picard102
Senior Member
To be fair, she hasn't done a whole lot in general.
|
|
|
- Thread starter SJD_Toronto
- Start date
To be fair, she hasn't done a whole lot in general.
edmundoconnor
Active Member
If you are referring to the Bloor-Danforth extension, surely you mean that money-pit which will benefit a very small area of the city, while doing exactly squat for anyone else. Not even squat: everyone in Toronto has to contribute for decades because some people get sniffy about transferring. In the meantime, residents of northern Etobicoke, northern Scarborough, along Finch, Sheppard east of Don Mills have to accept they will possibly be riding (infrequent) busses for the rest of their lives. If this is sanity, madness sounds appealing.
Last edited:
the lemur
Senior Member
I'll leave it to her campaign people to address that. If she has indeed done nothing very much, it's still a stretch to campaign against her by talking about what she is going to do based on no apparent track record then, isn't it?
the lemur
Senior Member
Which program did she say she intended to stymie, and how?
Last edited:
Soop
Active Member
Daniel Dale @ddale8 6s
Mayoral candidates' camps say there's an evening CityTV debate next Wednesday, March 26.
Mayoral candidates' camps say there's an evening CityTV debate next Wednesday, March 26.
Glen
Senior Member
The reason they started paying the extra $325 per month after being there for nearly five years is the question. Were they concerned with the optics? It also does not negate the PoV that they took advantage of a lower cost rental accommodation. One that many needy families would (and should) have been able to take advantage of.
ehlow
Senior Member
This tweet and the first two replies are hilarious:
https://twitter.com/KarenStintz/status/445632612477194242
https://twitter.com/KarenStintz/status/445632612477194242
Tulse
Senior Member
Well, it's the co-op that sets the rent, so yeah. The point is that Layton and Chow were paying what the board said that non-subsidized spaces should pay. What precisely is the problem here?
blearghhh
New Member
I can't seem to find the long-winded post I wrote describing co-op subsidies in the other thread. Perhaps it got deleted? Anyway, the tl;dr is this:
The Federal Co-op program that the Chow/Layton Co-op was done with, like mine, provided zero money to the co-op itself. Through the CMHC, the program allowed 100% financing, and loan guarantees for the private lenders that were actually loaning the money, but the full amount of money was still due to those private lenders from the co-op. Unless the co-op defaulted in the mortgage, the money given by CMHC to the co-op ends up being exactly nothing. The subsidy comes in where the program also gives subsidies to some people (25% of residents) who were living in that co-op, so they could afford to live there, but that is a subsidy to those people, not the co-op.
In other words, if the subsidies were completely removed, or didn't exist to begin with, the only difference would be that the subsidized residents wouldn't be there. The housing charge (market rent) would not change for the people who lived there in non-subsidized places.
No, the market rent is not as much as what private residences charge, but that is because we don't spend as much. The decor is community-centre chic, and a lot of the work is done by volunteers.
I think the Star's original issue was that there is a limited number of Co-Op spaces, with waiting lists for residents, and rules or not, subsidies or not, affordable housing spaces like in the coops, even at 'market' rents are a limited resource that are needed by some people more than it was needed by J&O. On the other hand, they voluntarily gave extra money to the co-op while they were there, and within a couple years of being married, they moved out and into a house anyway, which all to me seems pretty reasonable.
All in all, this is a smear based on some pretty dang spurious assumptions. It's not quite swift-boat level disgusting, but it's on the same continuum.
The Federal Co-op program that the Chow/Layton Co-op was done with, like mine, provided zero money to the co-op itself. Through the CMHC, the program allowed 100% financing, and loan guarantees for the private lenders that were actually loaning the money, but the full amount of money was still due to those private lenders from the co-op. Unless the co-op defaulted in the mortgage, the money given by CMHC to the co-op ends up being exactly nothing. The subsidy comes in where the program also gives subsidies to some people (25% of residents) who were living in that co-op, so they could afford to live there, but that is a subsidy to those people, not the co-op.
In other words, if the subsidies were completely removed, or didn't exist to begin with, the only difference would be that the subsidized residents wouldn't be there. The housing charge (market rent) would not change for the people who lived there in non-subsidized places.
No, the market rent is not as much as what private residences charge, but that is because we don't spend as much. The decor is community-centre chic, and a lot of the work is done by volunteers.
I think the Star's original issue was that there is a limited number of Co-Op spaces, with waiting lists for residents, and rules or not, subsidies or not, affordable housing spaces like in the coops, even at 'market' rents are a limited resource that are needed by some people more than it was needed by J&O. On the other hand, they voluntarily gave extra money to the co-op while they were there, and within a couple years of being married, they moved out and into a house anyway, which all to me seems pretty reasonable.
All in all, this is a smear based on some pretty dang spurious assumptions. It's not quite swift-boat level disgusting, but it's on the same continuum.
Tulse
Senior Member
retailestate
Active Member
I work for a co-op as an administrator and the one thing NOT mentioned here is that the (edit) ratio of subsidized units vs the number of market units is HARD SET.
Market Rent units go to those that can demonstrate that they have a record of paying - and can afford to pay their Housing Charges on time. Subsidies are dictated by the city and are applied to the members that qualify for them. Rarely do you have somebody living in a Market Rent Unit EVER qualifying for a subsidy - tho sometimes someone will climb out of a subsidy situation and begin paying market rent (which to the maintaining the hard set ratio can be problematic for the administrators).
So the idea that Chow and Layton were taking resources from those in need is "bunk"!
There are also different flavors of these programs (municipal, provincial and federal).
The system doesn't work the way most think it might...
Last edited:
dforthandbview
Senior Member
All five major candidates are confirmed to attend. Good. Last summer Ford said he wouldn't debate until after Sept. 12. Glad he changed his mind.
retailestate
Active Member
Various committees maintain gardening, man Arrears Committees, Finance Committees and sometimes maintenance like Spring Cleaning and such. By our by-laws members are "supposed to" volunteer 10 to 20 hours per month... but we do run out of tasks for everyone to have something to do so a lot of non critical tasks get rotated about...
edmundoconnor
Active Member
In all the debates, I'm guessing Ford will simply retreat to his talking points, and will hunker behind them, come what may. He knows he is not going to convince anyone, and so he will repeating the talking points ad nauseam so it gets hammered into every Ford supporter's head.
Drug use? Billion dollars saved!
Consorting with criminals? Subways, subways, subways!
Under police investigation? Labour peace! (except for those commie librarians)
No clue how to pay for subways? Respect the taxpayer!
Drug use? Billion dollars saved!
Consorting with criminals? Subways, subways, subways!
Under police investigation? Labour peace! (except for those commie librarians)
No clue how to pay for subways? Respect the taxpayer!
CN Tower
Banned
"Chow said last week that the relief line should be built "eventually." She has not laid out her transit priorities other than her signature current policy: cancelling the planned three-stop Scarborough subway extension, and related tax hike, and building the less expensive seven-stop light rail line that was originally planned."
That subway is critical to the continued growth of this city. Is should not be cancelled. Building underground rapid transit is the best investment of capital that this city could make in its future.