Does anyone know more about this?

I understand it takes time to move, and people find jobs, etc.  Being eligible for subsidized housing and then making over $100000 seems a bit extreme though.

Then there are also issues like this:

HRH claims that some of the units that it manages have vacancies that they cannot fill, and so rent the units out to those not in need, such as a tenant earning $112,000 a year in Drewville, who has enjoyed social housing for 12 years.

HRH doesn't monitor FMV housing prices, but are they at least paying attention to FMV rental prices and charging that if there is no need?

Sorry, a post got eaten earlier.  I forgot to include that CTC claims that Edmonton is charging too much in FOI fees in order to block access.

I really don't know a lot about the housing situation in Alberta.  And my experience with subsidized housing is from living in it over 30 years ago in Ontario.  A lot of things might have changed since then, and in a different location.

On the face of it, I would agree that people making over $80,000 or so a year should not be subsidized by the taxpayer. Presumably income is a criteria for being accepted in the first place. It should be reviewed annually. If it reaches a certain level, the tenant should be notified that his housing will no longer be subsidized. Either he vacates the housing by a certain date, or he will be charged the market rate and no longer subsidized.

I am a firm believe in mixed housing. I don't think low income people should be forced to live in a getto. There are advantages of people with different income levels living in the same neighbourhood. So, if someone whose income creeps up, or leaps up (won the lottery; got a high paying job) and he chooses to remain in the neighbourhood, I think he should be permitted - provided that he pays his way.

The exception to this would be if there is a real shortage of subsidized housing, with people on a waiting list. Then people with higher incomes should be encouraged/forced to move out and make way for low income people.

I really can't see why many people would want to live in a subsidized housing unit if they were paying the market rate. Without the advantage of cheap housing, wouldn't most people want to move to nicer quarters in a better neighbourhood?

To me the solution is to adjust the rent according to income, and not subsidize those on the higher income scale.

Seeler, I agree with you.  In Calgary I looked at the website, and there is a waiting list by the sounds of it.  I would expect that.  I'm not really sure what's being charged once people's incomes move above the eligiblity limit, other than they are still there.

In the small town, one guy was paying $750 or something in that range (little hazy on the number) for 12 years, no changes, on a 3 bedroom place.  I don't know what rent is.  I doubt that the rental market had no increases the entire time he lived there thought!

Yeah..in Toronto, I think Jack Layton and his wife lived in subsided housing for some time despite being quite wealthy. Pigs at the public trough come in all colours...

I think the comment by PKBC is a bit over the top.  Supposedly the high income earners in Calgary are not subsidized.  There were mixed messages about whether they were paying market rate or a little under market rate.  It is very helpful to have a mix of people in any kind of community.  I believe many of Calgary Housing units are mixed in with privately owned units.  Instead of evicting high income tenants, I would support having them pay market rates and use their rent payments to rent new units for subsidized housing.

Actually Coop housing is not subsidised. It is mixed, with about 25% of the units being subsidised.  

It is important to distinguish between public housing which is own and operated by gvt agencies, and coop housing which owned by the residents. In Ontario  all of the money Coop housing receives from the gvt goes towards subsidising the rent of those who have incomes that require them to spend over a certain % of their incomes, The provincial guarantees the mortgage of the coops and the members run it under a law for coop housing. Much as Credit Unions are.

Often people thinl that Coop housing is subsidised but it is not.  It is, like Credit Unions not for profit and residents/owners who leave are required to sell their shares at the same price they bought them for. Often the costs of living in coop housing is more expensive than for profit  housing when the coop is first set up, but over time, due to the fact that it is not subjected to speculation, and the buy and selling of shares for profit, it will end up costing less than for profit housing in the the neighbourhood.

A well run coop is a win win situation for those paying their full share, and those being subsidised. Usually those being subsidised have disabilities, or an illness  or other differences that prevent them from working, and being around in the day they keep the coop safe from intrusions. Those paying their full cost have relationships, with the low income residents which prevents some of the indignities that occur when people live in public housing ghettos, where they are often preyed upon, and ignored by the community.

Jack Layton lived in Coop housing not public housing, and it made him a better politician, because unlike other elected officials he knew the challenges facing those with disabilities etc, because they were his neighbours.

I am not sure if the situation in Alberta is just a confusion between not for profit and public housing.  Regardless one can underestimate the problems of living in a low income ghetto, and knowing many people who do, I can see a lot of benefits to having people with middle or high incomes living in housing with those on low incomes.  So I would support and encourage the middle income and well to do to live in public housing. 

It means better and safer communities for all, and a better quality of life for those with disabilites, illnesses and others needing subsidised housing.  

If there is a shortage of units, than the best solution is to build more housing, and not to further isolate and ghettoise those needing help by forcing out those who bring needed abilities and attributes to the building that reduce the need to spend more on public funds on other services, like policing, social work, etc.

When they are spread all over the city, I don't see them being 'ghettoized'.

In elementary school, on my school bus route there were homes that were involved with some type of goverment program.  I'm not sure if it was different or not.  It was a very mixed neighbourhood, and there were much more expensive places nearby.

Jim, I suppose constantly switching the units could work.  There's a cost with either buying or selling or switching out the rentals all the time too though.  People without subsidizes sometimes have to move when rent increases each year.

Some of the public housing in Ottawa are in 60 to 200 unit appartment buildings which are in effect ghettos because no one but the residence and friends of the residence go there. Even smaller appartment buildings end up being effective low income ghettos if no one but low income people live their and visit.

Yes they are not like the ghettos in the US, but almost all of the crime in my neighbourhood comes from just one public housing apt building,  The coop building cause no problems at all.

It is not usually the legal resident of public housing who are doing the crimes, but criminal types who take advantage and prey on disabled people who are lonely, or who are frighten by or hurt by criminal types. They force theire way in after befriending and conning them, and than they use these appartnments to live and invite other criminals in as well. They in turn break into cars, and steal from the corner stores, in our neighbourhood, when they need quick cash.  These criminals are enabled to operate because no one knows they have moved in illegally with legal residents. ANd no one stops there party friends from coming. This is because some disabled people in public housing have no neighbours (on the same floor) who by there presence, deter those who like to operate unseen Or who can alert police.

Even if they had just one abled body middle class person living on each  floor and who is not intimidated, and has the ablitiy to watch, and if unable to detr criminals by their presence, they are able to communicate with the housing authority or police.  Many of those with developmental  disabilities, mental illness, and brain trama are unable to communicate well or trust strangers like the police, but are able to do so with a neighbour who knows them.

Even in this small city, subsidized housing is gettoized.  No one wants to live on D--- Street. 

I know of a family who lost their home in a middle-class neighbourhood and had to move to that street. Their teenage son arranged to attend a high-school on the opposite side of the river. He had to spend over an hour each way on public busses to reach it (rather than taking the school bus to the school in his district). His reason - "So no one will know where I live."

I know that when I lived in subsidized housing in Hamilton (block after block of cookie-cutter houses) we were easily identified and discriminated against by businesses, schools, and yes, by churches. A friend who lived in a large apartment complex of subsidized housing in another part of Hamilton also told me how the children from the complex were discriminated against in school.

I believe in mixed housing.

And Alex - thank you for explaining about Co op housing. It sounds like an excellent idea.

Maybe behind tyhis is the "cost is no object" idea I've heard overly wealthy folk express… subsidised housing? Low cost? High cost? Who cares?

Perhaps the stereotypes don't bother them…