Crescent Valley revitalization master plan
The Province has posted some information about the consultation process that will go into the planning of the Crescent Valley development in the North End of Saint John. Consultations with impacted community and related groups will take place in March. Also posted was a PDF with the Draft Plan (developed by Avide and ADI and reproduced below):
14 comments:
Is it not ironic, that Avide (a division of Co-Op Atlantic) can actually consult with community stakeholders on housing developments... when they are paid to do that!
Yet, when it came to community consultation on Tannery Court, in the densely poverty populated South End, they chose not to consult so as to "not disappoint the nieghborhood." (Dec 10/08)
It would appear the "finances" are the motivator here... Crescent Valley residents need to be vigilant with this organization.
For the love of god! I've had enough of this pissing on Avide! Just because they proceeded with 1 project with which you disagree, that doesn't necessarily make them the worst company in the world or mean that they don't know how to consult the public when it is warranted or necessary. Avide (formerly APHL) has a history that stretches nearly 50 years and they have become experts in their field and have developed the large majority of the public housing developments in Atlantic Canada. Although you may disagree, they do know what they are doing, what works and what does not, and even still, they are human and may make misjudgements in a communities expectations once in a while. They have even tried to redeem themselves through a variety of initiatives, whether you wish to accept it or not.
Tannery Court is a private development and there is no requirement, regulation, or law whatsoever to compel Avide to consult the public unless they feel they want to, despite your insistance that they should have. In response to criticism, Avide did attempt to hold community meetings to have an open discussion on the development but the effort was wasted because most people were more concerned with a lack of consultation than actually offering any constructive criticism. Everyone throws around the term "mixed-income" like it is the magic panacea without even knowing what that really means or realizing that this is not always the best solution for every person. My 15 years in the industry tells me this. Say what you want about the location, but the Tannery Court model is a successful one.
In the case of Crescent Valley, Avide's mandate from their client dictated that they must consult the public and they have. Let your bias for Tannery Court die -- your failures on this project are now in the past -- in favour of being optomistic and supportive of the residents of Crescent Valley for their successes in redeveloping their community.
this posting is about crescent valley not tannery court. Let it die already!
the fight for 185 Carmarthen is over - the fight against the Tannery Court model is not. Stephen Davies of Co-op Atlantic publicly stated that they would like to build 5 Tannery Courts in Saint John. Given their goals of building more of these large scale segregated buildings Coop Atlantic/AVIDE any opportunity to remind people of the kind of company AVIDE is will be taken. Sorry to "annoy" you but your annoyance is nothing compared to the impact on the south end.
What is worse? Someone's "annoyance" or the perpetuation and consolidation of ghettos??
Do you not see the very direct link between the "Rifle Range" and our societies outmoded approaches to low income housing?
"For God's Sake" can we not learn from our mistakes???
Avides' expertise places 50 vulnerable persons... "the hardest to house" in a nieghborhood that has over a 56% poverty rate... and you want us "pat them on the back???"
Housing is never about the building alone... and that is the lesson that should have been learned...
Tannery Court IS NOT A PURELY A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT!!! Not when PUBLIC FUNDS are are used, to not only build, but to maintain the residents through a 10 yr subsidy guarantee (that building will provide an in-flux of over $5.25 million to Avide / Tannery Court/ Co-Op Atlantic over the next 10yrs).
Four more in Saint John??? Great model?
You can be "optimistic," but if the same mistakes keep on being made, and poverty deepens and entrenches in areas, then who the heck do you think you're helping?
I don't think Avide really cares about helping anyone... unless there's a price tag on it.
Your passion is not lost on me.
As a south end resident I eagerly anticipate a future where poverty is eradicated.
I would far rather a situation where we were helping people escape from poverty than just maintaining the status quo.
It would be great if there were less people living in poverty. Mixing residents based on income can only do so much.
We need not lose sight of the issue by creating demons. If we make Avide, or any developer the enemy, we waste energy that could be used fighting the real ‘bad guys’ – inequality and injustice.
But, you see... the "real injustice" is happening, albeit in a very "banal" manner.
Co-Ops, have at their very core, the avowed principals of community consultation, ownership and democracy... none of which Avide / Tannery Court exhibits and which is central to so many of the criticisms of this Project.
None of these things are easy or expedient... but they are crucial in any success. Otherwise, we're doing the same old things that we have always done... the very development that Crescent Valley is poised to replace... replace, because it made escaping the dysfunction so much harder for people living there.
The criticism is legitimate... the emperor has no clothes... make it better... don't make it "good enough"... live up to your principals... don't do it because it is easy, do it because it is right...
If any organization should apply higher ideals and expect higher results, it should be a Co-Op... but look at the composition of even their Board of Directors... Employees of Avide?!?!? Why doesn't Irvings set-up "Co-Ops" of their employees then???
There is a conflict here in principals and in the needs of the neighborhood...
I spent my first 10 years in the inner-city and another almost 20 as an adult... we really shouldn't have to re-learn this lesson... especially for the sake of the children living here.
Look at Stephenson Tower in the North End, or the Admiral Beatty in the South End or Harbourside and Market Square Tower on the waterfront. By your definition, these are all "ghettos" because they group like-income and like-aged people together. Although I could be wrong, I have yet to hear that anyone considers these buildings to be ghettos even though there are 3 and 4 times as many units in these buildings than there will ever be in Tannery Court. Whether you wish to believe it or not, there are segments of the population that group well together and there is room for these targetted developments WITHIN a mixed-income community. The four examples I stated are proof of this concept as is the Chicago-based study mentioned in another post on this blog.
Further still, we cannot make direct comparisons with Tannery Court and Crescent Valley. Crescent Valley is run by the government which causes a myriad of problems that plagues public housing and degenerates into ghettos: rules are rarely enforced, the resources to properly manage and maintain them do not exist, and even they did exist and the rules were enforced, the "problem individual" simply has to complain to their MLA to be put right back into the community that they were kicked out of. Political interference is rampant in public housing putting further strain on those managing it. We are on the same page that these types of ghettos are detrimental to our society and we must eliminate them -- for this reason, public housing should not be run directly by the government
Crescent Valley and similar public housing is, by definition,the "housing of last resort," meaning that not only are the "difficult to house" here, but so are the "IMPOSSIBLE to house." These are the drug dealers, the criminals, and the people who destroy and neglect the housing that they are provided free of charge. These people reflect less than 10% of the "ghetto's" population but make up more than 90% of the problems.
Tannery Court is virtually free from all of these burdens. There is a board in place to enforce the rules, free of poliical interference. When a decision is made, the tenants must abide by it or be forced to go back to the "housing of last resort." There is an incentive for the residents to try hard and succeed. The university studies conducted by Avide supports this and the residents are quoted as saying these exact statements. The building must be respected or you are kicked out. Drug and alcohol use have strict limits or you are kicked out. Proper resources are provided to the buildings for maintenance, and to residents for support and training. Tannery Court is the model of how public houing should be managed. The Tannery Courts in Fredericton and Moncton demonstrate the success of this aproach. You should visit one and talk to the residents, as I have.
Now, if you were to ask me if ALL public housing should be created like Tannery Court, I would say "no." Tannery Court works well within a mixed community to support the residents of that building, but other "poor" residents also work well in mixed-income apartment buildings, row houses, and even single family homes. The needs change for each resident and Tannery Court is merely one housing type in an entire portfolio of housing solutions for the poor and for the greater community. This is not an either/or scenario as many people try to make it out to be. Few things in life are so clearcut. As the saying goes, "everything in moderation" and I fully believe in this when it comes to public housing.
Do I think Avide should be patted on the back for the work they've done? No. Do I think they should demonized for one project that most people fail to understand? No. I still maintain, however, that Tannery Court is a successful model for housing the poor.
Tannery Court is a successful "BUSINESS" model for housing the poor... and does it just end there?
The Public Housing Projects of Crescent Valley, were also deemed successful, if only by the measurement that there were people in need, who required housing and therefore it was built.
Success?
If that were true, then this 20 year plus renewal project would not have been started.
What kind of neighborhood did it create?
Buildings do not exist in a vacuum... they exist in neighborhoods and communities, that involve services, infratstructure, amenities, and most importantly people... people make neighborhoods... they make healthy ones, as well as dysfunctional ones.
Crescent Valley and it's outmoded mono-culture, "good enough" approach, as a "housing solutions for the poor" was an obvious failure, that negatively impacted not only health, education and crime statistics, but serverely compromised families and children from that community for generations.
I have friends from that neighborhood, who count themselves greatful for having escaped from poverty, but also have a strong sense of "survivor guilt" when they think of family members and friends who were still there.
The Culture of Poverty, is a strong force and when children, grow-up in their neighborhoods where Unemployment, Family Violence, Drug Abuse, Low Achievement and Dispair are all that anyone sees.
How do we expect next generations to succeed?
Why do we just leave it to them, those who are the most vulnerable, to fix the problems that WE PERPETUATE?
There is NO EXCUSE for WAREHOUSING POVERTY.
There is NO EXCUSE for CONCENTRATING POVERTY.
There is NO EXCUSE for GHETTOS.
To talk about the South End, Tannery Court Project of Avide / Co-Op Atlantic... your arguments for that Building ignores the facts... Stats Canada describes the 6-block neighbourhood (from Mecklenberg to Broadview) of the 455 people living in that area, 254 are living below the poverty line! 56% Live in Poverty in that neighbourhood... and Tannery Court ADDS ANOTHER 50!
Is that healthy?
Is that that what we aim for?
Is that how our public monies should be spent?
If you have been in the 'Industry" for 15 years, then you should be the one who should know better!
The BCAPI Housing Working Group also criticized Tannery Court.
Here is what the "Housing Working Group" of the Saint John Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative (BCAPI)* reported in Dec 2008:
"The location of the Project is not recommended, due to the high concentration of poverty (47%) in the immediate neighbourhood."
"The developer (and their municipal / provincial advisors) did not appear to take into consideration the priorities of the neighbourhood nor consult with the community leaders who are working to stabilize and improve the neighbourhood."
"Mixed income projects and family housing are priorities"
The “Housing Working Group” consists of many of the key Community Groups that deal with poverty, and it's implications in Saint John, as well Business Leaders.
When development is driven by "good enough" intentions, it fails... It fails, with real long-term consequences, for our children and our communities.
If you re-read my comments, you will realize that I do not disagree with anything you have stated here. In fact, you have stated the issues very concisely and framed them perfectly within the right contexts. I am also critical of the LOCATION of Tannery Court, but not of Tannery Court as a development whereas you, and many others, appear to be against both the location AND the development.
The point of all my comments is simply that you can't suggest that Avide is a terrible company for the sake of one mis-guided business decision. In fact, you'll recall that the original location proposed for Tannery Court was on Bentley Street, but the community would not accept that location either, despite the fact that Bentley Street area has a far lower poverty rate. Avide has been in a lose-lose scenario from the get-go. Avide listened to the community the first time and the community forced them to a different location; unfortunately the location was not a better location. So who is truly at fault here? Avide or the Bentley Street community?
Dragging the baggage of Tannery Court into a discsussion about Crescent Valley is not relevant nor fair to the successes that Crescent Valley has had in redeveloping their neighourhood into the type of neighbourhood that you and I both describe and strive for. The plan for Crescent Valley is an excellent one -- one of the first of its kind in Canada, if not North America -- and has been endorsed so far (prior to the upcoming information sessions) by BCAPI, 70+ other stakeholders and 130+ Crescent Valley residents.
Our only difference is our definitions of a ghetto -- I see Tannery Court as a targetted approach to housing a particular segment of the poor population within the context of a mixed-income neighbourhood; from my perspective, you appear to see ALL targetted buildings as a ghetto. I guess my experience in the industry allows me to see things a little less black-and-white.
On a side note, APHL the arm of Avide that owns and operates the Tannery Courts is a registered non-profit company, therefore, the company is only concerned that the buildings only bring in enough money to pay for their expenses. Avide will NOT profit from Tannery Court in any way. This is the same business model used by Housing Alternatives, Saint John, Non-Profit Housing, Rehabitat, etc., etc...
AVIDE / Tannery Court /Co-Op Atlantic must "OWN" its' conduct and behavior.
The Local politicians and the Developer, consistently attempted to silence legitimate concerns and objections through various tactics:
- by shutting down public meetings;
- by calling all who oppose N-I-M-B-Ys (Not-In-My-Backyard); and
- by manipulative editorials;
They forged ahead with this backward project:
Despite -- the high rate of poverty already in the Community (47% Peninsula, 56% in the 6 blocks of Tannery Court);
Despite -- the heavy concentration of Public Housing already in that area;
Despite -- the increasing rate of violent crime;
Despite -- the explicit concerns of the SJ Housing Working Group, of BCAPI/Vibrant Communities saying "the location of the Project is not recommended";
Despite -- the lack of public, community consultations;
Despite -- the close proximity to a Struggling K-8 School;
Despite -- public proclamations that "mixed-income" housing prevents ghettos from developing or worsening;
THEY MUST OWN THEIR DECISIONS!
This project essentially "Warehouses Poverty," by going ahead in a distressed neighbourhood, that has more than it's share of challenges.
(*It is important to note that this same project, was denied approval, by the same PAC, only weeks before on Bently Street, close to Douglas Avenue.)
We had unsuccessfully tried to have Avide change their business model, to a mixed-income development, that would have met low-income needs and those concerns of the local community. Avide stated publicly "mixed-income" wouldn't work, despite the local "mixed-income" developments of Leinster Court, the Queen St. Co-Op and the upcoming Abbey development on Charlotte/Duke Streets.
It is clear that the math of the project, has always been an incentive to proceed:
Gov't Funding of $30,000 per Unit (x50);
Rental Income $645 unit/per mth (x50);
With a 10 Year Gov't Guarantee of Subsidies:
$30,000 x 50 = $1,500,000 (to Build)
$645 x 50 = $32,250 (Rental Per Mth Revenue)
$32,250 x 12 mth = $387,000/yr (Rental Per Year Revenue)
$387,000 x 10 yrs = $3,870,000 (Rental 10 Year Revenue)
TOTAL= $5,370,000
And that doesn't include an up to 80% reduction in Property Taxes, due to the "Non-Profit" Status of Tannery Court.
This will be a very "profitable" non-profit*.
(*Remember that Steven Davies, of Co-Op Atlantic/Avide/Tannery Court, stated on Dec 10th, 2008 that they envisioned FIVE TANNERY COURTS for Saint John.)
185 Carmarthen Street may be lost to our community now, but we can still make a difference... to ensure that backwards and regressive social housing policies are no longer continued and to make sure that the health of our community is foremost in our minds, hearts and deeds.
Look where other Tannery Courts are located in the Province... in High Poverty/High Crime Areas and in the Woods, beside Native Reserves, beyond buslines... who are they thinking of??
If you think that is vilifying the developer, well their actions speak for themselves.
85% reduction in taxes? I thought it was less than that.
Here's one half:
Provincial Property Tax Exemption for Not-for-Profit Low Rental Housing Finance Assessment Act
2005-18 - Not-For-Profit, Low Rental Housing Accommodation
Overview:
Since Jan. 1, 2005, qualifying non-profit low-income housing organizations in New Brunswick no longer pay the provincial component of property taxes for their low-income rental housing facilities.
Eligibility:
To be eligible, an organization must be a non-profit housing corporation, or a non-profit co-operative housing association, whose primary purpose is to provide affordable rental housing for low-income individuals and families.
"http://app.infoaa.7700.gnb.ca/gnb/Pub/EServices/ListServiceDetails.asp?ServiceID1=16296&ReportType1=ALL"
Top rated, Leading finance assessment company in Eugene | Oregon
CSK Dynamic Ventures LLC in Eugene | Oregon
Contact CSK Dynamic Ventures LLC in Eugene | Oregon
Best Ventures for Corporate Growth in Eugene | Oregon
Post a Comment