babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Out canvassing - Jack and Co-op housing.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Out canvassing - Jack and Co-op housing.
Greg Gogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5625

posted 02 June 2004 06:51 PM      Profile for Greg Gogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Out canvassing today. Talked to a guy who thought poorly of Jack because of the co-op housing smear reported somewhere today. Told him the truth... he understood and was upset with the media reports. I don't know how many our there are being misled by these outrageous stories. I can't get to every household in the time remaining until E-day. I hope this isn't too wide spread. Venting
From: Scarborough | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonewolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 849

posted 02 June 2004 08:24 PM      Profile for lonewolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Greg - can you specify the source of the media smear?

Was it CBC? was it opinion passed off as news?


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 02 June 2004 09:46 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Most recently, it was repeated in the Toronto Sun, as discussed on this thread. I don't know where it originated.
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 02 June 2004 11:03 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it may have originated there as well, 15 years ago at least.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 02 June 2004 11:22 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This tired old chestnut is *still* circulating? They must be pretty hard up for mud to sling.
From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 02 June 2004 11:27 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No surprise: Dennis Mills is also spreading the lie... Check out the first comment on the discussion part of his website. Join me in writing in to set the record straight and let's see if they publish our responses.
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2004 07:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sara, that link goes to nowhere, since it's http://http:// .
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 03 June 2004 09:28 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oops, here is the correct link to the slander on Mills' site.
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Greg Gogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5625

posted 03 June 2004 09:47 AM      Profile for Greg Gogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonewolf:
Greg - can you specify the source of the media smear?

Was it CBC? was it opinion passed off as news?


Lonewolf - the toronto sun was the source of the voter's info. It came up again last night with another person. Looks like the Sun is succeeding in planting their lies. Another 40,000 doors to knock on. We'll get there.


From: Scarborough | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 03 June 2004 10:31 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I had the same co-op housing issue thrown in my face a few days ago.

I was caught off guard and didn't know how to respond. Any ideas? Where can I go to find out what really happened.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 03 June 2004 10:37 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Talk to your canvass coordinator. It's important that they know what voters are saying at the door and they should brief you on what to respond on that issue. There area a few babble threads that explain the details and could help you as well, but I don't have the time to look now. Perhaps another friendly babbler could point them out?
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 03 June 2004 12:51 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
Yeah, I had the same co-op housing issue thrown in my face a few days ago.

I was caught off guard and didn't know how to respond. Any ideas? Where can I go to find out what really happened.


The bottom line is this:

Jack and Olivia never received ANY subsidy from taxpayers. They lived 15 years ago in a co-op that was meant to be a mixed-income housing community: some (like Jack and Olivia) paid full market value for their units, while others paid rent geared to income, receiving a subsidy for the balance. These are NOT low-income-only housing projects, which often fail and become slums. Co-ops are meant to be vibrant mixed communities, with better-off members paying full market rents, making the whole project viable so that others who need it can have low-cost housing. Jack and Olivia rightly supported this kind of housing community, and chose to live there -- until they were hounded out by hostile local right-wing media. Essentially, this story is a smear against two very ethical people who live by their principles. And I expect it to be dragged out more often as the campaign wears on.

[ 03 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 03 June 2004 10:06 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if just anybody can post to that discussion forum on Mills site. I don't expect that they would allow anything critical of him, but I wonder if someone (that is, Scott Piatkowski, our resident co-op expert) could post something there explaining how co-ops work.
From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 03 June 2004 10:10 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I wonder as well. I put in my polite rebuttal and I have my doubts it will be published. But a while ago, I sent a vaguely critical message and they posted it (I was "Toronto Resident" at the bottom.)
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 04 June 2004 05:44 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This co-op smear appears on page A8 of today's Post. Gillian Cosgrove writes:

quote:

"[Jack Layton and Olivia Chow] once lived in a taxpayer subsidized co-op apartment for low and moderate-income families when they had a combined annual income of $120,000. At that time, some 14 years ago, there were roughly 12,000 families on the waiting list for affordable housing in Toronto.

"It took some audacity, then, for Mr. Layton last week to accuse Paul Martin of being responsible for the deaths of countless homeless Canadians."


The article continues for several more paragraphs, attacking Jack with charges so illogical and unfair that I haven't time to detail them all here.

One example: Jack Layton is beset by "a host of contradictions" because he was born in Hudson, PQ, and his father was a conservative politician.

I was born in Saint John, NB, and my family are all Liberals. I wonder if Ms. Cosgrove will tell me for whom I can vote without fear of "contradictions." This article is chock-full of similar textbook examples of logical fallacies.

I'm planning on writing a letter to the Post, and will encourage the party to respond via the e-campaigners form on the NDP website. (Anybody else used that?)

Apologies if this post is in the wrong thread. I did a search for "Cosgrove" in all threads for the last day and got nothing, so I thought I'd post it here. It really had me steamed.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Greg Gogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5625

posted 05 June 2004 09:40 AM      Profile for Greg Gogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FYI... Jim Karygiannis in Scarborough is publicly lambasting Jack and Olivia for "living in subsidized housing while making over a hundred thousand a year".

I took him on last night at a celebration of the 4th anniversary of the liberation of southern Lebanon. I straightened him out in no uncertain terms, but my concern is that he will keep doing this and I wonder how many more are doing the same. Stuff like this doesn't always make headlines, just kills one vote at a time. I've advised HQ.

From: Scarborough | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 05 June 2004 09:50 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Typical Liberal tactic:

Anybody who's read the past three red books should be familiar with the Liberal strategy of "makking up promises we intend to break and making up costs to make them more appear fiscally responsible than NDP or Conservative alternatives".

These lies about Jack are riding the same train of dirty Liberal bullshit.


From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 05 June 2004 09:54 AM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would probably be best if the explanations to the media come from an arms length source such as the COOP Housing Federation of Canada. It's very damaging to COOPs if people who can afford the non subsidized units do not move into COOPs out of a sense that it's not supposed to be for them. This lie doesn't only hurt Layton, it hurts my COOP's ability to fill its non subsidized units (which can be a challenge).
From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299

posted 05 June 2004 09:57 AM      Profile for spatrioter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by andrean:
I wonder if just anybody can post to that discussion forum on Mills site. I don't expect that they would allow anything critical of him, but I wonder if someone (that is, Scott Piatkowski, our resident co-op expert) could post something there explaining how co-ops work.

I once posted a rebuttal to the co-op smear on the Dennis Mills message board (do they still have that?). It was up for awhile, but they deleted the post later.

I honestly think that the NDP should sue the next person who brings up this libel. If we don't react, it looks like we have something to hide.

Edited to add: fiberal sycophant - I like your idea.

[ 05 June 2004: Message edited by: spatrioter ]


From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 June 2004 10:45 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Kristian Grasvenor of the Montreal Mirror (a weekly entertainment paper of the kind once described as "underground") has repeated the same smear almost verbatim, accusing Layton of living in "subsidized housing" while he and his spouse were making over 100,000.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 June 2004 10:52 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I ran into the ole smear yesterday at lunch -- from four middle-aged professionals vaguely sympathetic to the NDP and mostly well informed -- argh!

I knew how to answer, but I couldn't quite believe that I had to.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 June 2004 11:53 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It goes to show how little otherwise semi-informed people know about housing co-operatives and other co-operative movements.

Funny, the forerunner of the NDP was the CCF and it wasn't just a figure of speech - the organisers were also involved in such co-ops as farmers' co-operatives and credit unions.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 06 June 2004 12:26 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by fiberal sicophant:
It would probably be best if the explanations to the media come from an arms length source such as the COOP Housing Federation of Canada. It's very damaging to COOPs if people who can afford the non subsidized units do not move into COOPs out of a sense that it's not supposed to be for them. This lie doesn't only hurt Layton, it hurts my COOP's ability to fill its non subsidized units (which can be a challenge).

Indeed. I know a guy who ended up bailing out of a housing co-op because it was going bankrupt for lack of higher-income members.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 06 June 2004 01:34 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I got this back from Gillian Cosgrove on her Layton story. [I raised several points in my e-mail to her but she responded to just one, the co-op thing.]

quote:

I stand by my column regarding Jack Layton and Olivia Chow.

On June 14, 1990, the Toronto Star, in a long investigative article by Tom Kerr, titled Well-off Layton lives in 'affordable' co-op, reported that:

"He (Layton) told The Star he had struggled with his conscience about remaining in the apartment and decided to pay more, "about 325 a month" -- a
"voluntary surcharge" on his rent -- to offset his portion of the mortgage subsidy from CMHC.

"Layton couldn't recall when he started making the extra payment to bring his rent up to $1,124 a month for his seven-room...apartment."

Surely, this is a clear admission of shame, if not guilt, on Mr. Layton's part. Only when accosted by the Star did he disclose he had decided, as a belated matter of conscience, to pay more.

The Star also pointed out that tenants often moved out after their incomes improved, but he apparently did not.


Note: I'm not sure why she calls this a column about Jack Layton and Olivia Chow--her attacks were all aimed at Layton.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 06 June 2004 10:25 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The author of this story is unable to think. She "stands by her story?" what a crock.

So Jack voluntarily pays more than the usual rent by $325.00 per month to offset any advantage he might get from the mortgage subsidy, and Ms. Idiot says this:


quote:
Surely, this is a clear admission of shame, if not guilt, on Mr. Layton's part

So, if he doesn't pay extra, he's guilty, and if he voluntarily pays extra, this shows "shame".

Either that, or he is trying to be scrupulously fair to the coop.

I have the impression that this writer doesn't know what shame is, or when she should feel it.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 06 June 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe that she is the Post's "Society" columnist. She should probably stick to cocktail gatherings and steer clear of politics.

I can't access the column because it is subscriber-only, but I did read it in print. I recall that she raised the co-op smear in the context of Layton's earlier comments on homelessness. I think she said that Jack and Olivia, by living in the co-op, were taking a subsidized unit away from a poor family. This is complete and utter bullshit, of course. They were among those paying full market rent, and when they moved out the co-op would have to find somebody else to pay full market rent.

And this lying liar "stands by" her lies.

[ 07 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 07 June 2004 12:47 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

I think she said that Jack and Olivia, by living in the co-op, were taking a subsidized unit away from a poor family.

This was the clear implication of her first couple of paragraphs. She mentioned that thousands of people were looking for housing at the time they occupied the apartment.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2004 08:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Which is ridiculous, because there were all sorts of units out there for THAT PRICE. That unit wouldn't have been a subsidized unit whether or not they lived there - it would have been a market value unit.

$900-1200 was a normal price for two bedroom units back then. In fact, in a building I lived in at Thorncliffe Park Drive six years ago, we had friends with a two bedroom unit (very nice, very large) who were paying $1200. We were paying around $900 for a gigantic one-bedroom. And if I'm not mistaken, that's when there was a high vacancy rate, and rents were going up every year, so I highly doubt that if those were the prices 6 years ago, that the prices 14 years ago were the same.

I'm sure their rent WAS market value even without the extra that they paid into it to cover their share of - what, the CMHC mortgage or something like that?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 07 June 2004 10:22 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think it was to cover their share of the mortgage. I can't say that I know for sure, but from what I've read I think that they were already covering their share of the mortgage. The extra money would have been to cover the government 'subsidized' portion of the mortgage, which is subsidized by the CMHC giving lower than market interest rates. Which seems to me to be a riduculous thing to get someone to do just because your words and thoughts have the ability to be distrubuted widely through media. It's all rather confusing, but I think I understand how co-ops work and why it is important to have people paying market rents, but I don't understand why the extra money was paid.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 07 June 2004 12:24 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by clearview:
...but I don't understand why the extra money was paid.
Probably just to shut up the whiners at the Toronto Sun and elsewhere, and prevent them from smearing J&O. The tactic obviously didn't work.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 June 2004 12:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
People who want to understand the financing of co-ops, and what Jack and Olivia did, should read Rod Manchee's most helpful post on this thread.

(Ooh! This is why thread proliferation causes us so much trouble. Good people say such valuable things, but in different places, so the discussion everywhere is impoverished. )


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca