|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
- Status
mrtinfoilsocket
Active Member
Absolutely right and that's the key. Just because government subsidizes something or has a beneficial program available that doesn't somehow make it "wrong" to partake in said thing - regardless of your income - AS LONG AS YOU QUALIFY (which Jack did) If the rules say you're allowed then one can only assume that this was the intent of that government rule in the first place. Just like my earlier example of tax credits for charitable donations. I don't NEED that tax break and I certainly can afford to not claim them but I do (and everybody does) because the rules say I'm allowed - Even though it costs the government tax revenue.
mrtinfoilsocket
Active Member
Yes - I'd honestly be fine with that. Rules are for everybody - if that's somehow wrong then change the rules.
mrtinfoilsocket
Active Member
That's not much cheaper then one bedroom rentals in the (for-profit) building I live and in my building you'd get a parking spot.
Lets say the government builds a community center with a fitness center and the membership rates are cheaper than Good Life. If an upper middle class person signs up at the community center fitness center are they breaking the imaginary rule that Jack Layton was breaking? It's more or less the same thing.
scar_resident
New Member
I have no problem with these rules. If however the person making over 6 figures paying $800 a month while over 500 people are waiting for that unit (some of them needing subsidized housing), goes public and says we need more affordable housing, why would that person first not give up their unit to someone that truly cannot afford real market rents.
If someone gets in line for a free lunch when they can afford to buy their own lunch and says I'll pay $5 for the lunch so it doesn't matter that I took a free sandwich out of someone's mouth, I do see a problem with that. **Especially if one of the reasons for getting in that line is for a photo op to show that they are just like the common man.
Last edited:
scar_resident
New Member
If there were only 100 spots at the community centre with a wait list of 300 people with half of them low income families with children, then yes.
The Y does not limit the number of memberships so it is not comparable. There is a finite number of units in co-op buildings.
The Y does not limit the number of memberships so it is not comparable. There is a finite number of units in co-op buildings.
mrtinfoilsocket
Active Member
So where does that logic end? Does an upper middle class person paying $1300 a month for market rent in a for profit building lose their right to claim that the city needs more affordable housing? After all, they could afford to go buy a big house in the burbs and someone else "less" rich could live in that unit.
I live in a rental apartment because frankly I don't want to own a house or condo even though I could afford to. I'm living well below my means but frankly there are people less well off who would probably like my unit. I don't feel guilty about it because I walked into the rental office and applied for it before they did. Anybody could have. First come, first serve.
ShonTron
Moderator
Ugh. The Jack-Layton-lived-in-public-housing myth and the people who cling to that are akin to - and almost as aggravating as - the Birthers.
I'd actually respect the bank VP for not isolating him/herself in Rosedale or Forest Hill and not needing to feel like he/she has to keep up appearances. A co-op requires a few hours a week of contibutions, so that bank VP is helping out (perhaps serving as the co-op's treasurer, or doing something different, like common element gardening). The banks are often accused (and rightly so) for being out of touch. That's a great way of being in touch. Co-ops work because many are built with the idea of having mixed incomes, and isn't taking an affordable unit from someone who needs it.
It's too bad we're not building more of these types of housing. The idea really appeals to me.
Last edited:
mrtinfoilsocket
Active Member
Lots of things in life are finite and the people who choose to buy them first get them. We don't walk around calling it fraud or hypocrisy.
I believe in food banks but if I go to the store and a food item is on sale I buy it even if its the last one. I don't worry about "Oh I should leave this for someone more needy".
scar_resident
New Member
As mentioned for a given area co-op market rates are usually below for profit market rental rates.
Most for profit buildings do not have 5 year waiting lists. There is a limited supply of co-op units and each individual unit is not designated market or subsidized the overall portfolio is managed for the appropriate mix. It is entirely probable that someone making hundreds of thousands of dollars is taking up a unit for someone needing subsidized housing. If that person than goes out publicly says the government needs to create more subsidized housing (but I have no intention of giving up my unit to create one more space) than I would have a pretty low opinion of that person.
While most co-ops mention something about helping out around the building, the majority of tenants usually don't.
scar_resident
New Member
Would you go to the food bank and pay for items?
ttk77
Senior Member
Terrible analogy. Food banks are for those in need. Grocery stores, like co-ops, are for everybody.
bobbob911
Active Member
Co-ops are not charities. Food Banks are. The analogy is flawed.
scar_resident
New Member
Co-ops are not like grocery stores. The grocery stores do not stand in front and determine that only a certain number of people are allowed in, then tell everyone else we'll put your name on a list and let you know when you can get in.
If you went to a grocery store and there was a special on milk with a limit of 4 would you send your spouse and each of your children in so you could each buy the limit of 4, then the store is out of stock. Do you now complain that the store should have more stock because there are people who can only afford to buy milk when it's on sale?
If you went to a grocery store and there was a special on milk with a limit of 4 would you send your spouse and each of your children in so you could each buy the limit of 4, then the store is out of stock. Do you now complain that the store should have more stock because there are people who can only afford to buy milk when it's on sale?
Tulse
Senior Member
Almost all co-ops have a specified and fixed number of subsidized housing spots. Not all spots can be subsidized, or the co-op can't cover its costs -- that's how a mixed-income property works, with those who can pay full rent helping to cover the subsidized. A critical mass of non-subsidized rent-payers are needed for the system to work.
Co-ops are not the same a public housing, in that they don't get government money to cover their ongoing operations -- they have to at least break even, and they do so by having a number of units occupied by people who are willing to pay full-market rent in a facility that is usually not nearly as fancy as a commercial apartment. It's folks like Layton and Chow, paying full rent, who make the co-op system work, and co-ops recognize this by specifying that only a certain number of units can be subsidized.
So what evidence do you have that the unit Layton and Chow had would have been otherwise designated for someone needing subsidized housing? (According to this piece, it most certainly wouldn't.)
- Status