The Toronto Community Housing scandal has given rise to fears that Rob Ford will impose a U.S.-style rent voucher system
Auditors don’t usually gain celebrity status. But the modern Canadian public sector auditor general is an exception. Sheila Fraser, who helped bring down the federal Liberal government with her report on the sponsorship scandal, may be Canada’s most high-profile auditor general ever. Across the country, her provincial equivalents are beloved by opposition parties, who often team up with them to challenge the government. But here in Toronto, we have something new and possibly unique—a city auditor general, Jeff Griffiths, who for all practical political purposes has been used by Rob Ford to challenge both the public service and the mayor’s de facto opposition on city council.
In February, when Griffiths released his bombshell report detailing problems with sole-source contracting and tendering at Toronto Community Housing, Ford ensured the details were tabloid friendly by spoon-feeding the media a companion report about expense sins: $1,000 in chocolates from Holt Renfrew; $1,925 for a planning retreat at a local spa; $53,500 for a staff Christmas party. The ensuing fallout turned into political theatre when Ford called for the resignation of the board, including new members who weren’t even there during the period audited. He also demanded the resignations of the current and past CEOs, Keiko Nakamura and Derek Ballantyne (by then COO for the city’s arm’s-length real estate development outfit, Build Toronto), both well-respected officials who were given little opportunity to explain or defend themselves. The message was clear: if it happened on your watch, whether you knew about it or not, you’ve gotta go. Then he brought in the retired city councillor Case Ootes—the deputy mayor during the $80-million MFP computer scandal—to clean up the mess.
The scene played out beautifully for Ford, and not just because it was plucked directly from his anti-gravy campaign script. Conveniently, the spending scandal would open the door to talk of privatizing public housing—privatization being Ford’s principle panacea for all that ails the city. He has said that he favours a rent voucher system, whereby low-income tenants are given a subsidy they can use to rent an apartment in a privately owned building of their choosing.
A wholesale privatization of Toronto’s public housing would do nothing but deliver a lot of valuable city land to developers
Ford isn’t inventing the voucher idea. He’s echoing an approach to public housing currently fashionable in the U.S. Over the last 15 years, hundreds of decrepit housing projects in the States have been demolished. In their place, housing authorities have built mixed-use, mixed-income developments, displacing many of the former tenants and handing them vouchers to rent from private landlords. Under this system, families who earn 50 per cent or less of the median income in their neighbourhood are eligible. They’re expected to pay up to 30 per cent of their income on rent and utilities, and the voucher covers the balance, up to a specified local maximum. The end goal—getting people out of public housing and integrated into the broader community—is a good one, and Toronto should consider vouchers as one of many tools available to help low-income families get out of dependency. But the American experience shows that an over-exuberant plunge into a single cure-all is a bad idea.
Private landlords in the U.S. aren’t compelled by law to accept rent vouchers, and many of them don’t. A 2009 federally funded audit conducted by the Fair Housing Action Center in New Orleans found that 82 per cent of landlords surveyed in that city refused tenants with vouchers, or presented insurmountable barriers to their applications. It also noted that nine per cent of landlords who refused a voucher from a black “mystery shopper” accepted it from a white one. Similar problems have been reported in other cities. The conclusion was that landlords are using the vouchers as a handy way to identify and screen out poor people and visible minorities.
(Illustration by Andy Friedman)
Ford is an idiot… but I don’t remember reading about any “Plan” to privatize public housing. Not ruling out a possibility (“privatization” however, loosely defined) when a reporter (from the Star) asks you a question is one thing. Advocating for a specific “Plan” is something else. Do you see the difference? There’s enough wrong with what Ford does without inventing things about him. This is not journalism.. this is fiction.
April 25, 2011 at 3:37 pm | by realityCheck+1
realityCheck has it nailed — and Toronto Life’s opinion-driven, not fact-driven, articles is why I let my subscription lapse.
April 25, 2011 at 3:43 pm | by Darcy KA medium with an agenda is not worth supporting. We make such a big deal about Fox News being a joke of a network. This isn’t too different.
April 25, 2011 at 4:41 pm | by AvaUtter Nonsense!
It’s becoming clear to me to avoid clicking on any link that says
“Toronto Life.com”. Opinion pieces is NOT reporting. It’s one thing to have an “opinion” section, it’s clearly another to have the entire paper an opinion only.
Bye, bye!
April 25, 2011 at 4:59 pm | by MissyIf this publication intends to compete in the opinion-space I suggest vague references and blurred statements are substituted for citations to academic studies and their findings that have been implied.
With the inundation of media, led by fastidious bloggers and independent commentators, gone are the days that those of us with sufficient years of education will take a columnist’s ‘facts’ as stated.
Cite or stop writing, your choice, but failure, one can reason surmised from the sample comments already posted, will result in fewer readers.
April 25, 2011 at 6:38 pm | by UAIt’s an opinion piece, so bias is assumed, but what about it is absolutely ridiculous? Do you all not believe that Rob Ford is exploring privitization of the TCHC? Because I am sure if you ask any employee of TCHC and possibly some tenants you will hear that they see this as something that he is considering. He has said it is not off the table.
I see nothing wrong with this article. Is it just me???
April 28, 2011 at 10:37 am | by SURPRISEDYes it’s just you. This article is clearly subjective and lacking. Therefore it loses credibility. The current system as it stands is disgusting. Ever walk into TCHC housing…Its disgusting. Moss Park, Regent Park and St. Jamestown. I don’t know how some of these folks, especially families can live like this. Folks live in despicable conditions with mice, bedbugs…(i’ve seen the bites on some people), unsanitary conditions with mold. These places are unmaintained and infested with the worst of the worst, drugs. I would rather see a change to what is there. I would like to see the Waterfront project overhauled, so that the same disgrace does not happen again, as the new buildings in Regent park will …in 10years time. We need to see alternatives like Options for Homes, where people can buy homes without major stipulations. This prevents the cycle that we see today in TCHC.
April 28, 2011 at 10:08 pm | by CatherinaLook again, ‘surprised’ and smell the reality, because it’s rotten. THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK.
Mr. Ford sell them!!! Let private developers put the dynamite
April 29, 2011 at 8:16 am | by Patand bulldozers to these place!!!!
No, it isn’t just you. I am mystified by the responses to this opinion piece, which seemed to me quite well-balanced on the whole. It puts forward some alternate ideas based on models in other places. What’s the supposed agenda one poster is referring to — thoughtful discourse?
April 29, 2011 at 8:30 pm | by MicheleI think all these comments are ridiculous. No one seems concerned with the people who will truly be affected by this: the people living in Community Housing. What should be considered here is what is the best option for them, NOT for you, NOT for me, NOT for the rich & NOT for Ford. Yes, some community housing is rather filthy & it is questionable how some individuals reside there. However, it is not up to you or me to judge people. 90% of people do not live there by choice; yes, there are plenty people that take advantage of the system, but these comments are rather irrational. The writer is 100% correct in stating that this voucher system will leave many people in turmoil, seeing that PRIVATE landlords will definitely discriminate against certain individuals.
It’s 2011 people. Let’s leave the selfish ways behind us & truly focus on those who require our help.
May 1, 2011 at 10:08 pm | by DSo from what I’m seeing is there are two major complaints against this article: lack of research and heavy bias.
Now, the lack on research complaint was about how the notion of Ford wanting to privatize TCHC is fictitious. But it’s not, it was reported. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973793–ford-s-housing-cure-is-ill-advised
The bias part. Well it’s just my opinion but if you were to be a reported obsessed with getting “objectivity” as if it were some Platonic plateau it wouldn’t be possible to report on anything. Does that mean you shouldn’t try? No. But if a piece isn’t objective, well read a few sides of it, that’s the beauty of multiple news sources.
May 2, 2011 at 2:46 am | by JaredI live in TCHC and really how can privatizing make TCHC any worse? The upper management are hugely paid and do nothing but scam tax-payers in every way then blame us tenants. TCHC has hundreds of high paid socail workers and I have never seen any socail work from them ever! Rob Ford is just going to run TCHC better and cheaper with privatizing or not privatizing!
P.S. If you are ever looking for a job TCHC can pay a quarter of a million yearly and you can drink boose and sleep at your desk, TCHC is also rated at one of the best higest paying employers in Canada!
May 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm | by TCHC TenantI beleive it is the mayor’s intent to sell TCHC. Rob Ford and his brother do not care at all aboutthe people that elected him. OOtes is in it for the money.
May 14, 2011 at 5:22 pm | by Susan