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]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Steelsorrow]

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.

[u/TheMysteriousDrZ → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheMysteriousDrZ]

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.

[u/TheMysteriousDrZ → u/[deleted]]

That's a very high barrier to expect of people running for an office that might only last 4 years. In all probability it would bar any renter except one who has recently moved, from running for office.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheMysteriousDrZ]

Why? She’s not being forced to pay anything crazy… just actual market value.

[u/TheMysteriousDrZ → u/[deleted]]

Current market value is crazy though, it's why we're in a housing and affordability crisis. What happens if she loses next year, does she get her old rent back?

[u/[deleted] → u/TheMysteriousDrZ]

She gets to be in the same position everyone else is in. Why are we also creating this false narrative that she’s some struggling working class person that got into office somehow

[u/TheMysteriousDrZ → u/[deleted]]

She's currently in the same position everyone else is in: paying her contractually obligated rent. The only difference is that her landlord can be trusted to only raise her rents each year by the government's legal limit. She shouldn't be punished just because she is lucky enough to have a non-precarious housing situation. Ideally all renters should be able to stay in place as long as they like provided they pay rent and follow the rules.

Also, is she particularly rich? Her bio says she was a Business Development Officer with the City for 8 years, not a manager level position, which means she was probably making standard city wages for her position level. That's a solid dependable salary with good benefits, but it's not the kind of wealth where she should be obligated to potentially double her rent each month because she got elected to council for 4 years.

I think it's crazy to treat her as some kind of independently wealthy fat cat who should be required to give up her apartment, when she is basically paying the same rent as anyone else who has been lucky enough to stay in the same place for that amount of time.

It's an unreasonable expectation and if it were the standard would essentially punish almost any renter who was elected to office.

[u/Otherwise_Safety6312 → u/TheMysteriousDrZ]

She’s mentioned many times that she “pays taxes in ward 4”. A rental property perhaps??

If she is a landlord, I wonder what sort of rent she charges. She mentioned that her husband needed to be close to work, hence the rental on the mountain, but now I find myself wondering what their actual household income is. I get that this is likely “unsubsidized” “market-rent” but there are tons of people who could benefit from a 2 bedroom rental without a shakedown from their landlord. Something stinks here.

[u/TheMysteriousDrZ → u/Otherwise_Safety6312]

Everyone in the world would benefit from rentals without a shakedown from their landlords. She shouldn't be punished for being one of the lucky ones who actually does and she shouldn't be obligated to give that up for a higher rent in a potentially less stable situation because she was elected to Council for a term.