Housing shortfall, costs and affordability

[danbrotherston]

But I really think that we should demand better from people in power to make these decisions (judges, council, etc.). But AFAIK nobody in those positions have asked staff to perform a risk assessment of evictions. And it isn't even the first time staff have had nothing to say in that regard, when they bulldozed the encampment on Charles St. they were asked where those people went and they answered with a literal shrug.

However, the regional council clearly directed the staff to change this approach, and this kind of eviction has not happened again, not at Weber/Victoria, not at Roos Island, and to my knowledge anywhere else at the region. They are clearly taking a more measured approach to this, and trying to ensure that the people have a place to go to after the encampment is closed.

Whether they are successful at this still remains to be seen.

I mean...yes and no. I'm am quite certain that council was very angry about the bulldozing. Some...were angry about the inhumanity of it...others I suspect were more angry about being politically embarrassed.

The approach has changed, in that staff are not unilaterally bulldozing encampments. The approach has not changed in that at least some on council would still prefer to evict the encampment. But they are trying to find a way to do it without it being overtly evil.

They are going through the courts, talking about risk, etc. trying to make it less inhumane in appearance and them less responsible.

FWIW...I have no doubt that everyone on council would prefer to eliminate the encampment without evictions, but none on council are actually implementing policies which would allow that, or at least...are not doing so in an expedient manner.

[tomh009]

However, the regional council clearly directed the staff to change this approach, and this kind of eviction has not happened again, not at Weber/Victoria, not at Roos Island, and to my knowledge anywhere else at the region. They are clearly taking a more measured approach to this, and trying to ensure that the people have a place to go to after the encampment is closed.

Whether they are successful at this still remains to be seen.

I mean...yes and no. I'm am quite certain that council was very angry about the bulldozing. Some...were angry about the inhumanity of it...others I suspect were more angry about being politically embarrassed.

The approach has changed, in that staff are not unilaterally bulldozing encampments. The approach has not changed in that at least some on council would still prefer to evict the encampment. But they are trying to find a way to do it without it being overtly evil.

They are going through the courts, talking about risk, etc. trying to make it less inhumane in appearance and them less responsible.

FWIW...I have no doubt that everyone on council would prefer to eliminate the encampment without evictions, but none on council are actually implementing policies which would allow that, or at least...are not doing so in an expedient manner.

Somewhat cynical there, Dan. The region is working on having (if I recall correctly) four different housing options available by the end of this month; one of them appears to be the former Schwaben Club, I don't know what the others are. That would give many/most of the encampment residents a place to go; others may not accept any of the options and might end up being evicted. But the key is to have multiple and sufficient options, as not everyone in the encampment has the same needs.

Apart from those four housing options the region is working on, what policies would you expect to see, in order to eliminate the encampment?

[danbrotherston]

I mean...yes and no. I'm am quite certain that council was very angry about the bulldozing. Some...were angry about the inhumanity of it...others I suspect were more angry about being politically embarrassed.

The approach has changed, in that staff are not unilaterally bulldozing encampments. The approach has not changed in that at least some on council would still prefer to evict the encampment. But they are trying to find a way to do it without it being overtly evil.

They are going through the courts, talking about risk, etc. trying to make it less inhumane in appearance and them less responsible.

FWIW...I have no doubt that everyone on council would prefer to eliminate the encampment without evictions, but none on council are actually implementing policies which would allow that, or at least...are not doing so in an expedient manner.

Somewhat cynical there, Dan. The region is working on having (if I recall correctly) four different housing options available by the end of this month; one of them appears to be the former Schwaben Club, I don't know what the others are. That would give many/most of the encampment residents a place to go; others may not accept any of the options and might end up being evicted. But the key is to have multiple and sufficient options, as not everyone in the encampment has the same needs.

Apart from those four housing options the region is working on, what policies would you expect to see, in order to eliminate the encampment?

You make a fair point, and probably I was unfair to say that none on council are implementing policies to solve the problem.

But I think both positions have elements of truth. Council is not just one person, there are different people with different motivations.

IMO if anyone is evicted then the options were not sufficient, by definition.

As for solutions, you're right, I don't all the answers. I do think they are working on some short term ideas (ABTC is an example, Schwaben club, sanctioned tent city) but what I really don't see is rapid action on long term plans (and this is also, partly provincial and city roles)--things like immediate rezoning of all SFH areas to permit up to townhomes and 3 story walkups, and I dunno, 1-2 orders of magnitude more funding for social housing, social supports, etc.

And, I don't think this is a "you are failing to act today"...this is a pattern of failure to act. The last budget there was a huge push to cut the police budget...that could have funded a ton of these initiatives. But instead, the police budget is fatter than ever--and good thing too, it's gonna be a lot of overtime hours when they do end up evicting these people.

Since I've arrived in the Netherlands I've seen zero people living in tents or doorways, and exactly two panhandlers. I dunno, AFAIK they aren't euthanizing poor people, so they must be somewhere. I just know that this problem is not one of resources, but of motivation.

But yeah, cynical is absolutely an entirely accurate description of my opinions and feelings on this issue.

[ijmorlan]

IMO if anyone is evicted then the options were not sufficient, by definition.

That’s obviously going too far. If somebody won’t leave unless they’re given something that it is completely unreasonable to expect society to give, then an eviction would not prove that the options were not sufficient.

As for solutions, you're right, I don't all the answers. I do think they are working on some short term ideas (ABTC is an example, Schwaben club, sanctioned tent city) but what I really don't see is rapid action on long term plans (and this is also, partly provincial and city roles)--things like immediate rezoning of all SFH areas to permit up to townhomes and 3 story walkups, and I dunno, 1-2 orders of magnitude more funding for social housing, social supports, etc.

Who is paying for that? I’m certainly not volunteering.

And, I don't think this is a "you are failing to act today"...this is a pattern of failure to act. The last budget there was a huge push to cut the police budget...that could have funded a ton of these initiatives. But instead, the police budget is fatter than ever--and good thing too, it's gonna be a lot of overtime hours when they do end up evicting these people.

Since I've arrived in the Netherlands I've seen zero people living in tents or doorways, and exactly two panhandlers. I dunno, AFAIK they aren't euthanizing poor people, so they must be somewhere. I just know that this problem is not one of resources, but of motivation.

But yeah, cynical is absolutely an entirely accurate description of my opinions and feelings on this issue.

And yet, I am inclined to agree with you that we can do better, probably more like Europe.

[Acitta]

Somewhat cynical there, Dan. The region is working on having (if I recall correctly) four different housing options available by the end of this month; one of them appears to be the former Schwaben Club, I don't know what the others are. That would give many/most of the encampment residents a place to go; others may not accept any of the options and might end up being evicted. But the key is to have multiple and sufficient options, as not everyone in the encampment has the same needs.

Apart from those four housing options the region is working on, what policies would you expect to see, in order to eliminate the encampment?

You make a fair point, and probably I was unfair to say that none on council are implementing policies to solve the problem.

But I think both positions have elements of truth. Council is not just one person, there are different people with different motivations.

IMO if anyone is evicted then the options were not sufficient, by definition.

As for solutions, you're right, I don't all the answers. I do think they are working on some short term ideas (ABTC is an example, Schwaben club, sanctioned tent city) but what I really don't see is rapid action on long term plans (and this is also, partly provincial and city roles)--things like immediate rezoning of all SFH areas to permit up to townhomes and 3 story walkups, and I dunno, 1-2 orders of magnitude more funding for social housing, social supports, etc.

And, I don't think this is a "you are failing to act today"...this is a pattern of failure to act. The last budget there was a huge push to cut the police budget...that could have funded a ton of these initiatives. But instead, the police budget is fatter than ever--and good thing too, it's gonna be a lot of overtime hours when they do end up evicting these people.

Since I've arrived in the Netherlands I've seen zero people living in tents or doorways, and exactly two panhandlers. I dunno, AFAIK they aren't euthanizing poor people, so they must be somewhere. I just know that this problem is not one of resources, but of motivation.

But yeah, cynical is absolutely an entirely accurate description of my opinions and feelings on this issue.

Probably the Netherlands has a more generous welfare benefits so that people don't become homeless in the first place. I the provincial government would raise ODSP and Ontario Works payments to something realistically related to what it costs to live in this province, then a good proportion of those people would not be unhoused.

[danbrotherston]

IMO if anyone is evicted then the options were not sufficient, by definition.

That’s obviously going too far. If somebody won’t leave unless they’re given something that it is completely unreasonable to expect society to give, then an eviction would not prove that the options were not sufficient.

Think about what you are saying though? These people aren't protesting, they aren't extremists. They are sleeping in a tent on the side of Victory St. with winter approaching.

If they would rather do that then live in a shelter, then the problem is the shelter. Their existence is punishing. Humans are not rational, but they do generally seek to minimise their immediate term suffering.

Are there exceptions for individuals with severe mental disease? Maybe. I'd argue then that the supports for those people are also insufficient.

As for solutions, you're right, I don't all the answers. I do think they are working on some short term ideas (ABTC is an example, Schwaben club, sanctioned tent city) but what I really don't see is rapid action on long term plans (and this is also, partly provincial and city roles)--things like immediate rezoning of all SFH areas to permit up to townhomes and 3 story walkups, and I dunno, 1-2 orders of magnitude more funding for social housing, social supports, etc.

Who is paying for that? I’m certainly not volunteering.

First of all, we should pay for it...IMO. That being said, it isn't an issue of funding, it's an issue of allocation:

The last budget there was a huge push to cut the police budget...that could have funded a ton of these initiatives. But instead, the police budget is fatter than ever

And, I don't think this is a "you are failing to act today"...this is a pattern of failure to act. The last budget there was a huge push to cut the police budget...that could have funded a ton of these initiatives. But instead, the police budget is fatter than ever--and good thing too, it's gonna be a lot of overtime hours when they do end up evicting these people.

Since I've arrived in the Netherlands I've seen zero people living in tents or doorways, and exactly two panhandlers. I dunno, AFAIK they aren't euthanizing poor people, so they must be somewhere. I just know that this problem is not one of resources, but of motivation.

But yeah, cynical is absolutely an entirely accurate description of my opinions and feelings on this issue.

And yet, I am inclined to agree with you that we can do better, probably more like Europe.

[Joedelay Highhoe]

I would think Deer Ridge NIMBY's are the ultimate boss-fight for developers in our region. Don't cha know, some guy worked for 30 years to earn his urban cottage-like mansion. Therefore no windows or balconies shall encroach his airspace. Meanwhile, the majority of us couldn't save a large enough downpayment for such luxury in 30 years of working. I'm sure he just worked harder though.

[Rainrider22]

now now. don't judge without knowing facts. I have good friends, two families in fact, who live there in what you describe. But I can advise you they all( both husbands and wives) worked their asses off to achieve what they have. They made a lot of personal sacrifices, not eating out or buying impulse frivolous extras, driving old cars etc, not going on vacations. They also bought small homes and traded up a few times. So, they have been rewarded with some very nice large homes. I on the other hand, took a different route and lived it up a bit. So I live in a much smaller home. Life is about choices. But I never begrudge someone having more than I have. Now, they could very well become NIMBYs just as much as anyone else...not that they are at this point. I have asked them about the developments and they are all fine with it.

[plam]

now now.  don't judge without knowing facts.  I have good friends, two families in fact, who live there in what you describe. But I can advise you they all( both husbands and wives) worked their asses off to achieve what they have.  They made a lot of personal sacrifices, not eating out or buying impulse frivolous extras, driving old cars etc, not going on vacations.  They also bought small homes and traded up a few times. So, they have been rewarded with some very nice large homes.  I on the other hand, took a different route and lived it up a bit.  So I live in a much smaller home.  Life is about choices. But I never begrudge someone having more than I have.  Now, they could very well become NIMBYs just as much as anyone else...not that they are at this point.  I have asked them about the developments and they are all fine with it.

I think it's just impossible for many younger people these days to buy houses. See for instance this journalist who gave up on the Wellington NZ housing market last year and moved back to Montreal with his partner. Like, the average earnings times house price multiple today is not the same multiple as in 1990 or even 2000.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/...ng-crisis/

[Rainrider22]

Ok, now that is a discussion I won't disagree with you. The buying power of yoir dollar is way down. And that's not good. Something will give eventually though because all those houses on the market will be for sale at some point.

[KaiserWilhelmsBust]

now now.  don't judge without knowing facts.  I have good friends, two families in fact, who live there in what you describe. But I can advise you they all( both husbands and wives) worked their asses off to achieve what they have.  They made a lot of personal sacrifices, not eating out or buying impulse frivolous extras, driving old cars etc, not going on vacations.  They also bought small homes and traded up a few times. So, they have been rewarded with some very nice large homes.  I on the other hand, took a different route and lived it up a bit.  So I live in a much smaller home.  Life is about choices. But I never begrudge someone having more than I have.  Now, they could very well become NIMBYs just as much as anyone else...not that they are at this point.  I have asked them about the developments and they are all fine with it.

You lost me on the trading up part. Myself, and friends in similar situations that graduated post 2019 are pretty much out. I have over 4x'd income and live modestly, and the housing market has outpaced the ability to save. These people benefitted from an exclusionary system. Homeowners have been given a lottery ticket in exchange for providing negative value.

[Rainrider22]

No, they benefitted from a time in life when housing was affordable. Tell me how the guy who worked in a factory (And I dont mean Budds or Schnieders) back in the day benefitted from an exclusionary system yet managed to buy modest homes? It was because you weren't taxed to death and your buying power of the dollar was better. Stop with the social injustice bs.

[KaiserWilhelmsBust]

No, they benefitted from a time in life when housing was affordable.  Tell me how the guy who worked in a factory (And I dont mean Budds or Schnieders) back in the day benefitted from an exclusionary system yet managed to buy modest homes?  It was because you weren't taxed to death and your buying power of the dollar  was better.  Stop with the social injustice bs.

you're insane. Look at that persons income compared to home prices back in the day, and look at it today.

[KaiserWilhelmsBust]

No, they benefitted from a time in life when housing was affordable.  Tell me how the guy who worked in a factory (And I dont mean Budds or Schnieders) back in the day benefitted from an exclusionary system yet managed to buy modest homes?  It was because you weren't taxed to death and your buying power of the dollar  was better.  Stop with the social injustice bs.

You have to be so obtuse to not realize the main factors that caused these issues

[bravado]

No, they benefitted from a time in life when housing was affordable.  Tell me how the guy who worked in a factory (And I dont mean Budds or Schnieders) back in the day benefitted from an exclusionary system yet managed to buy modest homes?  It was because you weren't taxed to death and your buying power of the dollar  was better.  Stop with the social injustice bs.

A major reason why new suburban housing was affordable was because it was subsidized by the future. We are all paying for it now with wild infrastructure costs eating up the budget. Imagine getting the rug pulled out on you multiple times from multiple angles at this point.

I look forward to the super loud moaning coming from that neighbourhood when their backyards finally start getting expropriated for ION phase 2.