You made the claim he used subsidized housing while getting a 6 figure income, the burden of proof is upon you.
BTW, I provided links explaining the issue. Read them and weep.
Jack Layton to run for mayor of Toronto?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
BTW, I provided links explaining the issue. Read them and weep.
I couldn't care less if the guy lived in an igloo. What's the difference in the great scheme of things. Layton is a good guy as a man, just out of whack as a politician.
The devil's in the details. But you go ahead and make assumptions about the details.
Layton and Chow were also the subject of some dispute when a June 14, 1990 Toronto Star article by Tom Kerr accused them of unfairly living in a housing cooperative subsidized by the federal government, despite their high income.[17] Layton and Chow had both lived in the Hazelburn Co-op since 1985, and lived together in an $800 per month three-bedroom apartment after their marriage in 1988. By 1990, their combined annual income was $120,000, and in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so. In response to the article, the co-op's board argued that having mixed-income tenants was crucial to the success of co-ops, and that the laws deliberately set aside apartments for those willing to pay market rates, such as Layton and Chow.[18] During the late 1980s and early 1990s they maintained approximately 30% of their units as low income units and provided the rest at what they considered market rent. In June 1990, the city's solicitor cleared the couple of any wrong-doing,[19] and later that month, Layton and Chow left the co-op and bought a house in Toronto's Chinatown together with Chow's mother, a move they said had been planned for some time.[20] Former Toronto mayor John Sewell later wrote in NOW that rival Toronto city councillor Tom Jakobek had given the story to Tom Kerr.[21]
What you've posted confirms that Chow and Layton were living in federally subsidized housing while having a combined income in excess of 120,000. So unless the CMHC housing subsidy is intended to support those unfortunate families that are making only 6 figures per year, it would appear that Layton and Chow were selfishly taking up a unit at the expense of a family that really could have used it.
(BTW - None of the links work)
They paid full market value, it's a shared co-op.
Do you understand what that means?
This is a quote directly from your source:
"...in March of that year they began voluntarily paying an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op's Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy..."
What part of this don't you get? In all reality, considering that even after they kicked in the extra 325/month - but only after being caught and getting the bad press - their total rent for a 3 bedroom a stones throw away from the corner of Queen and Yonge was a steal at 1125/mo.... It was still subsidized at that point.
Can you read?
I don't think you can, you pulled out bits that satisfy your Liberal stance on Jack Layton.
I've even heard cons defend the man on this matter because the accusations are not true and totally baseless which is why was cleared of any wrong doing.
What part don't you get? Just because it is a housing project doesn't mean all the apartments are subsidized by the City/Province. That's called co-op. Layton's market rate would have subsidized a low income place. Don't try twisting it into evil....
The part I don't get is how anyone could be blind enough to believe that 800/month for a 3 bedroom flat in downtown Toronto is market particularly in light that Layton grudgingly kicked in an additional amount of cash to silence the critics but only after he was caught.
FYI - If there is anything "evil" connected to this, it is Layton and his stupidity and the fact that someone (household) that wasn't making 6 figures could have got that benefit.
FYI - If there is anything "evil" connected to this, it is Layton and his stupidity and the fact that someone (household) that wasn't making 6 figures could have got that benefit.
It was 1990.... Do you really think $800/mo was low rental then? Stupidity? Pot ... meet kettle.