Barrie Road Apt.

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="044785a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Arial" ><B>Speaking Out</B></FONT><B>    </B><B> |     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Speaking Out"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Speaking Out"><U><B><IMG SRC="03b0e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALT="up" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A><B>   </B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="14" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" WIDTH="14"><B>     </B><A HREF="id30.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="We Get Letters"><U><B><IMG SRC="02f0e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALT="previous" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A><B>  </B><A HREF="id36.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Monthly Archive"><U><B><IMG SRC="0300e0e0.png" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALT="next" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="045d2b03.jpg"> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I>Barrie Road Apt.</I></div> <div> <B>Dec. 22, 2009</B> </div> <div> <B>I Smell a Rotten Deal for Taxpayers</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> Last weeks announcement of a <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$9,200,000</B></FONT> windfall for a developer who will be building what is referred to as Affordable housing some say is a good thing. But when one does the numbers on what taxpayers are getting for their money it smells real rotten. The owners of the Barrie Rd. property a former industrial site which has yet to be cleaned up have managed to score a gift of <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$9,200,000</B></FONT> from federal and provincial taxpayers. They also have scored up to another <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$1,540,000</B></FONT> from Orillia taxpayers over the next 10 years. But when you do the numbers it is one of the most blatant giveaways of taxpayers money I have ever seen or heard of. This my friends is of Pinocchio Scandal quality tax money waste. </div> <div> The proposal is to build 77 apartment units that will be leased at 70% of current Orillia rents. This reduction amounts to a saving for the tenant of </div> <div> $150.. mo. 1 Bedroom </div> <div> $176 mo. 2 Bedroom </div> <div> $182 mo. 3 Bedroom </div> <div> For the <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$9,200,000</B></FONT> the landlord will keep the rent ratio for 20 years at which time who knows what will happen as these units while paid for by tax dollars remain privately owned. I suppose in 20 years the owner will receive another subsidy as poverty will not be eradicated and indeed might even be worse by then. Much is being said about how wonderful this gift to a single developer is for the poor but I disagree. One only has to do the numbers to see how the only people who lose are the needy and of course taxpayers. Once more the poor and taxpayers are carrying the burden for the greed of the rich. </div> <div> So let's do some calculations. Forty of the 77 subsidized units will be dedicated to seniors, 25 for the disabled and 12 for individuals and families of limited means. The average reduction in rent for each apartment from market cost will be a mere <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$169.00</B></FONT> per month. If you take 20 years which equals 240 months and multiply that by 77 apartments times the <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$169.00</B></FONT> that equals a mere <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$3,123,120</B></FONT> cents in subsidized rents for the poor. But the cost to the taxpayer is <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$9,200,000</B></FONT>. Three times more than what the poor receive in rent subsidy. </div> <div> So how on earth can this be construed as a good deal for the poor, disabled or seniors ??? Not to mention for the taxpayer??? Sorry folks but this is a terrible deal. This represents a transfer of public money for nothing on a scale unseen in Orillia to date. For <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$9,200,000</B></FONT> we could have three times the units for the next 20 years by simply subsidizing market price rents for <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>231</B></FONT> units. Don't forget that the developers obligation for this rent ratio ends at the end of year 20 years. At which time he can put his hand out for more tax money or start renting at market price while dislodging the poor anyway. For anyone to call this a wonderful deal they obviously did not do their homework. But the subsidy doesn't end there for the landlord. You see, he will realize another windfall of <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$20,000</B></FONT> times 77 units which is another <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$1,540,000</B></FONT> in forgiven property tax which will be paid by Orillia taxpayers over the next 10 years. Simply put this deal does very little to address the need for affordable housing while reaping huge unwarranted profits for the developers and their friends???? </div> <div> So let's recap. <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$9,200,000</B></FONT> plus <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$1,540,000 </B></FONT>equals <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$10,740,000</B></FONT> of taxpayers money poured into a privately owned development. A very poor use of public money. Once more folks we need a Forensic Audit of this deal. It is a poor excuse for public spending. But hey i guess Santa came early for this developer if this happens???? Wonder if it's too late to stop this outrage???? </div> <div> I did a bit of digging to find out what a project like this could be built for when I saw the $15,000,000 to $16,000,000 price tag. Here is a project that was built in Ottawa. I know it was back in 1995 but the cost per square foot is what is important. </div> <div> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="674" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="VOID" RULES="NONE" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 382 ><NOBR><div> <IMG SRC="8031ab60.jpg" border=0 width="282" height="182" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="376"><div> Synopsis </div> <div> The Conservation Co-op located in downtown Ottawa is an example of a “green” multi-unit building. But unlike many other buildings using energy efficient technology, the Conservation Co-op was constructed within the confines of strict social housing guidelines and budget, and did not use overly complex technology. The final cost of the Conservation Co-op was <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$645</B></FONT> per square metre (<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FF00FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>$60/square foot</B></FONT>), and included such energy efficient features as: low wattage fixtures, exterior site lighting using photovoltaic lamps, building orientation for maximum solar gain in the winter, summer solar shading using sunscreens and fin-walls on balconies, double-glazed argon filled lowE windows, above normal wall and roof insulation levels, separated balconies to eliminate thermal bridging, use of heat recovery units for all suite ventilation, and, individually metred in-suite high (90%) efficiency gas heating units.</div> <bR> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <div> Please visit the web-site for this project and see what social housing is really all about. </div> <div> <U>http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/tore/afhoid/cote/buenefho/buenefho_005.cfm#impact</U><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> Nothing that happens in Orillia ever makes any sense. If this mayor and city management have a hand in it, one can automatically assume there is something wrong with it and the numbers prove that indeed that is the fact. This is another project that simply stinks. </div> <div> On top of all this evidence that this project is not in the best interest of the poor or taxpayers I have heard or seen nothing which shows that the site is being cleaned of any hazardous materials. You see folks when the first building was built by this developer, council allowed for the property to be divided. At that time all contaminated soil was pushed over to the eastern lot. For the first 3 years almost nothing could grow on this land and now they want to build on it??? Will this former industrial property be cleaned to a standard that allows residential???? Where is the MOE in this story???? Are they allowing this building to be built on a former industrial site without cleanup???? Don't believe me, but please believe what you find if you check out this project. Make yourself heard as someday one of you or many of you might end up living there. So why are the politicians doing this deal???? Can't they do the math??? Follow the money folks. </div> <div> jim tolnai </div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>One More Reason To Impeach Mayor Ron Stevens</B></div> <div> <B>We Still Need a Forensic Audit</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <B>We Still Need a Judicial Inquiry</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <div> <B>We Need to Audit the Library Project as Well </B></div> <div> <B>We Need to Impeach Mayor Ron Stevens</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>