[Peepers]

It's going to rankle our pc feathers, but perhaps Ottawa should be be paying for much of Toronto's social housing, since much of the TCHC population I see appear to be longterm failed immigrants or their first generation descendants.

If any level of government should be picking up the tab it absolutely should be Ottawa. Why should the City of Toronto be in the Refugee resettlement business? Next to Policing costs the second largest item in the city's budget is housing! Of course the city gets hundreds of millions from Queen's park but does this cover all the city's costs associated with refugee resettlement? Also, Queen's Park only has so much money (essentially it's broke). Any money it gives the city for housing is money that is not available for public transit and repairing our roads.

If I was Mayor Ford I would be going to Ottawa with a demand that they pick up these costs so that we can get on with building subways and repairing our roads. Ultimately Ottawa needs to shut-off the flow of refugees entering Canada. Last year we admitted 27,000 refugees (most of them settling in Toronto). Compare this to the United States. In the last ten years the United States has admitted anywhere from 40,000 - 80,000 asylum seekers. The United States has an economy more than ten times larger than Canada. Based on these numbers Canada should only be allowing 4,000-8,000 refugees a year. Why are we taking in three times this number? There is no obligation for Canada to accept these numbers of refugees.

 

[Memph]

How does forcing the 905 to legalize basement apartments and allowing reconfiguring of existing units result in more rental units? Are we forcing people to live in smaller spaces?

How is allowing people to live in smaller spaces the same thing as forcing them to live in smaller spaces? There's a big difference. Besides, many homes have loads of underutilized space. My parents have a 1800 sf bungalow with a ~1400 sf raised basement (ie well lit). My sister and I are in university, so most of the time, you have 2 people (and a dog) living in a house with 3 bedrooms + den and 2 bathrooms plus a large kitchen/dining room and large living room. The basement has a guest bedroom, a bathroom, and a large room that could easily be converted into a living, kitchen and dining area that's currently just used as a tv room. You could easily have 2 units that would be twice the size of a typical condo and hold no more people.

Again, we're not forcing people to live in smaller spaces. I don't think my parents have really thought about renting out their basement, and they've paid off their mortgage and are in a stable financial situation, so they don't really need to (plus maybe they would be reluctant to do so until my sister and I are out of university and have stable jobs and more permanent apartments). However, I'm sure there are plenty of empty nesters who would have more use for the extra rental income than the extra space, and plenty of renters who would rather have an apartment of their own than share one with their cousins or whatever the 50k people on public housing waiting lists are doing. Not to mention you could probably get more space at a lower price in basements than in highrise towers (and especially compared to new condos).

So if anything, I would argue that we were forcing renters to live in smaller spaces and depriving homeowners of potential extra income when basement apartments were illegal.

 

[nfitz]

If I'm running a business why should the government dictate how much I should pay my staff?

Probably for the same reasons that the government says you shouldn't rape your wife or says you can marry who you want. Because many humans are unethical, self-centred, and evil - and will be quick to take advantage of another.

Protecting basic human rights is a lot different than regulating you to death.

 

[CN Tower]

Nope, it's not a poor analogy. It's one actual economists use - that's where I got it from.

Enforcing the rule of law is not equivalent to enacting laws that go against the core principals of free market capitalism. You are wrong (& tediously tiresome so I won't be responding to you any longer).

 

[CN Tower]

Probably for the same reasons that the government says you shouldn't rape your wife or says you can marry who you want. Because many humans are unethical, self-centred, and evil - and will be quick to take advantage of another.

Protecting basic human rights is a lot different than regulating you to death.

Terrific argument for a socialist.

 

[Peepers]

This is turning out to be a timely topic. The Toronto SUN has a story on their website on the subject of putting public housing in Condo's

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/03/putting-affordable-housing-units-in-condos

Reading the many comments it would appear that reader sentiment is nearly 100% opposed to Adam Vaughan's harebrained "solution" to the affordable housing problem.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Why is it a harebrained idea (it's certainly not a "solution") to integrate a small percentage of affordable housing within condos as part of section 37 provisions?

 

[Peepers]

Why is it a harebrained idea (it's certainly not a "solution") to integrate a small percentage of affordable housing within condos as part of section 37 provisions?

Because all you are doing is housing a handful of people in ultra-luxurious condo's and charging them a rent that would not even cover the common element charges and taxes. Units in this tower sell from $500,000 to well over a million. The value of these 12 units must be at least $6 Million in total. Imagine instead if the city took this $6 Million and directed it towards repairs on existing units. With a budget of $10,000 per unit you could bring 600 apartments up to acceptable standards. 600 households would go from living in deplorable living conditions to acceptable living conditions. Isn't that better than letting 12 lucky households live in the lap of luxury?

Of course this would mean that section 37 funds would go to needy people across Toronto and that is something that Adam Vaughan would not stand for. He (along with the other downtown Councillors) see section 37 as their own money to be used towards their own pet-projects . They don't give a damn if the money could be better spent helping those in greater need outside their ward.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Because all you are doing is housing a handful of people in ultra-luxurious condo's and charging them a rent that would not even cover the common element charges and taxes. Units in this tower sell from $500,000 to well over a million. The value of these 12 units must be at least $6 Million in total. .

But you're assuming the city would be paying fair market value for those condos. Instead, the socialist mindset is that the city is entitled to those condos at no or little cost as a tax on the condo builder.

Basically it goes like this, the builder is going to make a large profit on the building, and needs the city to permit the construction, and therefore since the builder can't make that profit without the city, the city should take the opportunity to coerce some units off the builder for the city's own purpose.

To the socialist this is a perfectly legit idea, and they'll quickly cue a list of European or other cities where builders are forced to give units to the local municipality in order to get permission to build. Again, this is all about the "share the wealth" ideal.

 

[Peepers]

But you're assuming the city would be paying fair market value for those condos. Instead, the socialist mindset is that the city is entitled to those condos at no or little cost as a tax on the condo builder.

Basically it goes like this, the builder is going to make a large profit on the building, and needs the city to permit the construction, and therefore since the builder can't make that profit without the city, the city should take the opportunity to coerce some units off the builder for the city's own purpose.

To the socialist this is a perfectly legit idea, and they'll quickly cue a list of European or other cities where builders are forced to give units to the local municipality in order to get permission to build. Again, this is all about the "share the wealth" ideal.

No, I am not assuming that the city will be paying fair market value for these condo's. They will be "given" these 12 units (through the process of extortion you mentioned) that have a fair market value of at least $6 Million. If socialists like Adam Vaughan were really concerned about "sharing the wealth" he would ask for $6 Million in cash instead and direct that money to carrying out much needed repairs on 600 TCHC units. Instead he has used his power to secure 12 luxury waterfront condo's for the Jack & Olivia's of this world to live in the lap of luxury for next to nothing!

 

[nfitz]

Terrific argument for a socialist.

A minimum wage and protecting basic human rights is socialist?

Even Alberta has a minimum wage almost as high as Ontario's after over 40 years of Conservative rule. And even Harper has been protecting basic human rights, and advocating they be protected in other countries.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A minimum wage and protecting basic human rights is socialist?

Guaranteed income and housing is a human right?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

According to Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Canada (along with the UK) is a signatory of, it is:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Now one can argue it's an ideal to strive for, not a commitment per se - but even then there is nothing particularly "socialist" about it, unless you call Canada and others "socialist" in 1948.

Peepers:

No, I am not assuming that the city will be paying fair market value for these condo's. They will be "given" these 12 units (through the process of extortion you mentioned) that have a fair market value of at least $6 Million. If socialists like Adam Vaughan were really concerned about "sharing the wealth" he would ask for $6 Million in cash instead and direct that money to carrying out much needed repairs on 600 TCHC units. Instead he has used his power to secure 12 luxury waterfront condo's for the Jack & Olivia's of this world to live in the lap of luxury for next to nothing!

First, you try "extorting" $6M vs. 12 units from a developer and guess which one they will chose and second, rehashing that whole Jack & Olivia episode when it's already been proven to be false what, 2 decades ago is just old. Like seriously, the thread is about solutions, not positioning the conversation so that you can rant the same old rants you do in other threads.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I love it when people try to label me. Makes me laugh uncontrollably inside. Your ignorance is abhorant. I believe in a free market system. If I'm running a business why should the government dictate how much I should pay my staff? Too much intervention for me. I also believe in a very strong safety net for things like medical care, education & basic housing. I find the abuse of the very socially compassionate system that we have in Ontario utterly deplorable.

How do you feel about unions and their impact on the current fiscal crisis in Ontario?

http://economistsview.typepad.com/e...ampaign=Feed:+typepad/Kupd+(Economist's+View)

Very thoughtful take by a US economist on their current minimum wage debate. Personally, I think the abuse you cite is mostly apocryphal. And, as for your union question, I think their impact on the current fiscal deficit in Ontario is nowhere near the impact of falling tax revenues and higher health care costs due to aging demographics.

 

[TOperson]

Enforcing the rule of law is not equivalent to enacting laws that go against the core principals of free market capitalism. You are wrong (& tediously tiresome so I won't be responding to you any longer).

It's "principles". Sigh.

And we already have LOTS of laws that go against free-market capitalism. All the labour and environmental laws, for just a couple examples.

Believing that a free market trumps other concerns is merely a political position, not an immutable fact. If enough people in a democratic society decide the free market should take a back seat, then so be it. It's a perfectly valid belief.

Anyway, could you at least explain how raising the minimum wage "punishes" hard work?