|
|
|
- Thread starter SJD_Toronto
- Start date
CN Tower
Banned
She paid less than market rent, taking a spot that someone in real need would otherwise have benefited from. How would you characterize it?
The same polls who had Smitherman running away with it?
edmundoconnor
Active Member
I think everyone is now aware of this story. Can you please give me a number of times it can be brought up, or is there no limit to its frequency? If even Stintz has deleted her tweet about it, I'm guessing her campaign has got pushback about re-animating a dead corpse of a story.
I think the Sun and SAL treat her deadly seriously, because they see her as a genuine threat.
CN Tower
Banned
Young voters have no recollection of the story and need clarification.
I think SAL and the Sun are attempting to paint her for what she really is not what she is pretending to be in order to gain more popularity. But as the election draws close her true colors will sink her chances to lead the City as its mayor.
I think SAL and the Sun are attempting to paint her for what she really is not what she is pretending to be in order to gain more popularity. But as the election draws close her true colors will sink her chances to lead the City as its mayor.
Glen
Senior Member
Um..Yes.
Why would Jack and Olivia, three months prior to the initial Toronto Star report, voluntarily started paying hundreds of dollars more per month in rent?
jml
Active Member
They lived in the co-op at what the co-op considered market rent, not one of the co-op's 30% of units that were set aside for low-income renters. The co-op board itself said that having people like Layton and Chow living there was necessary to its mission.
You're either misinformed or being disingenuous about the nature of the situation because you dislike Chow politically.
the lemur
Senior Member
I think the telling thing is that her opponents can't find anything else on her other than this 23-year-old non-story based on inaccurate reporting and some vague accusations of wasting public funds.
Aside from that, she seems to be doing a pretty good job of appealing to voters as a reasonable person whose priorities overlap with many of theirs (jobs, housing, transit and the all-important platitudes about helping families, somehow, with the thing, and the other thing, you know ...).
If she can keep that up and demonstrate that she's not a scary left-winger who's after their tax money and looking for stuff to blow it on (she did well not to jump the gun in talking about the DRL and how much it might cost and how to pay for it), she will have a good chance appealing to them as a sane, sensible candidate who's looking out for their interests generally and not likely to be involved in drugs, crime, drug crimes, drunk driving, drunken abuse of strangers, reading while driving, endless lying, pissing in parks, exchanging envelopes with shady crims in parking lots ... I could go on.
She's also not that similar to Miller, who appeared to lack a personal connection to many voters. But there's a lot of alarmism going on about what she actually represents - that's what she needs to address.
The media aren't as interested in Tory because he doesn't appear to stand for very much. He waffles on everything and every time he does appear to make a statement, it smacks of opportunism. Suddenly he's in favour of the DRL, because, uh, he tweeted someone else's photo of a crowded subway platform ... but he has no plan on how to pay for it and ultimately his concern appears false. I can't picture the presence of absence of the DRL would make much sense to him when he probably never takes transit.
All the media can really do about Tory is sit back and allow him to make himself appear out of touch and self-contradictory, like the last time he ran for anything.
Stintz is similar, except that so far it seems to be about how many different ways she can put her foot in her mouth.
Soknacki might get some coverage, but he appears to be more of a policy wonk and that doesn't grab media consumers' attention, no matter how well-intentioned.
Tulse
Senior Member
You claimed it was subsidized by the taxpayers. They were in a co-op, and like many many people in co-ops, their rent was not "subsidized" in any direct sense. In fact, the only way that co-ops work is if some people pay higher rents, like Layton and Chow, to "subsidize" those there who can't afford it otherwise. They paid what the co-op board determined was "market" rent for their unit.
They were not taking a subsidized spot. That is simply a lie.
This article covers the issue in more detail. Yes, they lived in a co-op, and yes, like most co-ops, the building received government funding. But the only way such co-ops work to provide well-below-market-value housing to those in need is if others live in the building and pay much higher rents. This is what Layton and Chow did.
Did Smitherman "fade away"?
Tulse
Senior Member
edmundoconnor
Active Member
Clarification is the last thing Chow's opponents are interested in.
the lemur
Senior Member
If they're truly interested in something that happened in 1990, they can find out for themselves.
Well, if the issue is in fact 'what she really is', what other aspects are feeding into this alarmism? Some more recent things, maybe?
I think that a candidate for mayor who can easily and factually explain what the deal was with her housing situation twenty-three years ago when she was complying with the spirit of the regulations and was found not to have engaged in any wrongdoing (and bearing in mind that the issue was first reported by a newspaper that is nominally sympathetic to her, having been fed a story by an opponent of hers on council who turned out to be a deceiver and a cheat in another situation) still has a better chance of resonating with voters than
1. a guy who talks about owning 'five or six condos' like he's not sure of the exact number but won't explain why he pays the bills for what by all appearances is a crack house inhabited by criminals
2. a guy who has never held elected office, who got rich by running a company that generally screwed and overcharged people for cable and cellphone fees and who mentions that someone was taking pictures of his place up north on the weekend, when most people can't relate to being cottage owners.
Glen
Senior Member
So market rent is not the average market price for something similar but rather what the Co-Op decide to arbitrarily label it. From the article that you linked to.......
So what happened with Layton and Chow? Three months before the Toronto Star story broke in June 1990, they started paying an additional $325 per month to bring their rent more closely in line with those charged in the private sector.
CN Tower
Banned
Source: http://torontoist.com/2014/03/did-jack-layton-and-olivia-chow-live-in-subsidized-housing/
Hardly makes her a criminal or a crack smoker, but it's still improper judgement in my opinion. De mortuis nil nisi bonum however.
I am far more concerned about her desire to stymie much needed mass transit program that are an investment in this city's, ie our children's, future and prosperity.
Last edited:
True or false? Campaign "lie detector"
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...ecking_rob_ford_olivia_chow_karen_stintz.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...ecking_rob_ford_olivia_chow_karen_stintz.html
ttk77
Senior Member
The reason they were chipping in the extra became irrelevant once it was established that they were not being subsidized and were in-fact living in a market rate unit. The market rate for non-subsidised co-ops is lower than non-coop market rate because residents perform maintenance and administrative tasks for the co-op themselves. This has been re-iterated on here so many times that anyone who persists in making false claims of "double dipping" is either being dishonest or purposefully ignorant.