City anti-poverty strategy
Here is some space to discuss what Toronto can do to fight poverty.
Setting the Agenda 2010
What's your vision for Toronto?
-
Recent Comments
David Robertson on Cycling Infrastructure Desmond Cole on Democratic Reform and Civic… Raj on Welcome to Setting the Agenda … MS on Cycling Infrastructure DN on Cycling Infrastructure
November 19, 2009 at 12:52 pm |
Public health should be a priority concern.
There are too many people who are unable to afford the necessities of life. This sets them up for chronic disease like heart, lung problems, diebetes and depression. Toronto must take the lead in ensuring that the most vulnerable can have access to healthier food choices that will support their health. Even if this means adding an additional healthy food supplement to social assistance payments.
November 20, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
Transit fares have a direct effect on poverty. While there are reduced rates (subsidies) for students and seniors (over 65), absolutely NOTHING is done to halp out those on low income: disability, Ontario Works, “working poor”. When people on low income cannot get to health appointments, get to food banks or participate in society, as can those with wealth, we contribute to social isolation, poor mental health and poor physical health. This is NOT just a transit issue. At the root is lack of a comprehensive approach to poverty reduction.
November 20, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
Food security is getting worse. WE MUST do more.
From reliable, respected Daily Bread Food Bank surveys:
“Food bank use in the GTA has rapidly increased in the past year due to the recession.
Overall number of client visits: 1,030,568
Increase since 2008: 8%
Increase from January to March of this year compared to the same time period last year: 17%
Average per month: 85,881
Weblink: http://www.dailybread.ca/PDFS/03_LearningCentre_/03_PDF10_2009%20DBFB%20WH%20Key%20Stats.pdf ”
Couple this with reduced charity giving by citizens: “The overall value of charitable donations dropped 5.3 per cent last year.” (StatsCan)
and we can see an alarming trend. Food banks are closing and merging due to lack of resources ($, volunteers) meaning access by foot is reduced (see transit fare comment above). Less available food, Less access. More people losing jobs, Increased Demand.
We need MORE community gardens, but that only helps in growing seasons.
We need the city to step up and help coordinate food gathering. Perhaps a campaign to encourage restaurants, hotels, etc to donate, with the city leading by example: What happens to the food provided for city council and staff meetings that is not used? A strong statement would be made by councillors designating 5% of their offce budgets to donations to food banks.
November 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
Why do we need a government “anti-poverty” strategy? Has there ever been a government that was pro-poverty?
Assisting people who cannot help themselves is one thing but creating vast strategies only leads to governments spending more and more on increasing bureaucracies without useful results. Between 1999 and 2003 the city’s website says that $53 million was spent on over 200 projects in combatting homelessness. I don’t think we really got $53 million dollars worth of results.
As Ronald Regan once said, “The more the plans fail the more the planners plan.”
Let’s focus on true compassionate relief for those less fortunate and let’s not target government on goals it can’t accomplish.
November 20, 2009 at 9:58 pm |
Setting a strategy is supposed to ensure an efficient, coordinated plan where everything done is pointing towards the same end. I might agree that somnetimes governments work at cross purposes with one department negating progress in another. That means better planning AND monitoring is needed.
To “focus on true compassionate relief for those less fortunate” and “Assisting people who cannot help themselves” is just good intentions. To make it reality requires attention to planning and strategy.
By the way, you miss the point of ‘today’s poverty’ when you talk about people who can’t help themselves. People ARE trying to help themselves. Multiple low paid jobs, immigrants working far below their education and talents, private profiteers taking advantage of people by replacing real, secure (with benefits) full time employment with temporary, part time and seasonal workers at wages that mean no one can afford to live in the GTA without having to rely on foodbanks.
November 20, 2009 at 10:38 pm |
One astounding finding is that its cheaper to put the homeless in permanent homes than bunks in a shelter. And that’s just in direct costs. The indirect costs including more health care, more social services, more policing, and especially lost productively (because it’s very hard to get work if you have no fixed address). Not only the compassionate, but the hard-headed, should make building more low cost housing a top priority.
November 21, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
Laurie. I must applaud you for you findings, they are actually correct. However: I do think that it’s extremely important that someone should be held accountable, the onus should be place on someone, and I am not quite sure who that some one is going to be.
In regards to affordable housing. Many people have basements that could be use as a direct fix to this housing problem, but: again, who is going to assist the home owner in regards to repairs, when their property becomes victim to affordable housing.
November 22, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
“who is going to assist the home owner in regards to repairs, when their property becomes victim to affordable housing.”
Why is affordable housing a bad word?
I’m saying it shouldn’t be, but something MUST be done about the scandals that continue to plague TCHC. Poor support for those that need it, lack of intervention in critical situations (people have died), state of poor repair, etc.
We need an ‘auditor general’ type of independent investigation of the goings on at TCHC. It is an embarrassment to Toronto.
November 23, 2009 at 4:11 am |
I’m gonna add appropriate Urban/City planning as a key component of a comprehensive anti poverty strategy, using the example of Scarborough Village (SV) to illustrate …
SV is one of the ‘priority’ communities with high needs & few resources that has been targeted for increased attention, investment yada yada. Relatively close by, geographically, are some higher income communities. Far from subway or LRT, transit to the rest of the city is cumbersome. There isn’t an affordable grocery store close by – a renovated Metro is there where the wealthier folks shop, but most SV residents find too expensive. There isn’t a single regular bank in the community, but 8 cash money/pay day lending type of operations. There is a renovated rec centre and theatre in the community used by increasing numbers of youth, but mostly by seniors coming there from other communities. On the surface, SV gets the appearance of receiving lots of attention from the city – but the lion’s share of the investment and development decisions that have arisen hasn’t actually been all that efficient at actually reaching the people who need them the most.
November 24, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
Poverty as we all know is a complex problem.
There is no to have a thorough, comprehensive discussion about it in a forum such as this (fine forum though it is).
But in an effort to contribute, let me grossly over simplify:
Absolute Poverty (as opposed to relative Poverty) is function of not having sufficient funds to meet a person or family’s basic needs. We can quibble about what goes in that basket, but obviously adequate food, housing, transportation, medical care etc.)
In order to solve the problem one has to understand what produces this poverty.
Again, grossly over simplifying, poverty is a product of either A) A person lacking a job, for whatever reason. B) A person having a job but receiving inadequate pay, either because they are part-time or the wage is too low.
Poverty is not a function of food pricing or housing pricing etc. in general. Obviously high prices exacerbate symptoms, but you can’t really lower prices for most basic goods to the point where someone unemployed, underemployed or in very low-wage job will sustain themselves or their family.
Where as poverty is function of having a job, what’s needed is adequate access to employment, meaning a vital economy, free and high quality education, assistance in finding employment, services that remove barriers to employment (ie. childcare, or appropriate attire for a job interview if someone can’t afford that etc.)
Beyond that, support needs to be offered to workers though an adequate minimum wage, targeted tax relief, comprehensive universal health care (ie. pharmacare, dentalcare etc.) and free/affordable post-secondary education, amongst other things.
Finally, of course there needs to be adequate support for those who are short-term unemployed and/or unemployable for whatever reason.
Having said all of the above, I notice a common thread, almost none of this is within the purview of municipal government. Municipal government is about delivering ‘Hard Services’ overwhelmingly, with a few exceptions. It is neither broad manager of the economy, nor the provider of income redistribution programs. As such, while I very much favour tackling poverty, I don’t want to see the City creating vast strategies to treat the symptoms of poverty when other levels of government should be invested in curing/mitigating the causes of poverty.
What the City can and should do, is equalize property tax rates between multi-residential housing (apartments) and single-family residential; with the precondition that landlords pass on all or most of the savings to tenants. This would reduce average rent by something like $80.00 per month in Toronto, maybe more.
The City should also eliminate minimum parking requirements for apartments and common amenity requirements; by saving on the provision of ‘frills’ rents could be further reduced in new apartments by another $50.00 to $100.00 per month. That would make housing much more affordable!
The other thing I would focus on at the municipal level is making sure poverty does not become concentrated in a single area, as this tends to overwhelm social services, and create the pressure of a downward spiral for the residents of that community.
This means spreading services around, not over-concentrating them in a one area, and also investing to make sure each area has equally attractive public services, streets, parks etc. so that no one is stigmatized by the community they live or grow up in.
Other poverty issues belong in the hands of other governments.