Oleg Bach Posted March 8, 2011 Report Share Posted March 8, 2011 I agree. Isn't it funny how the left wing who claim to support the poor are silent right now on this issue? The unionist delivering mail in Rosedale dreams of being one of them. Lefties are not spiritualists of some high order..they are usually base and material minded.............now pass me one of those 20 dollar cubes of chocolate. Pedicures and manicures are so so nice...when someone gets on their knees and washes your feet, it is such a dream...lefties who spew out their love and care for humanity...in the end given the opportunity will mount the kingly throne - they are all revolutionary types who want to take what you work for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 The unionist delivering mail in Rosedale dreams of being one of them. Lefties are not spiritualists of some high order..they are usually base and material minded.............now pass me one of those 20 dollar cubes of chocolate. Pedicures and manicures are so so nice...when someone gets on their knees and washes your feet, it is such a dream...lefties who spew out their love and care for humanity...in the end given the opportunity will mount the kingly throne - they are all revolutionary types who want to take what you work for. It's so sad that these people who live in social housing need new stoves, fridges, renovations including carpeting and repair of holes in the walls not to mention bed bugs and cockroach infestations. The TCHC always says they have no money to do repairs. We now know that they did indeed have the money but just mis spent it. Deciding that manicures, pedicures, Holt Renfrew chocolates and Christmas parties were more important then doig their jobs. How many new Fridges and stoves could $40,000 buy? That was what they wasted on a Christmas party. They had two of those. Not to mention the $50 million they lost gambling on the stock market. If people in a private company did these things they'd be fired on the spot and a full scale criminal investigation would be taking place. For sure a forensic audit at any rate to find out how much more was mis spent. However because some of the board members were community activists the left refuses to stand up and say anything against this board. Not a peep at all. This is how partisan these people are. I'm not even sure they even care about the poor at all. It would appear that they only care about themselves. OCAP should be up in arms over this but they're not, they refuse to even discuss it. Doesn't look like the left cares about the poor at all does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 TCHC council members were spending thier budgets on many lavish things all funded by the taxpayer. Including $40,000 on a Christmas party, HOlt and Refrew chocolates for all staffers, manicures, pedicures. A week long Muskoka spa getaway for the council members to discuss the council business. Millions of dollars in personal spending instead of spending the money on the poor people in social housing who need repairs including stoves, fridges and bedbugs. Mayor Ford has asked the council to resign and they have all refused, including the CEO. Mayor Ford will now make a motion for vote in council to get this council out. I'm surprised that more socialists here aren't outraged by this. This groups is stealing money from the poor to fund a lavish, "rich" lifestyle. Money that could and should be used to help upgrade and refurbish some units. Oh, I forgot, the socialists cannot be seen agreeing with anything Mayor Ford says. Edit- The TCHC CEO has said that some people have been fired. Well who are they and why were they fired? The taxpayers have a right to know. There is some questionable spending, but overall, it's a red herring. $40,000 for a Christimas party? They have 1400 employees. That's about $30 each. Wow, such lavish hedonism. $6000 for a planning session at a lodge? I don't know how many people attended, how long they went for, or whether this would be considered overtime. I would say that if 20 people gave up a weekend, and went at it 12 hours a day, that's a bargain. Other things such as chocolates, massages, and pedicures, sound frivolous, but the money spent is ludicrously small, compared the total budget of the TCHC. It's not uncommon practice to reward employees for working extra unpaid hours, or especially hard, with small gifts, and given that they have 1400 employees, they certainly don't appear to have overspent. I work in the private sector, and I can tell you that I receive far more than the pittance mentioned in the audit report as perks for working hard. I am not sure why there is this assumption that if someone works for the public, that a $30 per person Christmas dinner represents gross mismanagement and excessiveness. Keeping employees happy is an important part of making sure things run smoothly. This money spent is nothing. Instead, they should look at total compensation - that is where the real money is spent - not insignificant perks representing less than one tenth of one percent of wages and benefits. And as for privatization, how exactly would that work? How do you privatize something that is a money loser? There are plenty of private companies building housing, but they don't seem interested in building for the poor, do they? Why would you take something with complex goals such as social housing, and hand it over to a company with only one goal: profit? That makes no sense at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted March 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) All this little spending all adds up especially when people have holes in their walls, broken appliances, cockroaches and bedbugs to mention a few. Add to that the TCHC says they're broke and have no money for repairs then have all this lavish spending that the taxpayer is footing the bill for. Perhaps a Muskoka getaway on the taxpayer dime isn't a big deal to you but I'm sure people who are living in social housing will disagree. How many new stoves and fridges could that $40,000 have bought? The difference is that this isn't a private company, with private resources. It's a public one using taxpayer dollars. Edited March 14, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 And as for privatization, how exactly would that work? How do you privatize something that is a money loser? There are plenty of private companies building housing, but they don't seem interested in building for the poor, do they? Why would you take something with complex goals such as social housing, and hand it over to a company with only one goal: profit? That makes no sense at all. Great question... Perhaps someone on the side of privitization can answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted March 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Great question... Perhaps someone on the side of privitization can answer? When they talk about privatization they aren't talking about selling buildings. They are talking about contracting out the running of them. It's the left spin that is talking about selling actual bricks and mortar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 When they talk about privatization they aren't talking about selling buildings. They are talking about contracting out the running of them. It's the left spin that is talking about selling actual bricks and mortar. Maybe it's your spin that "it's the left spin that is talking about selling actual bricks and mortar." Beause I have read no such thing, but I haven't read everthing so... How about you provide us with a cite or reference to this so-called "left spin" okay? Otherwise I will take this as your admittance that you are simply making things up. Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted March 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Maybe it's your spin that "it's the left spin that is talking about selling actual bricks and mortar." Beause I have read no such thing, but I haven't read everthing so... How about you provide us with a cite or reference to this so-called "left spin" okay? Otherwise I will take this as your admittance that you are simply making things up. Again. If you say the left knows the difference then that's great, they should say so. Just about any article about it in the Star. They seem to lead the reader to believe otherwise. They fail to make the distinction. So I'll say it again. Mayor Ford is talking about contracting out the managing, servicing and maintenance of the buildings not selling the buildings/houses themselves. Edited March 14, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 If you say the left knows the difference then that's great, they should say so. Just about any article about it in the Star. They seem to lead the reader to believe otherwise. They fail to make the distinction. So I'll say it again. Mayor Ford is talking about contracting out the managing, servicing and maintenance of the buildings not selling the buildings/houses themselves. So I'll say it again, if you cannot back up or provide a legitimate reference for saying "It's the left spin that is talking about selling actual bricks and mortar" then I'll accept this as an admittance that you are making stuff up. Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 All this little spending all adds up especially when people have holes in their walls, broken appliances, cockroaches and bedbugs to mention a few. Add to that the TCHC says they're broke and have no money for repairs then have all this lavish spending that the taxpayer is footing the bill for. Perhaps a Muskoka getaway on the taxpayer dime isn't a big deal to you but I'm sure people who are living in social housing will disagree. How many new stoves and fridges could that $40,000 have bought? The difference is that this isn't a private company, with private resources. It's a public one using taxpayer dollars. $28.57 That is the average amount spent per employee at the Christmas gala that has your panties in a knot. I understand that the tenants of various social housing projects are not doing well. I find your sudden interest in the welfare of the tenants of social housing to be somewhat disingenuous. It is a false comparison to take the miniscule perks that the employees of the TCHC receive, and talk about how much could have been purchased for the low income residents. I favour property tax hikes, and vehicle registration licensing to improve the quality of living for these people. Now, we are talking about a significant chunk of change that will really improve things. We are not talking about 6k for a planning session or 40k for a Christmas party of a 1k for chocolates, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars. But let me guess, your sudden concern for the poor doesn't extend to raising taxes does it? No, you only care about the tenants, when the fault can be laid at the 'socialists' enjoying their ultra-luxurious $28.57 Christmas dinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted March 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 $40,000 is a lot of money. You can spin it anyway you want but that money was misspent. If it's such a small amount then the people who work for TCHC should have no problem kicking in the $30 from their own pocket instead of the taxpayer. I thought people in Toronto banned Christmas from all public buildings anyways. So what are they doing having Christmas party on the taxpayer dime anyhow? Wouldn't that offend non Christians? Aren't their any non Christians on the TCHC board? How do they feel about taxpayer dollars funding a Christmas party? Public money shouldn't be used for any type of party at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted March 18, 2011 Report Share Posted March 18, 2011 Public money shouldn't be used for any type of party at all. Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.