of where home is. If one is willing to dismiss the notion of contributing more - slightly more - just to ease the pressures for all with the slight of a hand, I have to question whether one's heart is really in charity.

I am all for helping the disadvantaged among us but I don't believe we have an obligation to take care of all the poor people in the world. Looking after the needs of long established residents must always come before taking care of the needs of someone stepping off a flight at Pearson claiming refugee status.

You made it sound as if by default all of the units when to this population - when the link you yourself has cited - indicates that 1 in 7 unit is prioritized to 7 categories of individuals, one of which is refugees? And perhaps the advocates of the poor know that fighting over crumbs is exactly what those with motives other than "helping the poor" would like to see?

AoD

To be sure there are other categories of individuals who receive priority placement. I didn't mean to imply that every single RGI unit is being gobbled up by refugees but when I walk around places like regent park - where overwhelmingly the residents appear to be recently arrived refugees - it is obvious to me that a very large percentage of the finite number of RGI units are being occupied by refugees which means that many needy and deserving long term residents of Toronto are being left out in the cold (quite literally in some cases!). This is by no means "crumbs" that we are fighting over!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hong Kong and Singapore are perfect examples. Despite having virtually no natural resources these two countries are among the richest in the world in terms of GDP per capita (I believe Singapore is #2 in the world) and you know what? Neither of these countries accept refugees. They house them temporarily in detention centres until they can be deported to willing countries like Canada.

Please, don't throw the history book around - the Hong Kong economy was practically built by Chinese refugees in the 50s and 60s (they swam to Hong Kong, literally and figuratively); the public housing programme was a response to substandard, fireprone shantytowns at the time - much of it occupied by the then refugees. And the Hong Kong economy almost certainly wouldn't have been dragged down if they had let in a greater number of refugees than it had during the 80s - I know, I grew up there - and I am aware of the debate around the Vietnamese boat people - along with the real issue of whether the refugees are genuinely trying to escape oppression (i.e. economic migrants) - the main themes are racism and fear of the other, plain and simple. I really don't feel like responding if all you can muster is some revisionist interpretation (more like imagination) of what you think had happened over there and try to use it show that you "get it".

AoD

 

[Peepers]

Please, don't throw the history book around - the Hong Kong economy was practically built by Chinese refugees in the 50s and 60s (they swam to Hong Kong, literally and figuratively); the public housing programme was a response to substandard, fireprone shantytowns at the time - much of it occupied by the then refugees. And the Hong Kong economy almost certainly wouldn't have been dragged down if they had let in a greater number of refugees than it had during the 80s - I know, I grew up there - and I am aware of the debate around the Vietnamese boat people - along with the real issue of whether the refugees are genuinely trying to escape oppression (i.e. economic migrants) - the main themes are racism and fear of the other, plain and simple. I really don't feel like responding if all you can muster is some revisionist interpretation (more like imagination) of what you think had happened over there and try to use it show that you "get it".

AoD

I'm talking about recent history and the current situation.

From Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_in_Hong_Kong

As Hong Kong does not have its own refugee status determination system, the UNHCR of Hong Kong is responsible for determining asylum application pursuant to the mandate given in its statute to provide international protection to refugees. There are different steps in the application process:
Claim is made and the asylum seeker is interviewed (request for advisers or legal representatives to be present has sometimes been denied)
Status is determined by the UNHCR.
Status is granted or denied (no detailed reasons are given if denied)
An appeal can be made within the field office.
NOTE: HONG KONG has NO REFUGEES

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And say 5K refugees a year, out of a population of what, 7+M would have somehow utterly crippled said government's finance, currently at its' prime, and by extension the public housing programme in general when the whole programme was originally started where a significant portion of said territory's population in the 50s and 60s are refugees and the economy was still at its' infancy? Siriusly??

AoD

 

[TOperson]

I am amazed that there is no outcry over this from the people who advocate for the poor.

It's because refugees are "the poor" too.

 

[urbandreamer]

Why not loan them $20k to buy a house in a cheaper city such as Woodstock or Hamilton or Brantford on the condition they have a job lined up?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think the problem is the second part - those places aren't exactly where the jobs are. On the other hand, the notion of encouraging and supporting those who live in social housing with a job but couldn't otherwise afford a home to do so might not be a bad idea (so long as we aren't talking about Fannie Mae et a.)

AoD

 

[Hipster Duck]

I think the problem is the second part - those places aren't exactly where the jobs are. On the other hand, the notion of encouraging and supporting those who live in social housing with a job but couldn't otherwise afford a home to do so might not be a bad idea (so long as we aren't talking about Fannie Mae et a.)

AoD

I'm not very well informed about this topic, and my response might seem a little naive, but maybe urbandreamer's idea has some merit. Maybe the settlement of a fairly large number of foreign refugees in economically depressed parts of Canada might actually stimulate the creation of economies that we could not have imagined. Thinking narrowly, it will at least cost us less to house refugees in places like Timmins, and it could at least stimulate growth-based industries like real estate and construction. Thinking more broadly, it might actually stimulate the creation of industries by the emigrants that cater to them and to their culture.