Suite deal!

[Dion]

A taxpayers’ watchdog group has uncovered evidence of tenants living in public housing who make more than $100,000.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released the results of an access-to-information request Tuesday showing there were 18 tenants renting units operated by the Calgary Housing Company who have annual incomes between $120,000 and $172,000.

In all, the CTF turned up 123 tenants with annual incomes exceeding $80,000 — and above income thresholds specified by the Calgary Housing Company to qualify for a unit.

“Social housing is there to provide for the poor and to house the people who would otherwise be on the street,” Fildebrandt said.

The CHC imposed income thresholds for LEM units in 2011, but officials said they are on periodic leases that can’t be terminated on the basis of a change in income.

“The provincial legislation does not allow us to simply evict them — they’ve done nothing wrong,” she said.

“I agree they need to move on, but it’s not the big number, the big issue it was in the past.”

There is a waiting list for approximately 3,000 Calgary Housing units, but MacLeod stressed most of the grandfathered high-income earners aren’t taking away spaces from people in that pool.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...971/story.html

[SebC]

As I mentioned in the "I work for Nenshi, AMA" thread, these aren't the only well-off Calgarians living in subsidized housing.

[photon]

They can't evict them by law if they're paying their rent, seems like someone didn't write up the leases properly.. better to be fixed term tenancies and then renew them annually and include language about the qualification for the program terms or something.

For existing ones increase the rents to something far in excess market value, you can't boot a tenant out for no reason, and the laws restrict how often you can increase rents, but they don't restrict how much you can increase rents.

Your rent is now $3000 / month

[GP_Matt]

The sad thing is that these are most likely people who were struggling and received help from a solid program to get back on their feet. Instead of being grateful for the help when they needed it and making room for someone else they have decided to stay on to take advantage of the system.

[Regular_John]

This seems like one of those stories you need some more information on before taking sides. I mean arean't most leases fixed terms? So if some one went from low income to high income during a 12 month period it seems like it would be something to discuss at the next lease renewal?

Evicting anyone is a crappy thing to do, I don't care how much money you make, the stress of not having your housing sorted out is not something I'd force on anyone unnecessarily.

Yeah if some one qualified for the program one month and then got a big raise next month they should be ineligible for renewal 11 months later, but there's gotta be a transition period there & a process for saying "ok you used the program when you needed it, but you need to make alternate plans at the end of your lease".

Do Alberta landlord/tenant laws now allow for changes to the lease? EG: 90 days notice, etc?

I dunno, seems like we're getting a very editorialized version of what's happening here. But I suppose "Rich people bleeding tax payers dry!" is a better headline than anything else.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

I mean arean't most leases fixed terms?

I wouldn't say so, most people I deal with just want month by month rather than fixed term, and most landlords I know seem to work that way. I don't know what the ratio in Alberta would be though. I prefer fixed term as it gives a distinct end if things aren't going as I would prefer, gives me the ability to choose to continue the arrangement or not.

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Yeah if some one qualified for the program one month and then got a big raise next month they should be ineligible for renewal 11 months later, but there's gotta be a transition period there & a process for saying "ok you used the program when you needed it, but you need to make alternate plans at the end of your lease".

One of the articles mentions that's exactly how they do it now with leases being fixed term leases rather than periodic ones. The issue is the people with existing leases that are periodic rather than fixed term I guess, there's nothing they can do about them other than my suggestion of raising the rent some crazy amount, and maybe because of the nature of the housing there's other terms of the rental agreement that prohibit that.

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Do Alberta landlord/tenant laws now allow for changes to the lease? EG: 90 days notice, etc?

Not really no, for a periodic lease there's only very limited reasons a tenant that's paying their rent and taking care of the property can be evicted (significant renovations, change of use like condo conversion, family moving in, that kind of thing).

Originally Posted by jaydorn

I dunno, seems like we're getting a very editorialized version of what's happening here. But I suppose "Rich people bleeding tax payers dry!" is a better headline than anything else.

There are a certain # of people getting away with it, so it does seem pretty straight forward, but the laws are what they are and the same people that are outraged that the "government isn't doing anything to stop this" would be the exact same people who would be outraged that "the government is changing a whole set of laws just to make their life easier".

No doubt that early in the program they should have gone with fixed term rather than periodic tenancies, but that's just a mistake from lack of experience that probably all landlords have gone through. That doesn't fit the "horrible government/administration/etc" narrative tho.

[Regular_John]

Yeah I guess at the end of the day I'd like to know what the number of pre-2011 tenants making more than $100k is before passing judgement. Maybe I missed it in the article (yes, I skimmed) but is the $100k personal or household income?

Obviously if someone can afford to pay the market rate for housing they should, but I doubt this is a case of some one parking their BMW in the low income drive way on our tax dime.

[getbak]

I don't understand this part...

Prior to 2011, some CHC homes were rented at market value to tenants regardless of income as a way of encouraging diversity and generating income to offset the cost of operating the subsidized units, Mayor Naheed Nenshi said.

“People paying market rent were subsidizing the non-market people. They were paying some of the freight,” he said.

However, a tightening rental supply in Calgary prompted CHC to tighten its eligibility requirements two years ago.

The company eliminated market-level rents and instead set its top rates to reflect the lower end of the private market — and imposed income thresholds as a qualifying requirement.

This makes it sound like they set every unit's rent at the subsidized rate without requiring those previously unsubsidized people to show any need for the subsidy. If that's true, that's quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Quite frankly, if they moved in when they were paying market value and their landlords made the idiotic decision to lower their rent to the subsidized rate, I can't really fault them for continuing to live there under those conditions. That's on the CHC for implementing an absurd policy change.

-----
EDIT:
-----


Okay, so the Sun story on this has this quote:

Ald. Gael MacLeod, who sits on the board of CHC, said renters who make more than $170,000 are paying the market price and they help subsidize those who live in the housing complexes.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/06/11...income-earners

Based on that, the people in question aren't being subsidized, so I don't see any reason for outrage.

Prior to 2011, the CHC's policy was to rent a small percentage of the units in these buildings to people who did not require a subsidy and they were charged full market value for their units, and their extra rent was used to offset the costs of subsidizing the other units.

For example: Rather than 100% of the units paying 75% of market value, you could have 20% of the units paying 100% of market value and the other 80% paying 70% of market value and you'd be bringing in approximately the same amount of money each month while giving the subsidized tenants lower rent than if the whole building was subsidized.


In 2011, because of the long waiting list for subsidized housing, the policy was changed to make all units in the buildings subsidized, but those previously unsubsidized tenants have valid grandfathered leases. As long as their units are still unsubsidized, I see nothing wrong with them choosing to stay. They moved into unsubsidized housing and still live in unsubsidized housing.

[undercoverbrother]

Stupid CP 1%'ers wrecking it for everyone.

[photon]

Originally Posted by getbak

In 2011, because of the long waiting list for subsidized housing, the policy was changed to make all units in the buildings subsidized, but those previously unsubsidized tenants have valid grandfathered leases. As long as their units are still unsubsidized, I see nothing wrong with them choosing to stay. They moved into unsubsidized housing and still live in unsubsidized housing.

I guess the outrage would be that they're taking up a slot that could be used by a low income person/family, though reading the comments on the articles people think that the $170,000 earners are paying some low rent too.

[para transit fellow]

CTF has a very simplistic view of social service programs. I dislike their premise that every unit owned by CHC must be a subsidized unit.

A small percentage of the market renters are involved in housing that is in an unsuitable location for someone needing subsidized housing.

For example, about ten years ago the Province passed some properties in Mackenzie town onto CHC. These ideal homes for a subsidized family became un-rentable to subsidized candidates because there was very poor transit access to downtown or health services.

Since CHC was unwilling to subsidize a car in addition to the housing.... the units were made available to market renters.

Note the economics: CHC got them for free, can't find a tenant to benefit from utilizing the subsidy and then proceeds to maximize revenue from the units for use elsewhere in the system.

One would think the CTF would applaud this sort of social entrapreneurialship