Response to Tannery Court editorial
Perhaps growing up in a home that landed me in church more than once a week has given me a special respect for people of the cloth, but I tend to agree with much of Rev. Don Uhryniw’s letter to the editor of the Telegraph Journal which responds to a recent editorial supporting the construction of Tannery Court.
The letter:
Tuesday's editorial ("There's room in city for Tannery Court") is at best specious and bordering on the simplistic. Contrary to the intent of the editorial, Tannery Court is a 'one size fits all' approach. It is nothing short of warehousing those in need. To suggest that something is better than nothing is a spin on benevolent paternalism: this is what is being offered and those who speak against it are at least ungrateful if not ignorant. This reasoning is approaching the insulting. Moreover, to canvas current tenants and ask if they like their residence is like asking someone who has stopped hitting themselves on the head with a hammer if they feel better.
Please, the community deserves, and requires, a more comprehensive solution to affordable housing. I should think time would be better spent on a long-term affordable housing policy than defending what is, to me, the indefensible.
Rev. DON UHRYNIW
Centenary-Queen Square United Church, Saint John
My only caveat in agreeing with this and similar criticisms is that there is immediate need for housing, and developers aren’t rushing to build better mixed income projects. I would love policy to be put in place that makes mixed income happen, but if we halt these less than ideal projects until that happens, what should people in worse housing do? How long can they wait for policy makers and developers to step up?
Restated, I would rather halt future large mono-culture buildings and get a policy in place that facilitates mixed-income housing.
How do we make it happen?
6 comments:
How do we make this happen???...you openly oppose the Tannery Court Project.
People opposing this are no longer just opposing 185 Caramarthen St - they never were focus on just one building - 185 Carmarthen has begun - we are now attempting to prevent more from being built - Stephens Davies of Coop Atlantic wants 5 Tannery Courts in SJ. For Coop Atlantic getting the first Tannery Court through is the most difficult - the next 2, 3, or 4 will come easily and quickly - Fredericton and Moncton each have 2 Tannery Courts. Unless we do things differently from now on the writing is on the wall.
Good for Don Uhryniw - a man of integrity - with or without the collar.
Of note as well is Rev. Wayne Dryer who has also been key in opposing this project - as an anti-poverty advocate, as a nieghbour in the South End (20 + years) and as a minister.
Tannery Court is a "Business Model," hidden under a sham of a Co-Operative.
The board consists of 2 house members and 3 employees... that's not for each Tannery Court residency... but for ALL of the sites!
Imagine Rogers Communication asking a group of it's employees to form a Co-Op, to take advantage of gov't monies and tax breaks?? And then funnel all the work back to them.
How about the Irvings???
This is really not the best way to handle housing?
This is not a preferred model, by far.
Without coming out against or in favour of the project, what goes un-discussed is that there are more than 2 options -- "warehousing" and mixed-income -- for housing the poor. Unfortunately, the argument only focuses on the "either/or" and black/white" argument when, for those of us who house the poor, we know that there are many shades of grey between black and white.
Take seniors, for example. Look at the myriad of housing options available to them: stay at home, live-in care giver, seniors housing, assisted living, and 3 levels of nursing home care. Many of these options would be considered "warehouses" by the standards of many in the Tannery Court argument.
Beyond that, poor seniors can easily be mixed into the above scenarios in ratios of as little as 1% to as high as 100% without issue. Don't believe me? Look at Market Square Tower and Stephenson Tower -- these are 100% poor seniors all in one building and we do not consider these to be "warehouses." Both of these towers, holding more than 100 residents each, are all very successful developments because they provide a needed standard of care & support and are located within mixed-income COMMUNITIES. Stephenson Tower might even be considered to be in a higher poverty area giving the proximity of Crescent Valley, yet it is still a success.
This should be the crux of the argument -- Tannery Court's LOCATION, not its function. Requiring that all housing for the poor be mixed-income is detrimental to those poor who are hard to house or need different levels of care and support. The last thing we need to do is further restrict housing options for those that need something OTHER THAN mixed-income.
The poor, much like seniors, need different levels of care and have varying requirements for their living arrangements. Tannery Court provides just that -- a certain level of care for people within a demographic that require higher levels of care and support. The success of the Tannery Court developments in Moncton and Fredericton proves the success of these living arrangements. The recent university studies support this idea. What they do not analyze or support is the LOCATION.
Lets focus our efforts on discusing the merits of the location of Tannery Court. "Mixed income" has become such a buzz word of late that many who fling it around do not fully understand its true meaning or its relevance to the situation.
...another forgotten development is also the 16 unit apartment building on Adelaide Street built just three years ago. The residents are 100% poor non-elderly singles -- the same as Tannery Court, minus the support systems -- and the location is in the Old North End, one of Saint John's other poorest neighbourhoods. Housing Alternatives was not dragged through the mud the same way that Avide is for Tannery Court (and Housing Alternatives conducted absolutely zero public consultation, might I add) and, in fact, the project was lauded by many as the kickstart of the revitalization of the Old North End!
Nursing Homes and Senior Complexes AND Special Care Facilities are planned and constructed to be properly resourced. On site support workers, nursing staff are the expectation, required to support those who need this service.
From Avides' own words and public quotes, Tannery Court is designed to provide housing, to persons with addiction problems and mental health issues... also known as the "hardest to house."
Here is the "job description" that Avide thinks is more than adequate to handle the complex problems in it's building:
Building Superintendent
Tannery Court Co-operative is a non-profit, residential property company, managed by Avide Developments, a subsidiary of Co-op Atlantic. We are currently seeking a mature building superintendent or couple for our new 50 unit apartment building in Moncton.
This position will start mid-January, 2010. This position is ideal for a caring, compassionate individual or couple that is retired or semi-retired. The position includes a 2 bedroom apartment with appliances.
Responsibilities include:
- Tenant and contractor liaison
- Daily cleaning and light maintenance work
- On-site daily supervision
- Seasonal maintenance, including snow shoveling, salting, etc.
- Building and maintaining positive, professional tenant relationships
Qualifications include:
- Previous experience in a maintenance or customer service role
- Ability to complete small maintenance tasks
- Good communication and interpersonal skills
- Ability to work well independently
- Previous experience as a superintendent is an asset
Do you think Avides' first concern are the tenants and their complex needs? Do you think that they will be met?
Nursing Homes and Senior Complexes are also properly ZONED under City Planning Policies.
If this is a Special Care facility, then it should have been zoned as that and should have been required to meet the standards of care needed to be of a source of real help to it's tenants.
But their approach, from the very beginning, stacking-up as many units as they possible can... reducing access to baths, so that they can squeeze more units in (and reduce costs), reducing other amenities such as parking and green space... COMPOUNDS the intense problems of a neighbourhood already IN CRISIS! (Hear about knife hold-up at Sam's Conevenience down the street from TC lastnight?)
It is disingenuous to compare Tannery Court to those properly planned and constructed Special Care facilities, that are are also resourced with onsite professionals that can help make things better.
If your solution is to only place persons with intense needs, in large buildings that are easily identifiable, and in only high poverty neighbourhoods... then that is another source of the dysfunction at play here.
Other developments may have had 100% occupancy, but they were not of this monolithic size, 50! (See Housing Alternatives)
Tannery Courts' current model is DYSFUNCTION... and it will contribute to the neighbourhood, but not in the way desired.
Look at the "scientific" study, it's scoring matrix, the questions asked, the marginal differences and where numbers actually went down! Also look at the unsubstantiated conclusions and comments that ARE NOT BASED ON THE SURVEY. (This is a poorly veiled PR tool - shameful for an academic)
There has always been a concern about the location!!!
Where the heck have you've been?!?!?!?!
We've supported developments such as Leinster Court and the Abbey... Tannery Courts function is as important as it's location... especially to Co-Op Atlantic... do the math.
- Howard LaBillois
peter.
Post a Comment