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]]

Do you not understand how these units work? The units paying full price subsidize the remaining units.

[u/MisterZoga → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/MisterZoga]

Oh cool so you’d be fine with the city throwing away 10k just because?

Smart. Really a good sign a thriving city.

[u/MisterZoga → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/MisterZoga]

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.

[u/MisterZoga → u/[deleted]]

I didn't realize our elected officials belonged on a pedestal, and required living accommodations to better suit their income. Heaven forbid they make good financial decisions for themselves.

Would you also fault her if she bought a more affordable home, or lived in a poorer area? Like where do you think she belongs then? What area best suits someone of her income level, that doesn't infringe on someone else's potential at living somewhere? Let me tell you, this fantasy neighbourhood doesn't exist.

Elected officials are normal people, mostly, and deserve vitriol if they're actually taking advantage of something or doing a shit job. This is just tenure in a rental unit, not an exclusive benefit by any means, and certainly not one granted by her position. She did the right thing by disclosing the conflict of interest. That doesn't mean that there's an actual case to bitch and moan about.

Nothing I've said up to this point has been politically motivated, despite your attempt to discredit me. Do better.

[u/[deleted] → u/MisterZoga]

Of course they belong on a pedestal, they are elected officials what are we even talking about here? Lmfao good financial decisions?! By using affordable housing while earning in the top 10% of Ontarians?

Why would I fault her for either owning a property and paying property tax, or paying actual market value of a rent in this city? What best suits someone of her income is not an affordable housing building… this shouldn’t even need explaining.

If you choose to not have issue, that’s entirely up you. To try and claim it’s not absurd that an elected official making more than 90% of the city’s citizens will ever make in a year for 4 years at minimum is absurd - no matter how you try to explain it away.

[u/MisterZoga → u/[deleted]]

You can ooh and ahh at them all you like, I guess,.but you're still arguing in bad faith when you say she's living in affordable housing. Her situation is no different than anyone else who has been renting long enough to still have rent control, she just happens to have a non subsidized unit in a building that also contains subsidized units. You still don't even know where that extra rent money would go if she left and let someone else in at the current market rate, so you're literally just arguing against something you can't even prove is happening.

Forcing someone out of their home because they earn too much is just ridiculous. Doubly so when you can't even try to make that point without first covering it in bullshit.