# BC Disgrace - 23.5% child poverty



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

*.*

.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

That's embarrassing on so many levels... I wonder if Premier Gordo is even the least bit ashamed.

The rich get rich and the poor... blah, blah, B.C.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

That's capitalism for ya. The national avg of 17% is disgusting, too. But, to be fair, I wonder if other capitalist countries have lower and what the difference is.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I fully agree with darkscot with his contention that "The national avg of 17% is disgusting, too." The saddest figure of them all is that child poverty has not declined since 1989.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Save GST cut for children in poverty, government urged
Norma Greenaway, CanWest News Service
OTTAWA — The federal Conservative government should ditch the one-point cut in the GST that is scheduled for Jan. 1, in favour of boosting direct payments to low-income parents, a national anti-poverty group said Monday."

I would give up my 1% GST cut along with any tax breaks to help fund this sort of initiative.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and in Toronto.....



> *Toronto families slip into poverty*
> TARA WALTON/TORONTO STAR
> 
> Laurie Monsebraaten
> ...


Losing Ground | United Way of Greater Toronto


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Speaking of which everyone with the winter campaign underway, please consider United Way as a charity to donate to. They do so many wonderful things in the community and they basically act as a blanket to many smaller charities in need, from helping infants in poverty to children with disabilities such as autism to helping teenagers find their way to allowing seniors to live happy independent lives. They do make a huge difference to a lot of Canadians.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Does anybody care to explain what poverty actually means in Canada?

As for the GST 1% being used for this - ABSOLUTELY NOT! The GST was implemented as a tax for the sole purpose of bringing down the national debt, not for social programs.

EDIT:

Found this - CBC News In Depth: Economy


> In Canada, there isn't a standard measure of poverty. The most accepted one, however, is the LICO. Statistics Canada measures the number of families who are below the low-income cut-off (LICO), which means those who spend 20 percentage points more of their gross income on food, shelter and clothing than the average Canadian. This figure is often used as the unofficial "poverty line."
> 
> By this measure, Canada's poor are doing better, Richards says.


Hmm...doesn't sound as doom and gloom as the media makes it out to be.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The cost of housing is the number one problem.
I million Canadians choose between food and shelter every month.

The poverty line of course will change with the locale but all you have to do for Toronto is look and see the average income is some $10,000 BELOW the rest of the province while housing costs are very high.

Wage levels have not risen anywhere close to the cost of housing.

Nit picking again on the right wingding side.

Things gonna get ugly when the recession hits.....ivory towers crack.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Someone lives in an Ivory CN Tower, don't they?
> 
> take a walk down Vancouver's east side. Hell for that matter go downtown or into the west end. Or you could walk on the whatever Toronto's equivalent of this is.
> 
> ...


Nice rant. Too bad it doesn't address any of the issues I brought up. The numbers presented as 'fact' are very subjective.

Yes, people like in crap-holes. Yes, people work two or three jobs to pay the rent. Solution? Handouts! Lots of government handouts, right?!? We'll throw money at the problem, and it will go away!

Hardly.

BTW, I rent a townhouse for $1000/month, pay insurance, credit card bills, cellular/Internet bill, student loans, and more. Add to that my wife is a stay at home mom. So, yes, I have a boat load of money, right up here in my ivory tower. My TTC costs $100/month too. Scrapping by? Absolutely. Blaming the government for my situation? Not at all.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Things always get ugly when recessions hit. Not only for the already impoverished , who are of course worst hit, but for the many who have foolishly been living beyond their means and diving deep into seemingly limitless credit. Recessions are great wake-up times for the populace. This one may be worse than many preceding it, if only because Canada, once a nation of stalwart savers, is now into full-blown consumption and short-term financial planning.

Ivory towers do indeed crack. However, later on, those who weather the storm pool together, pull some precious shekels out of their pockets and arrange for the cracks to be plastered over.

I'd sooner face the hardship of a recession than deal with what the world will be like in fifty years' time. But then again, I'm admittedly privileged - I have a job, I"m able-bodied and I'm not afraid to work. I'm hoping that will stand me in good stead when things get tight.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No, some government control over predation in the real estate segment and municipalities laying down development laws that include affordable housing as part of the deal just as schools, parks etc are part development deals.

It's been done before successfully.
It's that or labour unrest and spiraling inflation.....take your pick.

TANSTAAFL

sow the wind......


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No, some government control over predation in the real estate segment and municipalities laying down development laws that include affordable housing


Waaaahhh :-( . I can't have my three-bedroom house in Rosedale. Waaahhh :-( I can't have my 1000 sq.ft. condo in Downtown Toronto. Waaaahhh :-( . I have to take an hour TTC ride from Scarborough to get to work, because that's where the affordable housing is.

There are lots of affordable apartments in Toronto. Yes, they may be out of the way. That's life.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

In other words, control the people. More government! More laws! More beurocracy! That will solve everything. Make it so people can't buy a box of Cheerios unless they adhere to certain governmetn criteria. Maybe put two-way televisions in people's homes to make sure they are spending their money correctly.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Waaaahhh :-( . I can't have my three-bedroom house in Rosedale. Waaahhh :-( I can't have my 1000 sq.ft. condo in Downtown Toronto. Waaaahhh :-( . I have to take an hour TTC ride from Scarborough to get to work, because that's where the affordable housing is.
> 
> There are lots of affordable apartments in Toronto. Yes, they may be out of the way. That's life.


Waaaahh I'm a middle class person who thinks there is no such thing as poverty!

http://thestop.org/documents/DemographicsofHungeratTheStop2006.pdf

The issue has far more to it than you let on.


> The Demographics of Hunger
> Key Statistics from
> The Stop Community Food Centre’s Food Bank
> 2006
> ...


The lack of empathy some people show is astounding.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> make sure they are spending their money correctly.


I think this is a big problem for most, they should really look at teaching budgeting in school, too many people in credit troubles. 

Also, move to a city where housing is affordable, if you're only making $10-12 hr, you can make that anywhere, it doesn't have to be TO.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The AVERAGE house price in CANADA is $340,000 - maybe they should teach some common sense to people that don't get it. 

If you were ain the top 5% of income earners in Canada and on your own you would barely qualify for the AVERAGE house.

Don't spout nonsense about labour mobility.

Why do you think people trek from Fort Erie to Japanese autoplants on the 401 wesdt of Kitchener - 1.5 hours each way.
They can't afford anything closer and they're making a heck of a lot more than $10-12 an hour.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

martman said:


> Waaaahh I'm a middle class person who thinks there is no such thing as poverty!
> 
> The lack of empathy some people show is astounding.


Yeah that always gets to me.

In my area, there are so many kinds of fundraisers/begging for sports and such... I don't give to those, preferring to help where it is really needed, but I'm amazed at this sense of entitlement. 
"Please raise everyones taxes so that we can get another 1 000 000$ soccer field - even if the present one is only used at 20% capacity because, as parents, we don't want practices on Friday evenings..."
"Or my kid needs to go to this tournament and it cost 500$ - please give" :-( 

10-12$/hour? That's no way to raise a family. I don't think many understand what it is to be poor and how it affects people.


And yes, the middle class is struggling also - that's not the point.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)




----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Lots of silly uninformed opinions in this thread.

The reason BC has a high 'poverty' rate is due to the definition of poverty (i.e. 20% or greater spent on food, shelter and clothin). The price of housing in BC in the highest in Canada. Thus, the poverty rate is purely a reflection of the correlation with housing prices.

It's a poor measure of poverty. You need to dig deeper to really identify the real issues. I think there are better ways of looking at the issue (e.g. unemployment rates, etc...).

I spend more than 20% of my income on housing and I am on higher income scale for Canada. Yet, I don't live in real poverty. 

Masterblaster... you are simply wrong with your numbers on housing affordability. I have the data in front of me going back to 1976 for BC. 

The ratio of [ Income / (Principal + Interest)] has varied up and down between 1.5 and 3.0 between 1976 and 2006 (my latest data). The ratio goes down in real estate bull markets and up in bear markets, but overall it goes up and down with an average of around 2. As of 2006, the ratio was 1.5. The low point in the whole period was 1979 where the ratio was around 1.2. We are almost at that point now. So, your statement about housing affordability 20 and 30 years ago is simply false.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> Penalize and extra tax on empty residential properties. Take away any incentives to own and hold real estate as an investment.


Single-residential, or multi-res? Apartment buildings are an investment. No one who can afford to buy a 100+ unit apartment building intends to live there and rent out the other 99 units.

Incidentally, what incentives to hold real estate as an investment? 



MasterBlaster said:


> Bring in rent controls. Make it so that rents cannot be increased by more than the average wages increase, not inflation.


Ontario has rent controls. You know what the allowable rental increase is for 2008? 1.4%. The amount is determined by CPI. On a $900/month apartment, that's $12.60 a month--and there are lots of nice 2 bedroom apartments available at that price and lower. Frankly, the allowable rent increases do not cover increases in the landlord's costs due to an increase in property taxes, utility costs, etc.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Lots of silly uninformed opinions in this thread.
> 
> The reason BC has a high 'poverty' rate is due to the definition of poverty (i.e. 20% or greater spent on food, shelter and clothin). The price of housing in BC in the highest in Canada. Thus, the poverty rate is purely a reflection of the correlation with housing prices.
> 
> It's a poor measure of poverty. You need to dig deeper to really identify the real issues. I think there are better ways of looking at the issue (e.g. unemployment rates, etc...)


If not many students are getting good grades and A+'s it's because of the definition of what is a good grade... Silly Masterblaster, you have to change your definition...

Housing affordability:
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Housing affordability hit on all sides
(from RBC)


> Increases in house prices, mortgage rates, utilities and property taxes all com-bined in the second quarter to deliver a severe hit to housing affordability. By aslim margin, the portion of before-tax household income going towards homeownership costs suffered one of its largest and most broadly based quarterlydeteriorations in the current housing cycle stretching back to the mid-1990s


and
RBC Economics: Housing affordability highlights


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Single-residential, or multi-res? Apartment buildings are an investment. No one who can afford to buy a 100+ unit apartment building intends to live there and rent out the other 99 units.
> 
> Incidentally, what incentives to hold real estate as an investment?
> 
> ...


Sonal, I think it's a balancing act between the allowable cost increases and what a landlord charges.

If I'm not mistaken, your family is in the rental business, no?

As much as I hear horror stories from tenants and landlords it's a balancing act.
- When I set up my new office, we bought the building. There are 6 rental units. Since the initial purchase, the value of the building has increased 30%. Taxes have gone up also. We were not looking to make make money that way - only to be rent free in a way. We have been allowed to increase our rent over 5%. 
Our problem is not the rental board but the fact that the value of the building has increase and the tax rates have not been adjusted in consequence.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Bring in rent controls. Make it so that rents cannot be increased by more than the average wages increase, not inflation.


Well once again, let's actually look at the real data instead of useless anecdotes.

Let's pick 1980 as a baseline and set income and rent at 100 to track growth over time. Up to 1996, income increased to about 220, or 2.2 times the income at 1980. Meanwhile, rent only went up to 200, or 2.0 times it's value in 1980.

So, in BC rent HAS NOT kept up with inflation or wages.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

and rent...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Housing is getting more and more out of reach for people. Those figures for back then were mostly single income families. Today they are mostly dual income families with the basement rented out. Or they have to live in small apartments.


You realize your statement above doesn't help you, right. Dual incomes and rental suites increase the amount people can 'afford' (don't confuse this with the actual definition of affordability), yet the data I am about to show you below does not account for it. It simply looks at average weekly wages for an individual and the average cost.

As you can see affordability has gone up and down for the last 30 years and has been pretty stable for the preceding 15 years up to 2004. Since then affordability has dropped significantly, but is within historic norms.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

A lot of this discussion has turned to housing. It's worth pointing out that the BC Liberals are spending more on social housing than ever in our history, including the previous NDP government.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> They can build a 65 story Shangri La for the rich in downtown Vancouver in a short period of time. yet, social and affordable housing takes forever. Think Woodwards building. It has been years.
> 
> :greedy:


Interesting that you bring this example up. Are you aware that both developments are being done by the same developer? 

If you think Woodwards was slow to get started, it is purely due to the various layers of government that had to be involved and had NOTHING to do with the private sector.

Once the developer broke ground, it was business as usual for them.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> The ever expanding downtown East Side?


If you build it, they will come...

The reason the DTES keeps growing is that we encourage it's growth. We keep building more and more soup kitchens, more and more clothing depots and more and more homeless shelters. If you go to the suburbs you can't get these things. So if you are homeless, it's a no brainer where you go.

The DTES is now no longer a 'Vancouver' issue. It is a Lower Mainland issue. It is a BC issue. It is a Canada issue. 

I am not suggesting we shouldn't help the poor. Far from it. I am suggesting we understand what is actually going on. There is no excuse for North Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam and Richmond not having any support facilities for homeless people. Centralization of the problem has created the ghetto.

There is no excuse for Klein giving Alberta's homeless one way bus tickets to Vancouver.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sonal, I think it's a balancing act between the allowable cost increases and what a landlord charges.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, your family is in the rental business, no?
> 
> ...


Rental law varies from province to province. In fact, looking over a few websites, I really should go to virtually any other province as landlords have more rights. 

In Ontario, what you describe would not be allowed for residential leases. 

You are allowed the guideline amount (1.4% in 2008) and if you do substantial capital improvements, you may apply for an above-guideline increase, which is capped at an additional 3% for a maximum of 3 years--doesn't come close to covering the costs of the capital improvement, however. If your costs as a landlord go up for other reasons, you are pretty much SOL. 

Commercial leases are different--you can pretty much do anything you want. So if you have a building zoned CR (commercial/residential) and you give tenants commercial leases, you have a lot more flexibility.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Define your category of real estate. I am talking about commercial and multi-res. This is almost purely investment real estate. One buys a building, leases space in it to cover expenses, pays off the mortgage, and sometimes makes a little profit.

Affordable housing in what form? Rental or purchase? Or does it matter so long as a person has shelter that they can afford? To create affordable housing requires money--this can be done through investment dollars if incented properly. And in fact, the government does provide financial incentives (as I recall, up to $24,000 per unit) to people wishing to develop or substantially improve affordable rental housing--hundreds apply, perhaps half a dozen get a grant because the program runs out of money. 

So investors will create affordable housing if it can be made profitable for them. It costs the government less to incent investors than to develop and manage it themselves. And an investor will go for the deal that is most profitable, whether through government incentives or not. So why vilify when you could use this resource to create more affordable housing? Make it profitable, and people will do it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Good post Sonal. 

I agree that the government providing subsidy is a good method for encouraging development of social housing. Developers understand how real estate works. Bureaucrats don't. So why would we expect that they could do a better job of completing a development? It's obvious the private sector understands and can deliver on such issues much more efficiently. As as a taxpayer, I chose to get the most bang for my buck.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Houses in Cumberland
> 
> I almost bought one of these homes in Cumberland in 1988. At the time they were priced at 30 to 40 grand. Today they are 5-6 times more expensive.
> 
> ...


Absolute housing values versus income is a poor measure of affordability. You need to account for the actual monthly payment, which includes the effect of interest rates.

The graph I posted earlier is the correct measure that housing economists use to gauge affordability. It is universally recognized and not some 'lie' as you suggest. 

Anybody can find anecdotes that don't fit the rule. That's why economists don't use anecdotes, they actually collect the data. 

The information I posted above is real and has been collected by the government since the 70's. Either you accept reality or not. I can't force it on you. 

The REALITY is that average rents have not increased at the rate that wages have. It has lagged. It's actually pretty amazing when you consider the increase in dual income families. 

Economically speaking, rents are too LOW. That's the reason that new rental housing is being created at a fast enough rate and why vacancy rates are dropping. I predict that we will soon get hit with a higher than normal increase in rental rates because these low prices will not be sustainable.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Vandave said:


> There is no excuse for North Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam and Richmond not having any support facilities for homeless people. Centralization of the problem has created the ghetto.


Actually North Van has the North Shore Shelter & Transitional Housing, and right across the street is the Harvest Project.

I don't mean to sound callous, but we've had a big increase in problems here on the North Shore since that facility opened. But of course these services, wherever you build them, are just band-aids rather than a solution to the problem of mental illness and drug addiction.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Good post Sonal.
> 
> I agree that the *government providing subsidy* is a good method for encouraging development of social housing. Developers understand how real estate works. Bureaucrats don't. So why would we expect that they could do a better job of completing a development? It's obvious the private sector understands and can deliver on such issues much more efficiently. As as a taxpayer, I chose to get the most bang for my buck.


Yes "freemarket" VD...... 
So the public sector pays for private profits once again....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes "freemarket" VD......
> So the public sector pays for private profits once again....


Do you understand why private profit exists? I suggest you read up on RISK, COST OF CAPITAL and INCENTIVE before throwing out these kind of comments.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> I would like to see the sources you are quoting for the government stats. I haven't found them online yet.


The data is published by the Credit Union of BC. There are three variables in the affordability calculation, which come from different sources:

- Income - average weekly wages - labour Canada or Stats Canada
- Interest Rates - Bank of Canada, but widely published everywhere
- Median home values - MLS

These are all CREDIBLE sources of information.

Drop the conspiracy stuff. Nobody is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes here. This is the real data and people have been tracking it this way for many years, including in the 90's when affordability was really good. 

The latest data is attached below. I was conservative in my prior email as affordability isn't as bad right now as I would have guessed. We are sitting just under 2, which suggests there is still room to go.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> If I get the chance, I will talk to some real estate agents that have been in the business locally for decades and see what they have to say.


And what will they tell you? 99% of real estate agents have no concept of economics, nor do they track affordability. 

You have a math background, which translates well into economic analysis. Sales do not. 

MB, the reality of the situation is that affordability for the past 30 years hasn't changed that much. For the most part it has varied between 2 and 3 (income / payment + interest). We are definitely at the bottom end right now are are about to drop below 2, but it isn't unprecedented historically.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Do you understand why private profit exists? I suggest you read up on RISK, COST OF CAPITAL and INCENTIVE before throwing out these kind of comments.


Again, for one that espouses the value of "free market" you are very quick to ask for government cash to help pay to build these housing units. The profit will help private enterprise. 
In other words, why are connies so quick to ask for corporate welfare....
As for the 3 terms, I'm very familiar with them - none of it require a handout from the government...
When it comes to social projects, it’s nice to see that some think of their pocketbooks first. 
So what happened to the “free market” there VD? Are you saying it’s not the solution to all?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Truth carries a painful user fee*
> 
> Nov 28, 2007 04:30 AM
> CAROL GOAR
> ...


Asymmetrical programs are needed, can't do them without real information.

••

AS VD doesn't get it period. 
Certain aspects of society are public...... libraries, hospitals schools, road, water, street lights, sewers, community recreation centres, city halls, courts.

SOME of those have private counterparts.

I can go to a public pool or a private spa.
I can go to a bookstore and pay or a public libary and borrow.
In some areas can pay for a toll road or take the public highway.
Even in banking there are some public aspects in the Federal Development banks.

Housing is not and should not be the sole domain of private - there needs to be a choice there as well for the health of the communities and to prevent predation.
Just as there is reasonable cost access to water, education, exercise - there needs to be access to cost effective housing.

The Bank of Canada exercises public power to "cool" a heated economy.

Mandating a % of high density low rise units for every development site is no less within the public interest and power just as sewers, schools, libraries a etc are part of any development and orderly non predatory economic activity is also mandated......

There is more than enough cashflow within a high density unit to be a commercial success.
Just as micro-finance is self sustaining now.
But unless gov mandates, the builders won't do it. St. Lawrence Market is an example of good planning and success.

Higher density then justifies public transit as well.

This is not "handouts' that are required for housing, it's policy....the high density will easily pay it's own way....build it they will come.


Our politicians are simply either corrupt or short sighted or both.
••

That goes for the idjits on the Public Housing panel in Toronto that do not want to sell the $500,000 single family units they are sitting on and put the money to better use.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> If I get the chance, I will talk to some real estate agents that have been in the business locally for decades and see what they have to say.


Residential real estate agents, or commercial ones? Not that it matters much, but commercial agents are only slightly less clueless than the residential ones on these matters.

Real estate agents help people buy and sell property. They don't develop it, they don't have a realistic view of what it takes to create new affordable housing, they don't have an overall view of what kinds of municipal hoops you need to jump through, they don't know how to manage property, they don't understand urban planning issues, etc. 

They will give you a quick answer to these things, but it's not a realistic one--it's not their business to know these things in depth. If they did know them in depth, they would be doing that instead of buying and selling real estate because there is far more money in it.

I deal with a lot of commercial agents. Very few of them know what they are talking about--I know this, because they will tell me things that I've already know better than they do because I have experience in it and they have just heard about it. Residential agents know even less.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:

That' right - this is a municipal development question - agents will make what they can until restricted by municipal tax policy.

The worst predation in this continent is in housing.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Hey Macdoc,

The Toronto Star had an article a little while ago... the rental buildings that were in the worst state of repair, had the most work orders against them, etc., in the entire city--were owned and managed by the City of Toronto.

The program I mentioned--RRAP--basically requires the owner to only rent at affordable housing rates (determined by the City) and they are in a contract with the government to maintain affordable housing for 8 years. The city cannot build and managed affordable housing for $24,000 per unit, but private developers can do it with a cash injection from the city of $24,000. 

But short-sighted? Yes, absolutely. Toronto municipal government is a mess when it comes to urban planning issues--it's still maintaining 5 separate departments for each of the former cities. Consistent? Not particularly.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Ah, here we go... the article:

TheStar.com | News | City-owned apartment building worst for repairs


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree - this is bureaucracy at it's worst.

My goal would be to see public based ( can be partnered ) high density low rise based on the affordability by the lowest 30th percentile by municipality.
It should be per month no more that 30% of that income.

I think right now that translates to $4-500 a month or so.
There would need to be a family factor...ie 2 bedroom.

These units should be no more based on real estate "values" than any other public space is.. Should be cash stream based only. If the city has to hold a lease to do so all the better.
That way both private and public and NGO can have a level playing field.
Micro-housing is critical.

The forcing issue is municipal mandating of high density, low rise units spread along major transit routes.

Requires guts -planning and and enough municipal financial/tax control to make it happen.

There are way too many fingers in the pot right now and no vision. Feds should just make superfunds available for the kick off phase. just as they do for highways and other large scale public projects.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Again, for one that espouses the value of "free market" you are very quick to ask for government cash to help pay to build these housing units. The profit will help private enterprise.
> In other words, why are connies so quick to ask for corporate welfare....
> As for the 3 terms, I'm very familiar with them - none of it require a handout from the government...
> When it comes to social projects, it’s nice to see that some think of their pocketbooks first.
> So what happened to the “free market” there VD? Are you saying it’s not the solution to all?


I'm pragmatic at heart.

Investors and developers are out to make money. To do that well, they have to know how to build new housing quickly and affordably... not that they all do it well, but that's the goal. Then they have to make money on it--either buy selling it, selling off pieces of it, or renting it. The City is not in this business... there is no reason why the City will know how to do it any better than someone who specializes in this.

At the moment, condos are very popular for developers in Toronto because you make more money selling something off as condo units than you do renting out the building and creating a valuable income-generating property. Price per suite for a condo far outstrips price per suite for a rental. Plus, lots of people are buying condos right now.... there is some market for luxury condos, but the big money is in something more mid-range.

There is not a significant difference in the development cost of building something affordable vs. midrange or even luxury. (Except that for luxury buildings, there is a cost in building amenities instead of more units--gets absorbed into higher prices, though.) There is a significant difference in the profit.

If you can make building affordable housing more profitable, it will get built. Period. It doesn't make a difference to the developer.... heck, it's a little easier to outfit everyone with a standard kitchen instead of customizing each one for each new owner. 

So make it more profitable, attach strings to the the money given to ensure that the end result will be affordable housing, and people will build it. The developer is still making money for his investors, the city gets new housing, everyone is happy.

Why get into a philosophical debate on free market vs. whatever? It's a pragmatic solution.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> These units should be no more based on real estate "values" than any other public space is.. Should be cash stream based only.


The rent for this unit, you mean? Or the value of this unit?

I know how you feel about real estate ownership but let's solve one problem at a time.  

In any case, the value of rental property is based on its net cashflow.

There does seem to be a shortage of 2-bedroom apartments in the city. They seem to get snapped up very quickly, but the 1 bedrooms are harder to rent.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You don't "value" a water system, sewage system, recreational centre on it's cashflow.

You look to the cashflow in a public system to sustain the facility and pay off an orginal capital expenditures on the facility.

••

I have no issue with public private ownership existing side by side just as it does in other areas of society- I would encourage a "savings" element tho in any rental scenario.
Daniels already does this with townhomes in Mississauga.
$1245 for a townhome rental of which up to $200 per month up to $6000 total can be put towards an ownership fund.

This mutes the "get something back" supposed appeal of "ownership" which for the forseeable future should be called indenturing. 

The missing element is approaching affordable housing being as critical as other areas where there is already a communal mandate.
We expect schools, roads, a fire station etc....we should also expect a quantity of dense public housing to be available as a matter of course ..not as some sort of "charity".
The problem is with the headspace.

Mixed income/density communities do not just "happen" - they must be planned just as other service facilities like water and schools are planned and funded.

I have no issue with ownership - I have an issue with predation.
Dense affordable housing is critical just as schools are.
We don't argue ( too much ) about schools.

There are public and private schools.

We have had this argument about healthcare.
Housing is no different.
There must be an affordable quantity.

We don't leave healthcare to private in Canada - we mandate core healthcare to the public sector.
We can see what predation does in the US healthcare system and have decided to prevent that here.

Affordable housing is critical no less than affordable health care.
It should not be the only choice, but it should be A choice.

Right now we have not mobilized the societal resources to make it A choice.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> It depends on the questions in mind.
> 
> I want to speak to agents that have been in the business consistently for 30 plus years in residential.
> 
> What I want to ask them is what kind of customers are buying houses and apartments now compared to thirty years ago. How has it changed, as prices have changed dramatically.


And if you are looking at affordability, you also need to look at how the incomes of all these customers have changed compared to 30 years ago, and how lifestyles have changed over the last 30 years. 

In the US, most people living below the poverty line still have multiple TVs, air conditioning, etc. These things were considered luxuries 30 years ago. 

But my point, MB, is that you have arguing a very narrow view of what it affordable housings means. Okay, not everyone can buy a house... does everyone want or need a house? If condominiums were more readily available 30 years ago, would single people have bought those? Have people's lifestyles changed over the last 30 years that owning that a 3 bedroom house isn't necessarily desirable for everyone anymore. Is renting entirely unacceptable? One building my parents managed gets tenants because people sell their houses to rent there, so their kids can go to the school across the street. Have the demographics and services available in areas in which people are buying changed over the last 30 years? (e.g., are they buying in similar types of areas as they did 30 years ago, even though the actual neighbourhoods have changed?) 30 years ago, the area I grew up in was considered very far away from anything... the city has grown, and consequently, where I grew up is now considered close to many things, and areas further afield are considered now very far away from anything.

Speaking for myself as a single person, there are virtually no houses in the area I choose to live in--to live here means to live in a condo. Plus, when I had a house, I had to spend a significant portion of my time maintaining it--which I don't need to do in a condo. Plus, if I didn't need it for the work I do, to live here also means I don't need to have a car--which I would need for many houses in the city. And as one person, I don't need all the space a house would provide me with--it's tricky to find houses as small as my condo.

You are making narrow what is a very broad issue. 

Prices have gone up, no question. But people's lives have also changed significantly. A simple "Well, taxi drivers can't buy this house anymore" doesn't really tell us anything.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think prices can drop - they already are big time in the US and they dropped in Toronto up to 45% in the last melt down - and wages were relatively higher then.

Higher density mandated will mean more competition and the demographics point to fewer multi-kid families.

But why buy?? - we rent 3000 sq' plus basement, two car garage and nicely landscaped backyard for $1800 a month.

Your problem is you live in a high demand area with the Olympics coming up.

Large multi-room houses will fairly quickly become over stock as families are later, smaller etc.
Right now many are being used for multi -unrelated person or multi-generation as there is no affordable housing available.

The boomers are down sizing as well over the next 5 years.

It's catch 22.

High levels of home ownership are associated with high levels of unemployment - keep your mobility. Don't long for being a self indentured serf.

It's a mindset that is long overdue to change.

Only banks and vested interests are resistant to deflation.
The rest of us like to see things get cheaper and better value....just the way computers do.

Variety of choice and savvy citizenry can undermine the bubble barons.
This credit meltdown is far from over and the size of the "deflation" in the housing market in the states is just starting to emerge.

This is the head of a financial institution not given to hysterics



> Mr. Yun, Listen to Mr. Stumpf: Housing In Worst Shape Since Great Depression
> posted on: November 19, 2007 | about stocks: WFC / QQQQ / DIA / SPY
> Print Email
> 
> ...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Real estate, like anything, goes in cycles. Right now in many place in Canada, we have an extremely hot market and prices are shooting up.

This will not last forever though. Prices are due to drop... the economic/sociological factors required to create this drop are not in place yet, but they are coming. It will probably be after the Olympics before you see it in Vancouver though.

MB, I can sympathize with you wanted to buy a house and not being able to. You have bad timing in terms of market cycles... if you are unhappy that you can't buy a house in Vancouver right now that is one thing. If you are discussing housing affordability in general, you need to take a longer view of things.

Macdoc--lending practices in the US are WAY different than in Canada. Do you realize that they allow (even encourage) negative amortization mortgages there? Every month, you go deeper in debt. I've never even heard of one up here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just a matter of degree Sonal...the mindset issue is the same.

Being convinced that soaring house prices are a "good thing".
It's bubble mentality fed by realtors, municipalities, banks etc - the expectation of a sure thing when in fact taxes are becoming as high as rents used to be.

The Bank of Canada acts to cool over heated economies.

There are many tax policies that can do the same for speculative housing issues.

No speculative market in libraries or hospitals is there.

Zoning and tieing development permits to density/affordability plus offset tax breaks for going to density beyond the requirement.

Want to build 100 single houses and you must build 10 density/affordable units 
Go to 100/20 get an incentive.

Municipalities need superfunds to get back control of the land use if needed by expropriation at market prices and put in the density income mixes needed.

Unstable housing is corrosive on society to the extreme and CAN, like schools , have stability and opportunity co-existing.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'm not so sure that the mindset is quite the same... my father was pretty shocked when he was down in the US last negotiating with mortgage brokers there--they accept your stated income as your income, regardless of whether or not you actually make that money, and the guy he was dealing with couldn't even tell him the interest rates--it's all about monthly payment. 

Then again, that was for residential, and he mostly deals with commercial these days. Mind you, my own residential mortgage experience isn't like the above either.

I'm not so convinced that speculation is so rampant as you perceive it to be, but again, people don't tend to speculate in multi-res.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

Interesting as has been the discussion about housing markets/issues, etc., the poverty situation is about much more than that - it's also about the changing economy, the loss of manufacturing jobs, rolled back &/or frozen wages in some sectors, a minimum wage that has not kept pace with economic realities, cutbacks in social assistance and EI, and in home care and other health services … it's about massive changes in the social contract, and the devaluing of HUMAN resources in favour of fasle productivity, streamlining, bottom line thinking, etc., and a changed global economy.

I know this is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and will probably elicit all sorts of reactions - but the world is not what it was 30 years ago; it is not what some of us hoped it would be by now; and none of it is susceptible to a simple fix.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> AS VD doesn't get it period.


Actually you don't get it.. not even close.

I have presented raw facts in my posts. I back up my opinions with data. You back yours up with google links and ranting opinions.

The FACTS are that housing prices are within the historic affordability range in BC. You can't escape this simple reality.

With respect to my opinion that developers are better positioned to develop housing... well I think you are stuck on 'isms'. As Sonal put it well, it's about being pragmatic. Anybody with common sense knows that people in the business of developing can do it better than some bureaucracy that doesn't have a clue. More bureaucrats, more rules and more committees only stiffle the development of social housing. I'd rather the government cut a cheque to off-set the cost of adding social housing to a development than have them purchase land and develop it themselves.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> I for one am really sick of living in tiny apartments and condos. I hate the cramped quarters. I would like to have better storage for my motorcycles and a workshop to build and fix things. I also like to have my home gym, as I prefer to workout at home. In any apartment/condo, you are extremely limited by what you can have.
> 
> In the Vancouver area I see being able to buy a house, no matter how high my income is, as way out of reach. It pisses me off.


Now take your thinking and apply it to everybody in society in Vancouver. Let's take our entire population and give everybody a 120 by 66 foot lot. Get a map and calculate how many lots your could fit into Vancouver and North Vancouver and then compare it to our population. Seriously. Try it and report back. You do have a math background, right?

You will quickly find out that is simply not possible. We need density and which implies the majority of people in the City have to live in condos and townhouses. Don't like it? Then move to Hope. Don't like that? Then get a higher earning job. Don't have the skills? Too bad. The people who do get to buy the houses. The rest of us get to live in condos and townhouses (including myself). No socialist or communist scheme is going to change the simply reality of the math behind this. 

You can't change the reality of supply and demand. Go look at former Communist countries and see what kind of houses doctors lived in and then compare it to the 'working class'. Funny how the highest skilled workers still ended up with the best digs.  In the meantime, everybody's standard of living drops because of economic drags.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> In Saskatchewan and some places on the East Coast there are many bargains for houses and property. I suspect that jobs and customers for businesses would be few and far between. Please correct me if I am wrong, and I shall consider moving there as an option.


Actually, Saskatoon is apparently doing very well... in real estate circles, it's been nicknamed Saskaboom.

Edited to add: You'd better move quick, though. Housing costs went up 53% last year in Saskatoon--supply and demand.  Though mind you, Saskatoon isn't hemmed in by the ocean the way Vancouver is.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> You have completely missed that the your so called facts are skewed stats that do not present either the truth or the whole picture.
> 
> Affordable for who? Who is actually buying homes now?
> 
> ...


MB, this isn't complicated. This is a simple formula based on real credible data. Why are you so resistant to accept it?

You said before that you took university courses in math. Based on that I would guess that you have an above average IQ. Based on that there is no reason for you not to understand the data I showed you. Yet, for some reason, you are completely overlooking it and denying reality. Why?

The data doesn't need to account for 'who' or 'what profession'. It has NOTHING to do with it. It simply looks at the median data. Come on, you should know this better than anybody given your mathematical background.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> You say that everyone has to have two incomes instead of one and that they have to live in higher density.
> 
> This is a direct contradiction to saying that housing is just as affordable as it has always been.
> 
> Quite simply you now must pay much more for much less.


Go back and re-read what I said. You clearly haven't read it thoroughly. 

I never said anybody HAD to have two incomes. I simply stated that there was an increasing trend of dual incomes over the last 30 years. I did not attach any judgment to this. I am simply stating reality.

This statement has NOTHING to do with the affordability calculations I have shown you. NOTHING. I made this clear before. How can you mix this up? There is no contradiction here.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> We have had this argument about healthcare.
> Housing is no different.


Yes it is different. 



MacDoc said:


> There must be an affordable quantity.


It's called renting.

I just showed you above that rental rates to income have not changed substantially in the last 20 to 30 years (looking at BC and assuming similar trends elsewhere).

The sky is not falling.



MacDoc said:


> Affordable housing is critical no less than affordable health care.
> It should not be the only choice, but it should be A choice.
> 
> Right now we have not mobilized the societal resources to make it A choice.


Slippery slope. 

What isn't critical in our society? Where do you want to draw the line? Personally, I am tired of the Nanny state and I think we have gone too far one way. If you want to fund something like this, then tell me what you want to cut to make it up. Taxes are too high already. Where are you going to get the money from?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

duosonic said:


> Interesting as has been the discussion about housing markets/issues, etc., the poverty situation is about much more than that - it's also about the changing economy, the loss of manufacturing jobs, rolled back &/or frozen wages in some sectors, a minimum wage that has not kept pace with economic realities, cutbacks in social assistance and EI, and in home care and other health services … it's about massive changes in the social contract, and the devaluing of HUMAN resources in favour of fasle productivity, streamlining, bottom line thinking, etc., and a changed global economy.
> 
> I know this is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and will probably elicit all sorts of reactions - but the world is not what it was 30 years ago; it is not what some of us hoped it would be by now; and none of it is susceptible to a simple fix.


I agree with some of what you said, but not all. Minimum wage is a red herring. Lack of skills and education are the real issue here. No skillz, no $$. Part of the problem is that many low wage workers are not very functional in the new economy. They are not able to quickly learn new skills or be very functional in the modern world. 

I agree on no simple fixes. Social issues are the root cause of most poverty. Some people are just lost souls and no amount of assistance or help is going to improve the situation. You can shovel all the money you want at the problem and not get much improvement. We have to start with the kids because that is the only place where change can start.

But, here is BC we have a seriously messed up group running the Ministry of Children and Families. That would be a great place to start cleaning house.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Poor know why they're poor*
> 
> Nov 29, 2007 04:30 AM
> Premier targets city poverty
> ...


not coincidentally.



> In 1997, Lastman's position was abolished when the provincial government under Mike Harris amalgamated North York with Scarborough, York, East York, Etobicoke, and the existing City of Toronto, creating a single-tier "megacity" which was also called the City of Toronto.


any more questions??......ghosts of things to come........


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

I have been watching this thread and the one on affordable housing.

Several things:

1. Real estate is by nature monopolistic. If my butt is planted on a chunk of ground, then yours can't be planted on the same ground. When everyone wants to be in the same place, prices there go up. Toronto and Vancouver appear to be the places to be.

2. Wages have not risen with inflation. Welcome to the world economy Plus some serious local wage skewing.

3. Over the last 30 years or more there has been a huge business centralization trend both nationally and internationally. Many places that were manufacturing items for the Canadian Market are not doing so any more. I have a TV that was made in Prescott, by Brockville. I do not think you will see a new one from there. The whole manufacturing strip along Lake Ontario to the East of Toronto appears to have seen better days.

At one time London Ontario was the Insurance Capital of Ontario. Many of the head offices are now in Toronto.

4. Most resource industries have greatly downsized their work forces. Machines have replaced men. This includes agriculture. In general, the level of entry to business has constantly increased. To some extent technology has enabled new business with lower entries to start, but it is lobsided. In general this has pushed people to the larger centres. This in an of itself rises housing prices and lower wage rates.

5. Some one can correct me here, but any economics texts I read in the past indicated that 5% unemployment was pretty much the equilibrium and that at 5% unemployment wage rates would rise to what was required. A series of governments has had an immigration policy that is bringing up to 250,000 people per year into this economy. This is a fair sized city per year. This coupled with items mentioned above has resulted in unemployment levels chronically higher than 5% - which leads to reduced wages. I am conservative by nature and in most things believe that the market should rule. In this case, the market is greatly skewed, in part by the government. Further they exascerbate the situation with legislated lower student wages to keep further pressure downward and companies take advantage of this to the point where there are businesses that run mainly on student labour. It is hard to compete with some one who can work for pin money and live in their mother's basement. But many have, by not moving out at all. A living minimum wage would go a long way to aleviating poverty. And, this would not be a "Socialist Commy Thingy" but rather a direct answer to chronic ongoing meddling by the government in the labour maket.

6. We may have to look at the fact that our major cities are actually reaching the point of diseconomies of scale. The marginal cost of adding a job to Toronto is higher than the benefit to the people there. There are about 30,000 people per day that migrate from Barrie to Toronto and back. They take the Toronto wage, but attempt to also have the Barrie cost advantage. It is costing them at minimum two hours a day plus $.40/km in driving cost to do this - and it is still a net gain for them. This gives another indication of how out of wack prices in TO and other hot cities are.

Some one had commented that historically things have not changed housing wise regarding affordability. Household ownership is probably higher than it was in the early part of the 20th century. But this was a time when financing for homes was spotty. 

The golden age of housing in Canada is probably the late 1950's. At that time a family with a single earner, with children who only worked in the summer, could and did afford single family detached dwellings throughout this country. 

Note that the bank act did not allow banks to finance until 1967. This was considered too risky for such important financial institutions. So they were doing it with a much larger cash component that is now seen with 100% financing through CMHC. This kept housing prices down and demand steady. Introducing 100% financing causes a spike and in the end hurts those it was supposed to help.

I see a lot of things going on here that are not going to addressed by simple government intervention. There are structural changes to take place in this economy including the acceptance of the virtual office and the resulting dispersion of employees to lower cost areas. I am afraid many of them are not legislatable, but "Just have to Happen over time."

My long $.02 on a Friday morning

Dave


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good analysis here and the right prescription....*make sure developers MUST include density and low cost units in ANY development period no matter where it is - urbs or suburbs.*



> *Luxury boom could imperil safety*
> 
> Nov 29, 2007 04:30 AM
> HANIEH REZAIE
> ...


Low cost high density, low rise housing mixed through out the city is as vital to the community as fresh water, good roads, libraries and schools.

No vision, no will power. 

••




> Will investigate, any weblinks appreciated.* Hopefully will buy something that will appreciate too*


I see the brain washing is alive and well  ..PT Barnum was right. 

Want something to appreciate?? - start a business and grow it.....THAT's wealth creation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ontario getting screwed again......



> n Fort McMurray, Alta., where jobs go begging, an unemployed worker only has to have 630 hours to qualify for a maximum of 40 weeks of assistance.
> 
> "It unfairly, in my mind, penalizes people who become unemployed in regions deemed to be low unemployment ... (S)adly Toronto isn't even a low unemployment area anymore relative to the national average," Don Drummond, TD Bank chief economist, told the Star.
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Canada | EI fund failing poor, critics say

not the only "highway robbery" either........


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Definitely getting screwed.

You should separate. beejacon


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This guy gets it, - it's an incredibly important asset of an equitable and functional society, as much as clean water and good schools.



> *Fix social housing or create slums*
> 
> Dec 13, 2007 04:30 AM
> ROGER MALONEY
> ...


_

The one aspect he overlooks is that community housing must be interspersed throughout all neighborhoods and concentrated along public transit routes. Then everyone wins including the the ecology._


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You want to blame somebody for the miserable situtation that is Toronto's community housing?

Toronto City Council

It's that simple. Toronto City Council wastes money like there is no tomorrow (what else would you expect from an NDP supported government). They flitter away dollars with no future vision.

The NDP-leaning councillors have their heads so far up their ass in regards to money management, there is really no hope for Toronto.

Need an example? One of our city councillors, Rob Ford, a BIG C Conservative, pays for ALL his office expenses out of pocket. While every councillor is given a $53,100 office budget, Rob Ford doesn't spend one cent of it. Envelopes, stamps, paper, paper clips, everything comes out of his salary. The NDP-leaning councillors are so ticked about him making them look bad that they want to FORCE him to provide receipts for everything he bought for his office with his OWN money!

Waste, waste, waste. I have no sympathy for the Toronto Municipal Government. They want more and more money just so they can waste more and more of it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Waste, waste, waste. I have no sympathy for the Toronto Municipal Government. They want more and more money just so they can waste more and more of it.


Pure rhetoric and nothing but. You can't prove any waste. Why don't we see what the auditor says instead of the National Post. As I understand it the city is WAY more careful with it's money than the Province or the Feds. I'm sick of these accusations flying around because never once have I seen *any* numbers to back up any of these accusations.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> The NDP-leaning councillors are so ticked about him making them look bad that they want to FORCE him to provide receipts for everything he bought for his office with his OWN money!


According to regulations he needs to submit expenses. He doesn't want to. Too bad for him. He's playing politics plain and simple. Expense reporting is there to make sure he is not using his money to fund an early campaign. Which is exactly what he is doing. 
Just because he doesn't want to use his expenses or report how much and what he is spending his money on doesn't mean the rest of the councilors are dishonest but it does imply Ford has something to hide.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

All cities in Ontariio have been scrambling for the last 10 years or so. 

Feds under Martin as finance minister seriously downloaded on the Provinces trying to get the deficit under control. There was a lot of medical in this if I remember correctly. It had started back under Mulrooney and progressed from there. It had to be done. Our dollar was going to hell, inflation was getting really serious and interest rates were going through the roof. I remember the Royal Bank Special Purpose Loan - Personal loan to a mortgage -going over the top at 24%.

Provinces under several administrations dumped on the cities and towns. Not just big ones either. There are municipalities in Northern Ontario that all of a sudden had serious stretches of Queens highway with assorted bridges and other ongoing expenses that became municpal roads.

Toronto also has the wammy of changing age distribution and population distribution. It is much less a city of yonge families that it used to be. We have the Toronto refugees here in Barrie raising families and commuting. There are even more in the 905 areas. This changes the services needed, but the infrastructure is frozen in place.

I can't say as to Toronto management. I am on the outside looking in. It does however appear that they have been given their share of "challenges".


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Have had a few dealings with the City of Toronto--zoning and planning in particular. A lot of things are still a mess due to the amalgamation... there's a fair bit of duplication between the original cities, policies are not consistent.

We have aging rental stock in the city, and there are virtually no incentives to build more. Rehabilitating old stock can be extremely expensive.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - Lastman's boycott of the Mayor's Council was a disgrace. Between he and Falherty it'll be a while before any momentum is regained and quite frankly the crew in place is hardly a dream team anyway.

Wish Hazel were younger....what a difference if it had been her instead of Lastman. 

Toronto a sad tale and a slowdown coming and idjits in Ottawa.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

martman said:


> Expense reporting is there to make sure he is not using his money to fund an early campaign. Which is exactly what he is doing.


Just like every other city councillor (and I doubt he's running an early campaign, seeing how the next election is in three years). My local city councillor sent out a mailer saying how GREAT she was, supporting our community, using her city hall budget, just before the cutoff for the last election. Not waste? Nah, that's just politics.



martman said:


> Pure rhetoric and nothing but. You can't prove any waste. Why don't we see what the auditor says instead of the National Post. As I understand it the city is WAY more careful with it's money than the Province or the Feds. I'm sick of these accusations flying around because never once have I seen *any* numbers to back up any of these accusations.


Lest we forget - Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a look at: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-2353.pdf
and try to explain the massive variance between all the city councillors.

Or how about in 2006, the TTC paid for the airfare for Sandra Bussin to fly back to Toronto, from her vacation, to vote on an issue. Good lord knows with the state of technology these days, she couldn't have called it in.

Yup! No waste at city hall.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Yup! No waste at city hall.


GT, you don't understand. The federal government is at fault. They have lots of money as does Alberta. All you need to do is shake the infinite money tree. We all know corporations are a limitless source of revenue. All you have to do it tax them more.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Lest we forget - Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Or how about in 2006, the TTC paid for the airfare for Sandra Bussin to fly back to Toronto, from her vacation, to vote on an issue. Good lord knows with the state of technology these days, she couldn't have called it in.
> ...


Leasing affair was under Lastman not Miller. It dates back to 1998. Got anything current?
Yes you point to one current incident (Bussin). A huge spending scandal it is not. I would like to read more on this Bussin affair however. 
Show me an auditors report and I'll concede the massive waste at city hall. Otherwise it is just hot air with NO PROOF.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Some progress......just in time to deal with a recession 

Gonna be a big issue in any federal election.



> *Ontario's cities need help to soar*
> 
> December 30, 2007
> Toronto City Council began the current year in a deep financial hole and descended from there into episodes that bordered on farce. But it is finishing this year of crisis with a brighter budget outlook and hints of a more promising future. With proper support from Queen's Park and Ottawa, 2008 might just be the year that Toronto takes off.
> ...


TheStar.com - comment - Ontario's cities need help to soar

Be interesting to see how municipalities deal with a property tax revolt if values drop the way I think they will.

Finally seeing some rational dialogue AND action province to GTA. :clap:

Now about Harper and Flaherty and the "let them eat cake" crowd ?? ....

.....maybe there is an electoral equivalent of Madame Guillotine awaiting them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Be interesting to see how municipalities deal with a property tax revolt if values drop the way I think they will.


Please stop with this canard, MacDoc. Municipal taxes aren't pegged to absolute property values--just relative property values in relation to each other. If all property value assessments fell by 40% next year, the amount of property tax collected would be exactly the same.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Would this have anything to do with Vancouver being a major destination of many new immigrants from Asia? Toronto is so high because immigrants flock here like no tomorrow. I mean Weston is pretty much Somalia-ville. Most people coming to Canada from Somalia cannot be that well off.


----------

