Finally a truthful protest group
Usually when one reads about protest groups the aims of the group, i.e. to stop whatever is being proposed are couched in high falutin' scientific or environmental reasons as opposed to the unadulterated truth - "My property value is going to be affected". Now a group in Colborne, read about it here, has made that reason the main one in an attempt to stop an apartment building from being built in their neighbourhood. Good for them. Now all we need to do is to impress upon the powers to be that if taxpayers don't like certain ideas it is a legitimate beef to say they don't like it, and not be forced to hire experts to manufacture reasons that sound a lot better to other powers that be.
6 comments:
They may be truthful but it still sounds like NIMBY-ism to me. There are lots of people who need rental accommodation, even in Colborne.
Since I don't know the location of the proposal, or the number of units involved, it would be ill advised to declare support or opposition right now, but I remain suspicious of the objectors.
After all, renters are people too!
Now that I have followed the link and read the details, I can see it's a lousy proposal but my opinion has nothing to do with the neighbours' property values.
The objectors would do well to focus on the design failings instead. It isn't even legal to only have one door to a unit; there has to be two for fire safety reasons.
Another point: if an owner markets a building for seniors only, or no children allowed, that kind of thing, they are opening the door to a potential human rights complaint for age discrimination in housing. Not that it would go anywhere, but it would be a hassle for the developer to have to think up some other reason for their refusal to rent to somebody. They do it all the time and successfully thwart those pesky discrimination challenges.
Thank you, Deb, for commenting on this issue. I value what you have written.
In Port Hope, the town fathers (and mothers) have adopted the view that the best place to locate new multi-unit dwellings is in areas that are already crowded with apartments and already plagued with problems of inadequate parking and lack of sidewalks. Bizarre, but understandable, eh, since the expectation may be that the people in such neighborhoods are disconnected socially and ill-organized politically.
When I first learned that tenants didn't have the right to vote in municipal elections in Ontario until the early 50's, I realized the degree of stigmatization of renters as being lower class.
Never mind they pay more in property tax than home owners, because their landlords pay at a higher rate and pass the costs on to them in their rent.
The Cramahe Now story is a great bit of (local) journalism. Reading it gave me the feeling that I was in the room at the Cramahe Township offices listening to residents speak.
As Ben hinted, a compelling aspect of the discussion was its honesty--frightening though it is for me:
"Councillor Gilligan [stated] that it won’t remain a seniors building. 'They always turn into out-of-town or low-income places. We’re building a soup kitchen.'”
"Tracy Singleton seemed to agree, noting there were far too many families in the village right now which had parenting issues."
This situation is ripe with opportunities for the development of small-town social capital and neighbourliness.
Ben's post puts forward the idea that any complaint by taxpayers is, ipso facto legitimate.
Yes, BUT taxpayers need to get wise to the fact that better public services cannot be provided free nor can we expect that they will be paid for by someone else, by people we don't know.
The article Can we have an adult conversation about taxes? makes this point briefly, clearly, and succinctly. Here's an excerpt:
There are lots of problems with both the economics and the politics of the "anyone but me" proposition:
If you set the income cut-off high enough to be politically comfortable, there aren't enough people to pay for better public services;
If you raise taxes by a large enough amount on a small group of people, they'll try to find a way to avoid paying them;
At best, then, the [anyone but me] argument undermines the credibility of the case for greater investment in public services.
At worst, it reinforces the right-wing mantra that taxes are a burden to be avoided. That's particularly true when the left tries to have it both ways, opposing taxes on the grounds that they impose a burden on working families (or whatever the code phrase for "us" today).
Post a Comment