freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Let's be honest, this is clearly a case of Rob Ford using the report as an excuse to advance his own agenda. Still, it's fun to see TCHC in disarray. Toronto Star had a story about a man being paid $411 rent supplement for an one bed room apartment.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/949239--public-money-private-apartment
I know working couples living in shared accommodations, paying high taxes, yet a single man is living in an one bedroom apartment supported by taxpayers like the working couples. Put him in a basement room, maybe the city doesn't have to pay him at all and we wouldn't have a budget hole.
Well, at least it's nice to see an anecdotal story where the person involved appears to be enjoying the intended results of why all this is being done in the first place. The fact that it's a political football is unfortunate. Personally, I think it's more do to the individual, rather than whether his residence is being owned by TCHC or a private residence with a city supplement. As far as your analogy with your well paid friends choosing to co-habitate temporarily to save money, I don't think it has any similarities to this former homeless person with addiction problems. Expecting marginalized people to fend for themselves on their welfare cheque by seeking marginalized accommodations doesn't bode well for getting them out of their situation.
It seems a lot of people try to equate these things to how it would work with them "personally". "Why can't people just be more like me?" Well...cause they can't...that's why. Most of the time, people are just projecting. Whatever triggers them to become homeless, drug addicted people is unlikely to have the same effect on "you" (or most people). That's why fixing the problem requires policies geared to "their" needs...not what "you" think they should need to fix the problem. It's fine for "us" to say sacrificing on housing for a while is fine, but for another person, it could mean the difference between becoming a contributing member of society, or sliding back into a life of addiction and homelessness...and we all net out worse in that case.
I don't think the answer lies in either scheme...supplementing rents in privately owned residences, or publicly owned residences. I think the answer can be found in what we are already doing to a degree...publicly owned mixed-income buildings, where you mix rent-geared-to-income tenants and market rent tenants.
Toronto is in an enviable position, where public housing can be self-funded, by simply expanding this idea to the point where market rents fully subsidizes sub-market rent tenants. The private development industry in Toronto could easily withstand a little competition from the city. And not having it be such a burden on the tax-funded city budget, frees up tax dollars for things that can't be funded in such a way. The "gravy" is that the city could end up with public housing projects that look more like "Ice", rather than Moss Park.