Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 12-08-2018, 09:14 PM   #21
Joborule
Franchise Player
 
Joborule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen View Post
Get rid of? You are aware that it was removed in 2011...right?
Bad choice of words. I mean rescind the decision, and add fluoride back.
Joborule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2018, 07:33 AM   #22
bizaro86
#1 Goaltender
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

One thing that Farkas said recently which surprised me was that Calgary funded the Pembina Institute to the tune of $300k last year. That does seem like a place we could cut municipal spending to me...
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 09:02 AM   #23
corporatejay
Franchise Player
 
corporatejay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer2 View Post
There are so many things here I disagree with I don't even know where to start.

I'll stick to facts though.

She is supporting a $40M affordable housing initiative on 20th Ave and 6th St NW. In a city that has a huge amount of rental properties and apartments...how is this a good use of money.

Why don't we think a little smarter and try to help fill rental properties throughout the city before blowing $40M on an initiative like this.

I can't stand her and 95% of what comes out of her mouth, so thanks for speaking for me that she represents my community well. No she does not.
This seems like a bizarre stance to take. Affordable housing is important, inner city rents are still extremely high, what's your solution?
__________________
corporatejay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 09:15 AM   #24
para transit fellow
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
One thing that Farkas said recently which surprised me was that Calgary funded the Pembina Institute to the tune of $300k last year. That does seem like a place we could cut municipal spending to me...
Over the past several years, Calgary has hired the Pembina institute to consult on various ecological issues on a fee for service contract basis
para transit fellow is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to para transit fellow For This Useful Post:
Old 12-10-2018, 10:25 AM   #25
PsYcNeT
Franchise Player
 
PsYcNeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Marseilles Of The Prairies
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay View Post
This seems like a bizarre stance to take. Affordable housing is important, inner city rents are still extremely high, what's your solution?
Apparently he wants the city to buy/contract existing apartment space and then rent it at a lower cost.

All the NIMBYs would be totally cool with this because
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm View Post
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
PsYcNeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 10:30 AM   #26
woob
First Line Centre
 
woob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Exp:
Default

Was the thread title typo intentional... ?
woob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 10:30 AM   #27
jeffporfirio
Scoring Winger
 
jeffporfirio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

I hope Farkas, Chu, Sutherland and Farrell are on their way out next election
jeffporfirio is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jeffporfirio For This Useful Post:
Old 12-10-2018, 11:00 AM   #28
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woob View Post
Was the thread title typo intentional... ?

Dammit.
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Old 12-10-2018, 11:05 AM   #29
Lubicon
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT View Post
Apparently he wants the city to buy/contract existing apartment space and then rent it at a lower cost.

All the NIMBYs would be totally cool with this because
That idea is worth exploring if there is a large amount of empty rental space out there. Have the City guarantee the landlord market rates for their unit and subsidize the difference between market rate and whatever the 'affordable' rate is. The cost to do this might be less than building new units from scratch.

Probably lots of obstacles to overcome but the idea should at least be explored.
Lubicon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 12:44 PM   #30
bizaro86
#1 Goaltender
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

I think it would be way more efficient to subsidize tenants than subsidize buildings. If someone qualifies, give them $xxx per month in rent subsidy. Even have it paid directly to the landlord if you don't trust the people you're subsidizing.

This efficiently uses our existing housing stock, because people can make the best choice for them. 20th Ave and 6th street NW is a "good" location, but if someone who is getting the subsidy works far from there they would likely be better served by liVing close to work, or family for childcare, etc. If you let people choose, they will pick what's best for them not just live where subsidized housing is available.

This also solves the NIMBY problem.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 12:49 PM   #31
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
I think it would be way more efficient to subsidize tenants than subsidize buildings. If someone qualifies, give them $xxx per month in rent subsidy. Even have it paid directly to the landlord if you don't trust the people you're subsidizing.

This efficiently uses our existing housing stock, because people can make the best choice for them. 20th Ave and 6th street NW is a "good" location, but if someone who is getting the subsidy works far from there they would likely be better served by liVing close to work, or family for childcare, etc. If you let people choose, they will pick what's best for them not just live where subsidized housing is available.

This also solves the NIMBY problem.
It also hurts every other person who is renting that doesn't qualify for affordable housing by artificially keeping rent high in the city. So now these people are essentially paying taxes to keep their own rent higher than it should be.
Weitz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 04:26 PM   #32
para transit fellow
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
I think it would be way more efficient to subsidize tenants than subsidize buildings. If someone qualifies, give them $xxx per month in rent subsidy. Even have it paid directly to the landlord if you don't trust the people you're subsidizing.

This efficiently uses our existing housing stock, because people can make the best choice for them. 20th Ave and 6th street NW is a "good" location, but if someone who is getting the subsidy works far from there they would likely be better served by liVing close to work, or family for childcare, etc. If you let people choose, they will pick what's best for them not just live where subsidized housing is available.

This also solves the NIMBY problem.

What the city does when it owns the building is:

A) lease out the majority part of the building units at market rent
b) lease a portion of the units at subsidized rent to qualified individuals.

...with the goal that the total revenues from ALL rents collected are sufficient to maintain the building costs.

The practice is called cross-subsidization: the income from the market rent suites cover the subsidize the sub market rent. Best part of the strategy is that after the initial acquisition costs, the subsidies are sustained without annual taxpayer dollars.

the disadvantage is that the tenant needing a subsidy can't move to another apartment if their situation changes.

Last edited by para transit fellow; 12-10-2018 at 04:31 PM.
para transit fellow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 04:30 PM   #33
Senator Clay Davis
Franchise Player
 
Senator Clay Davis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffporfirio View Post
I hope Farkas, Chu, Sutherland and Farrell are on their way out next election
DCU conspicuously absent from this list.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Senator Clay Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 05:40 PM   #34
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis View Post
DCU conspicuously absent from this list.
I think DCU is the worst of all of them. She doesn’t stand for anything and just blows in the wind. At least with Chu, Farkas and Farrel they stand for something. I would rather have someone I disagree with represent me then someone who just blows in the wind.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 05:50 PM   #35
bizaro86
#1 Goaltender
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
What the city does when it owns the building is:

A) lease out the majority part of the building units at market rent
b) lease a portion of the units at subsidized rent to qualified individuals.

...with the goal that the total revenues from ALL rents collected are sufficient to maintain the building costs.

The practice is called cross-subsidization: the income from the market rent suites cover the subsidize the sub market rent. Best part of the strategy is that after the initial acquisition costs, the subsidies are sustained without annual taxpayer dollars.

the disadvantage is that the tenant needing a subsidy can't move to another apartment if their situation changes.
The other disadvantages are:

The city has to put up a huge amount of money initially to build the building.

The city has to manage it. I just about bought a house from Calgary Housing once, and the deferred maintenance was unreal. The city isn't good at this, imo.

If the city wanted to put $40MM plus the value of some land into affordable housing, probably the best thing they could do would be invest the money and use the returns to provide subsidies.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2018, 05:56 PM   #36
bizaro86
#1 Goaltender
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
It also hurts every other person who is renting that doesn't qualify for affordable housing by artificially keeping rent high in the city. So now these people are essentially paying taxes to keep their own rent higher than it should be.
I am pretty sure if rents were any higher more rental buildings would go up. Lots of rental apartments have been built lately, and rents are still much lower than they have been.

The city owns that land, they could sell it and have the same number of market rent apartments built easily.

Then subsidize the same number of low income people to live where they want to live, and let people who want to live in that location live there. Seems win-win to me.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2018, 12:08 AM   #37
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubicon View Post
That idea is worth exploring if there is a large amount of empty rental space out there. Have the City guarantee the landlord market rates for their unit and subsidize the difference between market rate and whatever the 'affordable' rate is. The cost to do this might be less than building new units from scratch.
If there's lots of it empty, it's not at market price.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2018, 04:35 AM   #38
Addick
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Addick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South London
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
I think it would be way more efficient to subsidize tenants than subsidize buildings. If someone qualifies, give them $xxx per month in rent subsidy. Even have it paid directly to the landlord if you don't trust the people you're subsidizing.

This efficiently uses our existing housing stock, because people can make the best choice for them. 20th Ave and 6th street NW is a "good" location, but if someone who is getting the subsidy works far from there they would likely be better served by liVing close to work, or family for childcare, etc. If you let people choose, they will pick what's best for them not just live where subsidized housing is available.

This also solves the NIMBY problem.
In “The Life and Death of Great American Cities”, Jane Jacobs described a version of this system when she spoke of Guaranteed Rent. It is a very intriguing system and one that I would be very interested to see implemented today. However, I’m not sure it is a sustainable option for the City as they lack consistent funding for affordable housing programs/schemes. Without this consistent funding, the money to ‘top-up’ rents would evaporate. While this situation could put pressure on the Provincial and Federal governments to cough up the cash, I think they would see this coming and refuse to allow/allocate funds to be used for a Guaranteed Rent system in the first place.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”

- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Addick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2018, 07:39 AM   #39
Red Slinger
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Red Slinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
I think DCU is the worst of all of them. She doesn’t stand for anything and just blows in the wind. At least with Chu, Farkas and Farrel they stand for something. I would rather have someone I disagree with represent me then someone who just blows in the wind.
You'd prefer to have someone take positions out of principle rather than pragmatism?
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
Red Slinger is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Old 12-17-2018, 04:52 PM   #40
Bunk
Franchise Player
 
Bunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Farkas just got booted from a Council meeting on a 14-1 vote for posting (clearly deliberately) false statements on Facebook about Council pay, and refusing to "apologize to the meeting".

He'll love it - fits his martyr complex beautifully.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Bunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
chu , farkas , farkasisgreat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:45 PM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016