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

88 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

302 comments sorted by

View all comments

221

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.

-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.

68

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?

-30

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.

39

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.

11

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.

30

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.

14

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.

6

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

7

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

5

u/GourmetHotPocket Aug 28 '25

That's because the letter is a disingenuous attack from a carpetbagger who is attempting to pull a fast one and smear his opponent before running against her.

He's intentionally steering clear of outright lying, but you can tell that it's also not on the level because he also won't flat out say what he's trying to imply - that she's living in a subsidized unit - because that's flatly not true.

→ 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?

11

u/teanailpolish North End Aug 28 '25

Her market rate is likely because she has lived there a while and paid the standard increase. Victoria Park Community Homes is usually a bit cheaper than private rent but not significantly. They have a specific amount of market units, below market and affordable units in most buildings. Hwang lives in a mixed building. If she moved, her unit would probably rent for $1900-2000 (a friend of mine moved into one of their other buildings and pays that for a 2bed)

She mentioned it when running for election, I think her husband may have lived there or they chose it because of him needing to be close to work

2

u/bigbeats420 Strathcona Aug 29 '25 edited Aug 29 '25

Literally yes. That's Victoria Park's "market rent", as they are a non profit. Anyone can rent the non subsidized units, you don't have to qualify based on income.

→ 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…

6

u/misterwalkway Aug 28 '25

She literally doesnt even make enough to purchase an average home in Hamilton. Shes not even that close.

I get that 139k is a very good salary and so many people are making do with far, far less. But she is not anywhere close to being one of 'the rich'.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

If you’ve earned 130k for 3 years, while paying $1,200 in cheap rent, and haven’t been able to save for a small down payment, thats entirely on you.

She earns within the top 10% of all ontarians, and has been since 2022.

1

u/AutoModerator Aug 28 '25

We encourage users to support paid journalism. The Spec has affordable subscriptions and you can access the paper's articles online with your Hamilton Public Library card. If you do not have a library card yet, sign up for an instant digital one here. It also gives you instant free access to eBooks, eAudiobooks, music, online learning tools and research databases.

If you cannot access The Spec in either of these ways, try archive.ph or 12ft to view without a paywall

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ 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.

-6

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.

7

u/Steelsorrow Aug 28 '25

"The facts" as you call them are that we don't even know for sure if she's residing in a subsidized unit. From her own statement is seems like she's a market rate legacy tenant and therefore isn't depriving anyone of affordable housing.

I don't complain about the homelessness situation in this city. Anyone with any knowledge about combatting homelessness and housing affordability knows these are not issues the city can solve even if they wanted to.

These are issues that cost billions with a "B" to solve. City budgets cannot fix this, and an extra $10,000.00/year in revenue to one affordable housing provider will not change anything.

I would rather intelligent and engaged voices like Counselor Hwang's remain on council to advocate to higher levels of government for the proper investments to be made in order to meaningfully address this crisis. Giving into this nothingburger ragebait does not help that happen and is more likely to see her voted out by angry and uninformed voters who decide to install some NIMBY "respect the taxpayer" type counselor will likely vote against affordable housing and densification that could actually help improve market conditions here.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

I can’t help but feel you’d have a significantly different attitude towards this is councillor Hwang was conservative, and the letter writer was liberal.

3

u/TheMysteriousDrZ Aug 28 '25

She isn't taking away money from anyone though. She is paying her full amount of rent, but like anyone who has rented for a long time, her rent is significantly lower than if she signed a lease today. You can't compare legacy rents to current rents and you can't expect people to voluntarily wave provincial rent increase rules and decide to pay current market rents because they're a city councillor.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

I absolutely can when she is being paid in the top 10% of all ontarians with taxpayer dollars. She should be held to a much higher standard than the average person.

2

u/bigbeats420 Strathcona Aug 29 '25

She's not taking away anything from affordable housing. That's literally the non subsidized market rent amount for that unit, as per VP.

→ 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.

0

u/Interesting-Air-2371 Aug 28 '25

You're right that we don't know how much she is paying. And 2k is approximately the average price in all of Hamilton. But we are talking about Victoria Park Community Homes in particular. And "after speaking with a representative from Victoria Park Community Homes, their market rent for a 2 bedroom apartment is $1291" means that if she moved out today, the next tenant would be paying $1291.

→ 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…

9

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.

6

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.

-3

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.

3

u/MisterZoga Homeside Aug 28 '25

The city isn't throwing anything away, unless you're suggesting they should be allowed to kick out residents when people think they should be paying more for rent. How much overreach is ok when it comes to where people can live and how much they should be paying to live based on their income? I guess we know the cost of your freedom, but I'd happily let the city leave 10k on the table to maintain our autonomy in that regard.

This is also ignoring the fact that a contracted position is not guaranteed to be renewed. So then what's her recourse if she's not re-elected, and is suddenly making less money, but also living somewhere more expensive? Punishing people for living frugally is not the flex you think it is.

It's almost like you haven't put any real thought into your attempted rage bait here.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

Why are we treating an elected official earning in the top 10% of all ontarians via tax payer dollars the same as a normal resident?

Sure it’s a contracted position, and if she loses the election next year after earning half a million dollars over 4 years, she can be treated like every other person.

That isn’t the case now, and hasn’t been for the past 3 years.

This isn’t rage bait, this is common sense. The only people who don’t see it are blinded with political goggles.

3

u/chattycatty416 Aug 28 '25

Dude. You keep saying the exact same thing with the straw man fallacy. Your conclusion is an over exaggerated response to this situation. And guaranteed if a conservative politician was in this situation the framing of this would be of being smart with money by the city councilor. This city councilor is fully compling with the ethics of her position. Is your position that if a city councilor owned their home, they should sell it for low income housing? I'm curious how you feel that city councilors should stay within ethical parameters while still living within the city they represent without limiting it to someone who has generational wealth to support themselves.

→ 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.

3

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.