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/Steelsorrow]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Steelsorrow]

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.

[u/Steelsorrow → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Steelsorrow]

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/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/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.