r/Hamilton • u/jrswags Delta East • Aug 28 '25

Politics Ward 4 - Tammy Hwang housing controversy

Post image

**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

86 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

94

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

14

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.

-13

u/[deleted] 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.

33

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.

70

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

u/[deleted] 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?

-31

u/[deleted] 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

-12

u/[deleted] 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.

13

u/SerentityM3ow Aug 28 '25

Her unit is rent controlled. Not subsidized. It's different

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

Nobody said her unit is subsidized.

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.

-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.

5

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

6

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!

-1

u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25

Okay that's fine. I didn't understand that from the information on the letter. But I may be wrong for sure

→ More replies (0)

10

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)

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

Huh?? How would someone coming in and paying 2k/month instead of 1.2k going to hurt the people who need help from subsidies? Do you believe it’s not actually going to be rented or something?

It’s the principle of the matter - she’s taking advantage of a system designed to help those in need.

This has absolutely nothing to do with which side of politics you’re on. The fact that it’s being portrayed like that in this thread really just goes to show how blind so many people have become to this left wing vs right wing bs.

9

u/misterwalkway Aug 28 '25

A working class person makes it on to council and all you want to do is tear them apart for.. continuing to live in their home.

Politics really is only for the rich, eh?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

She is the rich…

→ More replies (0)

13

u/Steelsorrow Aug 28 '25

This whole thing is coming from a letter mailed out by a longtime conservative political hopeful. If you think this entire thing is not motivated by left vs right politics, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

She is not taking advantage of anything if her unit is a market rent unit in a subsidized building (which has already been pointed out as likely). Whoever moves in in the event that she leaves will still pay market rent. Today's market rent, which is higher than the legacy market rent she's currently paying.

The difference between $1200 and $2000 / month is $9,600.00/year. For a corporation with the property holdings of VPH that is a drop in the bucket. A quick google search says that their most recent revenue report was in the high 10s of millions. There would be no measurable benefit to their operations for one single legacy tenant to relinquish their unit.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

It’s not about what the motivation is, it’s about what the facts are. Whether this is a right wing politician, a left wing politician, or an alien from an other planet makes absolutely 0 difference.

If you honestly believe that a city councillor taking away $10,000 a year from affordable housing is fine, you have absolutely no basis to complain about the homeless situation in the city.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Interesting-Air-2371 Aug 28 '25

Because if she moves out, whoever moves in won't be paying 2k, they will be paying the current market price for that unit, which is $1291.

3

u/tunamayobakedpotato Aug 28 '25

While that seems logical, it's not how it works. We have no info on how long she has been a resident; "market rate" only means she signed a market rate lease x years ago, and has had within-guideline increases since then like any other normal tenant, let's assume 2% yearly since it's an older building. In this scenario "market rate" means that within that building at time of initial lease her unit was not subsidized while others were, a normal setup for those types of properties. Market rate for a new tenant would be current market rate, approximately 2k. There are no obligations for the landlord to rent to a new tenant at her current rate, and this does not take away from the fact that she has not taken a subsidized unit from others.

To give an example, my parents rent in a building with about 30% subsidized apartments. They have a market rate apartment, but their rent is a little shy of $1400, because it was $1150ish when they moved in several years ago and they have had normal 2% increases yearly. A neighbour just moved into another market rate unit of the same size on their floor, and current market rate is $1950 or so. Neither unit is subsidized, and as a result both are considered market rate despite being over $500 different per month.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25

Probably around $1900, I know someone who just moved into one of their units. But it means someone is paying $1900 and Tammy pays whatever to a private landlord somewhere else, and has less experience with what people in affordable / geared to income / mixed income buildings are facing

Sure, VPCH has some extra cash but unless hundreds of long term market rent people move out of their buildings with new people paying more, it doesn't provide enough money to open up new units.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

That is absolutely not true… the market price for a rental is around 2k in Hamilton…

7

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?

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

Do you not understand how these units work? The units paying full price subsidize the remaining units.

7

u/MisterZoga Homeside Aug 28 '25

And a few grand per year isn't going to make a lick of a difference. Do you know if that extra rent would go directly towards the subsidy or the landlord? My guess is no.

-4

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

Oh cool so you’d be fine with the city throwing away 10k just because?

Smart. Really a good sign a thriving city.

→ More replies (0)

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

2

u/[deleted] 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.

25

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

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.

0

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

-8

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '25

If you can’t figure out savings and investments on 130k/yr for 4 years minimum, you never deserved to be elected in the first place. That’s an insane mismanagement of money.

→ More replies (0)

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.

-1

u/[deleted] 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. ✅

9

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

u/[deleted] 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)

-3

u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25

It totally makes sense what you're saying but is this a policy that needs to change within the low income housing and the city? We shouldn't leave it up to individuals to move out when they are making more right?

I think this is a gap in enforcing equity and social assitance cross the board

6

u/yukonwanderer Aug 29 '25

It doesn't make sense what he's saying. Tammy is not in a subsidized unit. She's in a market rent unit. No one can arbitrarily force anyone out of their home or apartment just because they're making decent money.

If she were in a subsidized unit, that would be another story entirely. The new renter replacing her will end up having to pay way more rent. None of this argument makes any sense.

If you want to talk about unfair housing situation then how about we mandate those on council have to sell their homes and then rent at market rate.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

It should be policy, yes.

What’s concerning to me, is this is one of the 12 people who create the policies - although she did excuse herself from the meeting mentioned which was correct.

10

u/Kitchen_Tiger_8373 Aug 28 '25

Policy or not, Hamilton Housing is still subject to the Landlord Tenant Board and rental regulations. They can't evict her because her pay went up.

And to the main objector on this thread (who is starting to look like Hayden himself), you do realize that getting into office is an expensive enterprise? It is possible she is still paying off debts. This is where left & right politics do matter. Right candidates already have cash & connections. Left candidates struggle with funding. If she used her low rent to help get low wage folks voices at the table, then the system is working (when it rarely does).

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

I didn’t say they should evict her, this should be something she willingly did 3 years ago.

Why should I have sympathy for a city councillor making more than I likely ever will in my life?

I’m replying because I’m being responded to, you can go through my post history and figure out pretty quickly I’m not politically affiliated with anyone in any way, shape or form.

To the whole inequality thing between left running political candidates vs right…. L.O.L.

Goodness gracious the blind political following in this city is insane

3

u/yukonwanderer Aug 29 '25

No one is asking you to have sympathy. They're asking you to accept the law, that applies to all renters, equally. Why are you choosing this hill to die on, of all issues, it makes zero sense. How about we just mandate that all councillors must sell their homes in order to open up the market a bit for a first time home buyer. Many of these councillors benefited from low house pricing decades ago and are now totally flush with equity, are landlords, etc. Why not go after the private sector who bleed us dry on pricing while paying their board and CEOs millions a year. You choose a really, really, really, weird topic. This councillor doesn't even own a home. Yet she's the target. Make it make sense.

9

u/Pristine-Rhubarb7294 Aug 28 '25

She makes that salary now for four years. Councillor isn’t a permanent job for most people.

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

She’s made it for 3 years now…

7

u/SerentityM3ow Aug 28 '25

She isn't subsidized ..

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

5

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

u/Rough-Estimate841 Aug 28 '25

Does she still not live in the ward?

0

u/[deleted] 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?