taikou

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
Average walking speed for humans is in the range of 4.5km/ph:

View attachment 421833

So the walking time estimate you provide is reasonable.

Is it 'Too Far' ?

No.

Its not ideal; though as separately noted there will be a supermarket 1/2 that distance at the corner of Yonge/Cummer.

But you know how you keep hearing about the need for every person to walk 10,000 steps per day, on average, to say healthy? That's 8km.

So 1.4km (2.8km round trip) is only 35% of what one should walk every day. Clearly this would be a burden on someone who is disabled, but they will access Wheel Trans or the regular TTC. Clearly this would be a burden
for a large suburban family doing one bulk shop a week. But for a person who will be shopping for one person, living in one room, likely 3-4x per week, it is not that burdensome for the majority.

Again, most will access a supermarket that is closer.




I discuss the 1.4 km, status quo that would have been in place for 18 months had the rapid housing hit its timeline (which would have been a miracle, but I digress); above.



No one would have starved, and this type of hyperbole detracts from your argument.



There will be.



I do, but I'm not sharing them, yet. But you won't have to wait long, the details will be public VERY soon.



I'm not going to get ahead of the press release.



Using this argument, Rapid Housing and TCHC can only be built in areas that already have a high concentration of low-income people. You will never achieve ' Balance' in this way. Instead, areas already facing economic challenges will face more challenges, and areas with few challenges will face no additional burdens.

I do not accept this premise.

For many who will reside here, they will choose to take transit to the supermarket, irrespective of the walking distances involved, if they would prefer/need to shop at a hard discount store, the Cummer bus will take them to Finch Station, where a 2-stop trip south will afford them access to Food Basics or they can transfer to the Yonge Bus at Cummer to travel just over 1km north to access No Frills.

And yes, this is perfectly reasonable, a middle-income person, who owns a car, and has supermarkets in my own area, I routinely drive to get larger, bulkier, and basic supplies in my own neighbourhood, but I regularly take transit downtown, from East York, so I can shop at St. Lawrence Market, ~15 stops away.
1. I guess whether 1.4 km is too far is subjective (I do feel it is especially in the winter time, but I guess you don't). That's fine, but thanks for admitting that 1.4 km is not ideal and the hope is to rely on the future supermarket that will be built on Yonge/Cummer. Unfortunately you can't disclose the information of the supermarket until the information goes public. Two points to clarify:

a. How could you obtain the information AHEAD of the public? It looks like you have access of some information that is not yet disclosed to the public? Are you a city staff? insider? Any other information that is only known by you but not us? Is it a fair debate where we have unequal access of information, as some are not even disclosed to the public?

b. "Using this argument, Rapid Housing and TCHC can only be built in areas that already have a high concentration of low-income people" - You can't twist my argument to an extreme. I am just saying when the city decides to choose a site, the affordability is a contributing factor that needs to take into consideration. Of course, a well made decision has to consider many factors (and it leads to the transparecy I am going to address later)
Couldn't agree more 😂
especially to those that don't provide any argument to support their opinions. Too low!
 

taikou

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
Average walking speed for humans is in the range of 4.5km/ph:

View attachment 421833

So the walking time estimate you provide is reasonable.

Is it 'Too Far' ?

No.

Its not ideal; though as separately noted there will be a supermarket 1/2 that distance at the corner of Yonge/Cummer.

But you know how you keep hearing about the need for every person to walk 10,000 steps per day, on average, to say healthy? That's 8km.

So 1.4km (2.8km round trip) is only 35% of what one should walk every day. Clearly this would be a burden on someone who is disabled, but they will access Wheel Trans or the regular TTC. Clearly this would be a burden
for a large suburban family doing one bulk shop a week. But for a person who will be shopping for one person, living in one room, likely 3-4x per week, it is not that burdensome for the majority.

Again, most will access a supermarket that is closer.




I discuss the 1.4 km, status quo that would have been in place for 18 months had the rapid housing hit its timeline (which would have been a miracle, but I digress); above.



No one would have starved, and this type of hyperbole detracts from your argument.



There will be.



I do, but I'm not sharing them, yet. But you won't have to wait long, the details will be public VERY soon.



I'm not going to get ahead of the press release.



Using this argument, Rapid Housing and TCHC can only be built in areas that already have a high concentration of low-income people. You will never achieve ' Balance' in this way. Instead, areas already facing economic challenges will face more challenges, and areas with few challenges will face no additional burdens.

I do not accept this premise.

For many who will reside here, they will choose to take transit to the supermarket, irrespective of the walking distances involved, if they would prefer/need to shop at a hard discount store, the Cummer bus will take them to Finch Station, where a 2-stop trip south will afford them access to Food Basics or they can transfer to the Yonge Bus at Cummer to travel just over 1km north to access No Frills.

And yes, this is perfectly reasonable, a middle-income person, who owns a car, and has supermarkets in my own area, I routinely drive to get larger, bulkier, and basic supplies in my own neighbourhood, but I regularly take transit downtown, from East York, so I can shop at St. Lawrence Market, ~15 stops away.
1. I guess whether 1.4 km is too far is subjective (I do feel it is especially in the winter time, but I guess you don't). That's fine, but thanks for admitting that 1.4 km is not ideal and the hope is to rely on the future supermarket that will be built on Yonge/Cummer. Unfortunately you can't disclose the information of the supermarket until the information goes public. Several points to clarify:

a. How could you obtain the information AHEAD of the public? It looks like you have access of some information that is not yet disclosed to the public? Are you a city staff? insider? Any other information that is only known by you but not us? Is it a fair debate where we have unequal access of information, as some are not even disclosed to the public?

b. "Using this argument, Rapid Housing and TCHC can only be built in areas that already have a high concentration of low-income people" - You can't twist my argument to an extreme. I am just saying when the city decides to choose a site, the affordability is a contributing factor that needs to take into consideration. Of course, a well made decision has to consider many factors (and it leads to the transparency I am going to address later), and affordability is definitely one of the weighted factor. The city has the responsibility to use the taxpayer's money as effective as possible to achieve its goals.

c. "Let me get this straight, anyone who chooses to buy a home in any neighborhood is entitled to no one new living within 1km of them, particularly if they are low-income?" After talking to you for a few rounds, I start to realize your logic has a bit of flaw, as you like to interpret an argument to an extreme. Let me get this straight too. In a democratic society with market economy, anybody of course has the freedom to live in any property he/she owns in any neighborhood and no one can question that. The problem is, they don't and require us to assist them. That's the whole point. If the taxpayers' money needs to be involved to build a modular housing in our community (especially if it could have potential impact to the safety of the community) then we are the stakeholders and we are entitled to express our opinions, which means agree or disagree. That's why the city has a procedure to setup consultations and hear our feedback. That's called procedural justice, my friend. Without procedural justice, there is NO justice!! The M2M residents should be given a chance to express their opinions, as it could impact their living environment, that's all I want to say. The point is, you are taking advantage of the future facilities, but not involving the future residents for discussions, how is it fair?

2. Self-reliant - You don't need to mention how difficult to achieve self-sufficiency as I can tell you, we also overcome many many challenges for many years to achieve the middle class status. There is NO free lunch! As an immigrate, all the sweat and efforts contributed to gain what we have is beyond what you can think of. As a matter of fact, many families do. To be honest, I think Canada is already providing many help and financial assistance to the vulnerable/low income, and to some extent, I feel it's going a bit too left (maybe you don't agree). As an adult with normal health and don't belong to the groups I mentioned earlier (i.e. seniors, families with children, people with physical disabilities or illness), I can't think of any legitimate reason why they can't get a job. If they insist to be lazy and give up themselves, people are not willing to help them. I know it's not political correct, as it's easy to say, right, let's be compassionate and help all those who need. If we have unlimited resources and unlimited empathy, sure let's do it. If you are saying the living cost in Toronto is high, that's an entire different problem, and it impacts EVERYONE, not only a specific group of people. Let's focus on what are talking here.

Let me be straight forward and emphasize again. If the modular housing is designed to accommodate seniors, families with children, people with physical disabilities or illness, I would totally support it. If the city agrees, we can end the debate here.
The fact is, it's not. The housing could include those with criminal records, and/or drug addicts. You may say, well, we cannot have bias or prejudice towards them . Sorry, I am not selflessness (maybe you are, and if so, why not being a role model and show your unlimited compassion by letting some of them living at your home??) and have little empathy on them. As a parent, I will standup and go against any idea of increasing the risk of my kids being harmed. Look at how many crimes that had happened recently (you seem to have access to a lot of information, so you must know) in the Willowdale community, and how "effective" our lovely police is doing in terms of cracking down these criminals. I think It's totally reasonable for the community to say NO to some people, especially those that could potentially impact the safety (again you may say, according to this and that report, there is no statistical correlation or proof to claim that) of the community. To me it's just a common sense and we are not in a court here. As an analogy, if a person has a criminal record, do you think he/she is entitled to be accepted for immigration to Canada? I guess you won't be that naive to say, that is discrimination and lack of compassion?

In conclusion, I don't understand why the city can't make such promise (only designed for seniors, families with children, people with physical disabilities or illness)? I think it's a middle-ground and balanced solution (as opposed to you, saying balanced is not possible) that makes a win win situation to everyone. Just a note: whoever that claims a balanced is NOT possible, or simply label all people that disagree with the city's idea as NIMBYs, let's read more books and upgrade yourself first. Lastly, I am here to urge those who criticize other people being NIMBYs, which we have a lot in this forum, let's be a role model and show us what you have done!!

To be continued.. as I really have to go back to work now
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,217
Reaction score
55,344
a. How could you obtain the information AHEAD of the public? It looks like you have access of some information that is not yet disclosed to the public? Are you a city staff? insider? Any other information that is only known by you but not us? Is it a fair debate where we have unequal access of information, as some are not even disclosed to the public?

Two things.

1) Your reply is very hard to read because you haven't separate out your quotes of me, and your answers to said quotes. The way to do this, after quoting, is to hit enter, within the quote in your new post, after something you wish to reply to. Say your bit, then put your cursor back in the quote and hit enter after the next thing you wish to quote, then your post will look like this one and will be much clearer what is being said.

2) Yes, I have access to information you don't. Some of it is public, you just have to know where to look; some of it is not. I don't work for the City; and I'm not telling you where I do work. Suffice to say this is a forum of planners, real estate brokers, engineers, retail chain management, politicians, activists and others who take a keen interest in the future of the City. We generally post anonymously so that we can more freely share information that may not yet be public and compare notes. But there is still a limit to that, either for legal or professional reasons.

The city has the responsibility to use the taxpayer's money as effective as possible to achieve its goals.

Sure; but again, if that's the case, this proposal is on City-owned land, which is by far the most cost-effective way to build. So it would seem to meet your criteria.

Let me get this straight too. In a democratic society with market economy, anybody of course has the freedom to live in any property he/she owns in any neighborhood and no one can question that. The problem is, they don't and require us to assist them. That's the whole point. If the taxpayers' money needs to be involved to build a modular housing in our community (especially if it could have potential impact to the safety of the community) then we are the stakeholders and we are entitled to express our opinions, which means agree or disagree. That's why the city has a procedure to setup consultations and hear our feedback. That's called procedural justice, my friend. Without procedural justice, there is NO justice!! The M2M residents should be given a chance to express their opinions, as it could impact their living environment, that's all I want to say.

You can repeat this as often as you'd like, that doesn't make it true. Yes, there is requirement under law for public consultation on any proposed change of land use. But consultation is not a 'veto'. That's not the way it works.

It never has, in any neighbourhood, ever. Though some neighbourhoods certainly try to make it seem that way.

A consultation to offer a chance for questions, to answer those questions where possible; to hear about things that may been overlooked (ie. do we need a new cross walk here, or could the boulevard get trees etc etc.); or to perhaps a give a concern some extra weight, (ie the fence may need netting above it due to the golf course) But it is not a 'veto'

There is no procedure by which neighbours vote on Planning proposals, private or public, in their community.
 

Attachments

  • 1661200062397.png
    1661200062397.png
    264.8 KB · Views: 17
  • Like
Reactions: neo

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,217
Reaction score
55,344
2. Self-reliant - You don't need to mention how difficult to achieve self-sufficiency as I can tell you, we also overcome many many challenges for many years to achieve the middle class status. There is NO free lunch! As an immigrate, all the sweat and efforts contributed to gain what we have is beyond what you can think of. As a matter of fact, many families do. To be honest, I think Canada is already providing many help and financial assistance to the vulnerable/low income, and to some extent, I feel it's going a bit too left (maybe you don't agree).

You seem incredibly confident that you have a unique perspective and understanding of hard work and challenges; may I suggest that you do not. That not all challenges look the same.

****

I'll share a tiny bit of my background here, as this really isn't about me, but perhaps it may serve a useful purpose here.

I am the child of parents who separated when I was very young, and therefore raised in a single parent context. The separation was not amicable and that poses its share of challenges for a child. Neither of my parents graduated High School; neither were especially well connected, and while both were gainfully employed and managed financially, neither were ever able to afford a house in Toronto, even when they were much cheaper.

Notwithstanding the above, I was able to graduate High School near the top of the my graduating cohort, go on to University and gradate that, and establish a decent career.

But I am keenly aware of how close the outcome was to something different.

The truth is, for all my disadvantages, I had a few really good ones. My parents were both articulate and well read, and my mother was fluently bilingual in English and French.
She was exceptionally good with the written word, spelling, grammar and style. Guess who edited my first few essays?
Her red lines through my run-on sentences, circled spelling gaffes and explanations on where and how citations were best used helped my work immensely. Such that I was soon able to do this without her help; and indeed to help others.
But had my mother not had those abilities and the willingness to make the time to share them, I would likely not have been as successful academically or otherwise.

Beyond that type of advantage, I was also an only child, and an only grand child on one side and an only young grand child on the other. This allowed me to do far better in the gift department and in time and attention that I might otherwise have received. My mother also took the time to teach me the value of money, helping me open my first bank account at the age of 8, this, in turn got me to asking my grandparents for mostly money on holidays that I could invest. First in bonds, later in mutual funds and stocks, such that by the time I was ready for college I had enough money to cover the cost of tuition and to take a trip to Europe too. Many don't have such good fortune.

Its not limited to parents either; I remember a High School teacher who gave me a mediocre grade on an assignment, that I thought wasn't warranted. ( I was right, but I digress)....
He was a caring soul.......and when I complained, he looked me straight in the eye and said " I'm not grading your assignment in absolute terms, I'm grading it against your ability, you are capable of better".

That made me quite angry for a moment..........but I came to understand it as a caring bit of encouragement never to let the opportunity for excellence pass me by. My grades sky rocketed after that.

Not everyone gets those moments or has the means to take advantage of them. Not everyone has a caring family, or money in the bank, or an education. Some do and misfortune, or a mistake sets them back.

Either way, a hand up is not only the right thing to offer, it's also in society's best interest. Putting someone in prison costs a lot more than giving them rapid housing; and shelters costs more too.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,217
Reaction score
55,344
As an adult with normal health and don't belong to the groups I mentioned earlier (i.e. seniors, families with children, people with physical disabilities or illness), I can't think of any legitimate reason why they can't get a job. If they insist to be lazy and give up themselves, people are not willing to help them. I know it's not political correct, as it's easy to say, right, let's be compassionate and help all those who need. If we have unlimited resources and unlimited empathy, sure let's do it. If you are saying the living cost in Toronto is high, that's an entire different problem, and it impacts EVERYONE, not only a specific group of people. Let's focus on what are talking here.

I already gave you reasons.

You should go back and read them again. (or maybe read them for the first time)

Sorry, I am not selflessness (maybe you are, and if so, why not being a role model and show your unlimited compassion by letting some of them living at your home??)

This is ridiculous. No one is suggesting that you take anyone into your house. Merely your community. Not even remotely the same thing.

For the record, while I live in a very nice community, I also have 2 rapid housing projects that are relatively close (a bit over a km away). The world has not ended, the parks are still fine, crime has not skyrocketed and the sky has not fallen.

and have little empathy on them. As a parent, I will standup and go against any idea of increasing the risk of my kids being harmed. Look at how many crimes that had happened recently (you seem to have access to a lot of information, so you must know) in the Willowdale community, and how "effective" our lovely police is doing in terms of cracking down these criminals. I think It's totally reasonable for the community to say NO to some people, especially those that could potentially impact the safety (again you may say, according to this and that report, there is no statistical correlation or proof to claim that) of the community. To me it's just a common sense and we are not in a court here. As an analogy, if a person has a criminal record, do you think he/she is entitled to be accepted for immigration to Canada? I guess you won't be that naive to say, that is discrimination?

There are multiple problems here.

1) As I note above,I have a rapid housing site a bit over 1km from me, in an area with which I'm familiar. There has been no material increase in crime, nor have any children been harmed. I find that assertion absurd by the way as more children are harmed by their parents than by strangers, and its truly rare for any harm to come to a child via someone whose homeless.

2) Crime in Toronto is among the lowest of any major cities in the developed world, and its stable vs past years.

And I don't have anecdotes, I have proof.

This if the 5 year trendline of major crimes in Toronto, from the Police:

1661200545644.png

Source: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJr...jNDMtNDc0Yy04ZmI0LTBmNDA5NWFlOGQ1ZCIsImMiOjN9

These are absolute numbers, not rate of crime per 100,000

You need to use the latter in order to compare to factor in a growing population.

When adjusting for the latter, virtually ever class of crime is either stable or declining.

In conclusion, I don't understand why the city can't make such promise (only designed for seniors, families with children, people with physical disabilities or illness)? I think it's a middle-ground and balanced solution (as opposed to you, saying balanced is not possible) that makes a win win situation to everyone. Just a note: whoever that claims a balanced is NOT possible, or simply label all people that disagree with the city's idea as NIMBYs, let's read more books and upgrade yourself first.

Balance is perfectly possible, we simply don't agree on what the word means.

Balance means every community contributing to assist every person who needs help.

Balance means ensuring the solution isn't entirely on one or two areas, but every area; that we don't help only one type of person, but every person. Yes there are limits but as noted, the cost per person of providing Rapid housing is lower than the cost of shelters or prisons.

***

Let me save you the trouble of a further reply, by saying, We are now done with this conversation.
 
Last edited:

DavidCapizzano

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
6,319
This whole debacle is so embarrassing - using the plight of seniors as leverage against the poor and homeless... It's disgusting. Their change.org campaign is basically just a campaign strategy to oust Fillion in favour of some conservative dude Daniel Lee (as if this would make a single bit of difference)

I truly hope these people lose every appeal and that the project starts construction as soon as possible.
 
Last edited:

taikou

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
Northern Light,

Sure, if you feel there is no need to further discuss about it, I absolutely agree. Just several points to conclude:

1. You made me understand that, the consultations hosted by the city were just a nice way to say, "we have made a decision to it and sorry, you can't say NO to it". In addition, the city failed to addressed our requests such as:
a. Based on what criteria this site is so called the best to be chosen among all the city owned lands
b. Released crime statistics and EMS call data from areas near existing modular housing sites (11 Macey Ave and 150 Harrison Street)

Moreover, the city put all the modular containers at the TTC parking lot, even before the MZO being granted! All of these actions show the arrogance of power and lack of respect to democracy. Oct 24 is the date to teach the city what democracy is. Result does not justify the mean!

2. I certainly have sympathy to your background and see how much efforts you have done. To be honest, I admire your compassion, but you can't "morally kidnap" or request other to have the same level of sympathy as you, as different people have different situations.

3. You said your community has 2 rapid projects that are a bit 1KM away from your home. Do you know how close the proposed modular housing is closed to the existing Willowdale Manor? It's just steps away, and I would think less than 100m! I am sure you know the site well, and I can understand why the seniors feel not comfortable for such short distance. Do you seriously feel okay for a modular housing to build within 100m of your home?

Nevertheless, I still appreciate your opinions as you gave me quite a lot of useful information (which the public does not know yet). At the end of the day, we all believe in democracy, and let's see how it goes.
 
Last edited:

taikou

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
This whole debacle is so embarrassing - using the plight of seniors as leverage against the poor and homeless... It's disgusting. Their change.org campaign is basically just a campaign strategy to oust Stan Cho and elect some other conservative politician (as if this would make a single bit of difference)

I truly hope these people lose every appeal and that the project starts construction as soon as possible.
So sad that, being political correct is endorsed by a lot of people. Their inability to think and lack of critical thinking make them perceive everything in the world is ideal and to be honest, they are just living in a fairy tales world.
 

DavidCapizzano

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
6,319
So sad that, being political correct is endorsed by a lot of people. Their inability to think and lack of critical thinking make them perceive everything in the world is ideal and to be honest, they are just living in a fairy tales world.

This doesn't have anything to do with being "politically correct"

it has everything to do with being compassionate towards those who are not as fortunate as you or I.

again (and I cannot emphasize this enough) your behaviour is embarrassing and shameful.
 

taikou

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
This doesn't have anything to do with being "politically correct"

it has everything to do with being compassionate towards those who are not as fortunate as you or I.

again (and I cannot emphasize this enough) your behaviour is embarrassing and shameful.
If you see my arguments, I am very compassionate towards the groups of people I mentioned earlier (i.e. seniors, families with children, people with physical disabilities or illness). Isn't that enough? How do you know I am fortunate? I just believe that, if an adult without health issue, capable of working, why he/she can't get a job in Canada where a lot of industries are hiring, and come out of homelessness? A lot of them don't require any skills as long as you are willing to do. Sorry, I have less empathy towards people with criminal records, drug addicts or giving up themselves. What's wrong with that?
 
Last edited:

taikou

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Messages
17
Reaction score
4
this is exactly why you're going to lose every appeal you think you can throw at this project
That's exactly why I said some people are so obsessed with politically correctness - for things that sound beautiful, but it's just against the human nature and common sense. Since when, we must have the same level of compassion to all people on earth? If so, maybe you should talk to the Canadian government, don't reject the immigration applicants with criminal records, because like you said, we need to express the same level of compassion to all people, regardless of what they did.
 

myself

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 29, 2021
Messages
69
Reaction score
266
The number of homeless are overrepresented by indiginous peoples, those who have suffered abuse and trauma in their childhood, and former construction workers. For one, construction workers have literally built the city you call home, but it is challenging, labourious work, and prone to injury, and due to over prescription of painkillers from said labourious work... prone to addiction. These are not "lazy" people you claim homeless to be.

You've embarassed yourself beyond belief and just keep digging a hole deeper and deeper. Maybe you should educate yourself on demographics of homeless in Toronto.

 

Top