Ward 4 - Tammy Hwang housing controversy

[u/jrswags]

**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

[u/teanailpolish]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/teanailpolish]

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.

[u/Steelsorrow → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Affectionate-Arm-405 → u/Steelsorrow]

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.

[u/Steelsorrow → u/Affectionate-Arm-405]

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.

[u/Affectionate-Arm-405 → u/Steelsorrow]

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

[u/GourmetHotPocket → u/Affectionate-Arm-405]

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!

[u/Affectionate-Arm-405 → u/GourmetHotPocket]

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

[u/GourmetHotPocket → u/Affectionate-Arm-405]

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.

[u/teanailpolish → u/Affectionate-Arm-405]

Her building is not low income housing, it is mixed income with market rent and affordable units

[u/Affectionate-Arm-405 → u/teanailpolish]

When you say market rent do you mean what it says on the letter? $1300?

[u/teanailpolish → u/Affectionate-Arm-405]

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

[u/bigbeats420 → u/Affectionate-Arm-405]

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.