Some Councillors Urge TCHC to Sell Detached Houses

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Globe:

INSIDE CITY CALL: DANFORTH PROPERTIES
'No ulterior motive' in housing motion, Ootes says
November 19, 2007

Councillor Case Ootes (Ward 29, Toronto-Danforth) is making no apologies for the stir he caused over some of the city's housing assets.

The veteran councillor says he has "no ulterior motive" in asking council this week to direct the city's subsidized-housing agency to look into selling some of the 500 single-family homes it owns across Toronto. He argues the proceeds could be spent fixing up the agency's crumbling high-rise apartments for its low-income tenants.

But his motion makes a point of singling out three $500,000 addresses in his ward, on Ellerbeck Street in the desirable Playter Estates area, north of the Danforth, owned by Toronto Community Housing Corp., where low-income tenants live.

The three houses back onto a Toronto Parking Authority Green P lot, and are beside a vacant auto repair shop and former funeral home that are now slated to become a Shoppers Drug Mart.

It is no secret that Mr. Ootes, pressured by local businesses, has long been keen to find new parking spots along the Danforth. Sources tell Inside City Hall that he has urged parking authority officials to look into the Ellerbeck properties. The parking authority even tried to buy an adjacent, privately owned home, and has approached Toronto Community Housing about the three homes, sources say.

"That's not my focus in this particular instance, and there's no ulterior motive here," Mr. Ootes said last week in an interview, insisting his motion was about poorly managed public-housing assets, not parking. "... That's not my agenda at all."

AoD

 

[rpgr]

I’m shocked, saddened, but more disgusted that the vast majority of the comments on this thread are in support of these Councillor's proposals to sell off valuable shared city assets in favour of creating more “standard†affordable housing units.

To displace 500 families in dignified houses in good healthy neighbourhoods in favour of placing them into smaller housing units in less desirable areas of the city is unjust. I suggest maybe some of you need to spend one night with a family in one these typical mega housing projects you all seem to be in favour of and it might just be an eye opening experience for many of you.

I would personally encourage many of you to do more homework into the issue of affordable housing in the city of Toronto. In my opinion some ofyou need real help in redefining your definition of what affordable housing can and should be.

Louroz

It's basic utilitarianism and is an accepted form of morality, greatest good for the greatest number and all that jazz. Taking 1.5 million back and redistributing it so that more people can have a minimum is a valid concern.

Lets put this on a more global scale. If according to your thought of being disgusted by redistributing the money then you have no qualms about letting poor people starve while you enjoy your bi-daily cup of Tim Hortons coffee.

Reversely people saying they should redistribute the wealth should have no qualms about donating half their tax dollars to ending poverty in third world nations rather than building more schools.

Really think about it, nothing is ever as cut and dry as it seems. Condeming people because they'd rather have 8 families in apartments than 3 in an expensive home is short sighted. Nobody likes to give up something good that they have. Besides, these people are not getting kicked out to the street to starve and freeze but dumped into lower class neighborhoods so that more people can have roofs over their heads.

The basic difference comes down to this, would you rather save lives but possibly condemn a few to social outcast status (by living in "ghettos")?

I think most of the posters here believe in the mantra "Beggers can't be choosers". Having more people living in the minimum to them is more important than having a few live above average and a few living below the minimum.

I personally continue to reserve judgement as there are just too many factors at play to predict the future.

 

[Glen]

Glen:

Did you know there is a huge disparity between 905 and Toronto for the other services? You don't, since the numbers in the report refers to the Ontario average, and that qualifer applies to the other services as well. However, if you pay attention to the chart in pg. 3 of the report, you will notice that the majority of the cost difference is to the the rest of Ontario, not GTA/905 difference.

AoD

To be honest, the figures are actually being generous due to Toronto being far above the provincial average in assistance received. If you want the details you can compare financials of individual municipalities here..........

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/ViewFIR2006.htm


Look at lines 620 to 1099.


Comparing Vaughn to Toronto

Total of Conditional and Unconditional Grants plus transfers from other Municipalities.

Toronto = $ 1,900,965,269 or $722.33 per person.
Vaughn = $ 179,079,002 or $188.37 per person.

You can check any other municipality you want, they all receive less than Toronto. So the inclusion of Toronto in the averages skews the results. If the United Way report is showing a difference of $1054 per person against the provincial average the difference is far greater against Toronto.

IMHO this is why Mayor Miller could not 'pressure' McGuinty during the election. Toronto residents pay less tax and get more provincial help than the other municipalities.

 

[TrickyRicky]

"To displace 500 families in dignified houses in good healthy neighbourhoods in favour of placing them into smaller housing units in less desirable areas of the city is unjust. I suggest maybe some of you need to spend one night with a family in one these typical mega housing projects you all seem to be in favour of and it might just be an eye opening experience for many of you."

FutureMayor,

I think you're over-reacting. Beside some more extreme views I think most people could agree that social housing should exist in all parts of the city and that the era of mega-housing projects was a failed one. So in principle having individual housing units interspersed in stable neighbourhoods is a good thing, but that doesn't mean that on a case-by-case basis rationalization of some property holdings isn't in order. My concern expressed in previous threads surrounding this issue is that I am critical of the social housing lobbiests because in my view the government should really only own and operate full service housing of last resort. The working poor should be housed in private market housing with cost and perhaps administrative assistance provided by government.

 

[theman23]

To be honest, the figures are actually being generous due to Toronto being far above the provincial average in assistance received. If you want the details you can compare financials of individual municipalities here..........

http://csconramp.mah.gov.on.ca/fir/ViewFIR2006.htm


Look at lines 620 to 1099.


Comparing Vaughn to Toronto

Total of Conditional and Unconditional Grants plus transfers from other Municipalities.

Toronto = $ 1,900,965,269 or $722.33 per person.
Vaughn = $ 179,079,002 or $188.37 per person.

You can check any other municipality you want, they all receive less than Toronto. So the inclusion of Toronto in the averages skews the results. If the United Way report is showing a difference of $1054 per person against the provincial average the difference is far greater against Toronto.

IMHO this is why Mayor Miller could not 'pressure' McGuinty during the election. Toronto residents pay less tax and get more provincial help than the other municipalities.

I don't see what is controversial about Toronto getting more than the 905. Where do you think all the social services for the region are centred? Where do you think the down on his luck Vaughn-ite goes to when he has no place to stay? What city has to accomodate most new immigrants to the GTA, only to have them leave for the suburbs when they get on their feet? Toronto. If Vaughan wanted to take over some of the responsibilty for these people by building more affordable housing, shelters, mental health clinics, then I'm sure Toronto would be willing to give up some of this funding. But I doubt that is the case. The presence of "undesirables" would shatter the suburban dream, wouldn't it? As far as paying less taxes, I'm certain that the provincial tax brackets are the same in both Toronto and the 905. In fact, the provincial education tax for businesses is quite a bit higher in Toronto than the 905 (I believe it is double, but I'm not completely certain). So no, Torontonians do not pay less taxes.

Anyways, the contention has never been that Toronto recieves less funding than its suburbs. It has always been that this city's residents send far more to the federal and provincial governments than they recieves in serivices. This has been demonstrated several times.

 

[Glen]

I don't see what is controversial about Toronto getting more than the 905. Where do you think all the social services for the region are centred? Where do you think the down on his luck Vaughn-ite goes to when he has no place to stay? What city has to accommodate most new immigrants to the GTA, only to have them leave for the suburbs when they get on their feet?

In 1996 the City of Toronto absorbed 33.6% of net migration to Toronto and area. By 2006 it only absorbed 6.6%. These are figures from Toronto's Economic Development office complied in the Vital Signs report (link)

If Vaughan wanted to take over some of the responsibilty for these people by building more affordable housing, shelters, mental health clinics, then I'm sure Toronto would be willing to give up some of this funding. But I doubt that is the case. The presence of "undesirables" would shatter the suburban dream, wouldn't it?

It is difficult to have this conversation when Toronto does get the money and the rest of the 905 does not. Toronto has the facilities because it gets the money for them.

As far as paying less taxes, I'm certain that the provincial tax brackets are the same in both Toronto and the 905. In fact, the provincial education tax for businesses is quite a bit higher in Toronto than the 905 (I believe it is double, but I'm not completely certain). So no, Torontonians do not pay less taxes.

The residential education tax protion of property tax is the same across the whole province, .264%. I am referring to property tax not income tax. While there is a difference in the provincial education portion of property tax between the regions and Toronto, it is not as large as the difference between the municipal portions. This is an issue that the city has used to deflect the attention away from their own abuses. Here is a link showing the differences in tax rates. Compare Toronto's commercial rate to that of Vaughn, 1.793 % for Toronto (without the 2.3% provincial education portion) vs. .639% for Vaughn ( without the 1.76% provincial education portion). The Province has committed itself to having a uniform 1.6% tax rate across the province by 2014.

Anyways, the contention has never been that Toronto receives less funding than its suburbs. It has always been that this city's residents send far more to the federal and provincial governments than they recieves in serivices. This has been demonstrated several times.

The same is true for every municipality though. We all pay income taxes and send it to the federal and provincial governments. The difference that I am talking about is what the province gives back. In this case Toronto gets more than average.

 

[theman23]

In 1996 the City of Toronto absorbed 33.6% of net migration to Toronto and area. By 2006 it only absorbed 6.6%. These are figures from Toronto's Economic Development office complied in the Vital Signs report (link)

That doesn't really respond to what I said. Specfically migration within the region and the relative affluence of those migrating to Toronto versus the 905.

It is difficult to have this conversation when Toronto does get the money and the rest of the 905 does not. Toronto has the facilities because it gets the money for them.

Toronto has the facilities because it seems to be the only municipality that allows them to be built. Witness the local outrage in Brampton over the rumoured government relocation of Jane and Finch residents to that particular suburb.
Not to mention there is very good reason to concentrate facilities, such as research hospitals, in the central city as opposed to the outlying areas.

The residential education tax protion of property tax is the same across the whole province, .264%. I am referring to property tax not income tax. While there is a difference in the provincial education portion of property tax between the regions and Toronto, it is not as large as the difference between the municipal portions. This is an issue that the city has used to deflect the attention away from their own abuses. Here is a link showing the differences in tax rates. Compare Toronto's commercial rate to that of Vaughn, 1.793 % for Toronto (without the 2.3% provincial education portion) vs. .639% for Vaughn ( without the 1.76% provincial education portion). The Province has committed itself to having a uniform 1.6% tax rate across the province by 2014.

Why would you be referring to property tax rates? What connection does this have to how much funding we recieve from the province? Property tax does not pay for doctors and the services you are referring to. Well, at least it shouldn't.

The same is true for every municipality though. We all pay income taxes and send it to the federal and provincial governments. The difference that I am talking about is what the province gives back. In this case Toronto gets more than average.

Which is why 1cent/CitiesNOW are both campaigns for cities in general, not only Toronto. But as I said, the problem isn't just that we send money to the federal and provincial governments. The problem is that there is a gap in the amount of money Torontonians pay in taxes and the services we recieve. I believe it stands at around $9 billion a year. The 905 has a similar problem.

 

[Glen]

That doesn't really respond to what I said. Specfically migration within the region and the relative affluence of those migrating to Toronto versus the 905.

Are you suggesting that of the 74,362 immigrants who moved to the city / region in 2006 4,908 of them were poor and needy and moved solely to Toronto while the other 69,454 who were wealthier, had no need for social services like daycare and ESL courses and moved to the 905 region?

Keep in mind that the funding shortfall that I am referring to in my blog is for the following services ;

Hospital Services
Child Care
Adult Programs
Developmental Services
Children's Services

NB not included are capital subsidies like those for the TTC.

Not to mention there is very good reason to concentrate facilities, such as research hospitals, in the central city as opposed to the outlying areas.

I agree.

Why would you be referring to property tax rates? What connection does this have to how much funding we recieve from the province? Property tax does not pay for doctors and the services you are referring to. Well, at least it shouldn't.

Because that is the difference. We all pay the same income taxes, regardless of where we live. What is different is the amount of property tax we pay and what the province contributes to mandated and cost shared programs based on where you live. Those in the 905 pay more residential property tax and get less subsidies from the province compared to Toronto period.

But as I said, the problem isn't just that we send money to the federal and provincial governments. The problem is that there is a gap in the amount of money Torontonians pay in taxes and the services we recieve. I believe it stands at around $9 billion a year. The 905 has a similar problem.

Again that is because income and sales taxes are used to derive those figures. So the same will hold true everywhere in the province. Of course it is similar in the 905 region. It is even worse when the total tax burden is taken into account.