Going backwards

[Lenser]

But most families would still stay away from the neighbourhood with such a bad undeserving reputation. However, the fact that despite the boom everywhere, there is almost no new development in this area really shows how much average people would want to live among a bunch of poor neighbours - there is development on Richmond/Sherbourne, or Dundas/Jarvis, Shuter/Church, but developers avoid Moss Park like the plague, because there is little demand for it. .

Your depiction of Moss Park as some sort of black hole terrifyingly close to downtown is fascinating. And I'm guessing poor people appear to you much like an infection would - something to be avoided at all costs, lest you come down with something?

Your grim predictions notwithstanding, ceaseless development pressures will bring about change in Moss Park. It's too close to the core to be sideswiped or abandoned because of those dirty poor people who seem to so routinely spoil your otherwise sunny outlook.

 

[ksun]

Your depiction of Moss Park as some sort of black hole terrifyingly close to downtown is fascinating. And I'm guessing poor people appear to you much like an infection would - something to be avoided at all costs, lest you come down with something?.

No, it is not about me. It is common that most people don't find it pleasant to be badgered by crazy people who yell at them for no reason, or ask you for money for drug consumption on a daily basis, or to see three people sleeping on the sidewalk in 5 minutes. Do you?

Your grim predictions notwithstanding, ceaseless development pressures will bring about change in Moss Park. It's too close to the core to be sideswiped or abandoned because of those dirty poor people who seem to so routinely spoil your otherwise sunny outlook.

yep, eventually. But the fact that Moss Park comes last, after Bay, or Yonge, or King, or the waterfront and Yorkville/Yonge/Bloor shows how attractive it is as a place for people to live in and therefore for developers to propose new projects, doesn't it? You are just denying the truth in attempt to hold on to your ideology that is not compatible with reality and human nature.

Most people with decent income don't want to live close to large number of poor people. That's a fact. No city can escape that.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I wonder if cities like Kitchener where the housing is far cheaper is a better potential solution then to house people in a place where even if they find work they wont be able to afford to live without subsidy.

So, we ship poor Torontonians out to Kitchener where the economy and employment rate is even more depressed? Housing can give people the chance to live with dignity and having a secure place to live is essential to living a productive life. However, housing itself is not going to elevate people into the middle class if there are no jobs available that pay livable wages. Subsidized housing treats the symptom. It holds the problems of poverty at bay, but it doesn't "cure" inequality.

A lot of people seem to be echoing Victorian attitudes that poor people just need to be prodded enough so that they work harder and lift themselves out of poverty.

the neighbourhood with such a bad undeserving reputation.

I'm glad we agree that the poor are undeserving of the stigma they face. Too bad your other views on the matter are so repugnant.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Most people with decent income don't want to live close to large number of poor people. That's a fact. No city can escape that.

I will alert my neighbours in St. Lawrence that we don't want to live there.

 

[sixrings]

A lot of people seem to be echoing Victorian attitudes that poor people just need to be prodded enough so that they work harder and lift themselves out of poverty.

I think at least for myself what I find is frustrating is that the local walmart where I shop and the grocery store I shop both employee several mentally disabled people. Yet when i have worked with housing there are often people who are able bodied but think jobs like walmart or the grocery store are beneath them and wont work there. Countless times I hear people say well if I dont get a 20$ hr job then it doesnt make sense since I will lose my subsidy but ill have less money in the market rate world. If you dont start somewhere you wont be able to ever better yourself. When I worked at Jane and Finch at a youth group the kids who never had a problem paying for things such as camp or outings were the people on subsidy. Then on the other hand there were people who worked as hair dressers or clerks or whatever minimum wage job because theyd rather be poor and teach their kids work ethic then to live in housing which often turns into a generational cycle. The kids from the families who were working and trying the best had less money then the people who were just collecting. Ive been doing social work for 8 years. I really am a nice and good person. But Ive come to accept the system is broken and that it fails to encourage people to better themselves. As for my kitchener comment heres my reference. My parents just bought a second house in stratford because they have family members there and they thought it would be nice to have a place to stay at when visiting. The house is easily 1300 sq ft. A million dollar house on my street comparably. In Stratford they paid 169k. I understand uprooting is not ideal. However at 169 almost anyone who wants to work can make a decent life of themselves. Im not trying to dump people into the bush. All im suggesting is wouldnt it be better to live with dignity in a place you can afford than to continue to struggle in Toronto becoming poorer and poorer?

Btw I live close enough to the "bad" side of Eglinton west and Im an advocate for lawrence heights redevelopment and am loving region park how its turning out.

 

[ksun]

So, we ship poor Torontonians out to Kitchener where the economy and employment rate is even more depressed? Housing can give people the chance to live with dignity and having a secure place to live is essential to living a productive life. However, housing itself is not going to elevate people into the middle class if there are no jobs available that pay livable wages. Subsidized housing treats the symptom. It holds the problems of poverty at bay, but it doesn't "cure" inequality.

I agree, but what about those who consistently show no interest in ever having a job, improving themselves and standing of their own feet, but repeatedly resort to drug abuse every time they have a few bucks? I don't think keep subsidizing them with prime real estate is the most productive way to use public funds.

There is a difference among the poor. Some are just hopeless and we should realize that before wasting more money on them. For example, I never give a cent to those panhandlers who have those typical drug abuse face (you can tell immediately). There was this old woman who I often saw selling a bunch of pens at Yonge/college area. This is the kind of people I am willing to help - at least she is trying to depend on herself. I bought pens from her a few times (but who needs pens nowadays?)

I'm glad we agree that the poor are undeserving of the stigma they face. Too bad your other views on the matter are so repugnant.

I said Moss Park doesn't deserve its reputation.
I won't despise people just because they are poor. But I do despise those social parasites who are doing nothing for themselves and just live off social welfare year after year without the slightest attempt to stand on his own feet.

back to the poor door - many people say the door defeats its purpose - but what exactly is the purpose? To provide subsidized housing for those who can't otherwise afford it, or try to make people 100% equal when it comes to services and amenities? If it is latter, we are being naïve. The poor still can't shop at Yorkville, drive Mercedes, or vacation in Banff. Providing good housing for them is good enough, but some insist "that's not enough! they are entitled to everything the rich are (even though they don't pay for it but the rich do)". We don't live in Utopia where wealth doesn't determine one's access to goods and services. You still can only get what you can pay for.

 

[Lenser]

No, it is not about me. It is common that most people don't find it pleasant to be badgered by crazy people who yell at them for no reason, or ask you for money for drug consumption on a daily basis, or to see three people sleeping on the sidewalk in 5 minutes.

All I can say is, good luck with your mission to sanitize the city of poor and mentally ill folk. But I won't be joining you in your quest.

You are just denying the truth in attempt to hold on to your ideology that is not compatible with reality and human nature.

This only gets better. Now you are claiming to have a lock on both reality and human nature.... may I be the first to congratulate you on your exalted state of attainment.

Most people with decent income don't want to live close to large number of poor people. That's a fact. No city can escape that.

In the future, for even greater emphasis, may I suggest you please use caps. It's what all the self-appolinted experts do.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's probably safer to say that probably doesn't want to live in an area that is completely dominated by the poor. The downtown core is fairly fine-grained and most doesn't have a huge issue with having a subsidized building next door or in the general neigbhourhood.

Most people don't find it pleasant, but most also realize it's a part of urban living. That's the reality.

AoD

 

[ksun]

I think at least for myself what I find is frustrating is that the local walmart where I shop and the grocery store I shop both employee several mentally disabled people. Yet when i have worked with housing there are often people who are able bodied but think jobs like walmart or the grocery store are beneath them and wont work there. Countless times I hear people say well if I dont get a 20$ hr job then it doesnt make sense since I will lose my subsidy but ill have less money in the market rate world.

Precisely.
Our spoiled youngsters nowadays think making $11 an hour serving tables or washing dirty dishes is beneath them.
The other day I over heard two old Chinese (both above 50 at least) talking about their work - they work at Chinatown restaurants/grocery shops doing basically cleaning work (for less than minimum wage I think. I doubt they can speak decent English). They work 10+ hours a day, with only one day off and they feel blessed about it.
This is the work ethics many of entitled young people lack. Social welfare should be the last resort, only after there is absolutely no opportunities to be self-sufficient. Yet they do their cost-benefit little study in their mind and decide whether to take a job or just rely on welfare - which is a sign that our welfare system is overly generous.

 

[Lenser]

AoD: Definitely. In the burbs there's probably more and larger pockets of relatively isolated homogeneity, with little cross-border traffic from one zone to another. In the core it's more of a hodge-podge, with even adjacent blocks having quite different characters, but this being considered the norm - and with lots of movement and interaction throughout.

 

[sixrings]

which is a sign that our welfare system is overly generous.

I wouldn't consider the welfare system over generous. I'm sure there are government people that recognize that there is a problem with how social services are distributed. The question is do they want to spend the time and resources it would take to significantly change the system. It appears that the answer is no. Rather they provide just enough to keep the poor from rioting and the rich from feeling guilty that they aren't doing enough. That's just my take.

 

[ksun]

Definitely. In the burbs there's probably more and larger pockets of relatively isolated homogeneity, with little cross-border traffic from one zone to another.

Yes, and why is that? because people with similar financial means always tend to gather together. It is human nature (everyone loves the nicest things they can afford to have) and economics (nicer neighbourhood always get more expensive). You can't fight that. With a windfall of $5 million dollars, will you buy a house in Forest Hill or Jane/Western Road? Judge for yourself.

In the core it's more of a hodge-podge, with even adjacent blocks having quite different characters, but this being considered the norm - and with lots of movement and interaction throughout.

Yes, the core is much much smaller so it is not always an option to have absolutely no poor nearby. However, there is still pockets that are predominantly rich/wealthy. Yorkville? Cabbagetown? Try building some highrise social housing apartment in Yorkville or Cabbage town and see how locals will react.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's a sign that there is a perverse disincentive against employment - since any wages earned will be clawed back if one is on social assistance. Since there will be a cost to government regardless, a better way would be to allow those who got a job to keep it and the benefits (within reason) and incentivize work.

Yes, the core is much much smaller so it is not always an option to have absolutely no poor nearby. However, there is still pockets that are predominantly rich/wealthy. Yorkville? Cabbagetown? Try building some highrise social housing apartment in Yorkville or Cabbage town and see how locals will react.

There are TCHC buildings in the general vicinity of Yorkville (better example, Rosedale) and Cabbagetown - and try building *any* high-rise in those two neighbourhoods and you will see how locals will react.

AoD

 

[Lenser]

Yes, the core is much much smaller so it is not always an option to have absolutely no poor nearby.

You frame it as if "absolutely no poor nearby" is high on your laundry list of crucial criteria for where you opt to live, much like it was a facile lifestyle question like what colour you prefer for your new car; the superficiality and cold-bloodedness of it is amazing. I see, too, that people over 50 are "old" for you (in light of that, I hold out hope for you. Let's check back on your outlook in twenty years, shall we? I'm guessing you won't be quite so draconian in your societal views).

As for the burbs being how they are, a lot of it is about the very nature of sprawl and car-dependent infrastructure - at least as much as it is about people's socio-economic preferences regarding their neigbours.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Lenser:

Ironically, he walks to work, and I would suspect being a member of the middle class whom the truly blessed will label as a member of the hoi polloi that spoils the neighbourhood. You know, this class thing can easily cut both ways (wait till TO property values get Manhattenesque)

AoD