Haydain Neale, 1970–2009
Transit City and Transit Cities
Peeve Patrol
Newsstand: November 23, 2009
The Making of a Medley
When trying to solve the problem of the lack of affordable housing, the thinkers and planners and innovators and design enthusiasts come up with some pretty creative ideas. Like the IKEA House, for example, or the notion of shipping container architecture. A group of Toronto activists are proposing a "use it or lose it" bylaw "that would see vacant and underutilized buildings and spaces expropriated by the City and redeveloped as badly needed affordable housing and social centres."
On Monday, October 29, 2007, join these activists and thinkers for Abandonment Issues, a panel discussion about the proposed bylaw and affordable housing in Toronto, as well as an exhibition of maps and photos of the sites in question. This will be going down at the Parkdale Activity-Recreation Centre (1499 Queen Street West), from 7:00-9:00 p.m. As the website says,
This project is about mapping missing housing and social centres, but it is also a critique of gentrification, neighbourhood blight, and the local and global forces that cause both of these problems. Through this project we hope to promote awareness of how the issue of abandoned buildings, and the lack of affordable housing and social services are connected to larger patterns of displacement and instability that stem from social and economic inequality.
This talk and exhibition is part of a larger mapping project, organized by the Toronto School of Creativity and Inquiry at the Toronto Free Gallery (and around the city) running until October 27, 2007.
Photo is just one of the many you'll see at the exhibition.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
the problem with this is idea that sometimes properties have to sit vacant until the developer can buy up enough of the surrounding properties to build whatever larger structure or community they have in mind. Not only that, rezoning, approvals, all that other stuff, not to mention reconditioning toxic sites, etc all take time.
Point being that some sites only appear vacant and having some activist group running around creating paperwork for city staff isn't going to help and could actually end up preventing redevelopment from happening.
Right. Because a municipal by-law can trounce the innate right to private property. If I own something, it's mine, end of story. Anything else is theft whether at the hands of the government or individuals. If the people who proposed occupying sthese buildings didn't use their stereo for a month, would that give me the right to go inside and take it?
I, for one, do not welcome our new authoritarian overlords with the power to seize private property.
Also.. I believe many vacant properties are not as such because of carelessness, but instead due to bitter family inheritance battles or similar legal issues.
A house on Astley Ave, just west of the Governor's Bridge in Moorepark/Rosedale, for example, has been decrepit and unused for decades. Rumours range from the owner being sustained on life support to the family not knowing who is supposed to inherit the property.
I think there is a similar house with similar rumours on Bayview, in the Bridal Path, as well.
BDH - Which is more important, housing for those without now, or the distant plans of property developers?
Amac - Correct, the government can trounce your property rights.
Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (Canada, South Africa) in common law legal systems is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or rights in property, without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to "public use." The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are public utilities, highways, and railroads. Some states require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.
spacejack - It's not new, and you might have a different opinion of it if you were in line to benefit from more affordable public housing.
Goddammit blockquote!
Seizing people's private property and forcing them to take "fair market value" is complete and utter bullshit. I can't believe it still happens.
T.Rex: I wasn't familiar with that power. Scary as it is. From what I've been reading, it seems one sticking point (among many) is exactly what defines public use? If it's affordable public housing, do I have an inherent right to live there? What ultimately seems forgotten in so much of the noise surrounding "affordable" housing is personal accountability. Whether you admit it or grenot, there are a lot of people living in public housing in Toronto that should be living in private housing (healthy young adults). There are a lot of people living in private housing (think seniors on pensions/disability) that should be living in public housing. There is such gross abuse of public funds and resources in this city that no matter how many buildings are built/possessed, the demand will always exceed the supply due to dishonesty, greed, laziness or a combination of all of them.
Really? I thought Jack Layton and Olivia Chow had moved out.
The City of Belleville is looking to expropriate 10 feet of frontage from my parents home to widen the road and turn it into a collector/bypass for highway 62. Not only do they want it for free, after paying taxes on that land for 17 years, the cost of surveying and transfer and what not was going to be put in their lap. $15,000! And the City has decided they can't use the perfectly good well and septic tank anymore, they're going to be forced on city water/sewer.
My father's fighting it, and from what he's told me about how people at city hall react it's like it'd never even occurred to them that some people might not like the idea.
Dude, I would totally be in that line. All I'd need is an over-inflated sense of entitlement.
Hey, I used to live in this house in the picture! It was owned by the Jamestown Corporation who had been buying up all the properties on the block. They wanted to errect some kinda highrise. They were still waiting to acquire a couple of the properties when the market fell out in the late 80's so the project got put on hold. Apparently, it was officially condemned at the time but they got this slum superintentant named Hal to manage the group of houses. There were mostly young professional artists (actors, musicians, visual artists etc) who rented out the apartments. It was a fantastic little community of friends and we all looked out for each other. We didn't seem to have the same rights as other normal tenants - nothing was fixed or painted (definitely not up to fire standards)- but since the rents were cheap, we all fixed up our own places and made them really nice. As a young actor, it was a savior as I couldn't have afforded the inflated Toronto rents. We were all pretty low income. I think the problem is liability & accountability. Someone has to spend the money to keep these places up to legal living & safety standards. My musician neigbour had three children and, although it was great to have affordable housing, we were not entirely sure it was completely safe.
Filmgirl--I'm the guy who took the photo (and one of the organizers of this project), and I'd love to talk to you about your experiences in the building. You can send me an email at abandonment.issues at gmail dot com if you're interested.
-David
IANAL, but I don't really think that you can 'own' something in the way that people in this thread seem to believe.
I agree, Ben - Property rights (and responsibilities) are IMPORTANT, but so are the rights of other people who are impacted by the owner's use of their property.