News   May 07, 2024
 318     0 
News   May 07, 2024
 308     1 
News   May 07, 2024
 812     3 

Star: City Housing for 1,500 Planned

A

AlvinofDiaspar

Guest
From the Star:

MAYOR'S MANDATE
City housing for 1,500 planned
And `not in my back yard' won't wash for sites spread over 10 wards: Councillor
Apr 14, 2007 02:30 AM
Donovan Vincent
City Hall Bureau

Ten proposed projects that would house 1,500 people for $160 million – the largest affordable-housing package Toronto has seen in years – will go to a city hall committee for approval Tuesday.

And the politician backing the proposal, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, says he won't tolerate any "NIMBY" arguments from residents in neighbourhoods where the projects are likely to end up.

"I won't accept `not in my back yard.' I will not accept it," vowed the chair of the affordable housing committee yesterday. "In fact, I don't want to talk to anybody if they're going to bring (that) approach ...

"I'm going to move forward with our agenda, and I'll only listen to, and the committee will only listen to, valid planning arguments."

If approved, the 10 projects – which would cater to groups such as seniors with mental health disabilities, single mothers fleeing domestic abuse, young adults with psychiatric illness, and low-income families – would comprise a massive social initiative.

Late last year, the city put out a call for proposals from community groups that would yield a total of 600 affordable-housing units. Added to those submissions are two Toronto Community Housing Corp. developments that would provide 200 more units.

Money to build the units would flow primarily from the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program, a federal-provincial agreement signed in April 2005.

Toronto would contribute its share by way of property tax exemptions, waived development fees, leases on two city properties, and 110 rent supplements.

If Mammoliti's committee backs the package, it would next need full council approval. No package this large has come up for a vote in close to five years.

But Mayor David Miller has pledged that Toronto will create 1,000 units of affordable housing each year. The city has a backlog of tens of thousands of households waiting to get into subsidized units.

"It goes without saying we're quite pleased this package is coming forward, and that there was a significant interest in developing affordable housing in the city," said Sean Gadon, director of partnerships in the city's affordable housing office.

The plan is to have the projects fully under construction by 2009 (some will have earlier starting dates) because March 31 of that year is the deadline for getting signed agreements that will be eligible for the federal/provincial cash.

The 10 projects are spread across the inner city for the most part, in 10 different wards: Wards 11, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29 and 43.

Only one project, in Ward 43 in Scarborough, is significantly distant from downtown.

"It simply turned out, as a result of the (city staff) evaluation, that we have 10 developments ... in different wards," Gadon said.

At this early stage, at least one of the projects has already stirred controversy.

A 20-unit proposal for 1120 Ossington Ave. was the subject of "heated and vicious" debate a few months ago, according to one person who was at a neighbourhood meeting where it was discussed.

The St. Clair West Affordable Housing Group's proposal calls for redeveloping a 50-year-old church that's currently used only for that group's meetings. The $4 million project would provide homes with average rents of about $700 for a one-bedroom, and the tenants would include domestic abuse victims.

But the west-end meeting held in December turned nasty, with some residents voicing concerns about "the kind of people" that would live there, said Peter Clutterbuck, volunteer chair of St. Clair West housing group.

His group formed an advisory committee to encourage dialogue with residents, and Clutterbuck said he remains "confident the community is going to welcome the project."

Jon Harston, general manager for St. Clare's Multifaith Housing Society, which plans a $14 million, 82-bed project for Madison Ave., south of Davenport, says his group hasn't done any community consultation yet, but plans to start soon. The project would cater in part to domestic violence victims.

"Once rumours start to fly, it's hard to get out information about what we're really doing," Harston says.

Mammoliti says neighbourhoods need not fear the projects because the city is taking "a new approach'' to affordable housing.

None are on the scale of "monster-sized" social housing sites built 40 or 50 years ago, he said.

New developments will be smaller in size and mix better into their surroundings, he said, offering as an example a 47-unit development – not one of the 10 newly proposed – that's slated for his own ward (Ward 7) in the city's northwest. It will cater to families of African descent who live in that part of the city and are on social assistance.

"Everyone has had an opportunity to look at the drawings and what's going to be there. It just fits in, doesn't stand out like a sore thumb. It won't look like a box, like traditional social housing,'' he said.

"I want to say to all who are skeptical, you absolutely have nothing to worry about," Mammoliti said of the proposals coming forward Tuesday.

AoD
 
New developments will be smaller in size and mix better into their surroundings, he said, offering as an example a 47-unit development – not one of the 10 newly proposed – that's slated for his own ward (Ward 7) in the city's northwest. It will cater to families of African descent who live in that part of the city and are on social assistance.

Hasn't that been done before to little success? A 47 unit building which caters to a particular ethnic group? That isn't a great plan in my mind. There should be no more than 10 public housing units per development and twice as many units per development should be market rate. The ethnic focus is an even worse idea. This country needs all walks of life to be part of the same story. Segregating public housing is such a bad idea.
 
Enviro:

Actually 47 unit social housing building is really small in the grand scheme of things; in fact, it is at a scale the would work well, especially when you taken into account the fact it is a standalone project.

re: ethnic segregation

Sometimes there is a reason for it - economies of scale for the provision of culturally appropriate services. It can also improve social connectedness of the tenants.

AoD
 
The problem with a building which is all social housing and all one ethnic group is that the public will end up stereotyping the whole group as one indivisible unit. As soon as something goes wrong at the site it will become "those people at that building" rather than "that individual". Even in London Ontario where there isn't much of a concern on crime a group of townhouses all in the same location on Limberlost Rd became completely stigmatized. Fill the building with a whole mix of racial and economic strata and suddenly the "those people" designation can no longer apply and the problem becomes ours to deal with rather than to classify as someone elses problem.
 
Under 50 units is manageable because it can be supervised by a single individual but I agree that ethnic or cultural separation is such a bad idea. Also, at what point will someone have the balls to build outside the old city of Toronto where the majority of the cities people live?
 
Sometimes there is a reason for it - economies of scale for the provision of culturally appropriate services. It can also improve social connectedness of the tenants.
AOD: I can't believe you would use this excuse to further segregate new immigrants. We have kids in school that live in a set-up like this and those kids are so distant from the rest of kids. Is this social connectedness?
 
billonlogan:

That's bullshit - don't put words in my mouth saying that I somehow support segregation as a sort of covert agenda for new immigrants. Whether someone is interested in dealing with anyone beyond their socioeconomic/cultural/ethnic group is based purely on their own initiative. One has more than enough opportunities over the day to interact with individuals from other background. There is also the issue of scale - if one is concerned about the issue of integration, one should ensure the neighbourhood (not building) is diverse.

Out of curosity, would you welcome individuals who are low income, having a wild variety of physical and mental health issues in your neighbourhood? If not, you should ask yourself who really have a segregationist agenda instead.

AoD
 
Read that passage again:

It will cater to families of African descent who live in that part of the city and are on social assistance.

If there is any focus on ethnicity, it reflects the ethnic makeup of the area. Those residents are already there. No one is talking about plunking down 47 units of African immigrants in Rosedale.
 
^ But that would probably be a better idea (although still less perfect than a mixed building in ethnic and financial terms) because it would lead to a greater mixing of the population in those neighbourhoods both economically and racially. The children of those people living in social housing in Rosedale would probably have greater opportunities to develop friendships with people of other races and economic situations and to develop contacts and goals in those circles which lead to greater job propects. Mixing the demographic throughout the city is the key to improving the lives of those in social housing. If you want to get ahead the best way to do so is hang around those who have connections and which have knowledge you can learn from. Many entry level jobs depend on who you know and not what you know. If you want to become proficient in a language the best way to do it is to immerse yourself in it. It doesn't help these people to get ahead in mainstream Canada if they aren't immersed in mainstream Canada.
 
From the Star:

Parkdale housing project opposed
Home for drug abusers among 10 city ventures
Apr 18, 2007 04:30 AM
Donovan Vincent
City Hall Bureau

Toronto's affordable housing committee approved 10 projects worth $160 million yesterday, but one proposal – a building in Parkdale to house people with psychiatric and substance abuse problems – has some residents upset.

Parkdale Activity Recreation Centre is backing the $4 million proposal to turn a derelict building at 194 Dowling Ave. into supportive housing for 29 residents.

The supports would include case managers and housing workers to help residents find educational and employment opportunities and link them to the health-care system, according to Victor Willis, PARC's executive director.

The building, in the Queen St. W. and Lansdowne area, was the site of a tragic fire in 1998 that killed two women. It became an eyesore and source of complaints, and was expropriated by the city last year.

But Parkdale residents told yesterday's meeting at city hall they're opposed to PARC's plans.

"You have to be tolerant to live in Parkdale, but I think this is just loading the deck against us," said Warren Sheffer, who said he's raising a family in the area and believes it has an unfair share of such housing.

"Why are we getting more bachelor units for people with drug and mental health issues?"

Another resident, Sheila Lippiatt, 31, called Parkdale "overburdened" by a high percentage of mentally ill residents.

But Cheri Di Novo, MPP for Parkdale-High Park, told the committee there's a "desperate need'' for supportive housing for people with mental health and addiction issues, and praised PARC for its work.

"The people that would be housed here would (otherwise) be on the street, on Queen St., in front of businesses, sitting near residences, with nowhere else to go," Di Novo said.

Several councillors on the committee acknowledged Parkdale has a problem with substandard housing and "predatory landlords."

Councillor Howard Moscoe said the city's old and "cumbersome" property standards system has to be addressed.

In an interview, Willis said construction is slated to start in May 2008 and take 10 months. But he expects a bumpy ride at the committee of adjustment stage, and possibly at the Ontario Municipal Board.

Councillor Pam McConnell said there are 14 wards in Toronto devoid of social housing.

"We need to address that. We should keep a running tally of where we are putting social housing and where we are not."

Toronto has a waiting list of 65,000 households waiting to get into such housing.

The 10 projects approved by the committee yesterday cater to various groups, including seniors, women escaping domestic abuse, and the mentally ill, all with low to moderate incomes. In all, the projects will house 1,500 people in 10 wards.

The affordable housing package is headed for debate by the city's executive committee at the end of the month, and full council next month.

AoD
 
Though I no longer live there, up to about a year ago I lived on Beaty Ave very near this proposed site and I will give these residents some support that this (part of) the neighbourhood is probably getting a disproportionate share of substance abuse/mental disorder housing. While some will see this as the mean side of gentrification - I think there is probably a reasonable argument to consider the carrying capacity of a neighborhood to provide the best environment for both the residents of this subsidized housing and the existing 'regular' (cant think of a more pc adjective) residents. Few are arguing agaist trying to add support to these individuals, just questioning if this is the best location.
 
^ Is there a 'best' location as long as people in every neighbourhood will say the same thing?
 
Parkdale has mentally ill people walking down the street all the time that look homeless. Everytime I visit a friend there I see one on the street in front of his house. Every part of the city will complain but not every neighbourhood has homeless looking mentally ill people walking down residential streets all day. This is a MoneyMart part of town still. Putting a shelter in Parkdale is like doing something to increase homeless people sleeping at York and Wellington or putting up new social housing at Jane and Finch like there isn't enough in that location already. Parkdale has a bad reputation because of the mental and social housing in the area, much like Jane and Finch or Regent Park. This stuff needs to be spread out. Where are the social housing projects in The Beaches, Rosedale, etc?
 
Or just put up a sign like this in Parkdale
WBLGM1.jpg
 
One would assume that housing is being set up where there is a greater concentration of people in need. Presently, setting up such facilities off in the inner or outer suburbs would make access to this housing for those in need much more difficult. Demanding that these facilities be set up Rosedale or the Beach makes it sound as if this action is punative. The homeless, the destitute and the mentally ill already have enough hits against them without having them or their needs being used as a means to threaten or punish.
 

Back
Top