Friday, February 22, 2013
RULES RULE
On February 16, 2013, the Ottawa Citizen published the below linked article about a subsidized member in Carillon Co-op who was overhoused and was facing eviction.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Hugh+Adami+Sick+woman+fights+eviction+from+Carillon+housing/7973709/story.html
Saying that part of this woman's rent (housing charge) was paid for by Ontario Disability Support Program strips the woman of her dignity. The woman is disabled and receives ODSP. The money is hers!
A similar scheme was tried in our co-op by one of the current Directors of Carillon Co-op. As our co-op does not have 1-bedroom units, single, subsidized members living in 2-bedroom units were to apply to The Registry for a 1-bedroom unit or apartment. The threat of forcing members to pay full market rent or be evicted had not yet been implemented.
There is also a connection to our co-op on another level. Our co-op was successfully sued for a basement leak with links to one of the current Directors of Carillon Co-op.
There are members living in Carillon Co-op who are directly involved in administering the co-op sector. One of CHF's mission statements, in valuing their long standing members, has implemented Aging in Place policies. It is inconceivable that this co-op, in particular, would create a by-law which would force an overhoused senior to find alternative subsidized housing within one year or pay full market. The senior, being on a fixed income, cannot afford to pay full market rent (housing charge) and so gets evicted. The senior is then homeless - in another words kicked out of the co-op.
The woman in Carillon Co-op is not a senior, but the reality is the same. She should not be charged a surcharge of $50. per month to stay in her 2-bedroom unit, as there are no 1-bedroom units in her co-op to move into.
CMHC did not cut off this woman's subsidy - the co-op did. I know the people involved in this scheme and it was devised on purpose knowing full well that they would revert to their regular by-laws once their goal was accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Angie Blais is also president of CHAESO, regional ass'n of CHF and formerly at Fairlea Co-op.
ReplyDeleteFew things bothered me about story. One ex-director seemed sympathetic to woman's plight. Board statement --- didn't say who, if anybody, signed it --- also claimed they were anxious to find a solution.
Yet in typical CHF/CHASEO-style writing and spin --- they sought to deflect from specifics and their actions by saying "real problem" that there aren't enough affordable housing units etc. Of course, we know to be true but why politicize it in order to divert story away from what Carillon is doing?
I can't speak to the CHMC co-ops (ours isn't one) specifically. Tho I know co-ops do have various policies or sections of by-laws dealing with overhoused members.
Adami may have been wrong in using the term "huge subsidies". w/o better explanation. If it's an RGI unit, (which he doesn't specify in article) I believe she is only required to pay a modest amt for rent after subsidy (from whatever gov't source).
Still, RGI units are low or no-risk propositions for co-ops. Compare RGI units to BMR ones. With latter, member pays 70% of market rent. Co-op itself has to absorb balance w/o gov't subsidy which can have negative effect on its finances. This why so many who still have BMRs are fighting like crazy to replace them with RGI designations.
But the line which should be highlighted from the article is Ms. Gordon's contention that previous run-ins with directors might be at root of this decision. Just another example that if you get on the wrong side of a BOD (namely by exposing corruption, perks of directors or highlight how they violate or ignore their by-laws and Act) you can be targeted. Co-ops also don't take kindly to members dragging them thru the courts, either.
You might not agree with me but I wonder whether an additional $50 "surcharge" is a better solution than Ms. Gordon finding herself evicted. I wonder too why co-ops don't have some transfer policy in place for cases like this should someone need to downsize.
With amt of arrears that has piled up, I'm wondering if Carillon will try for writ of possession. Other co-ops have lost their cases where incorrect subsidy calculations or violations of proper rules regarding same have occurred.
The statement which referred to balancing Ms. Gordon's needs with that of the general membership sounds like dangerous code to me. They'll prob try to make the case that amt of money they're losing is threatening the financial well-being of the co-op etc. etc.
What I also found offensive were the comments left to the article from the less-than-enlightened --- esp those who don't even live in Ottawa. The usual bash the "welfare bums," "pull yourselves by the bootstraps" mentality w/o a real clue about Ms. Gordon's full details or co-ops in general. Most laughable was how so many sounded like paid advertisements from CHF. Kinda like those 1,500+ paid hacks for the Harper Gov't (tm) who invade media message boards with Reformacon drivel.
Ms. Gordon's arrears were most likely caused by Carillon Co-op retracting her subsidy and I do believe that she was definitely targeted.
ReplyDeleteIf co-ops truly cared for their overhoused members, they'd have inter-co-op transfers, as you mentioned above.
Members who pay full fee are also subsidized as their units are below market rent. Our Occupancy By-law does not differentiate between full fee and subsidized members, yet there's a difference in the interpretion. Overhoused, full fee members should be made to downsize as well, as there is a shortage of affordable housing. Carillon Co-op is on a choice piece of property - right on the Rideau River. No doubt there are single full fee members occupying 2 and 3 bedroom homes enjoying the perks of their BMR units, especially on-the-spot access to their sail boats. Who then is really taking advantage of the social housing stock?
Thanks for your very insightful comments.