AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Glen:
I am merely saying what he hadn't had the balls to say, and had to find some way to sugar-coat the business as some sort of equity issue. Besides, there is no "tax dollars" involved - the property is already owned by the city - it isn't shelling out extra money just so that these individuals in a "superior accomodation". (And keep in mind, I wouldn't be a tad surprised if these properties are acquired at a time when interest in inner-city housing is relatively low). On the other hand, One Bloor isn't city-owned. So your logic is a little flawed. Besides, in case you don't know, there are a few TCHC buildings within 5 to 10 minutes walk from the 1 Bloor site, in the Yorkville area. Now I am sure if you tear those down and sell the land (which is worth million plus, without a doubt, especially if you take into account of rezoning potential), it'd be more "economically effective". But is it rational, considering the amount of investments made as well as the need to replace the units in order to house these said individuals? Indeed, by this logic, one should not even bother to build any subsidized properties in the old City of Toronto for the same reason.
Ah, zoning laws - one of the greatest tools for socioeconomic segregation, if one knows what to do with it. Tell me, what effects will the zoning laws produce if the area is predominantly single detached housing, and that there was no properties that is owned by a public authority for the purposes of social housing in the said built-form? There is a reason why areas like Forest Hill/North Toronto is relatively devoid of public housing. As Ootes said, "I'm all for not creating ghettos...but he argued that this goal could be achieved using more economical apartments." He is a seasoned councillor, he knows exactly what effects the zoning by-laws can produce...or prevent from happening.
So we should do that, even if it means disposing existing properties and having to spend money to create new units (which cause all kinds of "inefficiencies", such as having to hire third party services), just so that we can be "equitable", vis-a-vis the "median". Rather pervese, if you ask me.
Hmm, let me see, we have someone that is opposed to building social housing and we're talking about inequity. Small irony.
What me worry:
Those huge majority of taxpayers are also being able to afford to drive, walk to the Danforth to shop and partake in consumer culture, etc... Your point?
I think you just made yourself and your stereotypes rather patently clear.
If you haven't been paying attention, isn't a good chunk of TCHC's portfolio already located out in the fringes of the city? Perhaps you should get listed under the waiting list and see how "lucky" you are? No pun intended, of course.
AoD
You are putting words in his mouth. By the same logic why should only the rich be able to buy a penthouse and 1 Bloor?
I am merely saying what he hadn't had the balls to say, and had to find some way to sugar-coat the business as some sort of equity issue. Besides, there is no "tax dollars" involved - the property is already owned by the city - it isn't shelling out extra money just so that these individuals in a "superior accomodation". (And keep in mind, I wouldn't be a tad surprised if these properties are acquired at a time when interest in inner-city housing is relatively low). On the other hand, One Bloor isn't city-owned. So your logic is a little flawed. Besides, in case you don't know, there are a few TCHC buildings within 5 to 10 minutes walk from the 1 Bloor site, in the Yorkville area. Now I am sure if you tear those down and sell the land (which is worth million plus, without a doubt, especially if you take into account of rezoning potential), it'd be more "economically effective". But is it rational, considering the amount of investments made as well as the need to replace the units in order to house these said individuals? Indeed, by this logic, one should not even bother to build any subsidized properties in the old City of Toronto for the same reason.
For the same reason no amount of money would allow anyone to build a bungalow and King and Bay. Conformity to zoning laws.
Ah, zoning laws - one of the greatest tools for socioeconomic segregation, if one knows what to do with it. Tell me, what effects will the zoning laws produce if the area is predominantly single detached housing, and that there was no properties that is owned by a public authority for the purposes of social housing in the said built-form? There is a reason why areas like Forest Hill/North Toronto is relatively devoid of public housing. As Ootes said, "I'm all for not creating ghettos...but he argued that this goal could be achieved using more economical apartments." He is a seasoned councillor, he knows exactly what effects the zoning by-laws can produce...or prevent from happening.
No, but it certainly should be below the median of the non subsidised average.
So we should do that, even if it means disposing existing properties and having to spend money to create new units (which cause all kinds of "inefficiencies", such as having to hire third party services), just so that we can be "equitable", vis-a-vis the "median". Rather pervese, if you ask me.
But you seem to be arguing that there should not be any degree of inequity. Which is it?
Hmm, let me see, we have someone that is opposed to building social housing and we're talking about inequity. Small irony.
What me worry:
Let's see. A huge majority of the taxpayers who are funding those Player Estate homes cannot afford to live there themselves. Instead, the taxpayers have to drive an hour to get to work instead of walking to a subway station 3 minutes away, have to drive to the nearest mall for groceries because they can't walk to the Danforth to shop, can't enjoy downtown life because they live out in the sticks.
Those huge majority of taxpayers are also being able to afford to drive, walk to the Danforth to shop and partake in consumer culture, etc... Your point?
What's fair about that? Why should a few lucky individuals, who probably made some stupid life decisions, win a housing lottery funded by harder-working people who made good decisions and stayed out of trouble, went to school and got an education, found a job and saved the down payment for a house, and can only afford to buy out-of-town in part because their taxes go to pay for housing freebies for the lottery winners?
I think you just made yourself and your stereotypes rather patently clear.
Where is the fairness in that? Why aren't these subsidized units moved to the fringes of the city where land is much cheaper and cry me a frigging river if the poor lottery winners have to hop a 60 minute bus-ride to get to work like most of the rest of us.
If you haven't been paying attention, isn't a good chunk of TCHC's portfolio already located out in the fringes of the city? Perhaps you should get listed under the waiting list and see how "lucky" you are? No pun intended, of course.
AoD