|
Author
|
Topic: Residents uneasy about low-income neighbours
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 19 January 2006 04:22 PM
quote:
but how else do you provide low income housing during a construction boom?
Doesn't a boom imply lots of new buildings going up? I have to wonder how evicting tenants solely to replace them with new tenants is even legal. My understanding is that here in Ontario at least, if you buy a property with tenants you can only evict them if you personally want to live there, or if you intend to do significant renovation. You can't just say "I'm kicking you out to make way for a different tenant". I agree with Gir. If I were being evicted just so that somebody else could move in, I'd be a little pissed. The least they could do would be reimburse me for any costs and inconvenience.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
swirrlygrrl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2170
|
posted 19 January 2006 05:14 PM
quote:
in Ontario at least, if you buy a property with tenants you can only evict them if you personally want to live there, or if you intend to do significant renovation. You can't just say "I'm kicking you out to make way for a different tenant".
From the news story, linked above: quote:
That building is being knocked down to build a high rise.
I'd say that counts as a pretty significant renovation. quote:
The city indicated that they were looking for a location very close to the downtown. Why MUST the low-income housing be there... Would there not be more bang for the city's buck further from the core?
Why not? Why shouldn't low income people, who more often than others, will rely on public transit, live close to downtown? Why shouldn't the downtown core have a diversity of housing, for various income levels? Why should low income people be sent off to the outer areas - the Calgary Housing Corporation already owns this property. There's no savings to be had by constructing the same building somewhere else, considering they'd have to find the location, buy it, get the zoning permission, etc. quote:
Doesn't a boom imply lots of new buildings going up?
Yup. But not a lot of developers are clamouring "Oh, please, please, can I build a high rise catering to those who make less than $30,000 a year?" New private development usually opens up housing in the mid and upper ranges - not the lowest ones. Of course people are going to be pissed about having to move when its not their own choice. Its normal. But suck it up. How many people get evicted by their private landlords to build/renovate to make higer income housing, especially in areas that are gentrifying? This is a public good. And, for every Mount Royal student living there, making it on her student loans, there's prolly three single moms with a couple kids, struggling to escape poverty and abuse who didn't get interviewed, or other people in need. I expect people to grumble - this is an inconvenience. But I wouldn't expect that grumbling to get much more than a "That does suck. Need my pickup when you're moving?"
From: the bushes outside your house | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 19 January 2006 05:27 PM
quote:
I'd say that counts as a pretty significant renovation.
Fair enough. I probably mentally ignored that part because it made no sense. Hey! Let's knock down a perfectly good building with tenants in it to build a brand new building! quote:
Yup. But not a lot of developers are clamouring "Oh, please, please, can I build a high rise catering to those who make less than $30,000 a year?"
Aren't the CHC the developers in this case?? quote:
Why not? Why shouldn't low income people, who more often than others, will rely on public transit, live close to downtown? Why shouldn't the downtown core have a diversity of housing, for various income levels?
Dunno if the situation is anything like Toronto, but if it is then there's no real danger of low income being underrepresented in the downtown area and overrepresented in the 'burbs. When I lived at Queen and Church I was less than a kilometer from about 3 different shelters, a half dozen drop-ins, etc. If it's really diversity you want, build a few of those in the outskirts.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 19 January 2006 05:43 PM
Just a poor choice of words. I'm thinking of Fred Victor, which is long-term housing, and Seaton house, which also does long term, etc. You could argue that that's not much, but compare it to, say, the Annex, or Rosedale, or the suburbs. My point was simply that the downtown core isn't really the playground of the rich here in Toronto.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058
|
posted 19 January 2006 06:12 PM
The York is being demolished to make way for the new Encana building.Apparently the price per square foot for commercial real estate in Calgary has surpassed prices in Toronto.If things keep getting much better in Calgary there won't be room for the working poor and all those social problems that result from the booming economy will be a distant memory. Let them eat cake to celebrate Alberta returning its normal full slate of Conservative MPs
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lucas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6446
|
posted 19 January 2006 06:15 PM
In this instance, a private company owned the York Hotel in the absolute centre of downtown. They sold it to Encana who plans o knock it down and build an HQ capable of containing all of their staff (currently they are scattered around a number of buildings. The city, in an effort to help the residents of the York, purchased a building on the other side of downtown from a property management company. It is a low rise apartment building. The city has evicted the residents to make way for the former residents of the York. My question was, simply, why not look outside of downtown where you would be able to buy an apartment building with 2 - 3x the number of apartments? The market value of THIS building was so high (as it is near downtown) that the city paid a higher price than what they WOULD have paid a few more kms from the core. I am just suggesting that they be try to get more building for their $$ than just focusing on making sure the York residents don't go too far from their former residences. I will try to remember the "oh c'mon, just suck it up" the next time tution increases. Because after all, as long as there are other people out there worse off, nobody should be complaining about being inconvenienced.
From: Turner Valley | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 19 January 2006 06:25 PM
I'm in favour of creating more social housing (public housing, co-ops, non-profit corps targeting special needs and other programmes) and certainly think it is necessary that as many as possible be centrally located, near transport and services. That doesn't necessarily mean "downtown" - I live in north-central Montréal and housing near the Jean-Talon métro station would be most centrally located, as there are two métro lines, many buses and services. It is more important for vulnerable people (low-income, recent immigrants, limited-mobility) to be housed near "natural" support systems, such as relatives and friends, a neighbour to check in on them, familiar streets and shops.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 19 January 2006 07:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by lucas:
I don't care how much money you make, just don't park your car on your front lawn.
Yep. Rich folks do that all the time. I just hate driving through a neighborhood and seeing BMW, Mercedes and Lexus cars parked in people's front lawns. It's really annoying.  quote:
Originally posted by lucas:
Too often people associate low-income with activities/behaviours that reflect poorly on the whole community.
It's a problem with any generalization. But, intuitively, antisocial behavior is likely more closely correlated to poor or homeless people than well-to-do people. I would suspect that a demographic profile of house burglars, for example, includes very few people making over $100k per year. Likewise, if you look at renters in low-income versus higher-end apartments, I suspect that landlords find a hell of a lot more walls punched in (or otherwise trashed) in the low-income apartments than the higher-end apartments. In contrast, alcoholism (as a percentage of a given sub-population) is probably roughly the same across all economic groups. So, I don't think it is incomprehensible that there is a concern about low-income housing being put in the middle of a higher-income neighborhood.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 19 January 2006 11:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Here's it's equally annoying to see expensive Yamaha skidoos or Yamaha ATV's parked in the front yard, while the rest of us rabble have to be content with cheaper Bombardier and Hondas. 
Yamaha "skidoos"?? What about Polaris "skidoos"?!?! Back in 1954, three guys working in a machine shop came up with the first snowmobile (or "skidoo") in my little home town on the Canadia border (the first Polaris). I've always thought that it was either Bombardier or Polaris...but not Yamaha!! I love the name "skidoo". Most Americans (those that are in snowy parts of the country, anyway) think of "Ski Doo" as a brand name and "snowmobiles" as the generic name. Actually, when I was a kid, we called them "snowcats", I think from the Arctic Cat machines made 70 miles south of our town.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 19 January 2006 11:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
How about producing some evidence for that instead of stating your own prejudices and biases as fact?
Would you seriously contest the assertion that very few house burglars have a job paying them $100,000 per year? Let's put it this way, I would venture to guess that the average person would think my assertion is the more reasonable one. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. In the mean time, I think it's safe to say that most people would agree with me (even progressives)...(wink)
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327
|
posted 20 January 2006 12:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Would you seriously contest the assertion that very few house burglars have a job paying them $100,000 per year?Let's put it this way, I would venture to guess that the average person would think my assertion is the more reasonable one. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. In the mean time, I think it's safe to say that most people would agree with me (even progressives)...(wink)
Since very few burglars are ever caught by the police, we have no way of knowing that for sure. Crime crosses all types of class boundaries and organised crime is even committed by rich people. So why is the focus on catching those criminals who are poor? Your classist prejudice is not appropriate here.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427
|
posted 20 January 2006 05:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Would you seriously contest the assertion that very few house burglars have a job paying them $100,000 per year?
Before or after taxes? Burgling is tax-free. A guy with a $150 a day cocaine or heroin habit to support is "making" about as much as someone with a 100k job takes home.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 22 January 2006 04:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Since very few burglars are ever caught by the police, we have no way of knowing that for sure. Crime crosses all types of class boundaries and organised crime is even committed by rich people. So why is the focus on catching those criminals who are poor?Your classist prejudice is not appropriate here.
It's "classist prejudice" to say that most burglars are probably poor people?!?! Let me make one thing clear: My assertion is not "poor people are burglars" (as that's clearly not the case). My assertion is "burglars are more likely poor than not poor". To assert otherwise is to forego the use of common sense.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 22 January 2006 04:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:
Before or after taxes? Burgling is tax-free. A guy with a $150 a day cocaine or heroin habit to support is "making" about as much as someone with a 100k job takes home.
Stealing is no more a "job" than murdering people is a "job". But, if you want to quibble about that, let me rephrase my question: "Would you seriously contest the assertion that very few house burglars have a lawful occupation that pays them $100,000 or more per year?"
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
