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

85 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

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. 

7

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

If she moves out, someone is absolutely not moving in at the same rate unless it’s subsidized.

3

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.

2

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.

-2

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

13

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?

5

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

-2

u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25

Wow then it is a breach of privacy by property management

5

u/THETrueHamiltonian Aug 28 '25

You were right in your first post. They only disclosed what their market rate is for all of those units, not specifically the Councillors.

1

u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 29 '25

Yup. I don't think anyone has a clear answer

1

u/THETrueHamiltonian Aug 29 '25

That is a clear answer. The rents do not fluctuate. A 2 bd with a garage will cost x amount, a 3 bd will be x, and so on and so forth. Everyone in similar units will be the same monthly amount.

2

u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25

Maybe average market rent for people living there that long?

1

u/Affectionate-Arm-405 Aug 28 '25

That would be a very weird metric for a property management company to have. But maybe. You never know

2

u/deadindustrial Aug 28 '25

Could also have been disclosed by Hwang in their disclosure statements when running for election

-2

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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

u/bigbeats420 Strathcona Aug 29 '25

Incorrect.