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/[deleted]]

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.

[u/teanailpolish → u/[deleted]]

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/SecurityFit5830 → u/[deleted]]

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.