Affordable Housing - What does it Mean to You?

[Keepitsimple]

In the Toronto area, I've heard the term "Affordable Housing" a lot. Jack Layton and Olivia Chow continue to be "champions" in this area......but I've never really quite understood what comprises "Affordable Housing" - who should get it, what form it should take, who pays for it (Municipal, Provincial, Federal). I know that in the 60's and 70's, there were blocks of apartments that were built and rented out almost exclusively to "income challenged" citizens. More often than not, these apartments became run-down and crime-ridden. I believe the Toronto Star recently quoted that 30,000 people were on "the list for Affordable Housing".

If Affordable Housing is aimed at low-income people, wouldn't offering a rent supplement be more effective? Perhaps the city could "reserve" a small percentage of units in different areas so that these low-income residents are not ghettoized.

Since this Blog is National, I'm curious to know if you think that Affordable Housing should be a priority (or not) where you live - and what form it should take. Different cities have different needs. I'm actually trying to learn a bit from this post........well, now that I think about it, I guess we should try and learn from every post.

[mikedavid00]

If Affordable Housing is aimed at low-income people, wouldn't offering a rent supplement be more effective?

They do already have rent supplement.. it's called child benefits and such.

Affordable housing was a good idea in the old Canada when it was for Canadians. Not affordable housing is simply to house people from other countries and are now crime and drug infested.

Also, back then you needed 25% down for a mortgage and banks were very, very strict on giving out mortgages. Now, anyone can get a mortage through shady brokers.. even if they aren't working.

The day of affordable housing is over with. It's in the past.

[geoffrey]

If Affordable Housing is aimed at low-income people, wouldn't offering a rent supplement be more effective? Perhaps the city could "reserve" a small percentage of units in different areas so that these low-income residents are not ghettoized.

While a rent supplement would be more efficient, it stills creates the ability for someone to get lazy. Why bother working harder when everything is paid for by the government?

Supplementing basic living things like rent or food is silly, I wonder how many people that need low income housing smoke or drink.

You can rent a peice of crap in Calgary for $600 a month, running water, heat and that's about it.. or perhaps a basement suit, or perhaps share a small apartment with 4 other nearly homeless budies. You can live off $200 a month in food if you eat Kraft Dinner most of the time... So that's $800 and your ok. That's $200 a week or $5/hr working.

Get real. No one is starving to death or homeless that doesn't want to be.

The ONLY situation where I can see the value of low income housing or rent subsidies is for kids, as it's not giving them a fair chance to grow up on the streets because mom or dad is too lazy. Other than that, if you don't have kids, and your homeless, you chose to be so.

Truly disabled (mentally or physically) people should be cared for through programs targetted to them.

But in general, I'd suggest that most homeless people are able bodied and either fallen victim to their own stupidity (addictions) or are plain lazy.

It all comes down to choices, we shouldn't have to pay for other's poor judgement.