News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 383     0 

TCHC fire sale?

archanfel said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
freshcutgrass said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have no intention to ask anybody to be like me. Everybody should be free to make personal choices. I just don't want to pay for other people's choices.
 
I just don't want to pay for other people's choices.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't want to, but you have two choices...either get involved personally and deal with it....or go about your business and pay someone else to deal with it. But there's no way of getting around the fact that it needs to be dealt with.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Maybe you don't want to, but you have two choices...either get involved personally and deal with it....or go about your business and pay someone else to deal with it. But there's no way of getting around the fact that it needs to be dealt with.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to deal with. Everybody should be free to make choices and everybody should pay or get rewarded for their choices. The government acts like an independent arbitrator to resolve conflicts between personal freedoms. Simplify the criminal code, but punish criminals severely. Move to a consumption based tax system. Remove minimum salary and rent control, let the market decide labour costs and rent level.
 
GraphicMatt said:
When you get older you will look back on this libertarian phase with regret.
Click to expand...

Kind of funny how older people are more likely to vote for Rob Ford, no? :)

Regrettably, as people grow older, they are more likely to lose the liberal part of the libertarianism, not the other way around. That's why conservatives have more support among older people.
 
Conservatism is not libertarianism. I don't have an issue with balanced conservative ideology but this "Who needs government?" libertarian shit is a different animal altogether.
 
As the old saying goes. If you're under 30 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you're over 30 and not a conservative you have no brains...

WRT to TCHC I am left wondering why everyone is making this about Rob Ford and not about the reckless spending at the TCHC. If this were one of the Banks, or Auto companies throwing money at ineffective CEO's would there not be an uproar. Both private and public should be equally punished don't you agree?
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
As the old saying goes. If you're under 30 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you're over 30 and not a conservative you have no brains...

WRT to TCHC I am left wondering why everyone is making this about Rob Ford and not about the reckless spending at the TCHC. If this were one of the Banks, or Auto companies throwing money at ineffective CEO's would there not be an uproar. Both private and public should be equally punished don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Well, it feels like Ford is using this uproar over TCHC misspending to rush towards the privatization of the entire system without any meaningful discussion on the problems themselves.
 
Last edited:
Jonny5 said:
CP24 is reporting TCHC lost $41.4 million investing in the stock market!

EDIT: Ah this is yesterday's news it turns out.
Did The Star cover thisat all? I can't find the report.
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder why a govt department should be dumping money into the stock market. But you know, it could be a way of embezzling money as well. For example, you buy a certain stock, then you sell it off for a profit to someone else. On tv shows they usually show someone who owns the stock and selling it for a high price to the company they are trading on behalf of. Hence money from company to money to their own pockets. It's also a tactic used by some people to take over a company. Bankrupt a company you work for by selling goods at steep discounts to a company they own (of course not directly in their own name).
 
jje1000 said:
Well, it feels like Ford is using this uproar over TCHC misspending to rush towards the privatization of the entire system without any meaningful discussion on the problems themselves.
Click to expand...

Ford seems to have his agenda and he's looking for anything to justiufy his actions. He really thinks he's god and he'll do whatever the hell he wasnts, no matter what anybody else wants. He consults with nobody but his big brother. Is this the way to run a city? The guy is a megalomaniac.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Conservatism is not libertarianism. I don't have an issue with balanced conservative ideology but this "Who needs government?" libertarian shit is a different animal altogether.
Click to expand...

Does Rob Ford represent "balanced conservative ideology"? Because older people voted for him, not say Mr. Smitherman.

As I suspected, liberalism and "balanced" conservatism are one and the same ... what's the word you used? "shit"? Right, they are the same "shit" fundamentally. :) I am glad you will have no "issue" with a conservative provincial government. I don't like the conservatives in particular (Hudak the family guy, yeah right), but anybody is better than the current government.

Torontovibe said:
Ford seems to have his agenda and he's looking for anything to justiufy his actions. He really thinks he's god and he'll do whatever the hell he wasnts, no matter what anybody else wants. He consults with nobody but his big brother. Is this the way to run a city? The guy is a megalomaniac.
Click to expand...

Did Mr. Miller asked for Mr. Ford's input when he was mayor? Did you forget how he rammed the land transfer tax and vehicle tax through council despite the fact the council was clearly against them? How about Mr. McGuinty, who did he consult with when he imposed the Health Premium or the HST or the eco fee or the higher utility bill? How about the previous provincial government when they downloaded responsibilities yet kept the power?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top