I don't necessarily dispute all you're saying (though I disagree with the concept that poor people living together is inherently a bad thing - it can have its benefits, as well as its problems) but you don't really give a satisfying solution here. Housing is the first need for everyone, along with food and water. Without those, there's no way to function as a human being. Certainly not a fully functioning one. So first, what do you do about the housing crisis in this city? There's a 100,000 person backlog on social housing right now. Even if we provided every one of them with enough money to afford rent (assuming that didn't just inflate rental costs further), where will they live? I can't find the most recent stats because UT's search function is meh but it looks like we're building about 5-6k units per quarter. So presumably we're building around 20-30k a year. It'd take a good 4-5 years of new construction by the private sector, as is, to clear the backlog. And I doubt we could build much more, considering the already frenzied pace of construction. So obviously there's a need for purpose-built subsidized housing in the interim, as you said yourself.
But the real issue is how do we give everyone you're talking about a well-paying job that can afford these units? There's a finite limit on how many people can do certain jobs. If anything, society seems to be running out of potential jobs - automation is eating up more and more work every year. What jobs are left often require a significant skill set that the average person doesn't have, let alone someone who's on a subsidized housing list. And this doesn't even begin to address the problems of subsidizing work in our current hyper-free market moment. I'd be cool with subsidizing labour so that people can afford to live (though purpose-built housing still feels like a better bet to me) but I doubt you'd ever convince anyway with actual power to agree to that.
So basically, yes opposition to gentrification is focused on leaving neighbourhoods as is but that's because the only alternative presented right now (unchecked development and the pushing out of marginal peoples) is far worse. I'd rather live in a dilapidated building downtown where I have access to resources than an equally dilapidated apartment in Scarborough or Etobicoke that leaves me further from the resources that could help me prosper.
First off, I think its important to note that there are not 100,000 homeless people in Toronto.
The waiting list for public housing exists at that level, because 100,000 people qualify, based on their income, and housing needs, and have applied.
Those applications are, for the most part, from people now in private-sector rental apartments, but who find paying their rent an oppressive expense,
and would benefit greatly from the relief an rgi (rent-geared-to-income) housing unit provides.
There are somewhere around 5,000-10,000 'hardcore' homeless people in city, (those who lack any place to go home to, other than a shelter).
There are some additional folks living in varying degrees of precariousness (staying w/parents or friends, etc., but on the understanding that can't be permanent)
I don't think we have a good handle on how many, but somewhere in the 10,000-20,000 range seems credible.
Everyone else IS housed, the only issue being (and not an unimportant one) that they can't afford all of their other basic needs and/or the odd small luxury
as rent sucks up somewhere btw 40-60% of their income.
The portable rent subsidy immediately resolves the problem for the latter group.
Thus leaving a waiting list of somewhere between 15,000-30,000.
But with a rent subsidy and/or higher minimum wage, that issue can resolve over time.
The challenge right now is, even a non-profit will rent out a 1 bedroom at about $900 per month on new construction.
That means you need to get someone's income up to a bare minimum of $1,500 a month to cover rent and other expenses.
Since we currently pay a child-less person on social assistance roughly $700 per month, all-in (about $400 for shelter) there
is no way to ever create market or non-profit housing for that person.
Increase their income, and there is a way.
Truth be told, most new build market constructed rental will go for much more, but that would open up the older stock to be priced more cheaply.
***
Raising minimum wage is not a political impossibility, California has just signed a law bringing the entire state up to $15 per hour by 2022.
That works out to around $19Cdn per hour at the current exchange rate.
Adjusting for inflation, (since this would phased over the next 6 years or so)
You're looking at $16 per hour, or $32,000 cdn per year for full-time work in today's money.
Allowing for taxes that's around $26,000 net, which is about $2,200 per month.
Which would be more than enough for anyone in Toronto to find housing.
Even if you got a few hours short of 40, you'd be close.
***
For those who aren't working or aren't working full time, variations of portable rent subsidy or guaranteed annual income are preferable.
But an increased rate of social assistance, combined with larger allowances for penalty-free working income when on said program would do wonders to help out.
***
Automation will, over time, reduce the need for un-skilled labour.
Though, we are awhile away from that being a thing of the past.
The simple act of giving folks money (through wages or subsidies) who don't have enough currently, will provide a measure of economic stimulus.
Put, another way, if someone was under-nourished, the moment they get an extra $50 they will go spend that in a grocery store, or on treating themselves
to their first pizza in an age. That in turn provides more of the very type of jobs that the low-skilled require.
But there is absolutely a need to empower folks in those situations to become more skilled. Said opportunities may not fit everyone's circumstance, but
if it works for 1/2 of them, we'll be much better off a society.
***
In the end I just think giving low-income folks the chance to stay in their existing housing, or choose from a variety of public/private options in the area
that works for them, makes more sense than warehousing them in buildings we as a society have shown little inclination to maintain well.
Further, as was historically seen w/Regent Park, if an entire area is blanketed by low-income housing, virtually no retail will open to serve those residents
or provide employment.
Whereas a mixed income community offers the latter, providing a better quality of life and more opportunity to improve one's lot.
