Humans live next to other humans in different kinds of housing, some big and some small. Housing is a human right.

Why is how much money each person has an important consideration? Why does it matter who owns what land?
 
I know a couple people who were considering this elegant and striking building for their new home. Needless to see they’re now looking elsewhere.

Hmmm. Sounds like they aren’t Annex people. People here in the Annex accept all kinds in the neighbourhood.

Good luck to them in their housing search!
 
Humans live next to other humans in different kinds of housing, some big and some small. Housing is a human right.

Why is how much money each person has an important consideration? Why does it matter who owns what land?

You obviously live in a utopian world. It doesn’t matter how much money each person has. It’s irrelevsnt to this discussion completely. I live in the real world where govt need tax revenue to fund local services.

If you build homeless shelters in affluent areas you risk destroying a lucrative property tax base for the municipality to fund social services like the one in question. So property tax revenue, restaurants, stores etc will be negatively impacted. All this translates into less tax revenue and less employment in the local area. Jobs will be impacted.
 
Hmmm. Sounds like they aren’t Annex people. People here in the Annex accept all kinds in the neighbourhood.

Good luck to them in their housing search!

I suppose it depends what area of the Annex you’re referring to Dickie Greenleaf.

As an alternative I suggest we move this homeless shelter immediately adjacent to Dickie Greenleaf’a residence. He too has no issue with it.
 
As with all issues in an urban area there are general city-wide interests and site specific interests. A general call to action on the need for homeless shelters is not a valid argument to discredit the site specific concerns of individuals.

I live near a homeless shelter, my office is near a homeless shelter, I have no problem with this shelter even though I have property around the corner from it. But that’s the thing it’s easy for me to not have a problem with it because I don’t feel the development is sited in a way that impacts my interests directly.

The negative impacts of a shelter are overblown in my experience but to suggest they don’t cause site specific problems is ridiculous. It also depends on the shelter, the kinds of clients, the conduct of the shelter operator etc.

The high and mighty and virtuous getting together supporting shelters is well and good but next time I’m coming over with a sign-up sheet and a broom, mop, and my feces bucket.
 
To be clear, this point is entirely predicated on the notion that protecting rich people's investment vehicles is more important than providing shelter for people who may die on the next very cold day we have.

Needless to say, that's abhorrent.
I agree! I think homeless shelters and services should be spaced out all across the city, in upper and lower income districts, with every area sharing the responsibility of caring for the homeless, poor and needy. Protecting people, not investments, should be the top priority! (which I realize is clearly not the situation now)
 
As with all issues in an urban area there are general city-wide interests and site specific interests. A general call to action on the need for homeless shelters is not a valid argument to discredit the site specific concerns of individuals.

I live near a homeless shelter, my office is near a homeless shelter, I have no problem with this shelter even though I have property around the corner from it. But that’s the thing it’s easy for me to not have a problem with it because I don’t feel the development is sited in a way that impacts my interests directly.

The negative impacts of a shelter are overblown in my experience but to suggest they don’t cause site specific problems is ridiculous. It also depends on the shelter, the kinds of clients, the conduct of the shelter operator etc.

The high and mighty and virtuous getting together supporting shelters is well and good but next time I’m coming over with a sign-up sheet and a broom, mop, and my feces bucket.

Fair enough, but something close to zero of the opposition I've seen to this one in particular comes from a place of wanting to proactively deal with site-specific issues as and when they arise, and everything to do with not wanting it in a particular place at all (Tesla-talk and whatnot).
 
Man, I guess having dick neighbours who are as middle class as me is nowhere near as bad as having a homeless shelter next door. Hilarious reasoning there from the now-on-holiday member.

Also, goooood luck negatively affecting property values by putting a homeless shelter anywhere in this town. I guess LMVDR hasn't seen what people are paying for derelict houses these days.

Besides, homeless people can be some of the friendliest people I've come across in this somewhat cold city. Build a shelter next to 11 Superior in Mimico, I won't cry. What a farce.
 
Man, I guess having dick neighbours who are as middle class as me is nowhere near as bad as having a homeless shelter next door. Hilarious reasoning there from the now-on-holiday member.

Also, goooood luck negatively affecting property values by putting a homeless shelter anywhere in this town. I guess LMVDR hasn't seen what people are paying for derelict houses these days.

Besides, homeless people can be some of the friendliest people I've come across in this somewhat cold city. Build a shelter next to 11 Superior in Mimico, I won't cry. What a farce.

Paying top dollar for a "derelict house" that will be demolished, rebuilt then resold is much different than a condo developer being able to obtain "top dollar" for a condo unit that is now located next to a homeless shelter. I think those who comment in support of this location should also understand that when property values are affected this in turn translates to less land transfer tax for the city and province so logically you will net less land transfer tax.
The fact of the matter is that it will effect property values to a certain extend, how much is unknown and will take years to really know, It will also affect the neighborhood as a whole for the worse as businesses tend to generally stay away from being around a shelter. Personally my concern was that this shelter was put up in the wrong area, especially given the $8 million listed price for the property. There is plenty of sites in the Annex including on Dupont where they could have put the shelter for millions less. I've spent quite a bit of time (due to my own curiosity) trying to figure out the logic of putting a shelter here but am coming up with blank answers.
 
Last edited:
Paying top dollar for a "derelict house" that will be demolished and rebuilt and resold is much different than a condo developer being able to obtain "top dollar" for a condo unit that is now located next to a homeless shelter. I think those who comment in support of this location should also understand that when property values are affected this in turn translates to less land transfer tax for the city and province.
Whether people will come out in the open and say it or not, the fact of the matter is that it will effect property values to a certain extend. It will also affect the neighborhood as a whole. Personally my concern was that this shelter was put up in the wrong area, especially given the $8 million listed price for the property. There is plenty of sites in the Annex including on Dupont where they could have put the shelter for millions less. I've spent quite a bit of time (due to my own curiosity) trying to figure out the logic of putting a shelter here but am coming up with blank answers.

Well they've chosen this one - so I guess you and your neighbours will have to get over it.
 

Back
Top