Presentation for Executive Committee April 21, 2010. Rob Stack McCauley Community League.
Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to speak on this important issue.
Back in my research days we talked of elegant solutions to problems. Solutions that are effective, efficient, constructive, and almost always shockingly simple. We have one of those solutions in front of us but we may be too busy “processing” to focus on potential outcomes.
The elegant option is a regulated moratorium. Akin to Option 3 in the discussion paper. Effectively not adding more non-market housing to “High Threshold” neighbourhoods. The only significant exceptions being major Council-driven initiatives. Recognize that this is threshold based; this barrier would disappear when the indicators change.
Regulatory firmness would create an instant base on which positive action could be built. Unlike an “incentive” approach no new consultative bodies need be created, no new pressures are placed on distressed neighbourhoods, nothing needs to be created to move forward, it involves no expenditures on incentives that may miss the mark.
Vulnerable neighbourhoods, currently the path of least resistance, instantly are simply not under consideration. The inertia and huge machinery focusing non-market initiatives on these areas are redirected. Our neighbourhoods can then work towards better integrating existing developments and creating a great future.
For developers, both market and non-market, a regulated policy provides the clarity and certainty that they require.
Option 3 offers a huge advantage because it forces the issue. The playing field is instantly changed. NM developers would be forced to work with healthy communities towards a common goal. Today, resident concern is automatically given the label NIMBY and degraded. Everyone has the right to be concerned and we should never be sanctioning the use of name calling and other heavy handed tactics. These concerns are legitimate and a real dialogue with empowered communities will create not just better educated residents but better performing housing/service operators.
Apparently a major concern with option 3 is that it could rob us of the miracle housing project or projects that would fix urban poverty, stimulate development, and end urban crime. This is a romantic fallacy and a proven failure. Concentrating poverty is wrong and concentrating NMH concentrates poverty and/or institutionalizes residential areas -- end of story. The solutions we are looking for lie in integrated communities, and the elimination of areas of disadvantage and marginalization.
The concept of injecting market housing into troubled areas using NMH is equally flawed. Mixed residential can work (and work well) but it is dependent on locations of high market demand. It is the highly desirable location that is the known lever to entice dispersion and integration using mixed projects. It is backwards to think that NMH is a tool to leverage condo sales in the market.
The other problem with using NMH to fix problems of NMH concentration is that you are adding more of something to lower the concentration of that thing; this is simply circular logic.
What neighborhoods under extreme stress need is a moratorium. What the non-market development industry needs is a moratorium in the high threshold areas. No fancy footwork exemptions. We need this help, they need that guidance, we all need the certainty.
This would be a strong base to move forward from and I implore you to make this choice so that we can all move onto better things.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Sophy Yeung's Presentation to the Executive Committee, April 21
April 21, 2010 Executive Committee
10:30 am: 5.2 Non-Market Housing Ratios – Future Directions
Sophy Yeung, McCauley Community League, Communications Director
As Wendy has said, our community is clear about the need for a moratorium now.
What concerns me the most at this point, after all the energy we have put into this issue, is the extent of progress that this discussion is achieving.
I am most disappointed that the discussion is centering on why a simple STOP is too much to ask for in the extremely distressed neighbourhoods.
Please let’s regain some perspective.
We are talking about stopping the building of any more subsidized housing in, really, only a very small fraction of the nearly 300 neighbourhoods that are within city limits. What is the big worry about having a dozen neighbourhoods be just off-limits? There would still be hundreds of other neighbourhoods. After all, it is well acknowledged that given choice, people overwhelmingly do not choose housing in the inner city. ...not to mention the dignity that comes with choice.
I urge you to keep in mind that the reason these neighbourhoods have been identified is because they have reached the tipping point of extreme neighbourhood poverty rates, a well known symptom of ill-health and dysfunction.
So, given this, why we continue to sponsor projects that contribute to the increase in the spatial concentration of poverty, specifically in neighbourhoods identified as already in a deep imbalance?
Why take the risk? ...a big risk.
What is there to lose by simply stopping?
Rather, I see there is only a very impressive list of things to gain, with pretty much nothing to risk.
The funding is still there.
The funding can now be even more powerfully leveraged by tapping into the strengths of our communities..... the strength of our healthy communities to welcome those in need and to be a very real contributor to their recovery and integration. Continuing to marginalize those in need is not helpful for anyone and is a tragedy of human endeavour. In a healthy neighbourhood, everyone (at all stages of life, from all walks of life) can thrive. Why not maximize the leveraging of tax dollars in the endeavour to get people out of the trap of poverty?
Only with a firm moratorium can all these benefits be had. The real risk is to leave in the loopholes.... which won’t realize a change in the inertia. Fool ourselves into thinking we’ve done something. Then watch everyone’s disappointment once the promise wears thin. Ironically what is being sold as the “safe” thing to do, is exactly the most dangerous thing to do.
Without a simple policy, how do we make sure we’re continuing to move the bar up higher? How do we make sure proposals are good enough to be accepted in any neighbourhood? Instead of depending on neighbourhoods that can’t complain. That’s just not going to be good enough anymore. It needs to have some connection to outcomes, to community integration, to the bigger picture.
Without a tangible policy that shows you will not knowingly concentrate poverty, how can you with credibility ask for the trust of all the neighbourhoods across the city?
Finally, I ask how is a regulated moratorium in the worst neighbourhoods not a beautiful, confident first step in this direction towards diverse inclusive neighbourhoods across the city? It can be this simple. Can you think of a better way to begin? This is easy, cheap, right and effective.
To move forward, we don’t need a policy that is complex. Before deciding to move ahead, we don’t need to figure out how to frame a policy that can fix every social problem, as measured by poverty .... an exercise that would have to involve more than just the Housing Branch. And, honestly, we don’t have the time. McCauley cannot take anymore. We cannot continue like this. We need this just so that we can take a breather. Then, we have the opportunity to plan beyond this.
I do not buy into the fear mongering that is suggesting McCauley is not a beautiful neighbourhood. That we are somehow blighted and will never amount to anything. That we cannot flourish. That families won’t want to come raise their children in our old houses. That we are addicted to charity. That we cannot attract quality investment. That we are better off as an institutionalized neighbourhood. That people cannot fall in love with us the way we are. But, the government needs to take the first step by demonstrating for everyone to see that you believe too.
10:30 am: 5.2 Non-Market Housing Ratios – Future Directions
Sophy Yeung, McCauley Community League, Communications Director
As Wendy has said, our community is clear about the need for a moratorium now.
What concerns me the most at this point, after all the energy we have put into this issue, is the extent of progress that this discussion is achieving.
I am most disappointed that the discussion is centering on why a simple STOP is too much to ask for in the extremely distressed neighbourhoods.
Please let’s regain some perspective.
We are talking about stopping the building of any more subsidized housing in, really, only a very small fraction of the nearly 300 neighbourhoods that are within city limits. What is the big worry about having a dozen neighbourhoods be just off-limits? There would still be hundreds of other neighbourhoods. After all, it is well acknowledged that given choice, people overwhelmingly do not choose housing in the inner city. ...not to mention the dignity that comes with choice.
I urge you to keep in mind that the reason these neighbourhoods have been identified is because they have reached the tipping point of extreme neighbourhood poverty rates, a well known symptom of ill-health and dysfunction.
So, given this, why we continue to sponsor projects that contribute to the increase in the spatial concentration of poverty, specifically in neighbourhoods identified as already in a deep imbalance?
Why take the risk? ...a big risk.
What is there to lose by simply stopping?
Rather, I see there is only a very impressive list of things to gain, with pretty much nothing to risk.
The funding is still there.
The funding can now be even more powerfully leveraged by tapping into the strengths of our communities..... the strength of our healthy communities to welcome those in need and to be a very real contributor to their recovery and integration. Continuing to marginalize those in need is not helpful for anyone and is a tragedy of human endeavour. In a healthy neighbourhood, everyone (at all stages of life, from all walks of life) can thrive. Why not maximize the leveraging of tax dollars in the endeavour to get people out of the trap of poverty?
Only with a firm moratorium can all these benefits be had. The real risk is to leave in the loopholes.... which won’t realize a change in the inertia. Fool ourselves into thinking we’ve done something. Then watch everyone’s disappointment once the promise wears thin. Ironically what is being sold as the “safe” thing to do, is exactly the most dangerous thing to do.
Without a simple policy, how do we make sure we’re continuing to move the bar up higher? How do we make sure proposals are good enough to be accepted in any neighbourhood? Instead of depending on neighbourhoods that can’t complain. That’s just not going to be good enough anymore. It needs to have some connection to outcomes, to community integration, to the bigger picture.
Without a tangible policy that shows you will not knowingly concentrate poverty, how can you with credibility ask for the trust of all the neighbourhoods across the city?
Finally, I ask how is a regulated moratorium in the worst neighbourhoods not a beautiful, confident first step in this direction towards diverse inclusive neighbourhoods across the city? It can be this simple. Can you think of a better way to begin? This is easy, cheap, right and effective.
To move forward, we don’t need a policy that is complex. Before deciding to move ahead, we don’t need to figure out how to frame a policy that can fix every social problem, as measured by poverty .... an exercise that would have to involve more than just the Housing Branch. And, honestly, we don’t have the time. McCauley cannot take anymore. We cannot continue like this. We need this just so that we can take a breather. Then, we have the opportunity to plan beyond this.
I do not buy into the fear mongering that is suggesting McCauley is not a beautiful neighbourhood. That we are somehow blighted and will never amount to anything. That we cannot flourish. That families won’t want to come raise their children in our old houses. That we are addicted to charity. That we cannot attract quality investment. That we are better off as an institutionalized neighbourhood. That people cannot fall in love with us the way we are. But, the government needs to take the first step by demonstrating for everyone to see that you believe too.
Wendy Aasen's Speech to the Executive Committee, April 21
Presentation at Executive Committee April 21, 2010
by Wendy Aasen, President of McCauley Community League
I come to you today from “the extremely distressed neighbourhood” of McCauley. We have:
• an individual poverty rate of 44%,
• subsidizing housing units comprising 54% of our community,
• a family poverty rate of 24%,
• 660 shelter mats/emergency accommodations,
• and feeding programs that are feeding 150 thousand individuals a year. (Some of these are very worthy things to have and of course the need is huge.)
We’re now facing the point where our school is closed.
For McCauley, it’s a very, very big demographic issue. I’ve lived in the community 17 years and have watched the changes in demographics over time. It’s now 2 males for every 1 female. Very few children under the age of 14. And similar issues that are causing us to be an unhealthy community.
I want to say thank the Executive Committee for hearing us today. I also want to thank the City of Edmonton Housing Branch for working hard to put this discussion paper together. We are excited and pleased by many of the issues that are now being recognized:
• that concentrating poverty “produces aggregate community effects” (p.1),
• that “the mandates of the key stakeholders that provide non-market housing are not always in sync” (p.3), “that current funding models for non-market housing need to be reconsidered” (p. 5),
• and that strategies must be put in place to align Provincial, Regional and Municipal housing plans.
•
Particularly encouraging is the outcome (p. 7) of creating Quality, Vibrant, Inclusive communities for all. (And that makes me smile.) So for those reasons alone, I think and in my personal opinion, this is a huge first step, and we’re very pleased.
Last month, the community of McCauley came together at a General Meeting (a meeting that was extremely well attended by McCauley standards) to ensure that our League Executive was accurately reflecting the desires of our community. We advertised the meeting in the Boyle McCauley News, we conducted flyer drops, sent e-mails, and went door to door particularly focusing on south McCauley where our greatest challenges lie.
We had our General Meeting, had a secret ballot and 87% of our community voted to support a moratorium on the continued expansion of non-market housing. 99% of attendees showed their support for moving forward towards the development of a mixed healthy community - a community of choice. Almost unanimously our door to door visits revealed that residents, no matter what their socioeconomic status (and with rates like ours, at least 54% of people were of lower socioeconomic status), had all had enough of the status quo and were looking forward to real positive change. So we as a community are ready to move forward.
Picking and choosing, however, is part of the problem that we have with a flexible cap. How do you decide? How would any community decide what would be acceptable projects and what would not be acceptable projects in their community? We don’t see this as a desirable thing to do and our community will not choose between various needy groups.
So for that reason, again, our community will seek the most restrictive option presented in the discussion: the regulatory option with the hard cap.
At present, we are still potentially facing 6 new housing projects. Some are very large. We would like something to be done to put these projects on hold at least for a while so that we could have some breathing space, if or when this work moves forward. Thank you.
by Wendy Aasen, President of McCauley Community League
I come to you today from “the extremely distressed neighbourhood” of McCauley. We have:
• an individual poverty rate of 44%,
• subsidizing housing units comprising 54% of our community,
• a family poverty rate of 24%,
• 660 shelter mats/emergency accommodations,
• and feeding programs that are feeding 150 thousand individuals a year. (Some of these are very worthy things to have and of course the need is huge.)
We’re now facing the point where our school is closed.
For McCauley, it’s a very, very big demographic issue. I’ve lived in the community 17 years and have watched the changes in demographics over time. It’s now 2 males for every 1 female. Very few children under the age of 14. And similar issues that are causing us to be an unhealthy community.
I want to say thank the Executive Committee for hearing us today. I also want to thank the City of Edmonton Housing Branch for working hard to put this discussion paper together. We are excited and pleased by many of the issues that are now being recognized:
• that concentrating poverty “produces aggregate community effects” (p.1),
• that “the mandates of the key stakeholders that provide non-market housing are not always in sync” (p.3), “that current funding models for non-market housing need to be reconsidered” (p. 5),
• and that strategies must be put in place to align Provincial, Regional and Municipal housing plans.
•
Particularly encouraging is the outcome (p. 7) of creating Quality, Vibrant, Inclusive communities for all. (And that makes me smile.) So for those reasons alone, I think and in my personal opinion, this is a huge first step, and we’re very pleased.
Last month, the community of McCauley came together at a General Meeting (a meeting that was extremely well attended by McCauley standards) to ensure that our League Executive was accurately reflecting the desires of our community. We advertised the meeting in the Boyle McCauley News, we conducted flyer drops, sent e-mails, and went door to door particularly focusing on south McCauley where our greatest challenges lie.
We had our General Meeting, had a secret ballot and 87% of our community voted to support a moratorium on the continued expansion of non-market housing. 99% of attendees showed their support for moving forward towards the development of a mixed healthy community - a community of choice. Almost unanimously our door to door visits revealed that residents, no matter what their socioeconomic status (and with rates like ours, at least 54% of people were of lower socioeconomic status), had all had enough of the status quo and were looking forward to real positive change. So we as a community are ready to move forward.
Picking and choosing, however, is part of the problem that we have with a flexible cap. How do you decide? How would any community decide what would be acceptable projects and what would not be acceptable projects in their community? We don’t see this as a desirable thing to do and our community will not choose between various needy groups.
So for that reason, again, our community will seek the most restrictive option presented in the discussion: the regulatory option with the hard cap.
At present, we are still potentially facing 6 new housing projects. Some are very large. We would like something to be done to put these projects on hold at least for a while so that we could have some breathing space, if or when this work moves forward. Thank you.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
May 2010 - Online Version
Our May issue is now online. If you can't wait to receive your copy, you can click here to download the issue in PDF format. Here is a sneek peak at what's inside:
* McCauley Says Enough is Enough!
* McCauley School to Close
* Being a Good Witness
* Shop Talk
* A Dog Park in McCauley?
* McCauley Clean Up
* Call of the Wild
* Letters To The Editor
* Community League Updates
* Dining Out
* McCauley Says Enough is Enough!
* McCauley School to Close
* Being a Good Witness
* Shop Talk
* A Dog Park in McCauley?
* McCauley Clean Up
* Call of the Wild
* Letters To The Editor
* Community League Updates
* Dining Out
Monday, April 5, 2010
April 2010:Online Edition
Our April 2010 issue is now online - here is a look at some of the contents:
* Future of McCauley School In Jeopardy
* Historic Gem Demolished
* How Safe is Our Neighbourhood?
* Gardening as a Family
* Letters To The Editor
* Guitar Donation
* Ghana Adventure
* Third Eco Station Open
* Community League Updates
* Dining Out
Download the entire issue in PDF format here.
* Future of McCauley School In Jeopardy
* Historic Gem Demolished
* How Safe is Our Neighbourhood?
* Gardening as a Family
* Letters To The Editor
* Guitar Donation
* Ghana Adventure
* Third Eco Station Open
* Community League Updates
* Dining Out
Download the entire issue in PDF format here.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Of NIMBYs and Know-It-Alls
This is going to be my McCauley Musings editorial column for the May issue. It deals with a very controversial subject currently under discussion in the community and wider Edmonton area. As a result, I wanted to get this out there right now in the hopes of addressing some of the misinformation and misconceptions about our community.
McCauley Musings
Of NIMBYs and Know-It-Alls
Paula E. Kirman * BMC News Staff
By now the news of the McCauley Community League taking legal action against the building of Iris Court has been broadcast in major media outlets throughout the city. Of the public reactions, the most harsh have been those comments accusing the League – and the community at large – of being NIMBYs.
For those who need clarification, NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard” and refers to people who may give lip service to social justice, as long as the problems are kept far away from them. I can’t say whether or not those who accuse McCauley-ites of being NIMBYs are hypocrites themselves, but I can probably say with some confidence that these people don’t live in the area or even have a good knowledge about the neighbourhood.
In the four years that I have been deeply involved in the community here I have gotten to know a variety of people who are compassionate towards the needy elements of society and who are passionate about social justice. As a result, there is a reasonable level of acceptance for the amount of social, below-market, subsidized, and supportive housing. Many people have moved here because they want to be part of the solution.
However, these same people have decided that the current amount of disproportionate supportive housing, which at 54 percent is the most disproportionate in the city, is enough. As I heard a participant say at the community meeting on March 20, “We want to be a community – not a dumping ground.” The situation is not that these people don’t want the problems in their back yard – it’s that the back yard is already full.
If you are reading this and don’t live in McCauley, I urge you to spend some time here. Get to know the people and get to know the issues. Then, take a look and your own back yard and reconsider whether you think the people here are NIMBYs.
McCauley Musings
Of NIMBYs and Know-It-Alls
Paula E. Kirman * BMC News Staff
By now the news of the McCauley Community League taking legal action against the building of Iris Court has been broadcast in major media outlets throughout the city. Of the public reactions, the most harsh have been those comments accusing the League – and the community at large – of being NIMBYs.
For those who need clarification, NIMBY stands for “Not In My Back Yard” and refers to people who may give lip service to social justice, as long as the problems are kept far away from them. I can’t say whether or not those who accuse McCauley-ites of being NIMBYs are hypocrites themselves, but I can probably say with some confidence that these people don’t live in the area or even have a good knowledge about the neighbourhood.
In the four years that I have been deeply involved in the community here I have gotten to know a variety of people who are compassionate towards the needy elements of society and who are passionate about social justice. As a result, there is a reasonable level of acceptance for the amount of social, below-market, subsidized, and supportive housing. Many people have moved here because they want to be part of the solution.
However, these same people have decided that the current amount of disproportionate supportive housing, which at 54 percent is the most disproportionate in the city, is enough. As I heard a participant say at the community meeting on March 20, “We want to be a community – not a dumping ground.” The situation is not that these people don’t want the problems in their back yard – it’s that the back yard is already full.
If you are reading this and don’t live in McCauley, I urge you to spend some time here. Get to know the people and get to know the issues. Then, take a look and your own back yard and reconsider whether you think the people here are NIMBYs.
Become a Fan of Our Facebook Page
We are making some changes to what we do on Facebook. Instead of using a group, we have moved to a page, which shows information in a more efficient way to "fans" of the page. To become a fan of Boyle McCauley News, follow this link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)