Could the Expropriation Act Solve the Homeless Problem
#1
Posted 29 May 2007 - 02:28 PM
I'm thinking that private economic development of these buildings or sites would greatly benefit the public interest and have the secondary effect of relocating the homeless out of the downtown core since the main attractions that put them there are gone. Urban revitalization is a legitimate public use. Promoting economic development and clearing out slum areas are a long accepted area of government function. So I propose the government get title to the buildings and sell them back to someone who will develop them into a more vital use that will enhance the community instead of being a burden and an eyesore.
Just an idea. I think it could work. But is there a leader in Victoria with the cahones? I guess the idea is dead on arrival in this town of milk toast "leadership."
#2
Posted 29 May 2007 - 03:01 PM
I would agree that the middle of downtown was a poor choice for homeless shelters especially now that they're sitting on prime downtown lots. But we had a lot of backwards thinking planning back in the day, didn't we?
As for the Janion, there is talk about a developer working out a deal to purchase the property and redevelop it. And next to Streetlink (where that club used to be) a furniture store is moving in soon so things may be on the mend in that immediate vicinity. Although I suppose all that the redevelopment will do is put more pressure on the visible homeless problem since Streetlink can't simply absorb excess homeless into its premises. Makes me wonder how the changing nature of that part of downtown will play out with big dollar tenants and the homeless butting heads.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#3
Posted 29 May 2007 - 03:35 PM
chaos theory at work?
#4
Posted 29 May 2007 - 04:01 PM
It's not a slippery slope as far as I'm concerned. Expropriation for a good reason to serve a public purpose is good. What bigger dilemma is our city facing? What's the difference between closing a pizza parlor because drunks fight in front of it after hours as they are doing and forcing the sale of buildings whose existing use is causing a bigger problem? Maybe even the threat of expropriation would motivate the building owners to clean up their act.
#5
Posted 30 May 2007 - 07:42 AM
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#6
Posted 30 May 2007 - 09:35 AM
#7
Posted 03 June 2007 - 08:45 AM
#8
Posted 03 June 2007 - 05:02 PM
Homelessness could solve the derelict buildings problem.
We could move towards squatters rights like they have in Holland and the UK. If a building is left abandoned for say - 5 years, it becomes legally squattable. Once squatted, the squatters must call the police and provide the landlord's name, an inventory of any items in the building for the Landlord to pick up, and evidence that the building was abandoned for 5 years. The police and squatters must do a walkthrough together, and the squatters must provide the police with their lawyers number so that the landlord can contact them to get items and for any other purposes. The squatters must then make sure that the building is up to code to live in or use, and depending on the degree of dereliction they will have a reasonable set amount of time to do so.
In order to evict the Landlord must provide City Hall or a Court of Law with plans for the rehabilitation and use of the building. They must prove that they are ready and financially able to put the building into productive use. Then the eviction can take place. Beware though, if the squatters can make a case that their use of the building is a more socially useful one than what the landlord plans (ie: Free Daycare and an art gallery with artists studios and free housing for battered mothers above) VS luxury condo time shares, then the landlord may be forced to sell it to the City or Squatters Collective as punishment for their terrible crime of leaving a building languishing, and derelict, an open sore weeping its pus into our urban fabric.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
#9
Posted 03 June 2007 - 07:32 PM
This one is different by virtue of the fact that they are not there giving welfare to the residents, they are teaching the residents to be self sufficient - which is a laudable goal.
They do this through a system of local currency, you do work for the community you get some of the "bucks" which you can then trade for services in the village.
They gave a few examples - one fellow was helping to build accommodation and he traded the "bucks" he earned for food and shelter, in another case a girl was babysitting and traded her "bucks" for English lessons, another traded hers for medical service.
The villagers loved the system, it instilled a sense of worth and pride in them and made the village a better place for all.
A similar concept could be undertaken with "unsheltered" on our streets. Perhaps something as simple as the merchants getting together and offering the street people vouchers (good for food or merchandise) in exchange for the street people cleaning up and maintaining the block that they are on. Pick up trash, hose down sidewalks etc. Depending on the success of the operation it could be expanded with more vouchers for more involved work.
LJ
#10
Posted 04 June 2007 - 07:18 AM
There is a lot of symbiosis going on that the polarising articles in the paper don't ever mention.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users