I understand your point but I also live near low income housing and volunteer at another place closer to the downtown area. Certainly some of the buildings are rougher than others (I work near one directly downtown that is rough) but the other two you can hardly tell they’re low income. There are plenty others I’ve seen that you honestly wouldn’t know are supportive housing unless you went in/knew someone that lived there. There’s one near my parents house that people were freaking out about before it got built and after 5 years it honestly hasn’t made a change in the neighbourhood at all.
I don’t know the answer either, but I think making a judgement that all low income housing attracts only people struggling with drug addiction or mental health is not quite right either.
I don’t know the answer either, but I think making a judgement that all low income housing attracts only people struggling with drug addiction or mental health is not quite right either.
Oh you’re absolutely right. But the ones that stand out in people’s heads are the ones that are incredibly visible. There’s a recovery house down my block, almost no one would know it exists if someone didn’t tell you. BUT that also means that the people who are concerned about these places probably don’t know or think of those ones.
Heck, a senior citizen I know lives in what would be a really nice socially supported building but, it is on arguably the worst street in Canada. You wouldn’t know from the interior (or the exterior if you couldn’t see the street) or most of her neighbours that I’ve met but she’s also been in the hospital after being assaulted for her purse.
I think that’s part of the hard part with socially supportive housing, if we can’t or don’t have the means to differentiate between the ones that are likely to bring serious issues and the ones that are going to be unobtrusive, the default position for most people will be fear and suspicion. Not that that’s a solution but that’s where the issue is.
I think there’s a serious issue of conflating affordable housing with low income housing. The two are different things. I mean, a two bedroom apartment that can be paid for from a single person’s full time salary at minimum wage is different from an apartment meant for someone who can’t hold a steady job.
People so often talk about the latter as the only form of affordable housing, when it’s the former that’s actually needed. So many people are in subsidized housing because it’s either that, or something that’s over $2k a month for a single bedroom or a condo that’s half a million. There is almost nothing in between for most of Toronto, which is the real issue.
And all the problems with drug abuse and people causing so much local trouble is because they’ve lost purpose. Without housing that’s of a decent price, it’s no wonder that so many homeless have appeared and is causing trouble all over the city the moment the economy dipped. For lots of people, the moment they lose their income, they’re too far over their heads to be able to stay at their current homes because they’re so expensive. And how the hell is anybody supposed to get a job when they don’t have a home to take a shower to get cleaned up for an interview?
Affordable housing is literally the first step to being able to live like a basic human being, and those NIMBYs are against such things. They’re basically the same as all the things we complain about when it comes to the western oligarchs like Musk.
Fair, I could have been more precise in my wording. But from context, I think it’s pretty clear I’m talking about what is more accurately called social or subsidized housing. (Low income is just anywhere poor.)
And the point is that subsidized housing for the most destitute comes with huge costs. Not being able to admit and somehow confront these costs is a serious issue that makes it all the harder.
I think about my buddy, a good progressive, lived here for decades. Kind of neighbourhood where we’re proud of our supervised on street harm reduction unit. But no one wants to raise their kid somewhere where, upon getting to the playground, your toddler has to wait while daddy frantically checks the playground for needles and other paraphanalia.
I don’t have an answer and we need solutions but at the same, ignoring reality endears us to no one. If you’re right about affordable housing alleviating the need for subsidized housing, then whatever makes it easiest to make more affordable housing is crucial. Maybe we get more neighbourhoods on board with more affordable and less subsidized housing offers? Though that seems cruel to those who need it… Hence the whole dilemma…
They think only the poor people would want microunits? Maybe. Maybe some not-poor people would want them anyway.
Maybe the issue is they would assume, which is sad. I read about mixed income units in Germany, I think, where the units all looked similar so no one could tell anyone’s income by their apartment. Maybe clothing and mannerisms might be different.
It’s sad that we’re conditioned against poor people and other races.
I understand your point but I also live near low income housing and volunteer at another place closer to the downtown area. Certainly some of the buildings are rougher than others (I work near one directly downtown that is rough) but the other two you can hardly tell they’re low income. There are plenty others I’ve seen that you honestly wouldn’t know are supportive housing unless you went in/knew someone that lived there. There’s one near my parents house that people were freaking out about before it got built and after 5 years it honestly hasn’t made a change in the neighbourhood at all.
I don’t know the answer either, but I think making a judgement that all low income housing attracts only people struggling with drug addiction or mental health is not quite right either.
Oh you’re absolutely right. But the ones that stand out in people’s heads are the ones that are incredibly visible. There’s a recovery house down my block, almost no one would know it exists if someone didn’t tell you. BUT that also means that the people who are concerned about these places probably don’t know or think of those ones.
Heck, a senior citizen I know lives in what would be a really nice socially supported building but, it is on arguably the worst street in Canada. You wouldn’t know from the interior (or the exterior if you couldn’t see the street) or most of her neighbours that I’ve met but she’s also been in the hospital after being assaulted for her purse.
I think that’s part of the hard part with socially supportive housing, if we can’t or don’t have the means to differentiate between the ones that are likely to bring serious issues and the ones that are going to be unobtrusive, the default position for most people will be fear and suspicion. Not that that’s a solution but that’s where the issue is.
I think there’s a serious issue of conflating affordable housing with low income housing. The two are different things. I mean, a two bedroom apartment that can be paid for from a single person’s full time salary at minimum wage is different from an apartment meant for someone who can’t hold a steady job.
People so often talk about the latter as the only form of affordable housing, when it’s the former that’s actually needed. So many people are in subsidized housing because it’s either that, or something that’s over $2k a month for a single bedroom or a condo that’s half a million. There is almost nothing in between for most of Toronto, which is the real issue.
And all the problems with drug abuse and people causing so much local trouble is because they’ve lost purpose. Without housing that’s of a decent price, it’s no wonder that so many homeless have appeared and is causing trouble all over the city the moment the economy dipped. For lots of people, the moment they lose their income, they’re too far over their heads to be able to stay at their current homes because they’re so expensive. And how the hell is anybody supposed to get a job when they don’t have a home to take a shower to get cleaned up for an interview?
Affordable housing is literally the first step to being able to live like a basic human being, and those NIMBYs are against such things. They’re basically the same as all the things we complain about when it comes to the western oligarchs like Musk.
Fair, I could have been more precise in my wording. But from context, I think it’s pretty clear I’m talking about what is more accurately called social or subsidized housing. (Low income is just anywhere poor.)
And the point is that subsidized housing for the most destitute comes with huge costs. Not being able to admit and somehow confront these costs is a serious issue that makes it all the harder.
I think about my buddy, a good progressive, lived here for decades. Kind of neighbourhood where we’re proud of our supervised on street harm reduction unit. But no one wants to raise their kid somewhere where, upon getting to the playground, your toddler has to wait while daddy frantically checks the playground for needles and other paraphanalia.
I don’t have an answer and we need solutions but at the same, ignoring reality endears us to no one. If you’re right about affordable housing alleviating the need for subsidized housing, then whatever makes it easiest to make more affordable housing is crucial. Maybe we get more neighbourhoods on board with more affordable and less subsidized housing offers? Though that seems cruel to those who need it… Hence the whole dilemma…
Mixed income communities?
Ah so exactly what the NIMBYs are fighting against
They think only the poor people would want microunits? Maybe. Maybe some not-poor people would want them anyway.
Maybe the issue is they would assume, which is sad. I read about mixed income units in Germany, I think, where the units all looked similar so no one could tell anyone’s income by their apartment. Maybe clothing and mannerisms might be different.
It’s sad that we’re conditioned against poor people and other races.