"Affordable" housing in Vancouver

[Bonam]

So Vancouver is completing its Olympic village, which includes 252 units of "affordable housing". That part of the project has had a cost overrun of $77 million, for a total cost of $110 million to build the units. In combination with other expenses related to the units, the cost to taxpayers is approximately $600,000 each, as estimated by the city council. That's not even including the cost of the (extremely expensive) land, since the city already owned that.

These units are located on some of the most picturesque waterfront property in North America, and are on par in luxury with some of the highest end condos in downtown Vancouver, which sell for prices in the million dollar range. Such housing is beyond the means of upper-middle class families with two working professionals, earning combined six figure salaries, and yet, the socialist Vancouver city council has determined that this is a fitting location and style of housing to give away for a few hundred dollars a month to the homeless.

Reasonable individuals have pointed out that if these luxury condos were simply sold at market value, the city would generate enough proceeds to build more than double the social housing units at a somewhat cheaper (but still excellent) location, with somewhat less luxury (but still very respectable conditions, on par with what most middle class citizens live in). The city council has refused to consider this, plowing ahead with their dogmatic view that the poor must be housed in accommodations fit for royalty at the expense of Vancouver's overtaxed middle class.

What is the motivation to work or to try to achieve anything in Vancouver now? Simply quit your job, declare yourself poor, and you can get some of the best accommodations available in the country, all at the expense of the Vancouver taxpayer. This class warfare by our socialist overlords has reached new levels of insanity. This is completely intolerable.

[DogOnPorch]

Seems like you have Prince George Syndrome....where 30% of the population goes to work to keep the other 70% playing bingo. I feel your pain.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Un freaking real. I wasn't aware of this.

This is yet another example of the reinforcement of the view of entitlement lazy socialists have on our world.

I know a lot of middle class dual income people who don't own a home in Vancouver right now. They really want to.

So what do they do? They make sacrifices. Work harder. Save more. Invest wisely. To someday achieve that dream.

This kind of thing is an insult to those people.

Socialism really burns me up. It's truly frustrating.

Class warfaree isn't about equality. It's about devaluing work. It's about getting something for nothing.

It's about getting elected to give some couch potato more of someone else's money so you can ffeel better about yourself.

Edited June 27, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld

[Oleg Bach]

600 thousand a unit? Huh? That sounds like the municipal administration likes to hand out lucrative un-tendered contract to their friends. What are they doing - charging 40 dollars a foot for a two by four?

[Bonam]

600 thousand a unit? Huh? That sounds like the municipal administration likes to hand out lucrative un-tendered contract to their friends. What are they doing - charging 40 dollars a foot for a two by four?

Here's an older article about it backing up the $600,000/unit number:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Social+ho...8046/story.html

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks for the article Bohan, but Jerry sure didn't need it before he made up his mind.

It doesn't seem that this will come to pass:

The likely plan is to sell off the social housing or perhaps turn it into market rentals.

The mayor’s idea is the sale will pay for the enormous cost overruns. Leftover dollars would be earmarked for building replacement social housing, at a more realistic price, perhaps in nearby areas of False Creek or elsewhere in the city.

[Bonam]

Thanks for the article Bohan, but Jerry sure didn't need it before he made up his mind.

It doesn't seem that this will come to pass:

That was the likely plan back when the article was written, in February. Since then council seems to have decided to maintain it as social housing rather than selling it. That's when the controversy started and why I started this thread.