News   Jun 17, 2024
Misty Veil
 62     0 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Dual High-Rises and Production Studio Space Proposed in the Port Lands
 2.5K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Exchange District Condos' Four Towers Progressing by Square One
 1.8K     1 

Public Housing solutions

Hipster:

I think the lower cost-of-living argument have merit (though one has to take into account that while cost of living in those jurisdictions might be lower, the procurement of government services might very well not be the case). The risk/concern I have is that by moving refugees en masse to these economically depressed locale could end up being a defacto economic ghetto for these individuals; certainly, there will also be the issue of integration with the local community and potential pushback on that front.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Hipster:

I think the lower cost-of-living argument have merit (though one has to take into account that while cost of living in those jurisdictions might be lower, the procurement of government services might very well not be the case). The risk/concern I have is that by moving refugees en masse to these economically depressed locale could end up being a defacto economic ghetto for these individuals; certainly, there will also be the issue of integration with the local community and potential pushback on that front.

AoD
Click to expand...

The best route to addressing social housing problems is integration in existing market rent buildings. The subsidy route is far more effective & decades quicker than squandering taxpayer money on new buildings that will inevitably end up falling into disrepair before seeing their 10th year of existence.

I think that Regent Park approach is heading in the right direction but it should have been more market rent units & less public housing units. The predominance of lower income residents will ultimately scare away market rent residents.

Whoever commented that we should raise minimum wage, raise taxes, tariffs, etc. clearly has no concept of the ill effects on society of punishing hard work & success.
 
Last edited:
CN Tower said:
Whoever commented that we should raise minimum wage, raise taxes, tariffs, etc. clearly has no concept of the ill effects on society of punishing hard work & success.
Click to expand...

Jeepers, that is straight out of the neo-liberal propaganda handbook. How about reading up on economic history? E.g. Rick Wolff, Ha-Joon Chang, Tony Judt, to name just a few. Also, how does raising the minimum wage punish hard work? Don't minimum wage earners work hard? Or only CEOs?
 
TOperson said:
Jeepers, that is straight out of the neo-liberal propaganda handbook. How about reading up on economic history? E.g. Rick Wolff, Ha-Joon Chang, Tony Judt, to name just a few. Also, how does raising the minimum wage punish hard work? Don't minimum wage earners work hard? Or only CEOs?
Click to expand...

I love it when people try to label me. Makes me laugh uncontrollably inside. Your ignorance is abhorant. I believe in a free market system. If I'm running a business why should the government dictate how much I should pay my staff? Too much intervention for me. I also believe in a very strong safety net for things like medical care, education & basic housing. I find the abuse of the very socially compassionate system that we have in Ontario utterly deplorable.

How do you feel about unions and their impact on the current fiscal crisis in Ontario?
 
CNTower:

The best route to addressing social housing problems is integration in existing market rent buildings. The subsidy route is far more effective & decades quicker than squandering taxpayer money on new buildings that will inevitably end up falling into disrepair before seeing their 10th year of existence.
Click to expand...

One of the routes, perhaps. The "best" route? Probably not. There are many examples of public housing in the 10, 20th year and they certainly aren't in "disrepair" - and if one is concerned about that aspect of housing, going the public subsidy route certainly wouldn't have changed a thing, given the high rents in the city pretty much guarantees these folks can only afford poorly maintained and operated private housing.

I think that Regent Park approach is heading in the right direction but it should have been more market rent units & less public housing units. The predominance of lower income residents will ultimately scare away market rent residents.
Click to expand...

The RGI/market mix is similar to that of St. Lawrence (a slight bit lower than StL, if I remember correctly) - and it certainly haven't scared way the market rent residents.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Some market rental buildings are already allocating a certain number of units through Toronto Community Housing and I think it's an excellent idea. My building has 20 units and I know of several other buildings in my neighbourhood that have them too. Most people who live here don't even know the landlord does it (they're spread over two lower floors) and no one needs to be the wiser.
I think there needs to be incentive to get able bodied people out of these units such as job training/re-training, help with job placement and a slowdown in immigration except in areas where labour is needed and where people bring those skills to fill the jobs. The duties and responsibilities of TCH should be of an expanded role so that they have much more control over the units that they manage, it would pay for itself quickly by bouncing those abusing the system (and there are many) freeing up housing for those who really need it. Levels of government could be more supportive with non-profit co-operatives too, a system that appears to work very well for many people vs. out of control market rentals in this city.
 
Vienna has a unique approach of combining luxuries into public housing an not kicking people out when they become less poor which also makes them less likely to become ghettos.

Story: http://www.governing.com/topics/economic-dev/gov-affordable-luxurious-housing-in-vienna.html




puDTt7m.jpg





XkdmD3h.jpg





FJjcQ6m.jpg
 
A friend of mine just moved at the end of February from a rental condo unit at Carlton & Church to a market rental in a TCHC building in the Queen/Bathurst area and is paying literally half in rent. It's a newer building (late 90's I think) and a little smaller than what she had but not by much. I haven't been there yet, only looked at the building on Google maps.
 
If I'm running a business why should the government dictate how much I should pay my staff? Too much intervention for me.
Click to expand...

Why should the government protect the integrity of the national currency? Why should it enforce contract and property law? Why should it subsidize the transportation infrastructure that brings your material, equipment and employees to you, and your finished goods/services to your customers?

You really believe in a free market? Or do you just want to cherry-pick the bits that work to your advantage?
 
It's going to rankle our pc feathers, but perhaps Ottawa should be be paying for much of Toronto's social housing, since much of the TCHC population I see appear to be longterm failed immigrants or their first generation descendants.

When my family immigrated to Canada from Britain, no one in our circle thought of living long term in public housing. Same for my friends from China and India. They arrive, work like hell, and if they live in public housing, see it as a purely temporary bridge to a better life... A life built on hard work and pride. Make that the mission of public housing, and I'll gladly pay the tax to make it work.

However, there is another class of immigrant that lives long term in TCHC housing, passing same ideals to the next generation. These are the folks Ottawa should be paying for housing.
 
Last edited:
TOperson said:
Why should the government protect the integrity of the national currency? Why should it enforce contract and property law?
Click to expand...

Poor analogy. Enforcing laws, ie keeping the peace, vs interfering in free markets. You want no zoning restrictions on development but also want to enforce anti-dumping laws.

I would advocate for a freely floating currency and abolish the Federal Reserve and our Bank of Canada. Both organizations are corrupted by powerful special intererst groups.
 
I do think zoning changes would help though. Toronto is a pretty expensive city compared to many American cities with similar GDPs/capita and allowing more housing... including cheaper forms of housing (ie not expensive steel & concrete skyscrapers and not big single family homes in the suburbs, which is most of what is currrently being built) would help. Allowing the existing housing stock to be reconfigured to allow more people to live in it would help too. Forcing the 905 suburbs to legalize basement apartments will help with that for instance. What are current regulations regarding dividing larger homes into multiple units (ie more than just a basement apartment)? How about regulations regarding the number of roommates per unit? If there were most low rent but market rate options, people wouldn't have to rely on the government as much for housing.

I do think that if the federal government decides to let in many refugees though, they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions and pay for their housing (if they require public housing).

By the way, where do those 50k people on public housing waiting lists live? While I would imagine some are literally living on the streets, I suspect most aren't since there are supposedly only around 5000 homeless in Toronto.
 
CN Tower said:
Poor analogy. Enforcing laws, ie keeping the peace, vs interfering in free markets. You want no zoning restrictions on development but also want to enforce anti-dumping laws.

I would advocate for a freely floating currency and abolish the Federal Reserve and our Bank of Canada. Both organizations are corrupted by powerful special intererst groups.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not a poor analogy. It's one actual economists use - that's where I got it from. The government is ALWAYS a major actor in the economy. Markets have never, ever been free of government interference, for literally thousands of years.

So, with government interference a given, the only real question is: who benefits?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top