Royson James, is in my opinion The Toronto Star's best columnist. While showing his lefty slant, he demonstrates regularly his intellectual honesty, insight, and fresh opinion by giving a true(er) account of his subject matter-even when it may not fit perfectly with his views.
His article today was on yet another Ford triumph: the unloading of some 22 houses owned by the TCHC. These buildings cost a fortune to maintain and are an incredibly inefficient use of funds for providing community housing: something James admits to in his article.
'One-man rule is a farce' he thunders in his headline. Words like 'Absurdity' and 'Arogance' were thrown into the leader for good measure--Royson is hopping mad. His account of a sneering, packed audience (in approval?) and the offending head of the Toronto Community Housing Board, Case Ootes develops the tone of outrage in the article—at least at first.
In fact it is difficult to really understand RJ's beef, while beginning his article all hot and heavy his own factual admissions go to undermining his case. In fact by the end of the article, the fire and brimstone has been replaced with a more conciliatory tone. James has outlined Case's Case: that 1) these homes are a huge drain on funds 2) the money raised by the sale of these homes would be far better used elsewhere 3) The former Miller-nominated TCHC had already approved of the sale for these properties.
So what was James getting his panties in a bunch over? It's a respect thing. Not enough attention was paid to placate those housing advocates (of whom many, self servingly avail themselves of public housing) by going through hours of further deliberation on a decision that was made years ago. The whining centers around the holy idol big government advocates pay homage to: Process.
Appointed to temporarily oversee the operation of the TCHC to implement decisions made by previous committees (something James again agrees with), Case Ootes has shown a 'revolting' abuse of power. Man, the mental gymnastics needed to appease your editor.
The follow up article by Robyn Doolittle continues our trip down the rabbit hole with a spin-laden, sob story about Joyce Tait, an elderly resident who will not be evicted from one of the TCHC houses selected for the selling.
I have to hand it to Doolittle, she takes lemons and makes lemonade with the inconvenient truths surrounding this story. Essentially she focuses on a non-event: that a senior will not be evicted from her Lakeside apartment—the implication being the Ford Mayorship was going to kick this little old lady out on the street, but was stymied by a promise made 9 years ago by council to never relocate publicly housed seniors. The Star, self congratulatory as always, slips in how it was after they exposed this possibility that Mrs Tait secured assurances from the TCHC. Of course there was no evidence that had she presented the letter from the city to the appropriate authorities at the appropriate time, that things would have turned out any different.
To keep this article from sinking to the level of NOW magazine, it is mentioned in passing the location of the apartment in question: the Boardwalk of Ashbridges Bay, one of the most exclusive and sought after locations in the city.
Another interesting tidbit: Mrs Tait pays 'Market Rent” which turns out to be 1200 dollars a month + utilities. Not exactly cheap, which begs the question: What is the point of having the city as just a regular land lord? I can understand the (still questionable) argument of providing low rent dwellings, but what is the justification for housing single old ladies in million dollar boardwalk properties? With a $600 million dollar(!!!!!) repair backlog, it isn't to guarantee clean, safe, well maintained buildings for it's citizenry.
So this non story--all 100 words of it-- needs something else to fill it out: Enter Janice Hadfield, a woman renting in an adjacent TCHC flat who is too young (49) to qualify for exemption:
'“Everyone else has got a call saying they can stay. I've heard nothing.” she said tearfully after pleading her case at the meeting. “I think I'm the only one who can't stay.”
That's your case? An infantile 'Everyone else is allowed to stay why can't I?' Is it the inconvenience moving to yet apartment subsidized by the taxpayer? I guess I would be in tears too if I lost such a magnificent view of the lake. No wonder there are 70,000 applicants waiting to get in to this programme.
That nasty, mean spirited, process eschewing Ford Mayorship, trying to kick little old ladies out on the street. I salute you, Robin Doolittle. Your heart bleeds with the best of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment