News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

AlvinofDiaspar said:
[...]You know the joke - gentrification is only bad after I had become a resident (and presumably pushed out someone in need and left my mark in the hood).[...]
Click to expand...

A joke, but also so true. So common in this city for people to complain about evolving neighbourhoods and gentrification, when what they really want is to preserve the latest version of an area, which itself replaced previous incarnations.
 
ksun said:
3) As to sex workers, I am fine with their existence and don't discriminate them, but it should be regulated by the government. I am not against having a red light zone, but it doesn't have to be Moss Park. What about the financial district? It is a ghost town outside office hours anyway and the two complement each other perfect.
Click to expand...

And one wouldn't necessarily be surprised that they are the highest users either.

Skeezix said:
A joke, but also so true. So common in this city for people to complain about evolving neighbourhoods and gentrification, when what they really want is to preserve the latest version of an area, which itself replaced previous incarnations.
Click to expand...

It's the worst kind of hypocrisy - wrapping itself in righteousness as the defender of the underprivileged while whitewashing their own role in that very effect. Yuck.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
FYI here is a bit more background on the matter:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/moss-park-519-community-centre-1.3656134

I can't help but notice how the proponent of the stance is in a position of privilege - and fits the mould of a gentrifier. You know the joke - gentrification is only bad after I had become a resident (and presumably pushed out someone in need and left my mark in the hood).

And I am curious - have they even asked whether the residents of Moss Park whether they wanted homeless, drug users and sex workers to populate their neighbourhood to the extent it does? I mean, it's nice to talk about inclusion and all, but somehow inclusion seem only having to happen at the poorest, most vulnerable neighbourhoods where residents don't necessarily want to own these very issues. I mean, what one basically said is this - you live in public housing - the public need to be inclusive - therefore, you need to be inclusive regardless of how such inclusion affects your QoL. I find that highly problematical.

AoD
Click to expand...

Being inclusive is BS. You don't see Rosedale or Yorkville being inclusive at all.
And for many members who support these kind of requirements under the good name of "caring about the poor", it all sounds noble when the said neighbourhoods are nowhere near they live. It would mean a lot if they actually welcome homeless, drug users and prostitutes to frequent the area their kids often go and play. When they buy a house, they seem to always choose a neighbourhood completely devoid of those people. How hypocritical.
 
ksun said:
Being inclusive is BS. You don't see Rosedale or Yorkville being inclusive at all.
And for many members who support these kind of requirements under the good name of "caring about the poor", it all sounds noble when the said neighbourhoods are nowhere near they live. It would mean a lot if they actually welcome homeless, drug users and prostitutes to frequent the area their kids often go and play. When they buy a house, they seem to always choose a neighbourhood completely devoid of those people. How hypocritical.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say being inclusive is BS - but one need to be cognizant of laying that responsibility on neigbhourhoods that are least equipped to deal with the challenges just because it is convenient to do so. By doing that one is basically punishing the poor with an additional burden.

AoD
 
Baileyq said:
One group opposing the redevelopment of Moss Park made the following statement:

If the city and The 519 were to meet the needs of the community, redevelopment of the park and community centre must:
1) facilitate the ability of homeless people to sleep in the park and area.
2) facilitate the ability of sex workers to work in the area.
3) allow the use of the area and facilities by drug users. It also must facilitate harm reduction efforts in the area.

Maybe I am cold and unfeeling, but this type of ask really irritates me! It promotes the status quo rather rather than driving positive change.
Click to expand...


An entirely reasonable response! One is neither cold, nor un-feeling to imagine that assisting the homeless in finding homes, is a preferred plan to giving them space w/no privacy/security or shelter from the weather.

Nor it is poor to think that while some (women and the odd man) are in the sex trade by choice, those would typically be people working in comfortable conditions from their own home, or at least
a well kept brothel, rather than the dangerous and again un-sheltered conditions found on the street.

Harm reduction is not an unreasonable ask, but as nearby facilities have just been approved, I don't think even more, within 4 blocks or so, are required.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I wouldn't say being inclusive is BS - but one need to be cognizant of laying that responsibility on neigbhourhoods that are least equipped to deal with the challenges just because it is convenient to do so. By doing that one is basically punishing the poor with an additional burden.

AoD
Click to expand...


A related issue is one of scale.

A small shelter, with 30 beds, and a focus on supplementary resources to get people help and permanent housing wouldn't induce the same fear, or hypocrisy (not to say none, but rather less in degree), as the potential for adverse impact is much lower.

***

Likewise, the asks above, in the name of inclusivity, strike me more as officially (from the group in question) sanctioned apathy and indifference.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Likewise, the asks above, in the name of inclusivity, strike me more as officially (from the group in question) sanctioned apathy and indifference.
Click to expand...

It's worse than apathy and indifference - it is the failure to take a normative position and a fetishization of suffering in the name of choice - because it is easier than actually making a difference. Homelessness is undesirable, sex work in public place because it is the only way to earn money is undesirable, drug use to the point of losing control of one's life is undesirable - the worst thing one can do is to call it inclusion and institutionalize it in a poor neighbourhood.

Note - this is a not a normative position against sex work or drug use - but the specific outcomes and circumstances.

AoD
 
Last edited:
ksun said:
Allowing homeless people to sleep and sex workers to work and drug addicts to use defeat the purpose of having a public space, because it essentially scares away all the non-homeless/prostitutes/drug addicts.

We are all supposed to care for the less unfortunate, but it doesn't mean a public park should be dedicated to them, not to mention the surrounding area will continue to be a dead zone no sane person would want to be anywhere close to it.

1) Homeless people should never be allowed to sleep in parks. Period. Why, because parks are not for that purpose. It is not like all they do is sleep. Many will urinate, defecate, having sex and use drugs there too. If I am not allowed to do those in a park, nor should they.
2) Drug addicts, if they insist so, should use in their own home and at their own expenses. I don't want to see their sunken faces on the streets. Just don't even show them. Drug abuse should always be considered a sin and a disgraceful thing. Drug users should always be discriminated against. Society should never degrade to the extent that we actually "facilitate" drug use.
3) As to sex workers, I am fine with their existence and don't discriminate them, but it should be regulated by the government. I am not against having a red light zone, but it doesn't have to be Moss Park. What about the financial district? It is a ghost town outside office hours anyway and the two complement each other perfectly.
Click to expand...

Perfectly stated.
 
Baileyq said:
One group opposing the redevelopment of Moss Park made the following statement:

If the city and The 519 were to meet the needs of the community, redevelopment of the park and community centre must:
1) facilitate the ability of homeless people to sleep in the park and area.
2) facilitate the ability of sex workers to work in the area.
3) allow the use of the area and facilities by drug users. It also must facilitate harm reduction efforts in the area.
Click to expand...

This sounds like it came from an Onion article. Perhaps we should provide allowances for muggers and murderers too.
 
There certainly is a mix of demographics in the area, and that is changing rapidly. I'm all for making an attempt to accommodate as large a cross section as possible, as challenging as that appears. But if drug dealers, drug users and sex workers are pushed out in the process, I will be glad to hold the door open on their way out.
 
Thanks for sharing the article! I think the process and proposal (although very early) has made genuine attempts to be inclusive. But you can't satisfy everyone so there will always be those resistant to change.

Imagine what this area of the city could be 10-15 years from now with a redeveloped Moss Park, a possible subway stop, and a community that enjoys it as a respite from the big city rather than a place to keep your head down and race through.

I am encouraged.
 
When you see moss park now, especially at the Sherbourne and Queen corner, the renders are pretty interesting. Do they plan on redeveloping surrounding areas because they're a dump right now. Aren't there like 3 or 4 shelters in the immediate area?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top