Toronto 245 Queen Street East | 94.3m | 25s | ONE Properties | Graziani + Corazza

...Why does the poor's need more important than everyone else's? Why do the poor have more rights to live here than everyone else?
Click to expand...

You can't seriously believe this...

Maybe to "push them out" and mingle with other people is a good fresh start. They won't end up on the street. And it is probably better for everyone, including themselves for them to live a bit far from all the "services" where they can get free money so that they start to have an incentive to build their own life.
Click to expand...

Except that's completely untrue. East Toronto has some of the lowest rents left in the city itself. The only areas with similarly low rents are equally poor neighbourhoods on the edge of the city rather than in downtown. Also, with increasing competition from Ryerson students, I'm sure a lot of these cheaper places are harder to get than they have ever been. So things are already pretty awful, without increasing land values and gentrification pushing people out faster.

Not only is it ridiculous to ask people to just get up and move that far in general (would you want to be bought out of your home and moved to Finch?) but these are particularly marginal people. They don't have the resources to make that move. Some have addiction or mental health problems that they actually need help for (help which is much harder to access in suburban Toronto than downtown) and no, they can't just "get over it" or "pull themselves together." Hell, you can't even see that all that "free money" is worthless. Welfare in Ontario will give you $305 for basic needs and $376 for rent if you're single (as per https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Tor...df/P/ratetable-community Nov 2015 FINAL-s.pdf). $681 a month. That is barely enough to survive in the downtown east these days, let alone in any other part of town. So let's not pretend that callously "pushing" people out of this neighbourhood would do them any good.
 
" Welfare in Ontario will give you $305 for basic needs and $376 for rent if you're single "

I have no problem with welfare for people in need, however, my very able bodied ex collects welfare, rents a two bedroom apartment for $600/month. rents out a room for $300/month. pays no utilities. Works under the table for about $500/week.
 
doug said:
" Welfare in Ontario will give you $305 for basic needs and $376 for rent if you're single "

I have no problem with welfare for people in need, however, my very able bodied ex collects welfare, rents a two bedroom apartment for $600/month. rents out a room for $300/month. pays no utilities. Works under the table for about $500/week.
Click to expand...

Admittedly there's a difference between Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program and OW is just for people who are out of work and can't apply for EI (at least, that's the effect I'm getting from having EI and OW as separate systems). As for your ex, I can't say I approve but you can't deny they've found an ingenious way around the restrictions of welfare either lol

But, on a more serious note, their example is clearly an individual one. Obviously welfare fraud of any kind sucks because it takes away from those who need it but that doesn't change that OW is far too little to live off of in downtown. It'd be a struggle living on those rates in rural Ontario and even suburban Toronto. At least downtown someone can walk to social services rather than need the TTC or any other form of transit that requires them to pay. The fact that so many people are concentrated in downtown east is an unfortunate result of historical development patterns and decisions but they're there now and we need a plan in place to move them. Saying things like "Isn't this a free market" and that they need to get off of "free money" and have incentives to improve themselves is callous and completely ignores why so many poor, homeless and marginal people are living in this part of downtown and the incredible suffering that will occur if we don't come up with some plan to ease their displacement.

And, as I've said before, I don't see why people who have lived in downtown for years (sometimes decades even) can't be angry that they're being asked to move for yuppies and gentrifiers. How is their desire to continue living in their own neighbourhood any worse than the old Portuguese and Italians who are scattered throughout the west end? Let alone any other property owners who don't want to be displaced against their will. We would presumably sympathize with homeowners being evicted from a neighbourhood they've been in for years, why is it different for renters?
 
@wolfewood You've articulated a point I have been making for years and I couldn't agree more. Simply building more market rate units is not a solution to the problems we have with housing in Toronto. This point cannot be made enough and I thank you for explaining it so clearly.

The point I was attempting to make was that, in my view, mixed socio-economic communities are better than ones that are too exclusive or too poor. I will try not to clutter my argument and opinions with unnecessary words and will therfore put it in point form. I think:

-we need more density downtown.
-it is possible to have both too high and too low a ratio of lower income people in an area
-we need more subsidized housing in general and in downtown specifically
-low income people should definitely not be pushed out of the area in question
-it could be a healthy community with more low income individuals
-the area would benefit from a more diverse socio-economic population living in the area
-if we add thousands of more market rate units to the area we would be able to maintain a good ratio (up for debate) of market-to-subsidized housing while adding more subsidized units
-new legislation from Queen's Park will allow the City to mandate more subsidized housing to allow this to happen see: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ive-cities-new-affordable-housing-powers.html

In sum, I think you make a powerful argument. It is one I have been making for a long time and will now, I think, be able to articulate in a more persuasive and succinct manner for having read your post. I hope I have made my view somewhat more clear on the matter and shown that it is not in conflict in all of the exact ways it may have seemed to have been from my previous post.
 
"you can't deny they've found an ingenious way around the restrictions of welfare either lol "

Yes, It's ingenious to cheat the system and live off of the rest of the working class.
 
"-we need more density downtown."

Then why did the city reduce the density allowances for surrounding neighborhoods and increase them for the regent park redevelopment?
 
Lenser said:
The very notion of it being good to "push out" the poor "and mingle with other people-" well, where do you imagine they'll go? Some amorphous place which exists... elsewhere? Sounds pretty vague. And to think that, of all things, poor people need to mingle? It's the lack of mingling that holds them back? Just a tad condescending, methinks.
Click to expand...
Condescending or not, I think there is an argument to be made there.

I grew up in an apartment rental building surrounded by other first and second generation immigrants in a neighbourhood that was otherwise wealthy and middle-upper class. I went to school surrounded by kids of similar socio-economic background, as well as kids from wealthier detached homes in the neighbourhood, as well as even more recent straight off-the-boat immigrants.

I think the 'intermingling' of classes was very beneficial to me, as well as to others of both poorer and wealthier backgrounds than I, to be exposed to people of different backgrounds. It has impacted how I and my peers growing up perceive and view people from other classes. I definitely feel like it is better than growing up in an environment with exclusively richer kids in the suburbs, or mostly lower-income in the East End. If I have kids one day, I will be sure to put them in school in an area of similar mixed-income neighbourhoods so that they grow up with similar experiences.

There is one other part I dislike about this argument. In Canada, hard-work only gets you so far, you will need to have connections of some kind if you want to advance further and unlock more opportunities for yourself economically. This is something that immigrants new to the country without the support circles of established populations are especially lacking. If you want to confine poor people to one area of the city, then realize that you are also confining their potential social circles to just other people of similar class background in the East End. Which might give them a very satisfying support circle, but that circle won't be including the folks in Rosedale or Forest Hill or Lawrence Park that we in the rest of the city probably benefit from, and ultimately, hinders their social-economic mobility.
 
WislaHD said:
Condescending or not, I think there is an argument to be made there.

I grew up in an apartment rental building surrounded by other first and second generation immigrants in a neighbourhood that was otherwise wealthy and middle-upper class. I went to school surrounded by kids of similar socio-economic background, as well as kids from wealthier detached homes in the neighbourhood, as well as even more recent straight off-the-boat immigrants.

I think the 'intermingling' of classes was very beneficial to me, as well as to others of both poorer and wealthier backgrounds than I, to be exposed to people of different backgrounds. It has impacted how I and my peers growing up perceive and view people from other classes. I definitely feel like it is better than growing up in an environment with exclusively richer kids in the suburbs, or mostly lower-income in the East End. If I have kids one day, I will be sure to put them in school in an area of similar mixed-income neighbourhoods so that they grow up with similar experiences.

There is one other part I dislike about this argument. In Canada, hard-work only gets you so far, you will need to have connections of some kind if you want to advance further and unlock more opportunities for yourself economically. This is something that immigrants new to the country without the support circles of established populations are especially lacking. If you want to confine poor people to one area of the city, then realize that you are also confining their potential social circles to just other people of similar class background in the East End. Which might give them a very satisfying support circle, but that circle won't be including the folks in Rosedale or Forest Hill or Lawrence Park that we in the rest of the city probably benefit from, and ultimately, hinders their social-economic mobility.
Click to expand...

I agree with that whole-heartedly.

The idea Moss Park etc. should be just "left alone" so that the poor will not be "displaced" by new wealthier families and they will continue to have easy access to "services" is self-defeating. It may sound noble (although those who argue for it probably don't and don't want to live anywhere close to it), but in the long term, it is just bad policy for these people. Without new development and changes, they will be stuck with other poor people for the rest of their lives, and the private sector definitely won't bring more business or services close to the area. It may sound these people are well "protected", but they also end up being segregated, without the chance of more frequent engagement with people of different background or social status.

What's so wrong about "displacement"? You are essentially asking them to move to a different neighbourhood, so what? People move. We move. We keep throwing words like "vulnerable" just to make ourselves feel morally noble, but have we thought about the positive thing about being "displaced"? And what's exactly so bright about permanently living in Moss Park neighbourhood? You see poverty, drug abuse and the crazy on a daily basis, and the kids grow up there assuming it is just normal life and will be their future. Yes, they are close to "services" and all sorts of "help", and we feel the satisfaction as a protector, but in the end, we offer them nothing but a hopeless life out of ignorant liberal kindness.
 
The difference between voluntarily moving because you're upwardly mobile or simply switching up jobs/lifestyles and moving because you've been forced out of your neighbourhood to banished to the city's outskirts with no resources to deal with it all is profound. But then you already know that, don't you.

"Ignorant liberal kindness" as opposed to... what? Enlightened conservative obliteration? I mean, if you adore binary arguments, have at it.
 
Lenser said:
The difference between voluntarily moving because you're upwardly mobile or simply switching up jobs/lifestyles and moving because you've been forced out of your neighbourhood to banished to the city's outskirts with no resources to deal with it all is profound. But then you already know that, don't you.

"Ignorant liberal kindness" as opposed to... what? Enlightened conservative obliteration? I mean, if you adore binary arguments, have at it.
Click to expand...

what prevents the city from placing them in a upwardly mobile neighbourhood with jobs that are not to the city's outskirts with recently good transit, anywhere that's more suitable for living than the already poverty ridden Moss Park? Poverty should be dispersed, not congregated.

You talk as if the only alternative to Moss Park is the northeast edge of the city. Who is doing binary arguments?
 
If you think the city will naturally relocate them from where they are to an upwardly mobile neighbourhood, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
 
ksun said:
what prevents the city from placing them in a upwardly mobile neighbourhood with jobs that are not to the city's outskirts with recently good transit, anywhere that's more suitable for living than the already poverty ridden Moss Park? Poverty should be dispersed, not congregated.

You talk as if the only alternative to Moss Park is the northeast edge of the city. Who is doing binary arguments?
Click to expand...
That is what should happen, but the city is too incompetent to commit to such an undertaking.

We won't even fund our present community housing and transit needs, meanwhile, our strict zoning restrictions prohibit intensification of 'upwardly mobile neighbourhoods'. Not that neighbourhoods such as the Annex should be made into condos like Yorkville, but really, the housing stock can move from single-detached homes to multi-unit duplexes and townhouses, some of it rental.
 
Lenser said:
If you think the city will naturally relocate them from where they are to an upwardly mobile neighbourhood, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Click to expand...

so we keep the poor in their familiar slums, pretending it is helping them.

All I am saying is the knee-jerk reaction about "displacement" is not helping the poor. What makes "mature neighbourhoods" so sacred that they simply can't add a bit density and accommodate a few poor population? I am sick of the mindset that "xxx neighbour (almost always a rich neighhourhood) is good as it is, don't change it", yeah, don't change my treeline streets, my tranquility and bring all the riff-raffs. Why not say "I only want to live with folks with as much money as I have"?

It is not the city which is incapable of doing so. It is the selfish people, so why not put pressure on them, instead of just keeping the ghettos?
 
On a more practical note, with the recent change in legislation we will probably see more affordable housing in future private developments. This will be one way to disperse social housing and enable redevelopment of less favourable sites in the inner city without too much disruption to existing tenants.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top