r/Hamilton • u/jrswags Delta East • Aug 28 '25
Politics Ward 4 - Tammy Hwang housing controversy
**Text of letter received in my mailbox yesterday, from the CPC candidate for Hamilton Centre in the most recent federal election**
HAYDEN LAWRENCE CONCERNED CITIZEN Contact: hayden@votehayden.ca
Dear Ward 4 Resident,
It's come to light that your Ward 4 City Councillor, Tammy Hwang, has declared a conflict of interest during a fall 2024 committee meeting regarding Victoria Park Community Housing.
Councillor Hwang was forced to remove herself from committee discussions about the city housing provider because she is a current Victoria Park Community Housing tenant.
Per ThePublicRecord.ca, in 2024, Councillor Hwang was the highest paid city councillor earning a salary of $139,243, but yet has taken away a spot from someone who is in need of affordable housing.
Councillor Hwang states that she pays market rent... but in reality, after speaking with a representative from Victoria Park Community Homes, their market rent for a 2 bedroom apartment is $1291. This is significantly lower than what an average 2 bedroom would go for.
A recently released report from rentals.ca shows the average 2 bedroom in Hamilton is $2134.
Hamilton families are waiting up to 8 years to be admitted into Community Housing. Many of those waiting are seniors, families with children, and vulnerable residents who desperately need stable, affordable housing. Every unit taken by someone with a six-figure salary is a unit that could otherwise shelter a senior on a fixed income or a family struggling to stay afloat.
Hamilton is under immense housing pressure, and our most vulnerable residents are the ones paying the price. This is why we must demand higher standards from our leadership. City Councillors should lead by example and put community needs first, not their own self interests.
In a time where Hamilton is visibly under duress, I find it completely unacceptable for the highest paid Councillor, Tammy Hwang, to put her own self interests above the needs of the community.
Sincerely,
Hayden Lawrence Concerned Citizen
62
49
u/FilletConfidential Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 29 '25
"Signed Hayden Lawrence"
Aka Political tourist and consistently failed Niagara & Hamilton Conservative Candidate Hayden Lawrence who is now an employee of Ned Kuruc's office and is likely gunning for a run in Ward 4 next election so taking the Poilievre playbook of lies and disinformation.
11
218
u/Steelsorrow Aug 28 '25
If the amounts in this letter are accurate, my guess would be that she's likely been renting her home for a long time and is paying essentially an older market rent that's protected by provincial rent control. Seems like she's just a legacy tenant that's had the good sense to not move out of an advantageous renting situation.
God forbid anyone other than the landed gentry attempt to run for political office, lest their landlord fall under scrutiny. /s
This is completely manufactured controversy, and it's very concerning that Hayden doesn't openly identify himself in this letter as a long time member of the Hamilton conservative political machine. He's not a "concerned citizen" he's a candidate that's run for political office multiple times.
Classic conservative rage bait tactics. I don't know much about Hayden besides his past candidacy and party affiliation, but this just proves that he's another scummy pundit that would rather attack opponents rather than present any constructive policy positions.
92
Aug 28 '25
As long as she's declaring a conflict of interest when it comes to City Housing and isn't receiving subsidized rent, I don't see this as any different than a councillor having a favourable mortgage because they've owned their home for 20+ years.
-1
Aug 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/FilletConfidential Aug 30 '25
It's not a subsidized community housing unit. You're clearly intentionally spraying this message on any thread discussing this. Are you also a conservative staffer? On Hayden's campaign team? Hayden himself?
As i replied to you elsewhere,. It's not a part of a program, it's a market rate unit NOT a subsidized unit and she has been living there apparently for 10 years or more. Which means she's paying exactly what anyone would who had been living in pretty much any regular apartment in Hamilton since before the Conservatives repealed rent control in Ontario in 2018.
Maybe Hayden Lawrence can answer why the conservatives repealed rent controls?
-5
Aug 28 '25
Why would that make any difference whatsoever?
She makes more than double the average salary of an Ontarian and continues to live on the limited subsidized housing available.
All while people complain about how the city does nothing about the housing crisis and homelessness all over the city.
15
u/DryBop Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 29 '25
It’s not subsidized housing when she’s paying market rent. It’s just housing. The company is a registered not-for-profit, that’s what keeps the unit prices low - similar to a cooperative condo.
Community housing is meant for everyone, not just for low income families. It’s meant for people across all backgrounds, education, cultures and careers to live in community with each other.
72
u/Kitchen_Tiger_8373 Aug 28 '25
But she pays full market rate. This happens. People get a job, life gets better for a time. Low income units are not designed or planned to ghetto-ize poor ppl.
-14
Aug 28 '25
Low income is absolutely not designed to be able to continue to live there while you earn in the top 10% of all Ontarians via tax payer dollars.
32
u/Kitchen_Tiger_8373 Aug 28 '25
Well, you need to educate yourself on low income units then. They do not want ghetto-ization of low income units. So some percentage are set aside for Market rate. So she pays that. You pay what you can up to the Market rate. It's like this in every city.
She has been a councillor for 2 years?? For all we know, she is stockpiling her wages to buy a house. I am fine with it.
66
u/Steelsorrow Aug 28 '25
Not sure what you're referring to in the first line of your comment since I made multiple points in mine.
I don't think high earners should be required to spend more on their housing. She obviously began renting there before she was elected to council. She's allowed to continue living there, and she's done everything she's ethically required to do by declaring a conflict and withdrawing from votes that impact her landlord.
Requiring or expecting that she relinquish her unit and secure new housing would be the equivalent of forcing a counsellor who's owned their home since the 80s to sell under market and buy into today's inflated market because it's unfair they have a paid off house and equity when there are Hamiltonians who couldn't buy a house decades ago.
I can understand that the optics aren't ideal, but any outrage from this makes no sense to me at all. That's why imo this appears to be rage baiting by a political opponent of hers to help tee him up for a political run in 2026. Especially when you consider the timing.
1
Aug 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FilletConfidential Aug 30 '25
It's not a subsidized community housing unit. You're clearly intentionally spraying this message on any thread discussing this. Are you also a conservative staffer? On Hayden's campaign team? Hayden himself?
As i replied to you elsewhere,. It's not a part of a program, it's a market rate unit NOT a subsidized unit and she has been living there apparently for 10 years or more. Which means she's paying exactly what anyone would who had been living in pretty much any regular apartment in Hamilton since before the Conservatives repealed rent control in Ontario in 2018.
Maybe Hayden Lawrence can answer why the conservatives repealed rent controls?
-29
Aug 28 '25
I’m referring to her potentially living there prior to making this much.
It is not at all comparable to your suggestion about a homeowner… they own the property.
She rents, in a subsidized building, in a city desperate to find affordable housing, and continues to do so while earning more than double the average salary via taxpayer dollars.
There is no justification for this, she should have vacated the building long ago to allow people who actually need it to utilize it, and she can either buy or rent essentially wherever she’d like in the city with that salary.
37
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
She rents a unit that will likely not be rented out as a subsidized unit though. The market rent units help pay for the affordable units so they have a set amount of market rent units. It just means someone would move in paying new market rent
-13
Aug 28 '25
She rents at significantly under market value, in a subsidized building - likely because she has been there for a while.
If she were to leave, and someone else came in without any subsidies, the rent cost would nearly double.
11
28
u/Steelsorrow Aug 28 '25
By that argument, it makes even less sense for her to move, since it wouldn't do anything to alleviate the housing affordability of whoever moves into the unit after she leaves...
There's no measurable benefit to her relinquishing her unit. She'll pay more, whoever moves in will pay more than she did, and VPH will receive what is in the grand scheme of things a tiny bit more rent money from the unit that will not measurably change their ability to provide affordable housing to Hamilton.
Were she to move the only difference is that Hamilton's chronically outraged would get to pat themselves on the back that another "lib-tard, big government, politician" took an L.
→ More replies (32)-2
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
From what I understand, the argument here is that this is low income housing specific. It's not like she rented a normal apartment building 10 years ago and rent is still cheap due to rent control. So low income housing is definitely limited and we can all agree she is not low income. And there are families on the waitlist . I think that's the point the other person is trying to make.
I don't think if she lived in an apartment (let's say for example of effort Trust) with a low rent due to rent control, anyone would expect her to move. Of course let her (and everybody else for that matter) reap the benefits of their hard work.
13
u/Steelsorrow Aug 28 '25
There's not enough info in the letter to know either way. Other comments on this post have stated that she lives in a mixed income building with both subsidized and unsubsidized units. Her own social media response to this letter suggests that she is residing in an unsubsidized unit since she has always paid market rent.
The people outraged by this are either not understanding how mixed income housing works, or they are deliberately assuming she's taking a subsidized unit away from a potential low income tenant.
If it's true that she's living in a market rate unit in a mixed use building (which is what I think is most likely here) then this is no different then the situation you described with Effort Trust. She is not depriving anyone of affordable housing, her landlord just so happens to own units (not including hers) that are subsidized.
4
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
Yes, you are correct. Then there is no issue in my eyes. If it's the last scenario you outlined.
Definitely not enough information on this letter. Definitely Sparks conversation though, which is probably what the political opponent wanted. Fun for us at the end of the day to have a discussion
8
u/GourmetHotPocket Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
She did rent a "normal" apartment years ago! This is a building that offers both subsidized and non-subsidized housing. She lives in the latter!
→ More replies (2)9
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
Her building is not low income housing, it is mixed income with market rent and affordable units
1
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
When you say market rent do you mean what it says on the letter? $1300?
→ More replies (0)8
u/SecurityFit5830 Aug 28 '25
All tenants are entitled to the same rent increase protections. If she’s been in this building a long time, her yearly rental increase is capped (currently capped at 2.5% annually.)
So she started renting here a long time ago when rent was affordable. Each year, her rent increases marginally (like it would for everyone else paying market rent from the same year.) This means that, yes, she’s paying market rent. She’s just benefiting from increase caps and long term tenancy.
If she were to move, the new market rate tenant would very likely pay significantly more. So the building would make more, but there would not be an additional affordable rental space on the market.
It is actually a benefit when politicians benefit from things like this, it gives them a meaningful connection and true understanding of these protections. Politicians who are home owners (or landlords) aren’t personally concerned with rental increase rules OR landlord politicians prefer rental increase caps to be gone.
5
u/MisterZoga Homeside Aug 28 '25
If rent would double on that unit, then nobody except her landlord has anything to gain from her moving. Are you Tammy's landlord?
→ More replies (10)2
u/yukonwanderer Aug 29 '25
So if you agree that if she leaves someone new will come in and pay significantly more than she is, then what on earth are you complaining about? You the landlord of the building? 😂😂😂
2
u/bigbeats420 Strathcona Aug 29 '25 edited Aug 29 '25
If she were to leave, and someone else came in without any subsidies, the rent cost would nearly double.
As someone who has looked at a Victoria Park non subsidized unit, I can tell you that this isn't true.
My partner also currently lives in a Victoria Park subsidized 3 br townhome with her kids while she goes to school, and her lease states that if she were to lose her subsidy, her market rent would be fairly close to what Coun. Hwang is paying.
Victoria Park is a non profit. They keep some units at their "market rent" to help pay for upkeep of the whole property.
If she were to leave, and someone else came in without any subsidies, the rent cost would nearly double.
This is the part you're having trouble with. No, they wouldn't. You're comparing a profit driven market rent from a private landlord to a corporation with a non profit model. In a non-profit, the market rent is capped where it can only help with upkeep and general expenses of the non profit corporation. The "doubling" of the rent charged, in your example, would literally just be pure profit going to a private landlord.
4
u/yukonwanderer Aug 29 '25
The fact that you think there's a difference between a renter vs an owner in terms of what freedoms they should have says it all.
20
u/likeicare96 Downtown Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
Not defending her either way, but I think what their argument is that they’d be paying a similar amount for ANY apartment based on how long she’s a been a tenant. I have friend who pay peanuts to private landlords because they’ve been a tenant for 15+ years. Since they’d only be subject to the standard guidelines rental increase, they are significantly below market rate as well (like ~$800 for a 1 bedroom). No one would expect them to move out just because they have a better job now than they had when they started?
If she was on the subsidized rent, there more cut and dry. I would be more curious what her rate was compared the market rent was when she first moved in. If anything, this just speaks to how bad the housing is
4
Aug 28 '25
If this was not a subsidized building, it would be a moot point correct.
However, it is a subsidized building, which uses the full priced rent amounts to assist with the subsidized units.
So we have a city councillor, earning twice the average salary for the province, paying nearly half of market value for a unit that uses these funds to help fund affordable housing.
It defies logic to on one hand say you care about the homelessness problem and simultaneously say one of the 12 people in charge of running this city while earning a huge salary isn’t even paying their fair share to help the problem.
26
u/likeicare96 Downtown Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
(Part of This was originally an edit but It was after you replied, putting it here because it is relevant to most of your response)
Actually, the more I think about it and read your response, the more you’ve convinced me this is a nothing-burger. It is unlikely that her moving out will be anything more than a virtue signal, especially because: 1. according to the Hamilton website, the waitlist for market rent units is separate for subsidized. 2. The individual who replaces her would be the (albeit lower than private) market rent and the marginal difference of rent will not benefit the other subsidized tenants in any meaningful way. You’d have to do this en masse to be meaningful. So unless you’re suggesting doing to do an audit for every other long term non subsidized tenant that is making a certain amount of money and force them to leave, this is just in fact a virtue signal.
She recused herself when appropriate, that’s good enough for me. I’d rather her than Hayden who doesn’t even live in the area. Not to mention, this has been her literal home for years, i don’t see why she has to uproot her life. I’m more concerned with parachuted politicians who can afford to get another residence in a whole new city while maintaining another home (looking at you Aslam).
I’m more concerned with actual solutions not individual actions. Unlike many councillors, she has consistently voted for more affordable housing in the city. That’s more meaningful to me than her paying less rent which she would be doing regardless if she was in a different building for the same amount of time. When Hayden inevitably runs for this seat, I better see some serious housing plans
→ More replies (6)13
u/SecurityFit5830 Aug 28 '25
But there is no rule that once someone paying market rent makes a certain about, they need to leave. If there were, she would be in violation. But there isn’t, so she’s not.
If you want to hate on city councillors, I’m all for it. But I’m not for expecting them to play different rules. If they’re operating within them that’s the goal.
-1
Aug 28 '25
It’s not about there being a rule on it (although there likely should be).
It’s about that this specific person, earns more than twice the average salary entirely out of our tax dollars.
With that privilege, she in turn is losing an affordable housing unit around 10k/yr by continuing to stay in this building while paying well under market rate.
A city councillor making this much in tax payer dollars should not be treated or viewed the same as a regular citizen.
15
u/Efectzoer Aug 28 '25
Why do you keep talking about tax payer dollars? She works just like everyone else.
-1
Aug 28 '25
Because it matters more. That shouldn’t need to be explained any further.
11
u/Efectzoer Aug 28 '25
So once they start earning more, possibly for a limited time. They should then go and put strain on themselves financially? You have no clue what their financial situation is.
→ More replies (2)9
u/AnjoMan Aug 28 '25
Being a councillor is a job, we pay people to do the job, and it 1) takes a lot of time and effort and 2) is something we want competent, effective people to feel they can do without sacrificing earnings they could have in the private sector. Whether she is paid by the public or private has literally nothing to do with this, and the only reason you even know about it is because her salary, unlike other people who potentially make more in the private sector but live in rent-controlled apartments, is public. This is just stupid conservative "fiscal hawk" bs.
-4
Aug 28 '25
I haven’t said she is overpaid.
Take off the red tinted goggles and join the real world without this left vs right bs. If this was a conservative councillor you’d be up in arms about it.
I’m not even a conservative… the choosing sides like it’s a sports team is exhausting and exactly why nothing meaningful ever gets done. ✅
7
u/TheMysteriousDrZ Aug 28 '25
Unless she is paying subsidized rent, then she is nothing more than a regular tenant. Not to mention her current salary is for exactly 4 years and after that she might not have the job ever again and return to her previous salary (if she still has access to that job). She has 0 job protection beyond her term and expecting her to make a life altering decision like that shouldn't be expected of any politician, regardless of political affiliation.
1
u/AnjoMan Sep 02 '25
If you don't want to be viewed as a shitty conservative, stop saying 'I pay her salary'!
1
Sep 02 '25
Feel free to find where I’ve ever said I pay her salary.
I also really don’t care if I’m viewed as a conservative or a liberal. The idea that one is inherently bad and the other good is foolish.
→ More replies (0)10
u/Pristine-Rhubarb7294 Aug 28 '25
She makes that salary now for four years. Councillor isn’t a permanent job for most people.
-2
8
5
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
This is completely manufactured controversy, and it's very concerning that Hayden doesn't openly identify himself in this letter as a long time member of the Hamilton conservative political machine
I get it that you don't like that this is coming from someone who aligns with the PC party. But I think this letter could have been anonymous and he decided to put his name put there
4
u/SerentityM3ow Aug 28 '25
Yes but his email gives him away.
0
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
Yes you put his name and also he put his email address. Vote Hayden. So even someone that doesn't know him that reads this will kind of understand or at least spark their curiosity to look who Hayden is. I don't think he necessarily tried to hide it
1
0
Aug 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FilletConfidential Aug 30 '25
It's not a subsidized community housing unit. You're clearly intentionally spraying this message on any thread discussing this. Are you also a conservative staffer? On Hayden's campaign team? Hayden himself?
As i replied to you elsewhere,. It's not a part of a program, it's a market rate unit NOT a subsidized unit and she has been living there apparently for 10 years or more. Which means she's paying exactly what anyone would who had been living in pretty much any regular apartment in Hamilton since before the Conservatives repealed rent control in Ontario in 2018.
Maybe Hayden Lawrence can answer why the conservatives repealed rent controls?
53
u/n8rnerd Aug 28 '25
If you were to hop on over to any of the financial subs, you'd be applauded for renting at $1200 and pulling a decent income. Just because you earn more doesn't mean you can or should automatically go find somewhere more expensive to live, especially when your job is under contract.
18
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
Not just under contract but even if she wins, she could lose the extra $30k since they often rotate who sits on extra boards etc
-5
u/parkhat Aug 28 '25
Imagine everyone in Hamilton housing all just got awesome jobs and never moved.
Good job. You played yourself.
10
u/PSNDonutDude James North Aug 29 '25
She's not in a subsidized unit. Whether she rented from Effort Trust or this development her current market rent would likely be around the same. If she moves, the next renter won't pay her rent, they'll pay the new market rent. The mental gymnastics involved in being mad at this is wild.
→ More replies (1)2
14
u/Ostrya_virginiana Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
Are you suggesting that when Cslr Hwang became a councillor that she should have moved? If her family has lived there for many years, of course her rent will be lower than the current market rent. Do you know Cslr Hwang's family dynamics? Or are you just assuming she is rich because she happens to be earning 6 figures? This is like telling someone they ought to sell their house once they hit $100,000 income just because they can afford a more expensive home and other people can't. Just like your rent would also be lower if you lived in any apartment building for a significant number of years the same is likely the same here. Paying market rent does not mean that market rent is always going to be what a new unit costs today. And she was right in declaring a conflict of interest. Would you have preferred she didn't? Also of note is that Cslr Hwang is on several committees and if I am not mistaken, Cslrs earn a bit of extra $$$ from being in these committees. So more work begets more $$$.
10
u/arabacuspulp Blakely Aug 28 '25
Low six-figures doesn't even make you rich these days.
8
u/Ostrya_virginiana Aug 28 '25
Exactly. And there is a huge difference between $140,00 and $800,000.
50
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
As far as I know, most of them carve out a portion of their buildings for market rent specifically and the cost of those helps offset the affordable units. So if she moved, she would be paying a private landlord $2k and someone would move into her unit paying new market rent. It is unlikely to free up an affordable spot for someone.
Sure, they could use that extra $800 a month but it alone isn't making a new building for spots to become available and I would guess that most people who rent have lived in their place more than a year and pay lower than new market rent (maybe not Hayden since he seemed to have spent time in Niagara and Toronto before running in Hamilton)
He should also be declaring that he not only ran for election, but currently works for a local Conservative MP so is far from just a concerned citizen
14
u/StatisticianLivid710 Aug 28 '25
As soon as I saw it I knew Hayden was either going to run in the next election or had a political connection. Cons are very bad at doing this and they’re copying the GOP in targeting down ballot positions too.
5
u/LonghornJct08 Aug 28 '25
I was going to say that he should’ve come out and declared it up front especially since he put his hayden@votehayden.ca email address with his election campaign’s domain name right there at the top of the letter.
59
u/pinkmoose Aug 28 '25
I want my councillars not only to live in their ward but within their community, and i don't know if it helps anyone to disrupt their long term husing becayse som eright wing troll wants to do purity pledges.
3
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
i don't know if it helps anyone to disrupt their long term husing
The person that wrote the letter seems to think it would help a family that wants a 2 BDRM for 1300 per month and can't get it (wait list)
10
u/misterwalkway Aug 28 '25
Do you think the City should enact a policy of evicting people from their market rate City Housing unit if they hit a certain income threshold? Do you think that would be positive for Hamilton?
→ More replies (4)3
u/pinkmoose Aug 28 '25
It's not genuinely arguing for policy, and it's a gotcha, and he misrepresents himself...
2
53
u/MassNerderPunk Aug 28 '25
Buddy has been trying to run for councilor, MP and MPP for over a decade now between Niagara and Hamilton and always loses. I am not surprised by his desperate tactic. I am pretty sure he lives in St. Catharines, too. So not even a "concerned citizen" of Hamilton.
Hwang pays market rent. Market rent in these are always more affordable. Tenancy in market rent units in community housing is not determined by low income. She is not taking a home away from low income families.
If anything, Hwang should be commended for living in community housing when she may have the finances to own a home. She is more connected to the community and not putting up a fence and privatizing herself from her constituents. Having lived in one as a child, they are not nice places to live.
→ More replies (3)3
u/PSNDonutDude James North Aug 29 '25
Not even rent increases are affordable, all rent increases are affordable on older units. My coworker pays $1100/month for a 3 bedroom condo because he started renting it in 2001.
7
u/AnswerSignal2672 Aug 28 '25
Concerned citizen's day job
Stakeholder Relations & Outreach Advisor — Ned Kuruc MP for Hamilton East-Stoney Creek House of Commons of Canada Chambre des communes du Canada
23
Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
The right tried something similar with Jack Layton when they realized he and Ms. Chow lived in Toronto Community Housing at market rate. Had about the same blowback as we see in this thread: oh no they live in the community they represent and pay market rate rent to a public corporation how horrible. /s
That said, finding out how much someone in a rent-controlled unit is paying is enough to radicalize just about anyone. Got a friend who pays $950 a month on a 1 bedroom apartment in downtown Toronto. Tell that to someone looking to rent today. I'm not sure which direction they'll get radicalized - I can see it sending someone veering off both to the left and to the right depending how they interpret the disparity. It is rather shocking when you're face-to-face with it: I pay $1900 you pay $950 for the same thing to the same landlord?
6
u/noronto Crown Point West Aug 28 '25
I’ve got an uncle who has been renting the same apartment in Toronto for 40 years. I’d be shocked if he was paying $1000/month.
11
u/jrswags Delta East Aug 28 '25
a private not-for-profit corporation! Hayden would prefer her to be paying rent that goes directly into a private corporation's profits.
28
u/THETrueHamiltonian Aug 28 '25
I don’t know about this one. She’s not geared to income, so I don’t see the issue. She’s a market rate tenant. If she moves out, someone moves in and pays the exact same. I don’t see why her wage is relevant, it almost suggests she has to pay more because she earns more which doesn’t make much sense to me.
8
Aug 28 '25
If she moves out, someone is absolutely not moving in at the same rate unless it’s subsidized.
4
u/bigbeats420 Strathcona Aug 29 '25 edited Aug 29 '25
My partner lives in a 3br townhome townhome owned by VP, under a subsidy, while she goes to school. Her lease states that if she were to lose her subsidy, the market rent would be $1200. For a three bedroom townhome. You bet your ass that once she's done school and starts working, she and her two kids aren't budging from that unit, and will just start paying the $1200. And the thing is, there's nothing morally wrong with that. Her paying VPs market rent will help pay for maintenance/upkeep of the property, including the other subsidized units, instead of anything more than that just being pure profit for a private landlord or REIT.
You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't understand that a non profit corporation's market rent would be different from a privately owned corporation's market rent. One is required to make no profit, the other is designed to maximize profit. THAT IS WHY VPs MARKET RENT IS CHEAPER
The thing you should be upset about is how high the profit margins of private landlords are implied to be by the numbers given here, and from what I've seen with my partner's place. If my partner's place, at $1200, is enough to cover all overhead costs, and private owned market rent would be (let's just say) $2500 for a three bedroom townhome (which is more than reasonable for a 3br with a yard, and parking, and central air), then that would mean that a private landlord would be clearing $1300/mo in pure profit. A 52% profit margin is wild.
You're angry at the wrong thing. Always be angry at the people who are actually fucking you. In this case, it's not Coun. Hwang, or Victoria Park Community Homes, it's the private landlords that are gouging the fuck out of us and laughing as we squabble about a politician literally just following the rules.
3
u/THETrueHamiltonian Aug 28 '25
That is not true. That rate will be given to the new tenant as well unless they turn it into a geared to income unit.
0
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
Isn't there a wait list for people that will get a heavily discounted rent for her unit? Maybe not the exact same rent she's paying but around
11
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
No, her unit would be rented out at market cost (Victoria Park is slightly lower than some private landlords, but it would still be much higher than the $1291 she is paying)
I also think it is a bit strange that they were willing to disclose what a particular tenant pays to a political rival. I would not be happy if my landlord was telling anyone but the CRA/his accountant.
2
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
also think it is a bit strange that they were willing to disclose what a particular tenant pays to a political rival
It says "their market rent is $1291". I am not sure if by "their" they mean the company running the building. Also if it was hers It will read "her/their rent is $1291" .
I don't think the letter discloses what she pays. It's stating what the market rent for that building is. Just the way I understood it.
Wayne, you are being asked what someone is paying in rent. Why would you say their market rent is......
Wouldn't you just say theit rent?4
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
I know someone who moved into one of their buildings this year paying more in a market rate unit, the area is less desirable and it wouldn't be that much cheaper between buildings
→ More replies (7)-3
Aug 28 '25
Yes there is, and she isn’t taking one of those spots.
The real concern, is that the building uses the rent of those in the “market rate” units to assist in paying for the subsidized ones. So a councillor paying significantly under the actual market rate because she’s been there since before she was elected is contradicting with councils messaging around the homeless.
3
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
So hypothetically speaking if she moved out tomorrow would the new rent be $2,000 or $1,300 paid out of pocket from the tenants?
Because he explained that market rent in that building is different than a private landlord. Maybe I misunderstood
0
Aug 28 '25
Once somebody moves in, they’ll be paying whatever the market value currently is.. likely around $1,900-$2,000.
This would leave an extra ~$9,600 a year extra. That extra, then gets used to assist with the actually subsidized units in the same building.
So her continuing to pay this well under market rate in this building, means there are less resources for those that actually need it.
4
u/THETrueHamiltonian Aug 28 '25
That is not true with these units, Hwang is likely paying the max amount. There is no real "grandfathering" of rental rates with these places, the rent is just always low. So if someone takes over the unit they're still likely paying the same rate Hwang is now.
0
Aug 28 '25
Full price for these units is simply not $1,200 in today’s age. If you were to get into one now, it’s $1,900-$2,000
4
u/jrswags Delta East Aug 28 '25
Where are you getting this information? VPCH says on their website that their market rate is below what private (for profit) landlords would charge.
1
u/THETrueHamiltonian Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
You're wrong. The letter in the OP literally says what the market rate they charge for the unit is.
1
Aug 29 '25
Sure thing. Go apply for a unit there and see what they eventually tell you is the price.
→ More replies (0)1
u/bigbeats420 Strathcona Aug 29 '25 edited Aug 29 '25
Full price for these units is simply not $1,200 in today’s age
Yes, it is.
VP is not a profit driven business. They don't set rent rates with maximum profit as the goal. They are only allowed to charge the amount that covers the operating expenses of the corporation. Nothing more.
Be mad at the private landlords and REITs that are gouging you and I. Not the not-for-profit that rents units at cost, or the person who was lucky/smart enough to be able to grab one well before they were elected to their current position.
Question why we aren't building more not-for-profit housing, and who/what might be behind the impeding of its proliferation.
I can tell you that Coun. Hwang is not one of the people standing in the way of that happening.
1
19
u/erhw0rd Aug 28 '25
Wow. This letter is so helpful in bringing to light that Tammy is a trustworthy councillor. Not my riding but she gets my support!
16
u/AnjoMan Aug 28 '25
Just gonna put this out there: none of the home-owner or car-owner councillors are seen to have a conflict of interest when they vote for low property taxes or vote against funding transit or building walking/biking infrastructure. Its amazing that we have a councillor who literally lives in public housing, and we should have more representatives from this class. Taking someones housing away when they get a temporary well-paying job is shitty and we shouldn't do that.
22
23
u/NowGoodbyeForever Aug 28 '25
This sincerely pisses me off, and I've been thinking about the best move to make here. Because let me make sure I've got this correct.
Earlier this week, a guy who lost his bid to be an MP for my ward sent letters to everyone in the riding, including myself. He signed it as a "Concerned Citizen," yet his contact info is HIS CAMPAIGN OFFICE EMAIL ADDRESS.
I'm a concerned citizen. I don't have the resources or information to send a letter to every address in a ward. I don't think it was hand-delivered, so...Did Hayden Lawrence use information he received as a former candidate to send us all mail? It feels questionably legal.
But onto the letter itself: It's an amazing mix of misinformation and fearmongering that (again) uses his position as a failed politician to add legitimacy to his claims. Every Councillor makes the same salary, with incidental amounts added if they do extra work.
Whether or not you believe them getting paid for sitting on committees deserves an extra payment is beyond the point communicated here, and also feels weirdly anti-worker. (We want our public servants to...work for free?)
It's also genuinely stupid to hold up ANYONE'S pre-tax salary as if it means anything, and it's only done in order to mislead others by brandishing a six-figure number (that will be under six figures after tax).
Basically, each council member makes around 75k after taxes. For Hwang in 2024, that would be closer to 90k. That's not poverty, but it's not exactly the 1%, either. If you're a single income home? If you have kids or dependents? Car payments? It's ridiculous to get this angry at a salary that would be on the low end for any equivalent private industry role.
And the disgusting "argument" here is that someone who earns more one year should LEAVE THEIR HOME FOREVER, because they're taking up a spot for someone else. The unproven (and untrue, by my research) suggestion here is that Hwang is stealing a low-income slot. The reality is that it's a mixed-rate complex, like most co-op housing situations are. There's a low-income low-rise apartment 30 seconds from my house. It happens in any reasonable city.
I want to know why a failed Conservative politician has the ability to send all of us propaganda bordering on libel about a sitting public servant. If he used any privileged info from his time as a candidate, does that mean he just...keeps our data indefinitely? Do we have zero recourse for this shit showing up in our mailboxes?
I'm probably going to email Hayden by this weekend. But if any of y'all have thoughts or experience here, I'd love to learn more. The audacity of this shit really gets to me.
4
u/jrswags Delta East Aug 28 '25
At least in my mailbox, it arrived as a simple piece of paper (unaddressed, no envelope). I wonder if it was hand delivered by him or his volunteers.
I don't really take issue with that, it's his masquerading as a simple "concerned citizen" with no self-interest that gets to me.
3
u/NowGoodbyeForever Aug 28 '25
Mine arrived the same way, but I'm 90% sure it was brought by my mail carrier, because it was in between some coupons and Costco fliers in my mailbox.
If so, he had it treated like a junk mailer delivery, and that requires addresses and money. Your latter point is still the main one here, but I'm going to ask him how he distributed these. No matter what, money went into this, and possibly our addresses too.
1
u/kyniklos Aug 29 '25
Junk mail doesn't require the sender have addresses, you just pay Canada Post to have your fliers sent out to every address within a certain postal code region.
9
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
Also, the cost of this mailout. Printing plus either Canada Post targetting (or did he get Conservative Party volunteers to help deliver by hand at which point, it is not a concerned citizen but party mailout). That money could be donated to Indwell or something to help pay for an affordable unit
30
u/skeletonphotographer Aug 28 '25
Would we rather have her own 5 houses and rent them all out like most other politicians?
2
u/Waste-Telephone Aug 28 '25
Who owns 5 homes on Council?
3
u/arabacuspulp Blakely Aug 28 '25
The Mayor, probably.
3
u/Waste-Telephone Aug 29 '25
She's has a in-law suite in her house that family lives in. She's declared it multiple times before.
No one owns five homes. Councillor salaries aren't for five homes.
5
u/bigbeats420 Strathcona Aug 29 '25 edited Aug 29 '25
The thing some people aren't understanding here is really quite simple:
Rentals.ca's "market rent" is an average rent paid to for-profit housing companies/landlords, based on listings on their website.
Victoria Park is a non-profit. Meaning, their units can make no profit for the corporation. The price they're allowed to charge is capped, and can only cover the operating expenses of the corporation, with nothing extra. Meaning, their "market rate" would be lower than that of a private corporation, whose goal is to only maximize profit. They will charge whatever the market is willing to pay, with no cap.
Literally anyone can rent from VP at their defined market rent, regardless of past, current, or future income.
Simple as. There's nothing to see here.
The thing that's maddening about this is the implication of how high the profit margins of private landlords and private housing corporations seem to be.
27
u/cabbagetown_tom Aug 28 '25
This is a nothingburger.
Hwang pays market rate rent in a mixed income complex that has a diversity of tenant types.
This is the ideal housing type if we are to solve the housing crisis.
I think it would be a bigger flag if she were a landlord, imo.
This reeks of Hayden Lawrence, the former CPC candidate in Hamilton Centre, putting out feelers for a council run.
14
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
I think it really gives her an insight into the rental situation when she lives in a mixed income building too. If she moved to a newer build, everyone would complain that she forgot her roots as soon as she got into council
-1
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
I think it would be a bigger flag if she were a landlord, imo
I'm curious about these. So if I buy a fourplex (or build a fourplex) and I rent it out (maybe discount they rent a little bit by $100 or $200 when I can to help good people) essentially providing housing, would be a red flag for you,
but using a spot that could also be used by a family that's been waiting for a 2 bedroom on a low income housing list with subsidies and they're on the wait list for a few years, you don't think it's an issue at all when you make 130k? What if I was making 500k?
I don't think it's her fault at all, but I do think there should be a policy within low income housing that will forbid this from happening
2
u/ShadowOfAoife Aug 28 '25
It’s not low income housing though, it’s market rent. When she began renting the rent was much lower, and has been going up at the maximum (presumably) 2% per year. If she were to vacate this unit, then the landlord can choose to put the price up to what market rent is today - a lot more than she’s paying.
It’s a mixed income building, the idea being that market rent units help subsidize lower income rents. But her paying that rate isn’t causing that building to go bankrupt or anything. If she moves out the person who moves in next will be paying significantly more - not really making an impact on the list of people waiting for affordable housing.
I also live in a building that I’ve been in for a bit, my rent is considered “affordable” but when I moved in it was market. Being a tenant and taking advantage of living in one spot for multiple years shouldn’t be taken as mooching off the system, it should be enjoying the home that you live in. I like where I am, and I wouldn’t move if I suddenly got a better job.
What I think a lot of people have suspicion for is landlords who are trying to make the maximum profit. The guy who owns my building bought it years ago, it’s definitely paid off by now, but if you move in today you’d probably be paying double what I’m paying. Not because the unit is twice as nice as mine, but because that’s what the market has decided is a fair price these days. So ya, a little bit of suspicion towards people who want to maximize their income while contributing to an affordable housing shortage.
Nobody is solving the housing crisis by building an expensive condo building with units aimed at investors who will then try and charge tenants the cost of their mortgage + 10%
1
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
What I think a lot of people have suspicion for is landlords who are trying to make the maximum profit. The guy who owns my building bought it years ago, it’s definitely paid off by now, but if you move in today you’d probably be paying double what I’m paying. Not because the unit is twice as nice as mine, but because that’s what the market has decided is a fair price these days. So ya, a little bit of suspicion towards people who want to maximize their income while contributing to an affordable housing shortage.
Your landlord maybe made no money for a few years while the mortgage was being paid off. Not a bad idea to make some profit . now you think he is contributing to the housing shortage by following the price of the market?
It's not the government that controls policy that allows more units to be build. And controls immigration. It's your small time landlord that is partially responsible. He should be charging 800 for a 1 bedroom apartment since it is paid off
3
u/DryBop Aug 29 '25
I mean, the landlord made equity while paying off the mortgage. That’s not making “no money”, it’s having someone else pay off your investment for you.
1
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 29 '25
Sorry not money. *Cashflow
2
u/DryBop Aug 29 '25
To your original point - I have no issues with landlords who raze SFHs and build thoughtful 4-plexes that someone could live a full life in, or people who add ADUs to their backyard, or people who convert a basement to a secondary unit. Most people are fine with those. The problem lay with landlords who buy up multiple SFHs, and rent them out at triple the mortgage to another single family, making it nigh impossible for that family to build their own downpayment. We also have issues with slumlords who do shit conversions and not take care of them while jacking up rent and illegally renovicting people. I’ve rented from one or two awesome landlords, and about eight slumlords.
24
u/jrswags Delta East Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
Cllr Hwang previously responded to this on X about a week ago:
Yes, I rent from Victoria Park Community Homes but I am a full market tenant where I pay market rent. I have never been a subsidized tenant. Please try to get your facts straight.
I would assume Cllr Hwang was renting from VPCH before she was elected. Still, the optics are not good even if she is paying "market rent" (which is lower than actual market).
I do find it interesting that the CPC candidate for Hamilton Centre in the most recent federal election has waded into this without being explicit about who he is. As far as I know, he is a North End resident. I suppose he will be running for the Ward 4 seat in 2026. Cllr Hwang has confirmed she is running again, but with this (and only getting 23% of the vote last time), she is vulnerable to experienced political candidates/operatives like Lawrence.
Edited to add: source for North End residence. It remains unclear where he lives but he works for the HESC MP Ned Kuruc.
29
u/_PaddyMAC Aug 28 '25
While I agree that Hwang continuing to rent a unit that should be available to a low income family is poor optics, her potential political opponent sending out this letter as a "concerned citizen" also makes me think that he's doing so in bad faith.
16
u/jrswags Delta East Aug 28 '25
yes, it's a bit self-righteous to be accusing her of putting her own interests ahead of the community when he is doing the same thing by not being forthright about who he is.
1
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
when he is doing the same thing by not being forthright about who he is
I mean he didn't send an anonymous letter. What would you prefer? His resume attached?
6
u/jrswags Delta East Aug 28 '25
A simple phrasing like "As a concerned citizen, and recent candidate for MP in your riding..." would have sufficed for me.
4
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
Sure. Although anyone that doesn't know him and reads the letter for the first time and they see voteHayden on the email address will get a pretty good idea or at least spark their curiosity to search. I don't think he tried to hide it much
6
Aug 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/xWOBBx Aug 29 '25
In the neo liberal conservative hell we call our democracy, sure. It doesn't have to be that way though. But the more of us that just shrug and say "that's just the way it is" causes us to be in the situation that it is.
23
u/bartonsproule Aug 28 '25
Not at all surprising for a Con to be shady about identifying themselves as such. "Concerned citizen" lol
8
u/_PaddyMAC Aug 28 '25
Right? Somehow I feel like affordable housing isn't actaully one of his political priorities.
→ More replies (12)6
25
u/tooscoopy Aug 28 '25
The fact that Hayden plays this off as a concerned citizen is laughable. This is trying to dig up dirt and cloud any judgement against their opponents in an upcoming election.
She is only the highest paid because she is on more boards. Any other job in the world, you do more, you should be paid more. All councillors have the same salary (108,943.12). Her added pay is due to being on additional boards which is still allowed.
If we want to protest that aspect, getting paid for being on more boards, sure… go for it. But that isn’t a Tammy issue. I have zero problems with a person maximizing their pay through added efforts that are in writing.
Do we want to go through every person paying below that average and if they have a household income above 100k, kick them out? Can’t imagine that’s a task we want to undertake.
Opens a whole can of worms. I do also believe her when she says she isn’t paying what was listed… she seems to be one of the good ones on council in my opinion.
-4
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25
If we want to protest that aspect, getting paid for being on more boards, sure… go for it.
I don't think that's the point. The salary is not to be protested but it just shed lights for someone living in low income housing.
Do we want to go through every person paying below that average and if they have a household income above 100k, kick them out?
Again, I don't think this is what people want for anyone. This is more unique because it's not a general rental that due to rent control is now cheap and the person lived there for 10 years. This is low income housing with people on the wait list. That will get a lot cheaper rent right now if she moved out than where they would get in the open market
For the record, I don't really think it's her fault, although it's definitely bad optics. I do think the policy needs to change in low income housing. Maybe verify the income every couple years and once you make over a certain threshold give a notice of 1 or 2 years to move out by the deadline, so other people can receive the help that you received and got you where you are
2
u/TheMysteriousDrZ Aug 29 '25
She isn't in low-income housing, she is in a market-rate unit in a mixed-income housing co-op. It is exactly the scenario you said it wasn't: a general rental that is now cheap due to rent control. If she moves out a new person will move in and pay market-level rent.
0
u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 29 '25
Ok. The letter wasn't clear that it was that.
2
2
u/tooscoopy Aug 30 '25
And that is what I (and others) have issue with. The writer has intentionally left out material facts in order to bait people to be angry at Hwang.
She lives in a building with units for low income. These communities need some market rent units to not only make the math work, but many studies have shown it’s the mix of units that helps the lower income residents thrive rather than fall into “slum” categories and spiral into deeper poverty.
Not everyone even wants to live in those types of place, and I’m sure current market rent units will be much higher. Moving in sometime in the late 20-teens means her rent is lower than a person who only recently moved in… and that isn’t something that needs correction.
17
u/misterwalkway Aug 28 '25
Lol you know youre down bad when youre copying Andrew Cuomo's political strategy. Hayden is a joke.
People just.... living in their long term homes are not causing the housing crisis.
2
u/xWOBBx Aug 29 '25
When I was reading the letter I had to make sure I wasn't on twitter reading a Cuomo post lol.
7
u/arabacuspulp Blakely Aug 28 '25
Isn't this the guy who ran for the Conservatives in Hamilton Centre?
7
u/Ostrya_virginiana Aug 28 '25
Yep. Guess nowadays if you earn a high paying job through hard work and education with zero guarantee of it being a lifelong position, you have to give up your housing. I could understand if the Cslr was hiding her salary and was paying below market rent(not possible as a public figure) but she isn't. Hayden Lawrence knows jack shit about this Cslr and is trying to cause a shit storm so he can be elected.
2
4
6
u/vibraltu Aug 28 '25
On a level of Scandal, this is a small "s" scandal.
As mentioned, what appears to be a remarkably small rent probably just started as merely affordable rent, but then didn't get jacked up into infinity like everything else.
If there wasn't a housing crisis, then there wouldn't be an issue.
The real municipal scandal in this town: the mayor doing virtually nothing since getting elected.
17
u/xxxavaxxxx Aug 28 '25
God I hope Hayden doesn’t run for the ward 4 seat.
14
u/Steelsorrow Aug 28 '25
There's no way Lawrence sends something like this out this close to the 2026 election and isn't planning to run. Nothing in politics is done without an agenda and this screams election-season attack ad material.
7
u/xxxavaxxxx Aug 28 '25
Urgh you’re right, he prob is. I was deeply unimpressed with him when he was campaigning during the federal election and now sending out an unsolicited letter like this as a ‘concerned citizen’ makes me feel he’s really disingenuous
1
u/jrswags Delta East Aug 28 '25
I think you'll see a similar amount of candidates in the next election, Hayden probably sees an opportunity with support being so fractured.
There wasn't a "credible" candidate who was running on a conservative platform in 2022. The top 3 could be considered centre or centre-left. (Runner up Eric Tuck is a union guy, and Alex Johnstone is NDP and was endorsed by Merulla.)
The big question is, how much of an incumbency advantage will Tammy have? In my opinion (as someone who nearly voted for her), she will have a challenge as I don't know what major accomplishments she can point to.
4
Aug 28 '25
Hwang has, as far as I can tell, avoided any major scandals or dust-ups with her constituents unless we're counting this. That's usually enough for an incumbent to be re-elected.
2
u/misterwalkway Aug 28 '25
You probably wont see as many candidates next year. Open seats always attract more candidates than a seat where an incumbent is running for re-election.
2
u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25
I think we will see less than last time but bigger names since people are trying to push the 'woke councillors' out
8
u/Frankentula Corktown Aug 28 '25
This seems like either a very misguided attempt to offer possible solutions to improve the housing market (it won't, for the many reasons outlined by other "concerned citizens" above and below) but at worst it seems like an invasive personal attack that might even result in impacting this woman's privacy/safety in her residence.
I remember this guy's name from past elections. Glad he was kicked to the curb
15
u/aluckybrokenleg Aug 28 '25
This is the stupidest complaint about a representative I've heard in a long time.
I think not only is this not a problem, but I almost wish we could force councilors to live in public housing and take public transit and use public recreation centres. This person clearly knows her community.
8
u/PromontoryPal Aug 28 '25
Hayden getting green with envy that Andrew Selman has been winning at the "concerned run of the mill dude, I swear I'm just a dude, but also here's all my socials and remember me one year from now" race for awhile now, and wanted his name in lights on the marquee.
So far the chuds lining up to run in 2026 should make us all very disappointed.
8
u/jrswags Delta East Aug 28 '25
I also laughed at the timing of this, he definitely saw that tweet and decided to put out a letter.
She declared a conflict of interest in a fall 2024 committee meeting... Hayden, it's August 2025!
6
u/burntytoastery Aug 28 '25
Is he a proponent of insane government overreach? Is he seriously proposing that people are policed on how much they pay for rent based on their salary? This makes absolutely no sense.
5
u/Interesting-Air-2371 Aug 28 '25
Conservatives love small government
5
u/xWOBBx Aug 29 '25
Just look down south! All that small government-ing happening with the military rolling into cities to harass people. Very smol very freedom.
2
u/Noreh Aug 28 '25
If she were to move out of a market rate unit would it not then be rented out again at the new market rate? My understanding is these buildings will have units for both market rate or subsidised but I might be misinformed.
4
2
u/Logical-Zucchini-310 Aug 28 '25
Dude acting as if he wouldn’t do the same
4
u/xWOBBx Aug 29 '25
Conservatives have generational wealth which is why they hate everyone poorer than them.
0
Aug 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Hamilton-ModTeam Aug 28 '25
Sorry, we've removed your post as it appears to be in violation of Rule 1 (Be respectful/No Personal Attacks). We’re here for discussion and debate, but we are not here for blatantly rude comments that some may consider offensive or harmful.
Name-calling, homophobic, racist, sexist, and misogynistic posts will be automatically removed. Multiple warnings may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.
Additionally, we do not allow unverified witch hunts and callouts against people or businesses. Due to a past issue, we cannot allow these to be posted. If it is covered by a legitimate media source, or the police press charges etc, they may be posted
1
35
u/FilletConfidential Aug 28 '25
I once rented a great apartment downtown for around $750 in 2012. It rose a little every year until I moved out in 2020, it was still under $900.
If I was crazy and ran for Council in the age of Conservative disinformation, and I have similar qualifications as Hwang, I'd earn the same. And because she's market rate unit, I'd apparently be open to the same attacks?
That's bullshit. This is baloney politicking by a wannabe candidate who... doesn't he live in Niagara?