Millennium still owns us a lot of money and refuses to pay. Fuk them

http://www.millenniumwater.com/

i got some brochure thing saying it would start at 499,000


=I

The biggest problem is how to implement social housing. The easiest way to get more social housing is by injecting some into new developments. The only problem? New developments are generally built in expensive (ie: profitable) places.

It seems to be another NIMBY-esque thing; if you guys don't believe that we should put social housing in there, where and how should we put it?

Chilliwack? :D

LOL social housing at False Creek? Will never happen. They're going to want to put that shit out in the middle of nowhere. Welfare cases shouldn't get prime time placement.

Do you see fucking projects going up in Manhattan?

I work with a lady who makes $63K. She is married and her husband works as well. They have 1 kid.

They are in social housing living by false creek.

I'm like wtf? GTFO.

You make enough money, why the hell do you get a housing break, living in a prime area like false creek ?:confused:

All those townhouses under the Cambie St. Bridge are social housing...

I've heard of similar scenarios where people that can, clearly, afford living downtown, but for some reason they have the privilege of living in social housing for rent that might as well be free. I'm not sure what percentage of social housing is occupied by these douchebags, but a crackdown, or something, has to happen.

^^^^ hm.... interesting i might have to lookin to this lol

you'd think they would use the altheletes as a selling point?
Be like o shit btw blank and blank who won gold lived here during the olympics... =/

So you can crack down on those douchebags or to be apart of the social housing? :rolleyes:

really, thats not a strong sale point

You know living in those places are not as easy or nice as you think.

The social housing would mix in "normal people" with people who are "at risk" So on the same floor you will likely to be living next to people who have substance abuse issues etc. The point is giving the people who are trying to get back on their feet, targets/ role models to aim for.. or we will have another DTES.

If people complain cars being broken in in normal apartment buildings etc.. can you imagine garages in these places?

Speaking from experience, apartment crime is committed by professionals, not by crack addicts looking for their next fix.

This is not social housing per se - this is co-operative housing. However, I am truly stunned how some people who do make a decent income manage to get on the lists for these things while the rest of us pay market rates.

Gary Mason's survey of the Olympic Village and what it will mean for our city councilors:

------------------------------

Gary Mason
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published on Friday, Mar. 05, 2010 8:59PM EST
Last updated on Friday, Mar. 05, 2010 9:13PM EST

Olympians in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Games loved staying in the Athletes' Village. Big surprise.

Their rooms will soon be retrofitted, and, in some cases, sold for millions of dollars. Another Athletes' Village as nice as the one Vancouver built is unlikely in the next 100 years. But as soon as the Paralympics conclude later this month, attention will once again focus on the economics of the development and how much of the nearly $1-billion that Vancouver taxpayers spent to bail out the project they are likely to get back.

One of the more contentious aspects of that discussion is certain to involve the status and future of the 252 units of social housing to which the city had committed itself. It is a promise now likely to be broken.

The final decision will have wide-ranging political implications for the governing Vision Vancouver party and its leader, Mayor Gregor Robertson.

On one side are those who say the social housing is too expensive and would be better built, far cheaper, somewhere else. On the other are those who believe the city has a moral imperative to honour its obligation to make room for the poor in all big real-estate developments.

That group includes Jim Green, the legendary community development consultant. If Vision backs away from the social housing, he warned yesterday, “it will be a complete disaster for the party and the city. This income mix in real-estate developments is key to the future of Vancouver.” Perhaps. But Vision also must weigh the risks of going ahead with a plan that would come at an enormous cost to taxpayers.

The social housing component of the project was supposed to cost about $65-million. It ballooned to $110-million. The worst cost overruns of the Olympic Village construction involved the three parcels of units set aside for social housing. Meantime, estimates show it would cost an additional $55-million to $75-million to subsidize the housing (keeping rents far below market value) over a period of 30 years or so, as originally planned.

It would arguably be the most expensive social housing anywhere in the world.

Complicating the issue is the fact the city could still end up losing $100-million or more from its stake in the project. You may recall that the city had to bail out the developer to the tune of about $900-million after the original lender, Fortress Investment Group, itself decided to bail because of nervousness about overruns.

Now, given the bounce-back in the economy and the positive exposure the Olympic Village received during the Games, there is a much stronger likelihood Millennium Development Corp., will be able to repay all of its building loan. But that still leaves $170-million it owes the city for the land upon which the project is built.

It's entirely possible the city will not get that back. This creates a problem, because it was counting on that money to pay for the $160-million it spent on other infrastructure investments related to the project, such as soil remediation, a civic centre, a plaza and other improvements.

Even if the city were to get half the money back, that still amounts to an $87-million loss, which makes it that much harder to justify spending possibly $180-million for 252 units of social housing.

This is why council will be presented later this month with a range of options. The one being favoured at the moment is for the 252 units to be rented out, at rates slightly under market, possibly for seven to 10 years. At the end of that time, a decision would be made as to what portion to convert to social housing while selling the rest as condos at market value.

The money saved by going this route would be used to build more social housing on another site at a much more cost-effective rate.

Advocates like Mr. Green will not be thrilled with this solution. Mr. Green rejects any plan perceived as concentrating low-income people in one area, creating what he calls “massive ghettos.” I don't think that's what the city has in mind; nonetheless, that is a sentiment it would face if it takes this option.

Whatever happens, it seems certain now that the Olympic Village won't have 252 units of social housing.

Any decision needs to be made soon. The units become available in April and nothing would be worse than having them sit empty – with potential dollars flying out their windows – while council dithers.

This will be the biggest, most controversial decision this Vision government will make, the fallout from which may be felt into the next election.

Even in some of North America's richest postal/zip codes, there are buildings dedicated to social housing. Yes, even in Manhattan.

You guys have to realize that the majority of people that live in low-income housing are your everyday families who, for one reason or another, don't have high paying jobs. For the most part, they aren't crack addicts or thieves. Yes, there might be the odd one, but really... even in more upscale areas you'll find a bunch living there.

And to all you NIMBY's, here's something to consider: I live a short ways away from a proper homeless shelter/housing complex, and I've yet to hear of ANY increase in property crime, auto thefts or any other forms of crime between the time it opened and now.