News   Jun 14, 2024
 2.4K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.7K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 848     0 

Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

I don't think some people realize that a lot of the people that will live here, which isn't just homeless but also low-income, aren't serial killers, and aren't going to make the neighbourhood anywhere as scary as they make it out to be.

Many are people in an unfortunate situation, whether through their own fault or not, just need a little help from others to get back on their feet. No one wants to be homeless or low-income, many didn't have much of a choice.

If it were just homeless people down on their luck and needing a place to live without causing much trouble then sure, but the problem is there's plenty of people who have mental/emotional issues or they have addiction problems or maybe they're just violent and those are the people that cause much of the issues and makes people be less supportive of housing for the homeless in their communities.

Maybe if the city could actually screen and separate the people who are down on their luck, but don't any serious issues and give them priority for this housing then it might actually work. Get those people back on their feet as soon as you can and then bring in new homeless people to help. For those people who have more serious issues, put them in a different facility where they can get more specialized help and not in these homeless apartments.
 
So this is an interesting one. This time, the community group is well-spoken and well-intentioned. I think this could generate some discussion. Worth going through the whole thread.


They are absolutely right in regards to the public consultation process in the City, and I understand how the process (along with Covid) led to the feeling of disenfranchisement among the camp.

But at the same time, these are quite severe demands to make on private property owners, such as demanding 100% affordable housing. That is effectively demanding that no development, no new housing supply is added in a well-serviced region of the city, because it would no longer make financial sense to build. I suppose that satisfies local concerns on gentrification. The development site (315 Spadina) for context, is already slated to be 100% purpose built rental, which is of short supply and a small share of new builds in the city already.
 
So this is an interesting one. This time, the community group is well-spoken and well-intentioned. I think this could generate some discussion. Worth going through the whole thread.


They are absolutely right in regards to the public consultation process in the City, and I understand how the process (along with Covid) led to the feeling of disenfranchisement among the camp.

But at the same time, these are quite severe demands to make on private property owners, such as demanding 100% affordable housing. That is effectively demanding that no development, no new housing supply is added in a well-serviced region of the city, because it would no longer make financial sense to build. I suppose that satisfies local concerns on gentrification. The development site (315 Spadina) for context, is already slated to be 100% purpose built rental, which is of short supply and a small share of new builds in the city already.

Wow, that group has one enormous sense of entitlement.

I wonder if they've noticed how much affordable housing there is on the current site, as it is.

(for the record, its zero).

Oddly, all these years went by and not one protest that the previous owners hadn't demolished their building to make way for affordable housing.

I also note they seem to read a conspiracy/ill-intent by City staff where a good read of applicable provincial legislation might be helpful.
 
If it were just homeless people down on their luck and needing a place to live without causing much trouble then sure, but the problem is there's plenty of people who have mental/emotional issues or they have addiction problems or maybe they're just violent and those are the people that cause much of the issues and makes people be less supportive of housing for the homeless in their communities.

Maybe if the city could actually screen and separate the people who are down on their luck, but don't any serious issues and give them priority for this housing then it might actually work. Get those people back on their feet as soon as you can and then bring in new homeless people to help. For those people who have more serious issues, put them in a different facility where they can get more specialized help and not in these homeless apartments.

But that’s usually how it starts. Imagine being down on your luck for an entire decade. No doubt that would lead to other issues. Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, violence, etc. People for the most part aren’t born this way. They’re a product of society, circumstance, etc.
 
Outdoor gym equipment in a park - no way


The best part - here is the scale of the proposed "destruction":

1614273426901.png


1614273387212.png


AoD
 
Potential influx of young people from other communities could potentially increase drug use in the park; an increase in crime may also become an issue.
I know for a fact that when I'm looking to get high or do some crimes, I look for a park with exercise equipment in someone else's neighbourhood.
 
The best part - here is the scale of the proposed "destruction":

View attachment 301935

View attachment 301933

AoD

Similar gym equipment should be installed in every park.
 
“Community members of an East York neighbourhood are up in arms about the City of Toronto‘s plans to replace a parking lot with 64 units of affordable housing for the region’s homeless population.“

“This parking lot is the hub, it’s the heart of the community. It provides everybody an opportunity to partake in everything that’s here,” said [local resident Steve] Bland.”


 
I can totally understand reluctance to have homeless shelters in your area, I expect well over a quarter of the city’s shelter beds are located within a 4 km circle of my house. But there’s no excuse for not welcoming affordable permanent housing into any neighbourhood.
 
I can totally understand reluctance to have homeless shelters in your area, I expect well over a quarter of the city’s shelter beds are located within a 4 km circle of my house. But there’s no excuse for not welcoming affordable permanent housing into any neighbourhood.
The problem is that affordable housing should be mixed into regular developments. That includes basement apartments, duplexes, triplexs, and UNCONSECRATED.
 
The problem is that affordable housing should be mixed into regular developments. That includes basement apartments, duplexes, triplexs, and UNCONSECRATED.
Doesn’t that mean that the buyers of the market value units are essentially paying a disproportionate amount of the city’s cost of affordable housing? Seems unfair.
 

Back
Top