Thursday’s Headlines

6 comments

1. The photo accompanying The Star’s “Ford Nation” article might reveal his real plan to rescue Toronto’s budget problems… a bunch of 6/49 tickets.

   And I do remember him dismissing the lost car registration revenue as “a drop in the bucket”… nothing to worry about.

2. Re: Toronto’s backward on public housing: Get ’em out, not in

   I’d like to see some discussion on this one. I think this is way more important than the sensational spending spree that is catching all the attentions. I personally largely agree with the columnist here, except for the title though.

   It is a complex issue. It is not that we should not get people into the social housing. Getting homeless, elderly, disabled people into the system is a laudable goal, and we should do more to get the working poor the help they need. But we should at the same time encourage capable people to move out of the system as fast as possible, instead of creating incentives for them to stay forever. With the current system, on one hand we see able-bodied people staying in the system for very long time, sometime for generations; on the other hand we have huge waiting list where people in need do not get the help. It is both counter-productive and unfair.

   I don’t think we should go all private. There are always people that do not fit into the private rental system, and should be housed by social housing. But for working poors and able-bodied people, a voucher system may actually work better. A qualified applicant can get the voucher for a limited time (I don’t know, 1 or 2 or 3 years) then after that hopefully they become well off enough to get out of the system. If unfortunately their situation does not improve, they have to get back the tail of the waiting list so that others get the chance. I think this system would be fairer, and can encourage more people to stand on their own feet.

3. Yu, as with most people, I am concerned with what “privatization” actually means. Some see it as a solution to all our cost/quality issues, whatever the service. Some see it as the dawn of the apocalypse. I think both positions are a bit over the top. The problems at TCHC are far greater than the current scandal (which I would say is sizeable) ranging from how it is funded (of course McGuinty has in typical fashion been AWOL far too long on his promises to upload costs that Harris downloaded) to why there has been an exponential growth in the need for such housing which I think is related to the tremendous increase in Canada’s immigration rate a little over 20 years ago by Conservative PM Mulroney (NOT Trudeau). I think we need to be focusing on the issue of value. I also think that it is important that the system be publicly administered, though that can take many different forms including the Atlanta model you mentioned, which certainly seems lest capital-intensive. My understanding is that the CIty isn’t really in a position to sell it’s current stock of TCHC units. But even without this scandal, I don’t see how the status quo could have continued much longer at TCHC. The extent to which social housing seems to be required in Toronto due to federal and provincial policies cannot be funded on the backs of TO ratepayers without destroying the city. I want to emphasize that I am not anti-immigrant, but I certainly have no qualms about criticizing our immigration policy, which I think has been designed to create an underclass of disadvantaged people, all the better to suppress wage/working condition demands by working people. I certainly don’t believe the nonsense that some have suggested that today’s immigrants are less successful because we are bringing in a lower calibre of immigrant. The issue isn’t the calibre of the immigrant — it’s that on very flimsy evidence, the government has chosen to bring them in at a rate that far exceeds the economy’s ability to ensure there is gainful employment for them in short order. It’s a policy that seems designed to ensure a permanent high unemployment rate — and hence provides a pool of desperate people willing to work for below a living wage. Hence the need for the dramatic increase in all sorts of social supports such as housing to make up for what cheap employers should be paying but aren’t. In essence, the labor market glut created by permanent high immigration is enabling employers to degrate wages/working conditions and forcing the public purse to make up the shortfall. And coincident with this has been a dramatic fall in the corporate tax rates. Talk about a scam. Canadians were sold high immigration on the understanding that it would benefit the economy. But while the move has certainly grown the economy and benefitted some players (developers, banks, low-end retailers, companies that sell subscription services such as media/cell phones, and employers of all types), the benefits have most certainly not accrued to your average Canadian or your new immigrant. For the latter, the glut of labor has ensured a deteriorating situation.

4. Samg, it’s rare that I find myself agreeing with you, but that was very well said.

5. Paul, just to add a few points to the above which you’ve probably also considered, but maybe others haven’t. The problem is compounded by the fact that every political party is complicit in this course of events, albeit for distinct reasons. And they are aided and abetted by virtually every major media outlet in the country who have long conflated any criticism of immigration policy (and whether it is serving the public interest) with criticism of immigrants. Many media outlets (The Star in particular) profit significantly from real estate/developer ads — and one really has to wonder the extent to which their coverage/slant on these issues is fuelled by THEIR bottom line, which is of course different from that of the community they serve (however that’s defined).

6. SAMG,

   Very well said. I agree completely.