[AlvinofDiaspar]

Glen:

You are putting words in his mouth. By the same logic why should only the rich be able to buy a penthouse and 1 Bloor?

I am merely saying what he hadn't had the balls to say, and had to find some way to sugar-coat the business as some sort of equity issue. Besides, there is no "tax dollars" involved - the property is already owned by the city - it isn't shelling out extra money just so that these individuals in a "superior accomodation". (And keep in mind, I wouldn't be a tad surprised if these properties are acquired at a time when interest in inner-city housing is relatively low). On the other hand, One Bloor isn't city-owned. So your logic is a little flawed. Besides, in case you don't know, there are a few TCHC buildings within 5 to 10 minutes walk from the 1 Bloor site, in the Yorkville area. Now I am sure if you tear those down and sell the land (which is worth million plus, without a doubt, especially if you take into account of rezoning potential), it'd be more "economically effective". But is it rational, considering the amount of investments made as well as the need to replace the units in order to house these said individuals? Indeed, by this logic, one should not even bother to build any subsidized properties in the old City of Toronto for the same reason.

For the same reason no amount of money would allow anyone to build a bungalow and King and Bay. Conformity to zoning laws.

Ah, zoning laws - one of the greatest tools for socioeconomic segregation, if one knows what to do with it. Tell me, what effects will the zoning laws produce if the area is predominantly single detached housing, and that there was no properties that is owned by a public authority for the purposes of social housing in the said built-form? There is a reason why areas like Forest Hill/North Toronto is relatively devoid of public housing. As Ootes said, "I'm all for not creating ghettos...but he argued that this goal could be achieved using more economical apartments." He is a seasoned councillor, he knows exactly what effects the zoning by-laws can produce...or prevent from happening.

No, but it certainly should be below the median of the non subsidised average.

So we should do that, even if it means disposing existing properties and having to spend money to create new units (which cause all kinds of "inefficiencies", such as having to hire third party services), just so that we can be "equitable", vis-a-vis the "median". Rather pervese, if you ask me.

But you seem to be arguing that there should not be any degree of inequity. Which is it?

Hmm, let me see, we have someone that is opposed to building social housing and we're talking about inequity. Small irony.

What me worry:

Let's see. A huge majority of the taxpayers who are funding those Player Estate homes cannot afford to live there themselves. Instead, the taxpayers have to drive an hour to get to work instead of walking to a subway station 3 minutes away, have to drive to the nearest mall for groceries because they can't walk to the Danforth to shop, can't enjoy downtown life because they live out in the sticks.

Those huge majority of taxpayers are also being able to afford to drive, walk to the Danforth to shop and partake in consumer culture, etc... Your point?

What's fair about that? Why should a few lucky individuals, who probably made some stupid life decisions, win a housing lottery funded by harder-working people who made good decisions and stayed out of trouble, went to school and got an education, found a job and saved the down payment for a house, and can only afford to buy out-of-town in part because their taxes go to pay for housing freebies for the lottery winners?

I think you just made yourself and your stereotypes rather patently clear.

Where is the fairness in that? Why aren't these subsidized units moved to the fringes of the city where land is much cheaper and cry me a frigging river if the poor lottery winners have to hop a 60 minute bus-ride to get to work like most of the rest of us.

If you haven't been paying attention, isn't a good chunk of TCHC's portfolio already located out in the fringes of the city? Perhaps you should get listed under the waiting list and see how "lucky" you are? No pun intended, of course.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And oh, BTW Glen, I can't wait to see you post an errata on the "Are residents in the 905 area getting ripped off?" thread in your blog - the 905 numbers are compared agains the provincial average, not City of Toronto. Beyond that, funding for these services are provided through provincial taxes and federal transfers.

http://southofsteeles.blogspot.com/2007/09/are-residents-in-905-area-getting.html

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Post:

View From Public Housing
City owns homes in The Beach, Trinity-Bellwoods
Kelly Grant with files from Adam Huras and Will Tremain, National Post
Published: Saturday, November 17, 2007

Toronto's cash-strapped social housing agency owns at least 20 properties worth more than $500,000, including a row of waterfront duplexes in The Beach and one home assessed at nearly $1-million, the National Post has learned.

Among the priciest properties in Toronto Community Housing Corporation's singlefamily portfolio is a $697,000 home adjacent to Trinity-Bellwoods Park, a $687,000 home on Scarborough Road and a $961,000 home tucked between two mansions and backing on to a ravine in The Beach.

"Clearly, if we own property on the waterfront and other properties worth close to $1-million, then Toronto Community Housing doesn't have its eye on the ball," Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong said. "This is another example of how an agency of the city is being run inefficiently."

Mayor David Miller and other supporters of the TCHC's approach to single-family housing say the story is more nuanced than critics realize. It raises questions about how Toronto can best integrate its poor residents into middle-class neighbourhoods in a city where the real-estate market can transform modest pockets into wealthy enclaves virtually overnight.

"[These TCHC houses] have gone up in value because neighbourhoods have changed," Mr. Miller said. "There's a moral and ethical issue about evicting people who are poor because the neighbourhood becomes wealthy. I think people understand that."

TCHC is exploring some of these issues as part of a review of its 58,500 housing units. The study will go to council early next year.

In the meantime, Mr. Minnan-Wong and Case Ootes, another right-of-centre councillor, will put forth a motion at next week's council meeting asking that three half-million-dollar TCHC homes in Playter Estates be sold and that the entire single-family stock be considered for sale.

By comparing a list of all 554 of the public housing agency's detached, semi-attached and duplex properties against the city's property tax rolls, the National Post found that the agency's single-family housing stock is assessed at approximately $170-million.

Most of the properties are worth between $200,000 and $300,000. Although many are in need of repair, local real estate agents say TCHC properties in gentrifying neighbourhoods would likely sell for well above their assessed values.

Take the case of four TCHC waterfront duplexes on Hubbard Boulevard in The Beach. The properties boast unobstructed views of the water for assessed values of $643,000 to $656,000.

Nearby on Hubbard, new townhomes are selling for $1.5-million a unit, said Keith Burton, an agent with Royal LePage Estates Realty.

"It's absolutely prime," he said of the area.

A resident of one of the city-owned Hubbard properties agreed.

"There isn't a better view," said the tenant, who is in talks to buy the home from the city and asked to remain nameless. "The city has had seven of them sitting completely empty for at least the last four years ? They're waiting for everyone to move out so they can sell them. But you don't move out of this place. You die here."

Not everyone who lives in TCHC housing qualifies for rent-geared-to-income or otherwise subsidized rent.

Some of the agency's singlefamily homes are rented at market prices, as is the case with at least one of two semidetached brick houses backing on to Trinity-Bellwoods Park near trendy Queen West.

"We pay market rent," said Leila Cools, a jewellery artist who has lived in the TCHC house for more than 10 years. "We pay a good rent, a rent that goes up every year. I don't think the city is losing any money on our house. It would be a huge hardship if we had to leave."

The public housing companies that preceded TCHC's 2002 founding purchased single-family homes like the ones on Hubbard and Crawford in the late 1970s and early 1980s to house large, poor families.

Derek Ballantyne, the chief executive officer of the TCHC, said some valuable singlefamily homes could be sold off at the end of the review, if the units can be replaced as provincial legislation demands. He said the agency would not set a policy requiring units be sold when their assessments hit a particular price.

''You can appreciate that if we did, eventually there would be no social housing mixed into many neighbourhoods in the city," he said.

But with 65,000 households on the waiting list for affordable housing and a $300-million TCHC repair backlog, Mr. Ootes said the agency must take a harder look at how it manages its assets.

THE PRICEY & PUBLIC

The 20 most expensive assessments of houses owned by the Toronto Community Housing

Corporation: 144 Balsam Ave. $961,000 (The Beach)

229 Crawford St. $697,000 (Bellwoods Park)

5 Scarborough Rd. $687,000 (The Beach)

3 Hubbard Blvd. $656,000

(The Beach, duplex) 5 Hubbard Blvd. $646,000

(The Beach, duplex) 7 Hubbard Blvd. $645,000

(The Beach, duplex) 9 Hubbard Blvd. $643,000

(The Beach, duplex) 2 Wineva Ave. $651,000

(The Beach, duplex)

6 Ellerbeck St. $609,000 (Playter Estates, includes an apt. assessed at $131,000)

4 Wineva Ave. $593,000

(The Beach, duplex) 6 Wineva Ave. $582,000

(The Beach, duplex) 2 Sylvan Ave. $577,000 (Dufferin Grove Park) 264 Lee Ave. $591,000

(The Beach) 16 Howland Rd. $563,000 (Riverdale)

125 Cambridge Ave. $533,000 (Riverdale, includes an apt. assessed at $70,000)

205 Crawford St. $527,000 (Trinity-Bellwoods Park, duplex)

237 Crawford St. $519,000 (Trinity-Bellwoods Park, duplex)

215 Crawford St. $511,000 (Trinity-Bellwoods Park, duplex)

297 Willow Ave. $505,000 (The Beach)

155 Balsam Ave. $504,000 (The Beach)
National Post 2007

AoD

 

[CDL.TO]

The TCHC has a massive waiting list. Shouldn't the priority be in housing as many people who need subsidised housing as possible in a socially cohesive way with the resources they have? If selling these homes could allow them to house 5, 10, or 20 more families (likely still in the same or nearby neighbourhoods) than they could otherwise then they have a responsibility to those who wait years for housing to do so.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Maybe they should sell that whole list of houses and bid for the Stavros mansion...poor people deserve bedrooms overlooking Hogg's Hollow, too!

 

[EnviroTO]

How do I sign up for one of these houses? It makes no sense to have the city paying for that. If these people get themselves on their feet they still can't afford that house. There should be a housing standard and everyone should get housing at the same basic standards. I don't get why people would believe that it makes sense that double income families are buying two bedroom condos or homes an hour or more from work while social housing is giving away dream homes. What would motivate people to leave public housing if the $500k home is the one provided by TCHC, and the $250k home is the one they will be able to afford with a good job?

I agree that social housing needs to be spread across the city and not clustered together, but at the same time it makes little sense to give away what well paid people have trouble affording. I'm not sure what the answer is to integrate TCHC residents into the Beaches area, but it isn't a good motivator to know that increasing ones pay means getting a lower valued home.

 

[FutureMayor]

Redefine your definition of affordable housing

I’m shocked, saddened, but more disgusted that the vast majority of the comments on this thread are in support of these Councillor's proposals to sell off valuable shared city assets in favour of creating more “standard†affordable housing units.

To displace 500 families in dignified houses in good healthy neighbourhoods in favour of placing them into smaller housing units in less desirable areas of the city is unjust. I suggest maybe some of you need to spend one night with a family in one these typical mega housing projects you all seem to be in favour of and it might just be an eye opening experience for many of you.

I would personally encourage many of you to do more homework into the issue of affordable housing in the city of Toronto. In my opinion some ofyou need real help in redefining your definition of what affordable housing can and should be.

Louroz

 

[Glen]

And oh, BTW Glen, I can't wait to see you post an errata on the "Are residents in the 905 area getting ripped off?" thread in your blog - the 905 numbers are compared agains the provincial average, not City of Toronto. Beyond that, funding for these services are provided through provincial taxes and federal transfers.

http://southofsteeles.blogspot.com/2007/09/are-residents-in-905-area-getting.html

AoD

You will be waiting a long time.

The figures in the STAR come form this United-Way report.

From the second page of the report....

SCC obtained information on population and on health and social services funding by the Province of Ontario, for the four regions making up the GTA/905 area of: Durham, Halton, Peel and York as well as the rest of Ontario. The Coalition analyzed this information and concluded that per resident provincial annual operating funding for health and social services in the GTA/905 area lagged behind that in the rest of the province and the annual operating funding gaps for both health and social services in the GTA/905 continues to widen compared to the rest of Ontario.

and as far as extrapolating Toronto's share;

8 Toronto and Northern Ontario were excluded from the Ontario average and other Ontario regions average calculations because of their unique situations: Toronto includes numerous teaching hospitals that other regions do not and the North regions face a unique situation with significant distance between sites. We believe exclusion of both from average calculations is more fair and representative of the situation in the rest of the province. Including Toronto and Northern Ontario would increase the size of the Ontario average and make the per resident funding gap between GTA/905 and the rest of Ontario even larger

 

[CDL.TO]

I haven't seen a single person in this thread advocate mega housing projects or call for smaller units. And when you have houses in one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in the city like The Beach, almost anywhere in the city is "less desirable" and therefore that's fairly meaningless. No one is advocating moving them to undesirable neighbourhoods.

So if we have an opportunity to sell 6 single-family homes and use the money to build a 9-unit lowrise just down the street with units just as big as the homes that were replaced, don't we as a society have a responsibility to consider it and help 3 more families?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You will be waiting a long time.

Here is what you've said in your blog entry:

While Toronto residents pay considerably less property tax than those in the 905 region, they also get far more in provincial transfers. On average they receive at least $1058 per person more than those in the 905.

The data quoted is specifically stated to exclude Northern Ontario LHINs AND Toronto Central LHIN. So clearly, the 905/Ontario average excludes Toronto - the figure you quoted (which I believe is a sum of all the different 905 shortfalls) is clearly based on this. Beyond that, as per the quote in the report:

Toronto and Northern Ontario were excluded from the Ontario average and other Ontario regions average calculations because of their unique situations: Toronto includes numerous teaching hospitals that other regions do not and the North regions face a unique situation with significant distance between sites. We believe exclusion of both from average calculations is more fair and representative of the situation in the rest of the province. Including Toronto and Northern Ontario would increase the size of the Ontario average and make the per resident funding gap between GTA/905 and the rest of Ontario even larger.

Even the report noted at least one of these differences is due to the presence of teaching hospitals - which I might add serves the 905 and indeed the entire province. In addition, in the other indices beyond hospital funding - a good number of the services are indexed to disabilities and the poor/homeless - something that is much more prevelant in Toronto. Without taking these matters into account, it's pretty obvious that post is a spin.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

cdl:

The TCHC has a massive waiting list. Shouldn't the priority be in housing as many people who need subsidised housing as possible in a socially cohesive way with the resources they have? If selling these homes could allow them to house 5, 10, or 20 more families (likely still in the same or nearby neighbourhoods) than they could otherwise then they have a responsibility to those who wait years for housing to do so.

Even if one sells the properties, it is not likely to be enough to cover the cost of building additional units, with the need for land purchases in an area with similarly high prices (and if one is building multi-story buildings, it'd likely be on larger streets, with extant commercial properties or other land uses which would cost a bundle to take over). Not to mention, unless one is building townhouses, 5-bedroom units are probably very expensive to construct in any multi-level setting.

Now, if the opportunity arises whereby it is possible to construct addition units nearby, at a cost that's reasonable to the TCHC (through perhaps partnership with the private sector or land-transfer from other levels of government), then by all means sell them - but if such an opportunity isn't available, it's probably wiser to hold onto these properties (especially if they are going to be increasingly desirable).

AoD

 

[Glen]

Even the report noted at least one of these differences is due to the presence of teaching hospitals - which I might add serves the 905 and indeed the entire province. In addition, in the other indices beyond hospital funding - a good number of the services are indexed to disabilities and the poor/homeless - something that is much more prevelant in Toronto. Without taking these matters into account, it's pretty obvious that post is a spin.

AoD

The hospital services portion of the disparity is only $221 per person. Change the weighting all you want, the very large disparity still exist.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Glen:

Did you know there is a huge disparity between 905 and Toronto for the other services? You don't, since the numbers in the report refers to the Ontario average, and that qualifer applies to the other services as well. However, if you pay attention to the chart in pg. 3 of the report, you will notice that the majority of the cost difference is to the the rest of Ontario, not GTA/905 difference.

AoD

 

[maestro]

This sparked a huge debate in the Beaches about 10 years ago when Cityhome approached the renters with an option to buy attached to their eviction notices. I never saw the outcome but it's now obvious the renters must of won.

I don't think eviction or relocation is the way to go but the properties should be sold off as they become vacant as they are just to available to mischievous intentions . I knew of one multi-millionaire renting one of the boardwalk facing duplexes and I imagine he wasn't alone in this regard. And for those that actually need the assistance, addtional services and transit options are few and far between.

 

[EnviroTO]

To displace 500 families in dignified houses in good healthy neighbourhoods in favour of placing them into smaller housing units in less desirable areas of the city is unjust. I suggest maybe some of you need to spend one night with a family in one these typical mega housing projects you all seem to be in favour of and it might just be an eye opening experience for many of you.

Who said that?

In my opinion some of you need real help in redefining your definition of what affordable housing can and should be.

It can be limited tax dollars putting a few lottery winners in $500k homes that people hard are work can't even afford, or it can be used to put many more people in standard sized units across the city in a multitude of neighborhoods in a cost effective way. If you get $500k homes in social housing then does the average person who can only afford a $300k home qualify for social housing? It makes no sense to have social programs bring people to an above average condition. That creates a system where the average person aspires to be on social assistance.