Losing for the Win: Government Spin and Dismantling Social Housing Stock and Calling it Progress

What Really Happened to 389 Church Street

The City just announced that it created NEW affordable housing at 389 Church Street. We are in a housing crisis and new deeply affordable housing units are desperately needed. But, like a lot the City does around housing, this involved the displacement of poor people, well-placed lies, and misleading statements. And when all is said and done, we have less housing than we did a few years ago.

Stop the sell-off of public housing!! The Toronto Community Housing Corporation is quietly proposing the sell-off of 326 apartment units and 45 single-family homes of public housing. We have entered a period of economic downturn when the need for decent and accessible affordable housing will be especially important. The City should be building new units and adequately maintaining its existing stock, not selling it off in order to pay for repairs. It is not enough to promise that the units will be replaced and tenants will be relocated. We need more social housing now! We need repairs for existing units now! Saturday May 23 11:30 am Rally and meal at one of the homes on teh selling block: 13 Trefann St. (North of Queen St, east of Parliament)
Stop the sell-off of public housing 2009 OCAP flyer

389 Church Street is a building located just south of Carlton Street in Toronto. It used to be housing for women and it was built in 1973.[1] In 2008, Toronto Community Housing planned to sell this building. At the time, the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty publicly decried and protested the move.

In 2015, City staff told Toronto City Council that the “housing form is out-dated.” It was structured like a lot of small rooming houses. There were 66 units with 247 rooms between them: each unit had a shared kitchen and bathroom. This was an average of 3.75 rooms per unit. The City claimed that the building was only at 30% occupancy because people didn’t want to stay there due to the model of housing. City staff were claiming in 2015 that the 78 tenants living at 389 Church needed to be evicted and the building needed to be renovated because it was so “out-dated [that it] has resulted in the building being under-occupied.”[2]

I remember differently. I remember two women who lived there coming to a meeting I was at, and saying they wanted to stay. They wanted our group’s help fighting the inevitable eviction from their building. They liked the model they lived in and they didn’t want to move, in part, because of that shared model. Shared accommodation doesn’t work for lots of people and, for those it does work for, it can go bad if they get the wrong person to share with. But, I contend and I think the evidence supports that at least 169 women would have wanted those spots – especially during a housing crisis.

This model was an example of supportive housing. It was women living together and supporting each other. I don’t use the term “supportive housing” in the clinical, institutional way in which people’s behaviours can be surveilled and managed and, within this logic, hopefully rehabilitated. This is what all three levels of government and groups that promote Housing First support – groups like the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness.[3] They pathologize many homeless people as “chronically homeless” and then call for “wraparound supports.” In a recent Crackdown episode, Dr. Danya Fast, a researcher and supportive housing advocate, reflected on seeing what supportive housing actually means in the lives of people she knows: “I was recommending something that sounded really important in principle but I wasn’t thinking nearly closely enough about what it should look like in practice.” In these “institutional” settings, which one of her research participants calls “desolate,” harm reduction in supportive housing are used to control people.

Supportive housing gained a lot of popularity through Housing First ideology. Housing First individualizes homelessness and the solution is, therefore, supportive housing – not building social housing, rent control, raising social assistance and the minimum wage, ending colonial and white supremacist dispossession, stopping gender-based violence – things that require real social change.

It is my argument that 389 Church Street occupancy was suppressed, not that tenants did not want to occupy it. Around the time City staff said the building was 2/3 empty because people didn’t want to stay there, there were protests because shelters were full. There were about 173,000 people on the housing waitlist at that time, taking many years to get a unit. According to the 2015 staff report, 389 Church Street needed some repair. There was (and remains) a significant TCHC repair backlog, with many units needing major repairs.[4] Lack of repairs don’t keep TCHC building empty. It is my clear recollection that the tenants understood, and that other data suggests that, from when the TCHC added 389 Church to its list of buildings on the chopping block, TCHC did not rent the units at 389 Church in order to ease the off-loading of the building. This is why, by 2015, the building was only 30% occupied.

To be clear, it is my assertion that City staff lied that 389 Church Street was only about 1/3 occupied in 2015 because the building was “outdated.”

 Last week, Mayor John Tory announced 120 units of “new” affordable supportive housing, in partnership with several not-for-profit agencies at 389 Church Street. Purposely restricting units to keep occupancy low for years so a building can be renovated doesn’t make the housing new. Indeed, if the TCHC ever fixes its repair backlog, it won’t make those units new. Landlords are legally required to repair units.

What we have ended up with is a building that sat for 11 years, slowly being emptied out so it could be remodeled, and so that operations could be passed on to supportive housing agencies. 78 women were dislocated for this project.

We have a net loss of 127 rooms and no new housing units. Those units are counted as part of the Winter Plan for shelters. We have a repaired building, and that is good.

We need 10,000 social housing units in the next 3 years, not a Mayor who will put is name on anything and call it new.

I co-founded FactcheckToronto.ca recently to help hold the City to account for the many lies, half-truths and misleading statements that the City puts out about homelessness and housing. Some of the information here can be found there and there is additional information about the announcement of the “new” 389 Church Street housing available there.

[1] Shelter Support and Housing Administration, (2015). “EX7.17 Under One Roof: A Housing Solution for Women and Children at 389 Church Street.”

[2] Shelter Support and Housing Administration, (2015). “EX7.17 Under One Roof: A Housing Solution for Women and Children at 389 Church Street,” p. 1.

[3] I have written about this lots in my dissertation, Mapping Ruling Relations Through Homelessness Organizing; or, you can wait for the book which will hopefully be out this fall.

[4] Shelter Support and Housing Administration, (2015). “EX7.17 Under One Roof: A Housing Solution for Women and Children at 389 Church Street.”

Remembering Flaherty

I have been following, minimally, the debate around whether or not it is appropriate to speak ill of the dead now that Jim Flaherty is dead. He was the Finance Minister of both the federal and Ontario governments at various times and oversaw campaigns of cuts to social spending in both governments.

I think that this debate is actually really helpful. To be clear, I think that everyone who is arguing that it is wrong to speak ill of the dead is a hypocrite and I am concerned about what the implications of this are for history. Do we just rewrite history to make everyone glossy and good once they are dead? Further, it is always only certain people who this is said about. It is okay to speak ill of Hitler and Stalin. However, the don’t speak ill of the dead was in the air when Thatcher, and Regan died. What is happening here, then is a division between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Thatcher and Regan are responsible for misery and the death (although the scale may be different, their actions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people through economic policies, war mongering, and support of brutal dictatorships). 

jim-flahertyThose people who are saying that we shouldn’t speak ill of Flaherty are implicitly or explicitly ascribing to the notion that he is one of ‘us.’ He worked with ‘us’ to make the world better. What is useful in this debate, then, is that we get to see who views Flaherty, fundamentally, as one of ‘us’.  

Now, I am not normally one to say “this is class war.” While it is true, I am not normally one to say it – at least in that way. However, listening to Tom Mulcair, the leader of the NDP, on the radio this morning singing Flaherty’s praises, it became so clear to me how someone like him can basically say that Flaherty was a principled, nice man and sincerely be sad about his death. Mulcair said of Flaherty, “he’s just a really nice guy” and “it’s extremely rare for it to become personal in politics.”

As someone who was on welfare when his government was persistently attacking social assistance, how could this not be personal? For the many poor people who were evicted because of his policies, this is personal. For the people who were arrested under the Safe Streets Act, this is personal. For the many poor people who lost out – lost childcare spots, lost social programming, lost their jobs, this is personal.

On Facebook, John Clarke wrote:

As a central figure in both the Harris Common Sense Revolution and the Stephen Harper Government, James Flaherty brought austerity, poverty, misery and premature death to the communities he attacked. I will not dishonour the memory of Kimberly Rogers of Sudbury, who was killed by his actions, and many others besides, by shedding any fake tears at the news of his passing. Flaherty has gone and may everything he stood for be defeated.

I profoundly agree with this statement and I was quite troubled by the attacks on John for speaking the truth.

However, I think the silver lining in all of this is that it does help reveal for who politics are just politics and for who they are really about surviving. Muclair can shake hands with Flaherty and go for a drink because he isn’t deeply affected by the harm Flaherty has caused.

So many people are also talking about how this is so sad for his family. I have no doubt that this is true. But let’s not forget that his wife, Christine Elliott, is a member of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party. Will she mourn our dead if her government eliminates ODSP – as it has promised?

This is class war.

Some of us don’t get to chose a side.

The discussion around not speaking ill of Flaherty has been useful, however, in revealing what side some people who claim to be allies are actually on.




Victory – ODSP Safe (For Now)

Kathleen Wynne has announced that the Liberals won’t be getting rid of ODSP. I’ve written previously about how this threat and how devastating it would be. This is a really important victory. People organized against it and we won!

Sadly, this doesn’t mean that ODSP is in the clear. The Tories plan to eliminate ODSP and push most of the people on it onto welfare. They could be elected very soon.

Also, the Liberals haven’t said that they won’t reassess people on ODSP – another thing that the report that calls for the merger of ODSP and welfare calls for. This was done in British Columbia where 14,000 people were forced to reapply for disability. This process, according to one report, found that “The level of fear and anxiety that the 2002 reassessment created was unprecedented and severely damaged the physical and mental health of many, many people.”

Even if everything stays the same, there people on social assistance are losing every day because the rates do not keep step with inflation. This is why the Raise the Rates Campaign is calling for a raise of 55% for social assistance just to restore welfare to 1995 levels (inflation + 21.6% cut the Tories made). The Liberals have also slashed really important benefits like the special diet allowance and community start-up meaning that folks are worse off today than they were a few years ago.

This is a really important victory but only one step in a very important struggle.


You should be afraid: How cuts to ODSP will hurt us all

OCAP:Wynne Government Backs Away From Plans To Merge ODSP and OW

Who Benefits: How disability benefits are failing British Columbians