Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City
That's a very judgmental and negative view of tenants in social housing. The same mix of tenancies exists in Woodwards, the Olympic Village, on Davie Street in the West End, and in Strathcona Village for example. Those could also theoretically become a slum - but they haven't.
|
And what are the
actual mix of incomes in those social housing locations, as opposed to the theoretically allowable spectrum? Do you actually know? There is a material difference between an income of $15,000 and an income of $68,000, and a material difference between a housing project that consists of people collecting welfare levels of income and mostly living a life of passivity and dependence, and one that consists of people who, through work and productivity, are earning incomes of $68,000.
As I pointed out, the outcome depends on which end of the allowable income spectrum the city actually chooses to target. If the city heavily tilts toward the lowest end of $15,000, as is their right under the agreement, then it takes a true believer and intransigent city apologist (or just true naïveté) to cling to the belief that there won’t be any problems in the building and surrounding area.