News   May 10, 2024
 1.9K     2 
News   May 10, 2024
 3.1K     0 
News   May 10, 2024
 1.4K     0 

Some Councillors Urge TCHC to Sell Detached Houses

FutureMayor

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
419
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississauga
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING

Agency defends expensive homes
JEFF GRAY

November 16, 2007

Saying its tenants shouldn't be pushed out by skyrocketing property prices, Toronto Community Housing Corp. responded to questions yesterday from two city councillors about the subsidized housing agency's ownership of three homes in one of Toronto's more desirable neighbourhoods.

The agency said it had already started its own review of its real estate holdings a few months ago. But in a strongly worded statement, the TCHC also insisted that the single-family homes, mostly with tenants who pay rents that rise with their income, serve a valid purpose.

"Our tenants have a right to live in all neighbourhoods of the city, and Toronto Community Housing does not believe that high property values fuelled by speculation and gentrification should mean our tenants are displaced to low-income neighbourhoods," the statement reads. "A healthy city is an inclusive one."

Councillor Case Ootes (Ward 29, Toronto-Danforth) plans to ask city council next week to order housing officials to examine the benefits of selling three houses it owns on Ellerbeck Street in Playter Estates, near Broadview and Danforth Avenues, and moving the tenants elsewhere. All three homes have been assessed at around $500,000, but are likely worth more than that, located as they are in one of the city's hottest real estate markets.

"It seems to me it's not a very effective way of spending our very limited social housing money," Mr. Ootes said in an interview.

Mr. Ootes and Denzil Minnan-Wong (Ward 34, Don Valley East) - both critics of Mayor David Miller - also want the cash-strapped housing authority to look into selling the approximately 500 single-family homes it owns across the city, and possibly using the proceeds to fix the agency's many crumbling high-rises or to provide rent subsidies to house families in cheaper apartments.

Toronto Community Housing spokeswoman Kristin Jenkins said the agency had already, at the request of its board, started a comprehensive review of all of its real estate. She added that the agency is prohibited by provincial law from reducing the number, or the size, of its affordable housing stock, meaning it would have to replace whatever properties were sold.

Some of the single-family homes, including those on Ellerbeck, were acquired by Toronto Community Housing's predecessors, Ms. Jenkins said, as part of a program aimed at integrating public-housing tenants into the community.

Others were acquired by the city or the province, often by expropriation for other purposes, and then declared surplus and handed over for affordable housing.

Mr. Ootes said he had no quarrel with the idea of integrating public housing tenants into the community at large, which is the philosophy behind the current project to revitalize Regent Park.

"I'm all for not creating ghettos," Mr. Ootes said. But he argued that this goal could be achieved using more economical apartments.

Nancy Usalcas, 43, a single mother on social assistance who lives in one of the houses on Ellerbeck, said she believes neighbourhoods where rich and poor live together are good for the city. And she said she was upset that Mr. Ootes would suggest that her home should be sold without telling residents first.

The mother of two teenagers said she spoke to him in front of her home yesterday, as a local TV crew looked on.

"It's funny how he could just dismiss me like that," she said. "Because I am not a millionaire, I shouldn't be allowed to live in the neighbourhood and my kids shouldn't be allowed to go to a good school? What the heck is that?"

Councillor Joe Mihevc (Ward 21, St. Paul's) accused Mr. Ootes of targeting the poor by singling out addresses in his ward. "He's basically put up a big sign saying 'Poorer people in our community, not welcome here,' " Mr. Mihevc said.

Louroz
 
An Open Letter to Councillors Case Ootes and Denzil Minnan-Wong

November 16, 2007

Dear Councillors:

I was outraged to read in today’s Globe and Mail your proposal to ask city council next week to order housing officials to examine the benefits of selling three houses it owns on Ellerbeck Street in Playter Estates, near Broadview and Danforth Avenues, and moving the tenants elsewhere.

Further adding to my anger is the proposal from both of you to sell the remaining 500 single-family across the city. These are 500 families and lives you are displacing with your misguided proposal. You should be ashamed for even proposing it!

I fully support the Toronto Community Housing and also believe that tenants have a right to live in all neighbourhoods of the city, and that high property values fuelled by speculation and gentrification should mean tenants are displaced to low-income neighbourhoods.

“A healthy city IS an inclusive one!â€

Yours for an even stronger Toronto for all,
Louroz Mercader
647.230.9722

I NEED YOUR HELP! I need YOU to also get MAD and have your VOICE heard!

Please join the campaign to save these homes write or call these councillors to have your voice of opposition heard! Please feel free to use my above letter as a template for your e-mail:

councillor_ootes@toronto.ca
Phone: 416-392-4032
Constituency Office: 416-397-4670

councillor_minnan-wong@toronto.ca
Phone: 416-397-9256

Louroz
 
The question boils down to this... what is healthier, mixed neighborhoods or more housing? I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it. Clearly the city/province will only budget a certain amount for affordable housing so is the offset of having a few families living better outweight the needs of many families having somewhere to live but in "ghetto" neighborhoods?

For those reasons, I could not really give my support for either, nor could I condemn either train of thought. Either way it is a no-win situation.
 
What if 4 single-family houses could be sold and the money used to build a small apartment building that could house 6 families in the same neighbourhood?
 
What if 4 single-family houses could be sold and the money used to build a small apartment building that could house 6 families in the same neighbourhood?

But the fact is, you could also build a potential 12 family complex in a cheaper neighborhood...

That's the whole point really. What would be the best? The fact is, there is no way to tell as none of us can see the future.

Perhaps another view is needed? Sell all high income lands then builds more homes in so-called "ghettos" but also budget some for social services or something of the sort (or perhaps a community sensitive police station or the like)?

The reality is there are no completely bad ideas just as there are no completely good ones until it's looked at in hindsight.
 
Property values shouldn't affect construction costs to that extent, especially when the city already owns plenty of land in neighbourhoods good and bad all over the city.
 
I fully support the Toronto Community Housing and also believe that tenants have a right to live in all neighbourhoods of the city, and that high property values fuelled by speculation and gentrification should mean tenants are displaced to low-income neighbourhoods.

Don't you mean "and that high property values fuelled by speculation and gentrification should not mean tenants are displaced to low-income neighbourhoods."?
 
"Our tenants have a right to live in all neighbourhoods of the city, and Toronto Community Housing does not believe that high property values fuelled by speculation and gentrification should mean our tenants are displaced to low-income neighbourhoods," the statement reads. "A healthy city is an inclusive one."

That is a straw-man. No one is being denied the right to live in any neighborhood. What is being questioned, and rightfully, is the cost effectiveness. Furthermore is it fair to have different qualities of social housing for differenent people?

I think that it is poor use of tax dollars.
 
I agree that it's just plain inefficient to have subsidized housing in single-family homes given the cost of that housing. Obviously the women who lives in that house doesn't want to live in an apartment, but what about all the people who are now on the waiting list? Shouldn't the priority be to have more people in decent housing instead of providing expensive housing for a select few?

Nevermind the fact that there are many people living without financial assistance in this city who can't afford to live in a single family home. Why should these lucky families get such a better deal?
 
Who says it has to be apartments, though? Selling those 3 houses might get them $2 million - they could build a fair number of townhouses for that.
 
Glen:

No one is being denied the right to live in any neighborhood. What is being questioned, and rightfully, is the cost effectiveness. Furthermore is it fair to have different qualities of social housing for differenent people?

I think that it is poor use of tax dollars.

Alas, it isn't like Ootes is going to come out and say that having these individuals, who is of a lower socioeconomic class, does not belong on the spot, hence the "poor use of tax dollars" strawman. Ditto the "differental qualities of social housing for different people" argument.

Like CDL suggested, since those pieces of property are TCHC owned, why don't we tear them down and replace them with higher density structures - that way, they don't have to go out and look for alternate building sites, which is also a waste of tax dollars, in order to house these individuals.

DDA:

Nevermind the fact that there are many people living without financial assistance in this city who can't afford to live in a single family home. Why should these lucky families get such a better deal?

So for the sake of perceived fairness, one should settle for the lowest common denominator of service quality? That's a little perverse, wouldn't you say? Besides, the whole point of the waiting list is fairness - your name comes up when the next unit is available, if you don't want it, reject - do it 3 times and you end up at the bottom of the wait list again.

Besides, there are always some degree of inequity or another - you can argue those who are going to settled in the new Regent Park are going to be priviledged, given the accessibility of the location, the newness of the buildings, etc. What's the solution, put them all in Jane and Finch so that everyone's equal?

AoD
 
I d like to see TCHC focus on larger lots(ex. Regent Park) and later decide what to do about the smaller ones.
 
Let's see. A huge majority of the taxpayers who are funding those Player Estate homes cannot afford to live there themselves. Instead, the taxpayers have to drive an hour to get to work instead of walking to a subway station 3 minutes away, have to drive to the nearest mall for groceries because they can't walk to the Danforth to shop, can't enjoy downtown life because they live out in the sticks.

What's fair about that? Why should a few lucky individuals, who probably made some stupid life decisions, win a housing lottery funded by harder-working people who made good decisions and stayed out of trouble, went to school and got an education, found a job and saved the down payment for a house, and can only afford to buy out-of-town in part because their taxes go to pay for housing freebies for the lottery winners?

Where is the fairness in that? Why aren't these subsidized units moved to the fringes of the city where land is much cheaper and cry me a frigging river if the poor lottery winners have to hop a 60 minute bus-ride to get to work like most of the rest of us.
 
Alas, it isn't like Ootes is going to come out and say that having these individuals, who is of a lower socioeconomic class, does not belong on the spot, hence the "poor use of tax dollars" strawman. Ditto the "differental qualities of social housing for different people" argument.
You are putting words in his mouth. By the same logic why should only the rich be able to buy a penthouse and 1 Bloor?

Like CDL suggested, since those pieces of property are TCHC owned, why don't we tear them down and replace them with higher density structures - that way, they don't have to go out and look for alternate building sites, which is also a waste of tax dollars, in order to house these individuals.

For the same reason no amount of money would allow anyone to build a bungalow and King and Bay. Conformity to zoning laws.




So for the sake of perceived fairness, one should settle for the lowest common denominator of service quality?

No, but it certainly should be below the median of the non subsidised average.

Besides, there are always some degree of inequity or another - you can argue those who are going to settled in the new Regent Park are going to be priviledged, given the accessibility of the location, the newness of the buildings, etc. What's the solution, put them all in Jane and Finch so that everyone's equal?

But you seem to be arguing that there should not be any degree of inequity. Which is it?
 
Let's see. A huge majority of the taxpayers who are funding those Player Estate homes cannot afford to live there themselves. Instead, the taxpayers have to drive an hour to get to work instead of walking to a subway station 3 minutes away, have to drive to the nearest mall for groceries because they can't walk to the Danforth to shop, can't enjoy downtown life because they live out in the sticks.

What's fair about that? Why should a few lucky individuals, who probably made some stupid life decisions, win a housing lottery funded by harder-working people who made good decisions and stayed out of trouble, went to school and got an education, found a job and saved the down payment for a house, and can only afford to buy out-of-town in part because their taxes go to pay for housing freebies for the lottery winners?

Where is the fairness in that? Why aren't these subsidized units moved to the fringes of the city where land is much cheaper and cry me a frigging river if the poor lottery winners have to hop a 60 minute bus-ride to get to work like most of the rest of us.

"RUSH THE VOTE"
 

Back
Top