Sunday, June 15, 2008

Creating Urban Reserves!

It struck me while reading this article, that we don't just have Indian Reserves that are money sucking pits, but we also have urban reserves, in the name of "public housing", that have the same problem. What is the one thing that they both have in common? Lack of personal ownership. When the federal, or in the case of public housing, the city, owns the properties, you get inefficient management, leading to massive cash infusions needed to keep properties, that no one cares about, especially the tenants, in living condition.

Public housing on the edge
City agency, faced with latest shootings, laments lack of funding to improve rundown unit

Trouble is a habitual visitor in Toronto's public housing communities and, despite efforts by residents and housing officials, these neighbourhoods are getting worse.

The city's aging, rundown and outdated supply of as -sisted housing for poor and struggling families have long been viewed as magnets for crime, drug dealing, violence, domestic assault and alcohol- and drug-fuelled violence.

So, gun killings are the fault of rundown public housing? I get it, fix the housing and the gun play will stop. Let's ban public housing, lefties should like that, they love banning things.

Don't get me wrong, I want to help people with low incomes, recent immigrants and especially disabled people who need special living quarters. So, I propose that the rent they pay goes towards ownership of those public housing units. That they become responsible for keeping their apartment in repair, with part of their rent going towards maintenance like any condo organization. Give them pride of ownership.

Urban reserves for the poor (Layton comes to mind) can become real communities that the people live in with pride. One word, OWNERSHIP.


Mac said...

Ownership, Hunter? We have no property rights in Canada. Ownership is a myth, spread by wild-eyed right-wing fanatics who cause problems for themselves by their futile resistance of the nanny state.

hunter said...

Yes Mac, that is something that needs to be fixed, not only on reserves, but in all parts of Canada.

Property rights are not included in our Constitution, but the right not to offend seems to be thriving in our HRC's.

Mac said...

If only those two things were reversed so property rights were entrenched and HRCs acted to protect the right to freedom of speech... but alas!!

Anonymous said...

Great comparison.

Didn't Thatcher do that in Britain so that residents of low-income housing could buy their units?

hunter said...

Anon 6:52, you are right!

In 1980, the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher introduced the Right to Buy scheme, offering council tenants the opportunity to purchase their housing at a discount of up to 60% (70% on leasehold homes such as flats)

Wonder how it turned out?? Did it work, or not?

Mac said...

According to Wikipedia, the Right to Buy Program worked very well. Over the years, they've had to tighten up the rules so people don't abuse the program. I believe similar programs have been instituted in other countries as well.

hunter said...

Well why not here then Mac? We might actually see some flowers planted and clean yards. Works for me!

Mac said...

It would work well, maybe better here in Canada because our housing costs aren't nearly as extreme as London. It wouldn't stop the whining of the poverty pimps but it would improve living conditions dramatically in the projects.

Likewise on the real reserves. Part of the reason why there's so much poverty and such poor living conditions on the reserves is that the natives are unable to hold title for their land. Title is held (reserved) by the Crown. How condescending and patronizing is that?

In case you missed the poverty pimps reference, I'm talking about those activists who make a living protesting about social housing and such issues. They pretend to be supporting the poor and downtrodden but if you look closely at their demands, you'll see a manifesto peeking back at you.