Low income housing being used by high income residents.

[89coupe]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...g-rich-ch.html

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by 89coupe
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...g-rich-ch.html

CBC

CHC officials said there are a number of reasons that medium to high income earners are living in its units, according to CTF.
Not all tenants subsidized, says housing chair

Ald. Gael Macleod, who chairs CHC, says one-third of their clients are paying market rates — so most higher-income tenants are not subsidized.

She says the profit from those is used to help low-income Calgarians with subsidized rents.

makes sense to me.

[89coupe]

They shouldn't be allowed in there to begin with, regardless of what they are paying. It's meant for low income people.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by 89coupe
They shouldn't be allowed in there to begin with, regardless of what they are paying. It's meant for low income people.

So where does the subsidy money come from then. Toss out the people paying market value and you lose a bunch of revenue.

[AndyL]

The high income "market value" residents subsidize the low income... Also allows for those units not to become slums...

Here goes the CBC again...

[revelations]

Wait im confused, arent these numbers from their declared income from FY 2012 to the CRA .... isnt it possible they fell on some hard times and wont make that much this year

[89coupe]

Originally posted by FraserB


So where does the subsidy money come from then. Toss out the people paying market value and you lose a bunch of revenue.

From high income tax payers, a subsidy program duh. You don't need to live in low income housing for the government to collect that.

[flipstah]

CBC:

This method works out well; rich pays for the poor. What more do you want?!

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by 89coupe


From high income tax payers, a subsidy program duh. You don't need to live in low income housing for the government to collect that.

So, being a high income tax payer, you are ok with an increase in tax rate to accommodate evicting the high income residents and bringing in more low income people to subsidize?

[frizzlefry]

There is a guy who lives in a low income building near my condo that ran for mayor once. Not sure who he is but he drives a nice car, wears nice suits. If the "rich" tenants help support the poor than great. Not sure why the hell you would want to live in those shitholes though. No balcony, no concierge, no security...the rich in those buildings must be on crack, figuratively. Or not. Your dealer lives down the hall. Very convenient.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
There is a guy who lives in a low income building near my condo that ran for mayor once. Not sure who he is but he drives a nice car, wears nice suits. If the "rich" tenants help support the poor than great. Not sure why the hell you would want to live in those shitholes though. No balcony, no concierge, no security...the rich in those buildings must be on crack, figuratively. Or not. Your dealer lives down the hall. Very convenient.

Ive heard crack is practically a prerequisite for a mayoral position now.

[masoncgy]

Sounds like a flawed program with poor screening & review procedures in place.

While I like the notion of a self-sustaining program as some on this thread would believe is the case, the evidence is clear that general taxpayers are footing the bill in subsidizing rents for those who could easily afford market value rents outside of the program.

This points to unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of a program that is intended for other purposes.

Let's see the numbers, please!

[Euro838]

The subsidy is 10% for those that qualify. For those that don't, the rent really isn't that cheap and I would say for the most part is on par with the market. As others have said, the places are not really that great and if you are making good money, why would you want to stay there other than being lazy and not wanting to move or change. But to each their own. We need more renters in this market! LOL!

[Euro838]

Originally posted by masoncgy
Sounds like a flawed program with poor screening & review procedures in place.

The flaw is in a loop hole that exists for those that are grandfathered on a month to month tenancy. I believe new applicants are on annual leases where they must prove income on renewal. For those that were there before, they cannot be evicted/discriminated based on income and do not require proof of income.

Anyways, I think there are other social programs that are being taken advantage of that cost taxpayers a lot more. LOL! I'd say that MP's mis-use of expense accounts costs tax payers way more than what we are seeing here!

[ddduke]

Originally posted by AndyL
The high income "market value" residents subsidize the low income... Also allows for those units not to become slums...

Here goes the CBC again...

This is what's happening, 89coupe doesn't know what he's talking about. A friend of mine is a building manager for Calgary housing and he is required to rent x amount of units at market value to cover the cost of maintenance, landscaping, snow removal, etc. If those people weren't around then the buildings would be in much worse shape with much shittier tenants.

One of the buildings that's being questioned is actually in Montreux which is super close to 89coupe, if regular renters weren't in there then instead of this thread he'd be making one on how they're ruining his community.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


So, being a high income tax payer, you are ok with an increase in tax rate to accommodate evicting the high income residents and bringing in more low income people to subsidize?

Yes

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by 89coupe


Yes

I am surprised. I am not willing to pay for it, and I feel like the current system is good in that the high income people willing to live in those places are personally subsidizing the lower income people. Plus the higher income people probably have a bit more incentive and wherewithal to keep the building looking good and keep the undesirables out. I feel like they would turn into ghettos if it was 100% subsidized, which is bad for property values.

[89coupe]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


I am surprised. I am not willing to pay for it, and I feel like the current system is good in that the high income people willing to live in those places are personally subsidizing the lower income people. Plus the higher income people probably have a bit more incentive and wherewithal to keep the building looking good and keep the undesirables out. I feel like they would turn into ghettos if it was 100% subsidized, which is bad for property values.

Why do you assume low income people are undesirable and wouldn't keep it looking good?

I think these facilities should be used for families who have come into hard times, single mothers/fathers, and the disabled.

Not for drug addicts, lazy low life's, and criminals.

There should be strict guidelines/screening in place to insure this.

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by 89coupe


Why do you assume low income people are undesirable and wouldn't keep it looking good?

I think these facilities should be used for families who have come into hard times, single mothers/fathers, and the disabled.

Not for drug addicts, lazy low life's, and criminals.

There should be strict guidelines/screening in place to insure this.

In my experience lower income neighborhoods tend to have lower standards when it comes to building upkeep and maintenance due to the fact that they are lower income. Having a good mix of people will tend to balance that out. Just my opinion though, the less tax money can be used for welfare, the better.

[thetransporter]

Originally posted by GTS4tw


In my experience lower income neighborhoods tend to have lower standards when it comes to building upkeep and maintenance due to the fact that they are lower income. Having a good mix of people will tend to balance that out. Just my opinion though, the less tax money can be used for welfare, the better.

i know one place that is city housing in a higher end community - they drive really end cars - its unfortunate as some people/moms/women, disabled/fathers are in a very tough situation