Group opposes Tannery Court
I support citizens' right to organize and oppose developments. In the same way, I support my right to critique these efforts when I disagree.
I was given this leaflet last night by a group of my neighbours who oppose the Tannery Court development proposed for 185 Carmarthen Street.
I've posted on this development before, but here are my opinions of the complaints laid out on this "Dangerous" information sheet.
51 Unit 3 Storey building. This seems like a reasonable height to me.
Single People - Income Asst. ONLY. I believe that mixed income projects are ideal, though in the south end a diversity of people living in a dense neighbourhood helps accrue to tenants some of the benefits of a mixed income project .
NO HOUSING FOR FAMILIES. Not every development can meet every need. For instance, the condos on Water Street won't provide homes for low income singles, but the community seems comfortable with that.
Bad Planning - Less Parking, Less Green Space.
There will be less parking and one fewer" snow ban lot." This will have to be addressed. The photo to the right illustrated the site and the current level of green space.Creation of Unsafe Alley way. I don't understand this concern well enough to comment.
2 blocks away from School & Playground. So it is. This is true of the current parking lot as well.
"Warehousing" Poverty = Institution. Again, mixed income is ideal. Still a lot of single people living in poverty in the south end are already concentrated in older less suitable buildings. It offends me that the Facebook group promoted on the leaflet has comments suggestion prostitutes and drug dealers will use this as a "flop house."
NO CONSULTATION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD. Had the developers consulted early on this could have led to more understanding between the different sides. Still the community had the opportunity to discuss this project during the zoning variance approval process.
1 comment:
"Single People - Income Asst. ONLY."
The bit about "income assistance only" is blatantly untrue. According to the Planning Advisory Committee's minutes for 21-Oct-2008, "The targeted clientele for the complex will be non-elderly singles on a fixed or limited income currently on the Department of Social Development’s waiting list."
There are many people who are on fixed or limited incomes who are not on assistance! People trying to make it on CPP disability would be one example.
There is a shortage of *existing* housing units for specifically for this target clientele - many (most?) existing units are designated for families or for the elderly. I know at least one person on a limited income who was *only* able to move into decent housing when she turned 65 and finally qualified as "elderly."
There are *already* single, non-elderly tenants on "fixed or limited incomes" living in this neighbourhood area in housing units that I wouldnt ask a dog to live in. What's better? To leave them where they are? To condemn their current housing and put them out on the streets? Or to create decent housing that they can afford?
Post a Comment