E
EnviroTO
Guest
^ Haha. I didn't notice that on first glance.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
There are close to 200,000 Black Jamaicans in Toronto. You are going to harass all of them, stereotype all of them, and blame their entire community for the actions of how many? Attention Black community... 100 of "your type" are committing crime and you people with similar characteristics need to do something about it??? Thank goodness nobody considers doing the same for sex predators which are usually White. Attention White parents... you are raising sex predators and you need to do something about it... you White people disgust us in the rest of the population?? It's not like this city has 20 Black Jamaicans and the police are looking for one... the city has something like 200,000. It's not about being politically correct.
If I say:
"White leaders reacted when a White girl was shot in an area of the city frequented by White people."
... people get up in arms and say White has nothing to do with it. Well I didn't say in that statement that White has something to do with it but by mentioning it it is implied. Nothing in that statement isn't factual... it just implies a link that isn't there.
If asked what happened on Boxing Day and the days immediately following I say:
"Leaders reacted when a girl was shot in an area of the city frequented by Torontonians"
... is that being politically correct by leaving out race or simply leaving out facts that are irrelevant to the discussion. I don't leave it out because I am uncomfortable discussing race... I leave it out because it isn't important. If asked to provide a description of the leaders or the girl then skin colour, hair colour, style, etc might come into the discussion but otherwise there is no value in adding that information into the discussion.
When society feels it must be said that a "Black Jamaican" committed the crime even though society at large is not going to research the backgrounds of these people and see the big picture that implies that the whole truth is that "Black Jamaicans" are a threat to society. That is a very false implication. Leave the analysis of race to those doing an in depth analysis into the all the facts... otherwise it implies mistruths. Knowing they are black is unimportant to you and I unless our job is to find out all there is to know about the crime spree. We aren't going to be able to spot the criminal in public with only a vague description in a diverse city with a population of 3,000,000.
People who are uncomfortable with race are the ones that feel they need to mention it. "Last week this Black friend of mine was talking about the election and is thinking about voting Liberal." What is the point of mentioning Black in that statement... do you want a cookie or a prize for having a Black friend? "On New Year Eve I was hanging out at a Korean friend's place" ... Huh? These people wouldn't describe their White friends as White but sometimes I see people talking about the race of people for no reason and I think there is an underlying reason for it. If you mention race because you are talking about food or some activity that links to it then it makes sense to mention it but otherwise it is useless irrelevant info. My grandmother would decribe my friends by race but that is because she is from another time and for her it is some big deal that a white person would have non-white friends. When she says "are you hanging out with that Vietnamese guy I met last week" it makes me cringe because I know the fact she is mentioning Vietnamese she is putting importance on it that shouldn't be there.
If I say:
"White leaders reacted when a White girl was shot in an area of the city frequented by White people."
... people get up in arms and say White has nothing to do with it. Well I didn't say in that statement that White has something to do with it but by mentioning it it is implied. Nothing in that statement isn't factual... it just implies a link that isn't there.
If asked what happened on Boxing Day and the days immediately following I say:
"Leaders reacted when a girl was shot in an area of the city frequented by Torontonians"
... is that being politically correct by leaving out race or simply leaving out facts that are irrelevant to the discussion. I don't leave it out because I am uncomfortable discussing race... I leave it out because it isn't important. If asked to provide a description of the leaders or the girl then skin colour, hair colour, style, etc might come into the discussion but otherwise there is no value in adding that information into the discussion.
When society feels it must be said that a "Black Jamaican" committed the crime even though society at large is not going to research the backgrounds of these people and see the big picture that implies that the whole truth is that "Black Jamaicans" are a threat to society. That is a very false implication. Leave the analysis of race to those doing an in depth analysis into the all the facts... otherwise it implies mistruths. Knowing they are black is unimportant to you and I unless our job is to find out all there is to know about the crime spree. We aren't going to be able to spot the criminal in public with only a vague description in a diverse city with a population of 3,000,000.
People who are uncomfortable with race are the ones that feel they need to mention it. "Last week this Black friend of mine was talking about the election and is thinking about voting Liberal." What is the point of mentioning Black in that statement... do you want a cookie or a prize for having a Black friend? "On New Year Eve I was hanging out at a Korean friend's place" ... Huh? These people wouldn't describe their White friends as White but sometimes I see people talking about the race of people for no reason and I think there is an underlying reason for it. If you mention race because you are talking about food or some activity that links to it then it makes sense to mention it but otherwise it is useless irrelevant info. My grandmother would decribe my friends by race but that is because she is from another time and for her it is some big deal that a white person would have non-white friends. When she says "are you hanging out with that Vietnamese guy I met last week" it makes me cringe because I know the fact she is mentioning Vietnamese she is putting importance on it that shouldn't be there.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
how long has that particular hoarding advertisment been up at metropolis?
T
TdotTrickyRicky
Guest
Off the topic of culture, demographics and race which seems to have people entrenched in their positions, another topic is where do these gangsters live? I heard a comment on the news where a former city councillor suggesting that many are a product of the Toronto social housing system. There are calls on the left side of the social agenda to build more "affordable" (really subsidized) housing, to get back in the business of social housing. I am not a big fan of this, in my opinion "affordable" housing has proven itself as a form of urban planning carpet-bombing and we should be dismantling, not building public social housing except for targeted social needs. Money should be spend instead to top-up people's rent so that low income people can fit themselves with dignity into the mainstream private market driven rental housing stock.
Another point is that it is difficult for young men in gangs to get out because their criminal records bar them from employment opportunities. What is being done on that front? There should be specific apprenticeship programs and initiatives made by private corporate players (like the financial institutions) to target at risk youth for internships etc.
Another point is that it is difficult for young men in gangs to get out because their criminal records bar them from employment opportunities. What is being done on that front? There should be specific apprenticeship programs and initiatives made by private corporate players (like the financial institutions) to target at risk youth for internships etc.
W
wyliepoon
Guest
wyliepoon, there's some very negative racial subliminal messages in those photos. they are almost walmart-esque.
Yeah, noticed that both of my photos had "black" in it, haha.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
it's the one that say's "the new black" that's a little bit fnordish.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
There are calls on the left side of the social agenda to build more "affordable" (really subsidized) housing, to get back in the business of social housing. I am not a big fan of this, in my opinion "affordable" housing has proven itself as a form of urban planning carpet-bombing and we should be dismantling, not building public social housing except for targeted social needs. Money should be spend instead to top-up people's rent so that low income people can fit themselves with dignity into the mainstream private market driven rental housing stock.
I would like the city to rethink its housing strategy as well. They have woken up to the fact that putting a bunch of low or no income families or individuals in the same neighbourhood is a bad idea and now try and spread out affordable housing projects... but they need to go to the next step and realize a building is a vertical neighbourhood and units should be spread across many buildings rather than having regular buildings and poor buildings. In my opinion we need to spread affordable units across the city, ensure that they meet minimum requirements, use a rent geared to income, get rid of affordable ownership (leave that to charity), make sure everyone that needs housing gets it, and make sure they are units that are smaller than what people would choose to buy (except for those with disabilities which should be allowed more). For able bodied and able minded individuals publicly provided housing should be a place to hang their hat, cook a meal, and sleep... not sprawl out on a couch and have some friends over.
I find it unacceptable that there is an affordable housing wait list while rent geared to income exists on units which are full sized and are located on Queens Quay. It is unacceptable that an able bodied and minded individuals can get subsidy living in a $1197/mo apartment unit which is a normal size while a waiting list exists for others and regular income individuals and families are living in less desirable units. Able bodied and minded individuals must always get more when they work more or the system is flawed. Money would go further to house more people if units were smaller. Subsidized housing should have minimum limits on living standards and maximum limits on space (with allowances for additional space based on disabilities, children, etc).
I don't think we should top up rent on normal sized units but the units should be in a normal market driven building. Why not have condo developers mix units into their developments for social housing (perhaps 1 in 15 units) for extra density considerations?
S
SD2
Guest
I don't think we should top up rent on normal sized units but the units should be in a normal market driven building. Why not have condo developers mix units into their developments for social housing (perhaps 1 in 15 units) for extra density considerations?
That's a great idea!
B
badga416
Guest
^^ re: social housing in market driven buildings:
How about units on the bottom floor or two of a condo where developers always have a difficult time selling the units simply because of poor views and relatively loud street noise.
Why not have condo developers mix units into their developments for social housing (perhaps 1 in 15 units) for extra density considerations?
How about units on the bottom floor or two of a condo where developers always have a difficult time selling the units simply because of poor views and relatively loud street noise.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
^ But that creates poor floors which still amounts to a congregation of poor families. Eventually people would know that people getting off on 2-4 are poor. The developer should be responsible for making all floors livable and marketable. Many developments in the city are 7-8 floors... if floors 2-4 can't be made desirable there is something wrong with the development.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
exactly.
S
SD2
Guest
^ But that creates poor floors which still amounts to a congregation of poor families. Eventually people would know that people getting off on 2-4 are poor. The developer should be responsible for making all floors livable and marketable. Many developments in the city are 7-8 floors... if floors 2-4 can't be made desirable there is something wrong with the development.
I agree...ideally they should be spread throughout the building.
B
badga416
Guest
Eventually people would know that people getting off on 2-4 are poor.
…social “stratification†in the literal sense.
Certainly spreading the units throughout the building would be ideal but I threw this alternative out there as a compromise solution. Living in unit 302 of Spire is certainly a lot more prestigious than 1502 of one of the Moss Park Towers and would be more affordable for the subsidizing entity than 1502 in Spire and therefore perhaps a little more likely to happen.
As to marketing the lower units, units that are on the lower floors (and I really was thinking of 15+ story buildings based on the 1 in 15 unit scenario outlined above) generally are made marketable by lowering the price. The homeowner would get a nice unit (presumably built to the same standard as the rest of the building) in a nice building for less of a burden to the government(s).
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Tdot:
St. Lawrence is about 1/3 social housing - and it wasn't a urban planning carpet bombing exercise. The problem isn't having social housing, but 1. building them in places where it doesn't make sense - ie. out in the middle of nowhere because of NIMBYism; 2. building them en masse in one location and 3. the inability to screen out tenants that clearly have a deleterious effects on the rest of the building.
As to the "voucher" idea - there are several problems - first, if you give out cash, how would the money intended for housing actually end up there? Second, how would one prevent landlords from biasing against subsidized tenants?
AoD
I am not a big fan of this, in my opinion "affordable" housing has proven itself as a form of urban planning carpet-bombing and we should be dismantling, not building public social housing except for targeted social needs.
St. Lawrence is about 1/3 social housing - and it wasn't a urban planning carpet bombing exercise. The problem isn't having social housing, but 1. building them in places where it doesn't make sense - ie. out in the middle of nowhere because of NIMBYism; 2. building them en masse in one location and 3. the inability to screen out tenants that clearly have a deleterious effects on the rest of the building.
As to the "voucher" idea - there are several problems - first, if you give out cash, how would the money intended for housing actually end up there? Second, how would one prevent landlords from biasing against subsidized tenants?
AoD
T
TdotTrickyRicky
Guest
There is no doubt that their are examples of public housing that works, but they are few and far between. The example of St. Lawrence market might work, but perhaps only because there are a majority of private units in the project. There are also examples of nightmarish private rental buildings and enforcement of regulations can influence this, but the problem is that the public sector is one of the largest landlords of problematic housing units. On a whole I think the idea of dedicated public housing is a failed one. We will always need public housing stock for specific targeted people, say woman fleeing with their children from an abusive husband. But this housing should be transitional, never permanent.
I do not know the specifics of any kind of "voucher" system but the details can easily be crafted to address concerns of abuses by both tenant and landlord. Such a system is endorsed by organizations representing apartment building owners and managers. It is the government that is reluctant, I think for the most part because of ideology.
I do not know the specifics of any kind of "voucher" system but the details can easily be crafted to address concerns of abuses by both tenant and landlord. Such a system is endorsed by organizations representing apartment building owners and managers. It is the government that is reluctant, I think for the most part because of ideology.