I totally dis-agree with these statements by Michael Geller.

Average to lower income citizens have the right to live at Olympic Village. Just because Olympic Village is marketed as a luxury waterfront property does not mean all others are excluded save for the wealthy.

In case Mr Geller isn't aware affluent people also have social problems in life just like the less affluent. Are we now going to exclude those from this City who may offend others based on how they look, act or smell?

I am sorry that we are in this Olympic mess that we are in, however, let us not forget that the public paid for the Olympics and it will be the public deciding whether the less affluent receive what they were promised.

The Olympic legacy promise was affordable housing at Olympic Village which has already been significantly scaled back since it was first promised. Now Mr Geller wants to eliminate even that.

The public has stated what they want this City to look like and most reasonable people want to see mixed communities.

By law the poor are allowed to live with the rich and this City is historically known for its compassion and heart.

At the end of the day it is imperative that Vision Vancouver immediately choose the Portland Community Services to operate the affordable housing component at Olympic Village and allow people to be properly housed before winter sets in.

Of course the wrong social housing units will hurt the value. Who would want to pay a million bucks for a place shared by a crack addict?

It should go to low income people like firefighters, policeman, single mothers who meet certain criteria....not homeless people who refuse to contribute to a society which gives them every opportunity to thrive.

This has become a debacle and the absolute worst thing Vision could do right now is turn it over to the Portland Hotel Society.

It's time for the city to cut their losses, sell ALL the units, and dedicate a large portion of the proceeds to building reasonable social housing throughout the city.

"Average to lower income citizens have the right to live at Olympic Village."

Living in the Olympic Village isn't anyone's "right", regardless of financial status. No one can point a finger at a building and demand that they live there, including the wealthy, no matter how ridiculously entitled they feel.

"At the end of the day it is imperative that Vision Vancouver immediately choose the Portland Community Services to operate the affordable housing component at Olympic Village and allow people to be properly housed before winter sets in."

lol Says who?

This has become a Farce , all very lofty idealistic ideas about housing disadvantaged people but unfortunately the reality is that very few people who have enough money to afford one of these units is going to want to live near a person of a much lower social status.
We are all supposed to be created equal Blah Blah Blah but again its patently obvious that in fact we are not .
BTW I cant even begin to think of living there as I dont have the money either.
Have a nice day LOL

Michael Geller is no idiot. He's just speaking a truth that we all know, but dare not speak.
Jamie, your quite right when you say that (to paraphrase) all stations of society have the potential for social issues. When they closed the liquor store in the east side, many West side degenerate drunks were forced to buy their booze closer to home, where it was harder to hide their problems. I agree totally that everyone should have a fair crack at social housing, should they need it. However, reality is, that an alcoholic or drug addicted lawyer who pulls a couple hundred grand a year is much less visible than his poor dercepit street living equal. From the onset, a low income single mom who works hard to pay her bills and keep her kids out of trouble, will seem less of a challenge than any form of drug-addled individual. To add to the problem, is the optics of a so-called "Right".
Hate to tell everyone this, but this is the problem. We think we have a right to live anywhere we want. But guess what, none of us, regardless of our income have the "Right to Housing" enshrined in our constitution. Unfortunately, the Canadian government has never signed onto that particular document (UN document A/Conf.70/15 - Vancouver declaration on human settlement) a document that stipulates a guarantee to safe housing for all, ironically developed here in Vancouver some thirty-five years ago. So without this right, it still comes down to the Golden rule - "He who has the gold, makes the rules". So, Michael is quite right in suggesting that "the wrong types" might hurt values. Is this his definition of "Wrong type"? Perhaps not.
I know for a fact the Michael works very hard on promoting and developing housing schemes for the less fortunate, having seen his work.
So lets fill up the Olympic site with the more "desirable" lower income people, that won't have an effect on the million dollar condos values and hope with all our might that that will free up less savoury locations for the poor but undesirable. In the end, the goal is to house people, and maybe that should be a right. But for the time being we can't force people to live somewhere where they "feel" things are not in their best interest.
To use a paraphrase of a sign about immigration problems in Arizona as a model...... "We don't have a housing issue, we have a capitalism issue". Until richer people "feel" that they can live next to poor people, they will go on buying up the property and pushing the poor out.
Sad really.

So, I'm a bit confused. I thought the Olympic Village was going to be a legacy of affordable housing for the people of Vancouver.

Like Expo, and the handover of lands to developers for less than market rate, I'm concerned that the legacy of this party is more second and third houses for the super-rich, with little if any support to creative financing options for bona-fide residents of the city.

I am a hardworking taxpayer who can not afford to buy freehold in my own town, and my only real option is to live in co-operative housing. While I love my current living situation in a housing co-op, I would also love to have the option to celebrate a great moment in Vancouver's history by living in and participating in the growth of a great neightbourhood, but the purchase price of 750,000 would bankrupt any future retirement plans.

What makes a neighbourhood great is the variety of people: rich and poor, gay and straight of all colours, classes and opinions.

To not have social and supported housing (properly run, of course), does a disservice to the message of unity and tolerance that was the hallmark of the Olympic experience. Of course the devil is in the details, and I suppose that is what we are experiencing now.

But from a pure market-driven perspective, I thought the Millenium Waterfront joints were only being released for sale periodically, so as not to adversely affect values.

Using that logic, I suppose it's okay to pander to rich guys using taxpayers' money for something as important to human survival as shelter. If you're making less than 6 or 7 figures, you're S>O>L.

bland: Firefighters and police were not low income last time I checked. The "single mother criteria idea" is a bit vague, but maybe it's best I don't know what you mean.
Tax Payers R Us: yes
Jamie Lee: Your "winter setting in comment" suggests that the affordable housing means housing for the homeless. I think fixed income seniors, among others, might make worthy tenants.

Just to clarify. It was never the intention to house crack addicts or "hard to house" individuals. The intention of the social housing was to offer affordable housing to low income individuals. The likely pool includes low income workers, single mothers with young children, seniors, disabled people and a few other groups. Drug addicts and street entrenched individuals are usually designated "hard to house" and usually only find themselves at the cheapest housing such as SRO's.

People like Geller are only preying on people's worst zenophobic and bigoted fears.

We have an affordable housing crisis that is putting even people with full time jobs at risk of homelessness. This development was supposed to be an innovative way to provide quality social housing for low income families and seniors and the disabled. Now because some wealthy developper is bigoted towards these groups they are trying to scare away buyers and threaten the whole social housing component.
Shame on you. During the Olympics we were proud Canadians and tried to work together. Now we retreat into our little class bubbles. Not very classy.

I am looking for social housing...55plus no kids...can pay 350 per month..no spouse...self-employed...would i qualify...