babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Residents of Toronto public housing four times more likely to be murder victims
June 4, 2011 - 10:46am
Often dispiriting, life in Toronto public housing can also be perilous: A tenant is at least four times as likely to be murdered as someone living elsewhere in the GTA, statistics suggest.
Proof positive that the social housing model does not work. These places need to be replaced by housing co-operatives that are run democratically. This kind of social housing disempowers community because the decisions are all taken by people who don't live in the housing. In BC we have both this type of public housing that is run by BC Housing and also sec. 96 co-ops. The public housing here looks more like the TO mess than any of the self governing co-ops.
My housing strategy would be to create some sort of public agency, be it a fund, Crown Corporation or whatever, to enable tenants in public housing and rental properties to buy their buildings and do exactly that. Takes both the government bureaucracy and real estate speculators out of the housing business.
I agree but it will be far harder to build the cooperative values that my co-op runs on in the middle of a gang war. Hard to tell people they have to participate in the governance when they didn't sign on for that role when they moved in. Making a housing co-op run well requires participation by every unit both to make it affordable and to build community. I am not sure how that would work in the Jane Finch corridor.
There would have to be money available for training people in how to run a co-op and a fund available for community projects. I have no idea what those would but I'll bet the residents know exactly what is needed to fight back. As long as the residents can make positive change in the worst public housing then they have a chance to get buy in by the majority of the people who live there. Hard work but still possible.
The residents of Atkinson Housing Coop have experience in those areas. The coop was the former Alexandra Park public housing complex, whose tenants pioneered the conversion process. Curiously, Rae's government blocked the tenants even though Rosario Marchase, Olivia Chow and Tony Ianno supported the coop conversion. When the government changed the group was able to get the go ahead from the new housing minister.
http://www.atkinsonhousingcoop.com/
Co-operatives ARE social housing.
I'm very wary of stories like the original one. I doubt people with the same economic, social and often racial strikes against them live quieter, more peaceful lives in substandard private housing - usually dreadful slums. I have been a member of a tenants' association for many years, and the worst examples of crackhouse-infested, dangerous buildings were private, not public housing (or any kind of social housing) with landlords who were at least negligent and at worst in cahoots with criminal gangs.
These stories are often pretexts for privatising public housing in areas which have become desirable to real-estate speculators.
However, there is a lot to do to ensure empowerment and a safe environment for tenants who only want peace and quiet, and often a safe and pleasant place to bring up their kids.
I agree and they stand in contrast to public housing which is not.
Exactly, juicing the supply of entry-level housing, instead of letting development cartels artificially inflate the price of land and housing stock, will increase affordability for everyone.
Red Tory Tea Girl, not everyone will ever be able to own their own dwelling, and 'juicing' could result in a sub-prime mortgage crisis as in the US.
That is the difference between coops and private housing. I own my home but I can't sell it or borrow money on it. I can take part in the governance of the complex I own. I never have to move unless my neighbours collectively kick me out. If I leave for any reason I get back my Share money minus the cost of a new paint job and any repairs. The next person who joins my community as an owner has to pay the share price. By the way it is less than most landlords want for damage deposits or whatever they are called.
I know lots of people in the coop movement who would love to step up to teach new groups how to set up working coop models. No speculation, no reward for living here except the reward of living in community and that to me is priceless.
Give us the juice. Make available capital money to move forward to build now.
Yes, I also belong to a housing co-op; we collectively own the buildings but each member is a tenant of the co-op.
I agree that co-ops are the best solution for people whose only major problem is lack of money for a mortgage; they also build community and improve properties. However it is not true that all people in social housing have the capacity to take part in co-op operations. All the tenants at the buildings that became the co-op were allowed to stay; in most cases this is fine but there are a couple of people struggling with mental health issues who really aren't capable of working with other people.
Social housing requires a variety of models depending on the clientele. I can think of two schemes in my neighbourhood, for people with mental health problems (there is some supervision, help with their budgets etc.) and another for young single mums. In more central neighbourhoods there are also rooming-house projects where former itinerants have a small studio, also with some help/supervision, voluntary self-help groups such as NA, AA, groups for psychiatric survivors etc.
Some senior people in social housing, although they are perfectly capable of living autonomously, no longer have the energy to take part in a lot of meetings and collective tasks and are happier in an HLM for seniors.
And as predicted, not long after the Globe story, Rob Ford wants to sell off Toronto public housing to make up a deficit - no surprise, on the backs of poor people, some of whom have a variety of problems. This is very cruel, no surprise from that bully.
I'm not blaming anyone. I am simply stating that a co-op is NOT the best housing solution for each and every low-income person. Mental health issues are only an example.This has nothing to do with victim-blaming but finding appropriate solutions.
As for our co-op, I assure you that such a special effort has been made and continues to be made. The people involved have not been expelled or shunned.
Our coop has a number of people who clearly demonstrate mental health issues. That is of course the norm for any town house complex in the city. I think that housing and services are distinct needs that can be coordinated but are separate. As a long time believer and advocate for inclusion I am very wary of any trend to developing ghettos for people with disabilities.
I've served on the board of my coop and have been involved in achieving accommodation for many members for various reasons. Our participation is by unit so in many units while one member of the family may be incapable other family members have useful skills to offer.
The conversion of ghettos into coop housing is a tricky business that as I noted up thread will be difficult. I am trying to remain positive since I know there are examples of success stories out there.
The last post underestimates the scope of the problem. Everyone has a right to be safe in their housing; including safe from other tenants or neighbors. This means that neighbors who party to 3 or 4 AM; who host parties of either the drug trade and /or prostitution or who have guests who get very drunk or high, urinated in the public spaces and frighten other tenants make other tenants feel unsafe. Richer people live in buildings that have door-men or other forms of on-site security. “Appropriate solutions” are workable when will the individuals involved have reasonable control of their behavior including their impulse control. However some individuals do not have the ability to consistently control their behavior with other people. Coming home blitz drunk and vomiting in the public space is a good example. If it occurs rarely most of us will put up with neighborly blitz behavior but if it occurs once or twice a week it can be very disturbing.
This example is not a blame the victim question. everyone; including people with addictions, have a right to live in safety. However living in society also means not freaking out your neighbors. Some of us need help to mediate the ordinary conflicts of everyday living. The denser the housing complex the more complicated every day balancing becomes. Ultimately part of the problem lies with the attitude that forgets that everyone has the right to be safe where they live and that it is unethical to ask public housing tenants to tolerate the kind of threatening to violent behavior that private market tenants to not tolerate. while everyone has a right to housing no one person has a right consistently behave in ways that frighten or put others at risk.
One of the serious questions on society needs to acknowledge is the public spaces of the housing neighborhood are shared spaces and sharing space requires some degree of modification of our individual desires. finding those limits is often difficult. Even in cases as simple as off leash dog walking there are legitimate conflicts over space use. These questions become more intense in multiunit buildings.
I do not believe that one-size-fits-all. however we find the limits we can live with if we don't actually recognize and articulate the scope of the problems.
That is why the coop movements commitment to democracy is so important. We have rules. Every single one of which was circulated and discussed and passed by the general membership. If you breach certain of the rules you will be thrown off the island. However even if you have broken major rules you still get an appeal to the membership itself from any executive decision to terminate a membership.
I have seen two such cases in my decade living here. Both times the membership voted to give the members one more chance. In one case the person is still living here and a valued member of the community in the other their good behaviour was short lived and they moved out when the termination process was started a second time.
I know many Canadians have this idea that democracy is voting every four years to elect overseers however a well run coop is a true democracy. The elected Board studies issues that arise and then it brings a number of possible solutions to a meeting to discuss. Then the Board in our coop in its next meeting drafts a policy that reflects what the general consensus of the meeting seemed to be. Then a Resolution is brought back to the meeting for debate and voting.
My coop's members have adopted this as part of its core values, "is a community that embraces the diversity of our membership. We are supportive and respectful of our neighbours, and keep an eye out for each other. We socialize, interact, and take responsibility for our community."
How is this different from the situation Lagatta was describing? If, for whatever reason, you can't play by the rules, you are probably not a suitable candidate for the co-op model of democratic group self-governance.
Sorry I gave you the impression I disagreed with Lagatta. I agree totally that not all people are suitable for living in a coop. It actually takes commitment or the coop becomes a tenancy relationship despite what it seems to be on paper.
However a diverse community is also what makes for a strong coop. I think that people with mental health issues are all around us, sometimes even when I look in the mirror. Antisocial people do not belong in coops not because they may or may not have mental health issues but because they are antisocial. The two things often coexist but it is the behaviour that a community needs to respond to. A community telling someone where the lines are sometimes helps to modify behaviour. Again that applies to both people who are temporarily healthy and those with current mental health issues.
The problem is not “antisocial people”. The problem is lack of supports. The last post is a good example of the sophisticated “blame the victim” thinking that labels people antisocial because they are unable to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. People who live with serious long-term disabilities that result in different forms of cognitive and behavioral impairments are expected to pull themselves together and do it on their own. We punish people for not being able to be "ordinary" when they live with uncomfortable disabilities; including concurrent disorders of mental health and addictions. The point is that self governance and situational accommodation or “ behavior agreements " do not address the need for long-term social work, mental health, harm reduction and community supports. it is profoundly disrespectful to brand people antisocial because our community of the ordinary expects them to maintain stable relationships without long-term support.
We should not gloss over how hard it is to live with these disabilities. At the same time supporting people with “uncomfortable disabilities” cannot be reduced to being nice to them in the lobby of the building. If inclusive communities is something we believe is important then we need to grapple with how we include uncomfortable people.
I agree with your view that the problem is lack of supports.
As for your second sentence I am barred by policy from responding as I would like to. I will however say FOOD. It is your choice.
Imagine if I and my neighbours without training and no knowledge were to try to solve complex and ongoing problems of our neighbours. How fucking stupid would that be. No body gave our coop boards magic wands and admitting that some people are not suitable to live in them is realistic. Long-term social work, mental health, harm reduction and community supports are all necesary. I nor few of my fellow coop neighbours are trained to provide any of those serivce. The ones that are do it for a living and I am not sure how they would like to be responsible in their off time for providing those same services.
Anyways did I say FOOD.
dp
Please do not miss read the post. The point is not to ask neighbours to be support workers but to ask all of us to acknowledge how hard the questions are and how different forms of housing providers can help people link up with supports.
You can't ghettoize a group of people, suck any vestige of hope from their lives by controlling every aspect of their lives (this is essentially what the social welfare system does - sure we'll give you a pittance to live on and a roof, however leaky, over your head, but never EVER forget that we control your life). Introducing a new set of rules - like creating a co-op - isn't the solution. Neither is sending in more overworked burnt-out social workers or police who'd rather be keeping panhandlers out of Rosedale than work with low-income people in a community setting. Besides, you can't get cooperation from people you can't protect.
The social welfare system, as it currently exists, promotes multi-generational poverty that only a few of the most robust can escape. What people need is control over their lives. They want to make independent decisions without fear of having their income yanked, losing their housing, or having their children taken into custody.
A community liaison officer - ideally someone who lives in the community who has received some training in advocacy and community work - can act as a buffer between the system and the people it claims to serve. This person or persons would advocate, upon request, on behalf of tenants in conflict with the law or with the social welfare system. They would also be a source of information on programs and services that are available. They could organize ESL classes or conversation circles for new Canadians, parenting workshops, health and nutrition classes, or simply help people navigate their way through the roadblocks of bureaucracy that can daunt even the most savvy. For a young single parent wishing to return to school, get a GED or attend a college or university, the search for assistance and resources to meet their goals can introduce additional life stresses, and someone who can help them through the process would increase the success for those who have educational goals.
Most importantly, a community liaison officer could teach people to be self-advocating to the best of their abilities, people who will, in turn, help their neighbours in the same way. Not everyone is a leader, not everyone has the health or ability to take on such work, but they should have these resources available to them should they so choose to take advantage. Restoration of dignity, self-determination and independence, for those who need it, goes a long way towards changing lives and improving community standards of living.
A community liaison worker sounds like a great idea.