Toronto Grid Condos | 157.88m | 50s | CentreCourt | IBI Group

Hopefully more of these developments in the area will have partnerships with organizations like artscape. Pace offered a number of units to artists for purchase and rent. Which is great because some people with lower income are well educated, drowning in student debt, hard working but underpaid. These same individuals contribute greatly to the culture of the city. The need for housing for people working in the arts and similar fields is high as well. It's no better to force these individuals further and further away from the core than it is to push the homeless. On the optimistic side of things, developing in these currently less sought after parts of downtown MAY create a bit more opportunity for struggling students, artists, families, musicians etc.
It's not just the visible individuals on the street who need help.
 
The catch-22 is that concentration of poverty is both undesirable and necessary.

Being from Vancouver, I understand vividly the problems associated with allowing those with addiction and mental health issues to concentrate - problems that I believe are bad for those individuals as well as the larger society. I think that if you surround yourself with like-minded people, it is easier to stay in that frame of mind. So I think that spreading out shelters would be ideal. Let people see what a more typical life is like with fewer hustlers and opportunities to use.

However, access to facilities and services is exactly the same problem from the opposite side. Congregation is the only answer due to lack of funding and, frankly, required efficiency. The built form of Toronto doesn't allow for a diffusion to happen because outside of downtown there are very few areas in which the disadvantaged could live close to the services that they need in sufficient numbers to justify those services. So it has to be downtown.

I don't see a way out of this dilemma, so the focus has to be on how to attain economy of scale and access to services while balancing the needs of the disadvantaged and the larger society. Obviously, this is what the Regent Park redevelopment does, but it seems only to add in more affluence and expect amelioration. I think this approach works, but only up to a certain point.

In any event, I can't see why anyone - let alone poverty activists - would truly want entire neighbourhoods full of those with mental health and addiction problems. But that seems to be the only way out in the face of lack of investment. The only other option they see is Yuppies moving in to displace them, so they are gearing up for a fight. And I have sympathy when we all know that the redevelopments are improving things for those already there, but do nothing for those that will come in the future (an approach mirrored, by the way, in almost every domain - from pension reform to union wages).

Oh, and as an aside for the ksun's who don't think that we should spend the money: aside from basic human decency and compassion, there is plenty of evidence to suggest an economic case for social assistance. We actually spend more money trying to serve people who are constantly on the edge with hospital, police and other agencies costing huge dollars. If you put the money into housing, assistance and treatment, it actually costs far less than the current approach (which is one of the reasons why Vancouver implemented the harm reduction approach). I get that conservatives don't like "wasting" money on "loafers" and those that can "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps", but if someone has welfare they don't need to steal to get a meal. They are more likely to feel safe and thus for their mental health to improve. Conservatives say that it provides an incentive not to work, and this may be true for a marginal percentage of people, but having a safety net is the mark of a decent society, and the tough love of letting people fall through the cracks just to whip up motivation of welfare arbitrage seekers isn't worth it - morally or economically (the best countries in the world are invariably those with the most generous social safety net - Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.). Ultimately, this is a net benefit to society.
 
Last edited:
I think it's fair to add that many of those we're calling "degenerates" or "troublemakers" etc. aren't necessarily a bunch of moustache twirling evil villains or renegade punks who take pleasure in rape, murder and theft. A significant number are mentally ill or addicted to pretty awful drugs and are caught in a pretty awful place as a result. I mean, some of us can't handle being polite and civil without a coffee in the morning, imagine how difficult it is to control the kinds of addictions some of these drugs cause? So are we going to divide the poor into the deserving and undeserving too? Because God knows I'd love to see how we'd make a fair distinction there.
 
agoraflaneur said:
Conservatives say that it provides an incentive not to work, and this may be true for a marginal percentage of people, but having a safety net is the mark of a decent society, and the tough love of letting people fall through the cracks just to whip up motivation of welfare arbitrage seekers isn't worth it - morally or economically (the best countries in the world are invariably those with the most generous social safety net - Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.).
Click to expand...

The right-winger's mindset is that the poor need the spur of their poverty to create an incentive to stop "freeloading" and become productive contributors -- hence the social safety net should be slashed to the bone. But at the same time, the rich need the benefits of their wealth as an incentive to keep creating more wealth -- hence tax rates on the wealthy should also be slashed to the bone.

Oddly enough, the greatest rates of economic growth have generally been in times when the marginal tax rates on the wealthy were at their highest, and the social safety net was at its most generous. Right-wingers never mention this inconvenient fact, though, since it directly contradicts their main justification for cutting their own taxes at the expense of the less fortunate.

Or at least their main admitted justification, the real reason is simply "I got mine, so hands off my pile, and to hell with the poor".
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
for cutting their own taxes at the expense of the less fortunate.

Or at least their main admitted justification, the real reason is simply "I got mine, so hands off my pile, and to hell with the poor".
Click to expand...

not cutting, but stop increasing every time the city or Province needs money because it spends too much.

I find it's more of a "don't consider my wallet your ATM" thing rather than a "to hell with the poor". The rich don't have the duty to subsidize the poor but they are, now we consider it an obligation and judge them every time they don't want to cough up with more because the poor want more and more? I don't understand this sense of entitlement as if the rich has some sort of original sin.
 
ksun said:
not cutting, but stop increasing every time the city or Province needs money because it spends too much.

I find it's more of a "don't consider my wallet your ATM" thing rather than a "to hell with the poor". The rich don't have the duty to subsidize the poor but they are, now we consider it an obligation and judge them every time they don't want to cough up with more because the poor want more and more? I don't understand this sense of entitlement as if the rich has some sort of original sin.
Click to expand...

The city has among the lowest taxes in Ontario, and Ontario among the lowest taxes and the most efficient public service in Canada. Additionally, the rich have such a duty here. Your point of view is deeply unCanadian.
 
Last edited:
ksun said:
not cutting, but stop increasing every time the city or Province needs money because it spends too much.

I find it's more of a "don't consider my wallet your ATM" thing rather than a "to hell with the poor". The rich don't have the duty to subsidize the poor but they are, now we consider it an obligation and judge them every time they don't want to cough up with more because the poor want more and more? I don't understand this sense of entitlement as if the rich has some sort of original sin.
Click to expand...

Yes, the poor have too much already but they just seem to want more and more everyday. It is time for the 1% to put its foot down and stop this uncontrollable greed. The poor in this country need to be reminded that their big pay off will be in heaven. Remember, the meek shall inherit the earth.

OK, enough about the poor, let's get back to discussing condos and tall towers.
 
Bayer said:
The city has among the lowest taxes in Ontario, and Ontario among the lowest taxes and the most efficient public service in Canada. Additionally, the rich have such a duty here. You point of view is deeply unCanadian.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Ksun is not very Canadianized.
 
Bayer said:
The city has among the lowest taxes in Ontario, and Ontario among the lowest taxes and the most efficient public service in Canada. Additionally, the rich have such a duty here. Your point of view is deeply unCanadian.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the mill rate or the average amount a homeowner pays?
 
maestro said:
Are you referring to the mill rate or the average amount a homeowner pays?
Click to expand...

The actual amount people pay. Certainly compared with Montreal it is very low (and the same goes for income taxes). I know we are really off-topic here, but I think it is important to have a variety of income groups in the core. Pushing out lower-income people is not city building.
 
ksun said:
not cutting, but stop increasing every time the city or Province needs money because it spends too much.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the problems we have now are the result of not spending enough. 50 years of cuts to social assistance, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, changes to the justice system, and little investment in social housing. All three levels of gov't are guilty of this and also try to shuffle off social responsibilities onto the private sector.

Keep voting in the kind of moronic conservative politicians that continue to support this fantasy, and the problem will continue to fester.
 
Now that everyone has expressed his own political view, can we go back on topic?
 
Last edited:
As much as I disagree with most of Ksun's points, let's not pretend that right-wing views are unCanadian. I find it kind of offensive that this is being suggested. To be sure, our Medicare system and other social programs do define Canadianess for a lot of people - even Harper doesn't dare challenge them, they are that ingrained in the fabric of our society. But, as Harper shows, Canadians can be right wing. Yes, his US, republican-style conservatism is relatively new, and yes, it is finding a constituency in immigrant populations (see the Conservative election strategy). But let's not pretend that being Canadian depends on an ideology. Until recently, the liberals and NDP took the majority of immigrant votes.

Take issue with an idea, not a person. That should be a Canadian value if nothing else is.
 
agoraflaneur said:
As much as I disagree with most of Ksun's points, let's not pretend that right-wing views are unCanadian. I find it kind of offensive that this is being suggested. To be sure, our Medicare system and other social programs do define Canadianess for a lot of people - even Harper doesn't dare challenge them, they are that ingrained in the fabric of our society. But, as Harper shows, Canadians can be right wing. Yes, his US, republican-style conservatism is relatively new, and yes, it is finding a constituency in immigrant populations (see the Conservative election strategy). But let's not pretend that being Canadian depends on an ideology. Until recently, the liberals and NDP took the majority of immigrant votes.

Take issue with an idea, not a person. That should be a Canadian value if nothing else is.
Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking of anyone's country of origin, which is irrelevant - my own spouse is a permanent resident who has been in Canada for only a couple of years, while my family has been around for 350 years - it doesn't matter. I was referring to an idea of Canada, an idea that I do not apologize for defending, and to which I believe the majority of Canadians subscribe - a majority that is often unrepresented by our first-past-the-post system - and that is the idea that the value of a person does not reside in their socioeconomic status. I reiterate that as much as I appreciate prosperity and its external manifestations, as much as I love development (this is why I frequent this site), the notion that people should be pushed out deliberately because they are not desirable is repellent and so are those who promote it. It is possible to improve the neighbourhood while creating affordable housing and maintaining the organizations that provide help to the poor and vulnerable.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top