TCHC board votes to sell over 700 homes

[UserNameToronto]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-votes-to-sell-over-700-homes/article2209897/

The board of Toronto’s social housing agency has voted to sell 706 homes despite pleas from dozens of tenants concerned about potential eviction.

A crowd of social housing advocates chanted “We are not for sale” through much of a five-and-a-half hour Toronto Community Housing meeting on Friday, silenced only after a 10-2 vote in favour of offloading much of the agency’s scattered housing stock.

TCHC CEO Len Koroneos argued that the $336-million he hopes to raise from the sale would be put towards the $650-million repair bill the agency is currently facing. Much of that backlog is for stand-alone homes that need, on average, $60,000 in repairs compared to $30,000 for apartment units, according to the agency.

...

The plan still requires the approval of City Council and the province, a process that will take at least six months, according to Mr. Koroneos. He hopes to put 70 vacant homes on the market by June, followed by a phased sale of the rest of the stand-alone stock over the next several years.

Given TCHC buildings tend to be clustered in in certian neighbourhoods (Downtown East, Parkdale, Leslieville/Beaches) I'd say this is especially a win for those who have, or wish to, take a bet on these 'hoods.

Who's up for a $400k fixer upper in Riverdale?!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I am ok with the scheme as long as the number of units available remains the same - I think that's what the SHRA calls for.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I am ok with the scheme as long as the number of units available remains the same - I think that's what the SHRA calls for.

AoD

I'm OK even if the number of units drops by 700, quite frankly. Using the cash generated to fix up at least some of the hellholes TCHC has people living in is a win for me. Hopefully, the cash generated will be more than hoped and they can either clear the whole backlog of needed repairs, or divert some of the cash generated to new construction of some new buildings.

 

[Marko]

The agency should constantly be turning over properties that they are unable to maintain, especially if the neighborhoods are in demand. That money can be used to keep other properties in good order - as required - and to increase the amount of apartment style units that are added to the portfolio. "Community Housing" doesn't have to be in standalone homes in what have become trendy neighborhoods.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

RRR:

I'm OK even if the number of units drops by 700, quite frankly. Using the cash generated to fix up at least some of the hellholes TCHC has people living in is a win for me. Hopefully, the cash generated will be more than hoped and they can either clear the whole backlog of needed repairs, or divert some of the cash generated to new construction of some new buildings

Actually I am not OK with that - since they aren't diverting the cash to build replacement units. If that's what they are doing I'd be completely behind the scheme. Keep in mind this is an even more one-time revenue source than monetizing land, which is/will be used in the Rivertowne/Regeant Park/Lawrence Park/Alexandra Park plans - but those have city-building objectives (i.e. de-ghettofication) that make sense in that context.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

The agency should constantly be turning over properties that they are unable to maintain, especially if the neighborhoods are in demand.

This might be great for Cabbagetown. There's one TCHC house on Geneva that is the bane of the street, with garbage strewn about, the requisite broken down car and parts in the back. Even better, what happens to the TCHC houses on Parliament south of Winchester on the west side?

 

[pman]

I suppose that in addition to the upfront cash the City will get a future stream of property tax revenues, which seems like a win.

 

[cdr108]

I suppose that in addition to the upfront cash the City will get a future stream of property tax revenues, which seems like a win.

assuming the sales go for the quoted $336-million, property taxes based on 1% CMV would generate ~$3+ million annually ...
not a heck of alot, but they should allocate that $3+ million annually back to TCHC for either renos, new builds, etc.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I feel for long-term tenants who feel threatened by uncertainty about their future but from the perspective of the long-term health of TCHC this just makes sense.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I suppose that in addition to the upfront cash the City will get a future stream of property tax revenues, which seems like a win.

Of course the future buyers would need to pay land transfer tax, so that's even more revenue for the city.

 

[Marko]

I feel for long-term tenants who feel threatened by uncertainty about their future but from the perspective of the long-term health of TCHC this just makes sense.

Of course. No one wants to be uprooted and when things are out of your control, fear can take over your mindset. Those who have been in one place the longest are likely to oppose this the most, but then it makes you wonder why they are there so long. Aside from those with disabilities, community housing should be a temporary measure and moving is something you should be expecting to do at some point. Those in need have to be provided for, but not to a level that exceeds what middle class citizens can afford themselves, and the middle class is largely being priced out of downtown single homes. It just makes sense with increased densification and changing property values that those on assistance are asked to live in apartment or townhouse style housing.

I'm not suggesting Regent Park style apartment blocks that can lead to a slum/ghetto atmosphere - but for the city to be purchasing units among the condos being put up so that the mixed housing model is more or less maintained. In fact, the city could probably leverage a percentage of the units of any new buildings rather than make the developers put up parks or bridges or whatever else they now twist arms to get. Want an extra floors approved? No problem, we'll take one low floor unit for every 2 floors you add, etc...

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Actually I am not OK with that - since they aren't diverting the cash to build replacement units. If that's what they are doing I'd be completely behind the scheme. Keep in mind this is an even more one-time revenue source than monetizing land, which is/will be used in the Rivertowne/Regeant Park/Lawrence Park/Alexandra Park plans - but those have city-building objectives (i.e. de-ghettofication) that make sense in that context.

Well, you & I will have to agree to disagree. Even assuming each of those units houses four people, it's still less than 2% of all TCHC's patrons. It is true, however, that I'm biased against public meddling in the housing sector, coming from a long line of landlords. This city (and province) have spent years treating reasonable landlords like crap (e.g. rent controls, crazy eviction regulations) and ended up with the only kinds of landlords willing to put up with it -- slumlords. TCHC is a reaction to a problem created by the city, IMO, so I do find it difficult to be sympathetic with another draconian regulation (i.e. You can't sell a property without guaranteeing another is built immediately. Why? What if management wants to build next year instead, to manage it's overall portfolio better, or because the property they want to build on isn't ready, or whatever?)

TCHC has built some beautiful buildings lately, so I'm not at all negative about the management. I do think that giving them the ability to manage would be worthwhile.