stjames2queenwest said:
What is your solution? Judging those who actually deal with this? Making people feel bad for no reason?
Click to expand...

Better fund TCHC to bring the existing network to a state of good repair. Restore federal and provincial funding so that new social housing builds aren't reliant on a private developer (see Regent and Alexandra Parks, as well as Lawrence Heights). Increase funding for mental health services and drug treatment centres - as well as safe injection sites. Also stop the closure of shelter spaces and/or add more beds to the existing system. More importantly, improve these services in suburban Toronto so that the downtown east isn't bearing an unnecessary burden like it is now. Conversely, make it easier for existing residents to stay in the event of redevelopment. Not in the same place as before, of course, but within the neighbourhood. These are vulnerable groups and removing them from the places they know and want to live in is unhealthy and difficult to deal with. It's hard enough being forced to move when your home is redeveloped, it is even harder when you have a drug addiction or are on OW/ODSP.

The solutions above would actually help the people living in the downtown east and allow them to leave on their own terms. Forcing them out with no plans to help will only exacerbate the problem while pushing it out of sight. If pointing that out means I make people feel bad "for no reason," well maybe there is a reason what I'm saying makes people feel bad.
 
Better fund TCHC to bring the existing network to a state of good repair.
Click to expand...

TCHC is funded by taxpayers....those evil people who buy houses and go to work every day.

Increase funding for mental health services and drug treatment centres - as well as safe injection sites.
Click to expand...

Why not spread them around the city a bit, instead of concentrating them in this area?

Also stop the closure of shelter spaces and/or add more beds to the existing system.
Click to expand...

Seaton house is being redeveloped.

Conversely, make it easier for existing residents to stay in the event of redevelopment. Not in the same place as before, of course, but within the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

Can I pick a neighbourhood I want to live in and have the city subsidise it?

maybe there is a reason what I'm saying makes people feel bad.
Click to expand...

I don't feel bad at all. I bought a house in this area and I'm renovating it. No one was forced out and I'm exercising my right to live where I want and do what I want with my property. I pay property tax and i put up with needles in my yard....but I'm the evil one :/
 
I do not think this development is going to create a negative impact.
I have personally witnessed improvement further up sherbourne over the last few years, which I describe as "mild gentrification" I am just frustrated that people often forget that there are other groups of people who cannot afford alternative options but who wish to live in safer conditions.
It was bad planning to concentrate this many rooming houses, half way homes and shelters in one area.
 
It was bad planning to concentrate this many rooming houses, half way homes and shelters in one area.
Click to expand...

Likely due to the 'yuppies' (that we're being called) not wanting them in 'their' neighbourhood.
 
stjames2queenwest said:
It was bad planning to concentrate this many rooming houses, half way homes and shelters in one area.
Click to expand...

Some of these shelters should be moved to developing areas. The real estate has become too valuable for the TCHC not to sell some of it off - they have to pay for upgrades to housing and it doesn't make financial sense to sink it into low rise downtown houses.
 
doug said:
TCHC is funded by taxpayers....those evil people who buy houses and go to work every day.



Why not spread them around the city a bit, instead of concentrating them in this area?



Seaton house is being redeveloped.



Can I pick a neighbourhood I want to live in and have the city subsidise it?



I don't feel bad at all. I bought a house in this area and I'm renovating it. No one was forced out and I'm exercising my right to live where I want and do what I want with my property. I pay property tax and i put up with needles in my yard....but I'm the evil one :/
Click to expand...

TCHC is underfunded. Social solutions to social problems cost money, who'd have thunk?

Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just selectively quote what makes you feel better? I said improve all the above services in suburban Toronto - mental health, drug treatment and homeless shelters. I don't think it's right to concentrate the homeless and impoverished in downtown east but they're already there. Perhaps we should concentrate on fixing the existing problem and work towards reducing the strain on a location after we adequately address the existing problem?

Seaton House currently has 600+ shelter beds. There will be 100 after the redevelopment. So a net reduction in 500 beds. The Salvation Army shelter at College and McCaul (outside this neighbourhood but its closure has only increased pressure in the east end) was another 124 beds. Several shelters have been proposed in suburban Toronto but, shockingly, local interests reacted badly to new shelters being built and council drops the issue rather than piss off their voting base.

Are you a drug addict or on OW? Again, you choose to selectively quote and read what I wrote. I think it's unfair to be forced to move for redevelopment in any situation but some of us are better equipped to handle it. Seeing as you have the resources to buy a home and renovate, I'd say this isn't an issue for you.

Finally, you're not evil for doing what you want with your property. I'm asking you to be sympathetic to those who were there before you for reasons you yourself have just written are unfair. People were forced to live in the downtown east when it was an undesirable place. Now, when it has become desirable, we're going to force them out again.

Hell, I won't even appeal to people's sense of decency and compassion for those less fortunate than them. If concentrating so many people in an impoverished neighbourhood and forcing them out of wealthier parts of the city was wrong and a bad idea in the past, why are we doing it again now? Not only is the treatment of the less fortunate in Toronto a tragedy and disgusting, it is irrational and only setting us up for future troubles.
 
Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just selectively quote what makes you feel better?
Click to expand...

You don't like to have your opinions challenged.

. Perhaps we should concentrate on fixing the existing problem and work towards reducing the strain on a location after we adequate address the existing problem?
Click to expand...

yeah, I mentioned that...are you not reading my posts?

Seaton House currently has 600+ shelter beds. There will be 100 after the redevelopment. So a net reduction in 500 beds.
Click to expand...

Ah, you googled it, and only picked out the information that supports your opinion...please try to be honest in your posts. You're not quite right.

Are you a drug addict or on OW? Again, you choose to selectively quote and read what I wrote.
Click to expand...

And now you attack....nice. I'll ask the same of you, are you currently high, because you don't seem to be reading my posts, or perhaps you have a learning disability?

Seeing as you have the resources to buy a home and renovate, I'd say this isn't an issue for you.
Click to expand...

LOL, at least I have the balls to live in the area, and consequently, lead to its improvement. What are you doing? Other than insulting people on the internet?

I'm asking you to be sympathetic to those who were there before you for reasons you yourself have just written are unfair.
Click to expand...

I am sympathetic to those who were here before me, the Air Canada pilot and his wife, a neurosurgeon at St. Mikes.

we're going to force them out again.
Click to expand...

"we" aren't forcing anything. If I hadn't bought the house, you'd prefer it be left as a crack house?

Hell, I won't even appeal to people's sense of decency and compassion for those less fortunate than them.
Click to expand...

no, you just want to trash everyone else from your very high horse.


you don't seem to offer any solutions, other than leave things as they are....the lot that this building is going to be built on is currently a gravel pit...you'd prefer it be left this way.
 
Alright, this is ridiculous and a greater waste of time than normal on this site. All I'll say is I didn't call you a drug addict. I asked if you were rhetorically. The point I was trying to make is you are NOT a drug addict and therefore not the sort of vulnerable person who would struggle in the aftermath of a forced move from the neighbourhood. To be clear, I am not a user, nor have I ever been a user. That said, if I were, it shouldn't devalue my opinion - especially when it is backed up by logic and evidence.

Feel free to re-read what I've written and actually consider what I wrote. Good luck with your home.
 
Good chance this will also be attacked, but…

A few of you have totally mis-read @wolfewood's posts, mis-understanding the tone of them, and taking them very personally. I've just read through the whole section at once and see that he's given a very reasonable explanation of the problem and has covered the complexities of the issue. I don't see an intention to attack others and make them feel bad for any reason. This is not about superiority, nor about vilifying anyone reinvesting in this area; it's about the system not doing enough for the very vulnerable here, and that the solutions are beyond complex.

I think it is worth re-reading his posts, but without your confirmation bias operating—in other words don't look for attitude in it: the tone you're reading into it isn't really there.

42
 
Holy smokes, haven't tallied all these up but that's lot of "oppose at OMB" coming out of this round of planning recommendations.
 
TheKingEast said:
It there's one area/stetch that needs to be cleaned up it's this one all the way down to moss Park and over to the East. I take the bus through there on Sherbourne. It's depressing at times. Those rundown houses on Sherbourne south of Gerrard are disappointing. So much character.
Click to expand...
The entire stretch of Sherbourne rooming houses that you mention used to be the equivalent of Forest Hill in the 1890s. Those rooming houses were mansions of the rich back in that time and they were all single family homes of well to do gentlemen and families mostly working in the distillery district or lawyers and doctors. I think the condos will end up as slum housing in 25 years not 120.
 
bilked said:
Holy smokes, haven't tallied all these up but that's lot of "oppose at OMB" coming out of this round of planning recommendations.
Click to expand...
Is their goal to delay, delay, delay, until OMB changes come into place, maybe?
 
Well all of these will be grandfathered in under old OMB regime in the transitional provisions, so that wouldn't work..
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top