Going backwards

[DarnDirtyApe]

Calling them slumlords is unfair and patently false, as it implies they are trying to profit from the poor, when the opposite is true. It would be fair to criticize the City for mismanaging and underfunding it. But since it is "public" housing, ultimately it is YOU and I who are to blame for allowing it to happen. Also, you allude to the idea that all people who work in the social services industry don't give a crap, which is very insulting to the many people who work in social services because they do care (I get the impression that this is a foreign concept to you, as you could never imagine yourself doing it).

True, the word slumlord is an exaggeration - instead I'll say that evident seems to show that TCHC is not very good at maintaining their properties. Based on the stock of publicly vs. privately owned buildings in the city, I think that the profit motive does tend to result in better managed buildings overall.

You are absolutely correct...and you are also killing your own argument against mixed-income buildings with this statement.

1: The mixed-income buildings are the ones that aren't "slums"...otherwise they could not attract market rent tenants.
2: The market rents help subsidize the below market rents, lowering the TCHC's reliance on funding from taxes.
3: The subsidy for your rental "voucher" to private landlords would have to be more per unit to account for the profit portion of the private landlord that does not exist in public housing.

Do we actually know if TCHC "market rent" tenants are actually profitable? Knowing TCHC I'm skeptical that they actually have proper cost accounting. Their market rents are typically quite low, maybe a fair market price for living in a TCHC owned building.

I know always a cop out to say that private landlords could offer the same services for less due to increased efficiency, but again given what we know about TCHC I don't think it's that much of a stretch.

You are also blithely disregarding the reality that private landlords aren't interested in participating in this social experiment of yours in the first place. And as a person directly involved in the private landlord business here in Toronto, I can confirm that. There are many sound business reasons why private landlords don't want tenants who are on social assistance (one example is that you can't garnishee someone's wages if they don't have one).

Social services is public business...it should never be shirked off onto private enterprise.

Lots of landlords take tenants on social assistance. Maybe the solution is to increase welfare & disability payments, or create a guaranteed minimum income. Maybe it's just a matter of hiring outside property management companies so we can more easily hold them accountable. There are many ways to help people that don't involve the city owning and managing thousands of apartments.

 

[Lenser]

Lenser:

Ironically, he walks to work, and I would suspect being a member of the middle class whom the truly blessed will label as a member of the hoi polloi that spoils the neighbourhood. You know, this class thing can easily cut both ways (wait till TO property values get Manhattenesque)

AoD

Yeah, that thought crossed my mind, too. Undesirable elements, indeed!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

DDA:

You will always need *some* form of government housing - a good chunk of the residents are in the hard to impossible to house category that private landlords wouldn't take and/or wouldn't hesitate to evict. And if one think that's government housing is some anomaly - half of all residents in hypercapitalistic Hong Kong (and more shockingly, almost 90% in Singapore) lives in some form of social housing (rental and ownership).

AoD

 

[doug]

No, it is not about me. It is common that most people don't find it pleasant to be badgered by crazy people who yell at them for no reason, or ask you for money for drug consumption on a daily basis, or to see three people sleeping on the sidewalk in 5 minutes. Do you?

Are you talking about Queen and John? That's where I work, and I see this every day here. I think you should drop the stereotyping, you're not as well informed as you think you are

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

DDA:

You will always need *some* form of government housing - a good chunk of the residents are in the hard to impossible to house category that private landlords wouldn't take and/or wouldn't hesitate to evict. And if one think that's government housing is some anomaly - half of all residents in hypercapitalistic Hong Kong (and more shockingly, almost 90% in Singapore) lives in some form of social housing (rental and ownership).

AoD

For sure, and I think I wrote about that earlier in the thread - housing for seniors, the disabled, the hard to house, and so on should have dedicated customized programs.

HK and Singapore aren't exactly the best models for comparison, given the unique circumstances in those city-states.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

DDA:

I don't know how "unique" they are, given public housing is very much a policy driven by economics and culture of home ownership, and in high (and increasing) cost jurisdictions like Toronto, there may very well be increasing need for public housing. The city states may be extreme examples, but certainly social housing is not an uncommon or stigma laden housing type across much of the world (e.g. Netherlands).

AoD

 

[ksun]

You frame it as if "absolutely no poor nearby" is high on your laundry list of crucial criteria for where you opt to live, much like it was a facile lifestyle question like what colour you prefer for your new car; the superficiality and cold-bloodedness of it is amazing. I see, too, that people over 50 are "old" for you (in light of that, I hold out hope for you. Let's check back on your outlook in twenty years, shall we? I'm guessing you won't be quite so draconian in your societal views).

As for the burbs being how they are, a lot of it is about the very nature of sprawl and car-dependent infrastructure - at least as much as it is about people's socio-economic preferences regarding their neigbours.

You were putting words into my mouth to make me "cold-blooded". But fine, I won't argue with that.
How the nature of sprawl and car dependency lead to segregation of people of different wealth? I am confused. - actually posh nabes tend to be in central areas with better transit (Rosedale and Forest Hill are both not too far from transit). Don't people living in Moore Park and Deer Part have much better subway access than those say in eastern Scarborough or Jane/Finch? Sorry, but I don't understand why the rich and poor in the suburbs don't live close to each other for reasons other than social-economic preference. You are being unclear here.

 

[ksun]

For sure, and I think I wrote about that earlier in the thread - housing for seniors, the disabled, the hard to house, and so on should have dedicated customized programs.

HK and Singapore aren't exactly the best models for comparison, given the unique circumstances in those city-states.

HK is just a city. Not a city-state. It has never been a city-state.
Don't understand how the seniors are the vulnerable demographic ... didn't have the entire life to save for retirement, plus the golden opportunity to build some equity in housing? I thought most rich people are seniors. How likely is it for a 30 year old to be rich.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

In this city? With all the junior bankers and brokers and lawyers bringing in 6 figure incomes? Pretty likely for a 30 year old to be rich.

 

[ksun]

Lenser:

Ironically, he walks to work, and I would suspect being a member of the middle class whom the truly blessed will label as a member of the hoi polloi that spoils the neighbourhood. You know, this class thing can easily cut both ways (wait till TO property values get Manhattenesque)

AoD

I don't think the truly bless live anywhere close to my apartment. Aren't they living somewhere between Yonge and Bayview north of Bloor south of 401?
Most people near where I live are working professionals just like me, or seniors who downsized. A few penthouse owners in those high end buildings might be rich, but that's just a small percentage.

 

[Lenser]

You were putting words into my mouth to make me "cold-blooded". But fine, I won't argue with that.
How the nature of sprawl and car dependency lead to segregation of people of different wealth? I am confused. - actually posh nabes tend to be in central areas with better transit (Rosedale and Forest Hill are both not too far from transit). Don't people living in Moore Park and Deer Part have much better subway access than those say in eastern Scarborough or Jane/Finch? Sorry, but I don't understand why the rich and poor in the suburbs don't live close to each other for reasons other than social-economic preference. You are being unclear here.

Not so. Take a look at your posher areas of Scarborough and Mississauga. Many of them are hardly well served by mass transit; the dominant form of transport remains the personal automobile. Many residents, especially those living in the residential belt along the lake, will drive to the nearest GO station to get downtown, sure - but they're still driving an awful lot - the size of the parking lots for these stations attest to that.

For that matter, Rosedale and Moore Park began as suburbs serving the city - much further south, clustered along the lake. The city has merely grown up around and swallowed these former enclaves. Given enough time, the same thing happens to other former satellite nodes.

 

[ksun]

even the poshest areas in Mississauga and Scarborough are not nearly as posh as Rosedale, Moore Park and Forest Hill. The point is, in the suburbs, poor and rich people usually don't choose to live close to each other, because they (mostly the rich) simply don't want to. A

re you saying the wealthy will prefer car dependent areas while the poor will choose transit friendly nabes, and that's why they tend not to live together? It is hardly true. In reality, most areas near the Yonge and Bloor line are dominated by more wealthy residents. Thorncliff Park isn't really a super convenient transit hub while much more expensive King west and Yonge/Eglinton is. In Toronto, it is almost a rule of thumb that well off people tend to live closer to Yonge or Bloor st, while poorer folks live further away.

 

[Lenser]

even the poshest areas in Mississauga and Scarborough are not nearly as posh as Rosedale, Moore Park and Forest Hill. The point is, in the suburbs, poor and rich people usually don't choose to live close to each other, because they (mostly the rich) simply don't want to. A

re you saying the wealthy will prefer car dependent areas while the poor will choose transit friendly nabes, and that's why they tend not to live together? It is hardly true. In reality, most areas near the Yonge and Bloor line are dominated by more wealthy residents. Thorncliff Park isn't really a super convenient transit hub while much more expensive King west and Yonge/Eglinton is. In Toronto, it is almost a rule of thumb that well off people tend to live closer to Yonge or Bloor st, while poorer folks live further away.

Now you're splitting hairs as to what constitutes posh. I think you're trying too hard to defend your thesis. There's lots of very dear pockets along the Humber River, for example - nowhere near Young Street (and where Bloor is hardly a bustling avenue with tons of density and abundant commercial activity). Sure, Rosedale has long been a posh corner of Toronto, but not too terribly long ago, Cabbagetown was a much more affordable place to live.

You have to realize that, for the longest time, much of the centre core was hardly expensive; the soaring land values there are a relatively recent phenomenon. What we now call The Entertainment district was once a haven for artists, bands and small businesses chiefly because the rents were dirt cheap. The majority of people in the GTA preferred the suburbs back then - before traffic became the crippling nightmare it is now. What we now call Liberty Village was cheaper still and there were many grand old relics of the previous industrial era - the buildings were old but spacious, sturdily built and great for those looking for cheap warehouse space. I'm talking the 70s and 80s here.

The city continues to evolve - even the huge clubs which defined the Entertainment District back in the 90s and early naughts are now dissappearing - yet another transition as we see condo towers springing up amidst venerable older buildings.

In short, it's a moving target; you might like to talk in absolutes but in vital cities there's a lot of complexity involved.

And no, I'm not saying that "the wealthy will prefer car dependent areas while the poor will choose transit friendly nabes, and that's why they tend not to live together." Don't be silly!

 

[Silence&Motion]

DDA:

You will always need *some* form of government housing - a good chunk of the residents are in the hard to impossible to house category that private landlords wouldn't take and/or wouldn't hesitate to evict. And if one think that's government housing is some anomaly - half of all residents in hypercapitalistic Hong Kong (and more shockingly, almost 90% in Singapore) lives in some form of social housing (rental and ownership).

AoD

Wow, I did not realize that about Hong Kong and Singapore, although it makes sense given the densities and property values.

I sometimes wonder whether a guaranteed minimum income program would ease the need for subsidized housing, or if it would just drive up the cost of rent and put us back where we started.

 

[freshcutgrass]

True, the word slumlord is an exaggeration - instead I'll say that evident seems to show that TCHC is not very good at maintaining their properties. Based on the stock of publicly vs. privately owned buildings in the city, I think that the profit motive does tend to result in better managed buildings overall.

That logic doesn't really work because the private landlords aren't in the business of providing below cost housing. Maintenance requires adequate funds. TCHC has a $billion repair backlog, and a ten year "state of fair repair" capital repair plan. It doesn't matter if you are a for profit private landlord...or public housing...you can't fix things if you don't provide the funds to pay for it.

And if you think the only sub par (or the worst) rental housing in Toronto is owned by TCHC, then you obviously haven't done enough research.

Do we actually know if TCHC "market rent" tenants are actually profitable? Their market rents are typically quite low, maybe a fair market price for living in a TCHC owned building.

They determine market rents based on average rents in the area the building is located in. Buildings with market rent units are fairly good buildings...certainly comparable with the average private rental building. The actual rents tend to be close to the city averages...just slightly below. Based on the ridiculously low vacancy rates of market rent units in TCHC buildings, they could be charging more. Guess how many market rate apartments are available right now in all of downtown Toronto? One!!! A one bedroom at 200 Wellesley @ $987.00/mth That's it. Not a whole lot more in the rest of the city either.

Lots of landlords take tenants on social assistance.

Market rates in Toronto are now too high to qualify for the maximum housing allowance for any combination of social assistance. Any private housing cheap enough to qualify are going to be below market rates, and are that way for a reason. As I said before...people on social assistance are a bad risk, and no smart business man would consider them as a tenant...especially in the current market.

And please consider the numbers before throwing them at this non-existant private housing resource that is supposed to accommodate them. 93,000 units (not all social housing is in buildings owned by TCHC). And another 90,000 households on the waiting list.