posting
11-05-2009, 04:52 PM
Jason here. Let us take a look at the so-called 'Battle for Barriefield', piece by piece (see City of Kingston report attached below).
First - the issue of integration. The only way to truly integrate rent geared to income housing is by a rent supplement program and Kingston certainly has some of them. However, this isn't going to happen now, as that is not how the funding is being delivered to municipalities. What do we mean by integration? Perhaps we want rent geared to income housing not to look like rent geared to income housing. Is physical integration a legitimate target? An early morning tour of most of such housing makes me believe that this is a legitimate request. Our rent geared to income housing looks terrible. Totally lacking in imagination. It stands out as subsidized housing. If physical integration is a worthwhile target we aren't doing well. If social integration is the goal then the city has failed miserably. I doubt if social integration is a worthwhile goal. First of all, I doubt it can be achieved with funding for larger projects only available.
Second, the eyes of architects/builders/developers have not been on the tenants and their experience of living in the subsidized housing. Third, People who don't sort their recyclables are going to be forever scorned by their neighbours who do. Here you have it. It boils down to garbage!
Buffer. Well I think the residents are genuinely concerned about the disappearance of their buffer. However, I agree with Councillor Foster that the answer is to buy it. BUT I think the Barriefield residents should buy it. It has been well known that these pieces of land were going to be declared surplus. This, Councillor, is why we have wards and you may have been working on this problem for ages but it doesn't show. Sometimes residents can win these arguments, (see Sir John A Macdonald blvd - it DOESN'T run through the residential area.) but mostly they don't. This Council will come down on the side of subsidised housing while trying to blend the new housing with the heritage village. I will watch with interest the changes in design. Should the long, long term be to encourage sale to the residents of the housing?
How one reacts to this challenge is a function of how one sees the world. Barriefield residents should watch out for those who want to hurt them because they are seen as elitists. Marx has a lot to answer for highlighting 'class struggle'. Many people (Councillor Garrison?) look at the world through that prism.
Personally, I think that as many as possible should be able to enjoy the lilacs.
First - the issue of integration. The only way to truly integrate rent geared to income housing is by a rent supplement program and Kingston certainly has some of them. However, this isn't going to happen now, as that is not how the funding is being delivered to municipalities. What do we mean by integration? Perhaps we want rent geared to income housing not to look like rent geared to income housing. Is physical integration a legitimate target? An early morning tour of most of such housing makes me believe that this is a legitimate request. Our rent geared to income housing looks terrible. Totally lacking in imagination. It stands out as subsidized housing. If physical integration is a worthwhile target we aren't doing well. If social integration is the goal then the city has failed miserably. I doubt if social integration is a worthwhile goal. First of all, I doubt it can be achieved with funding for larger projects only available.
Second, the eyes of architects/builders/developers have not been on the tenants and their experience of living in the subsidized housing. Third, People who don't sort their recyclables are going to be forever scorned by their neighbours who do. Here you have it. It boils down to garbage!
Buffer. Well I think the residents are genuinely concerned about the disappearance of their buffer. However, I agree with Councillor Foster that the answer is to buy it. BUT I think the Barriefield residents should buy it. It has been well known that these pieces of land were going to be declared surplus. This, Councillor, is why we have wards and you may have been working on this problem for ages but it doesn't show. Sometimes residents can win these arguments, (see Sir John A Macdonald blvd - it DOESN'T run through the residential area.) but mostly they don't. This Council will come down on the side of subsidised housing while trying to blend the new housing with the heritage village. I will watch with interest the changes in design. Should the long, long term be to encourage sale to the residents of the housing?
How one reacts to this challenge is a function of how one sees the world. Barriefield residents should watch out for those who want to hurt them because they are seen as elitists. Marx has a lot to answer for highlighting 'class struggle'. Many people (Councillor Garrison?) look at the world through that prism.
Personally, I think that as many as possible should be able to enjoy the lilacs.