No reason to oppose building Markham seniors’ affordable homes on church’s parking lot

本文是7月3日在Unionville Presbyterian教堂举行的关于建老人廉价屋会议的第二部分。参加当天会议的一批居民搅乱了会议内容。他们反对教堂打算将其部分停车场建成老人廉价屋,且部分单元可能会让“智商障碍”的人和“残疾人”入住。要想阅读文章的第一部分,请点击:http://chinesenewsgroup.com/news/666818。
This is the second part of an article on the meeting held at the Unionville Presbyterian Church on July 3 when the attending crowd hijacked the meeting on the Church's proposal to supply part of their parking lot land for affordable Senior housing that may include those with “Developmental Disability” and “physical disability”. For the earlier article, click on: http://chinesenewsgroup.com/news/666818.

会议开始后,教堂管理人员Marty Molengraaf向与会者说明,该项目目前只是一个设想,他们随后将进行一项需要9-12个月的项目可行性研究。该项目将以教会的价值观,即服务社区,包容,爱和宽以待人(简称SILK)的精神来满足老人的基本需求。可行性研究将包括为老年人提供廉价的租赁住房,可能还包括给有“智商障碍”的人提供廉价单位。

At the start of the meeting, Minister Marty Molengraaf explained that the project is in a visioning stage to be followed by a feasibility study that will take 9-12 months. This project is in line with the church's value statements- Service, Inclusion, Love, and Kindness (SILK) to meet the senior's basic needs. The feasibility study would include affordable rental housing for seniors and “may include” units for those with “developmental disabilities”.


After the study and after City's approval for rezoning, they will apply to Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp (CMHC) for funding (another 6-12 months) and further seek partners and secure more funding for the project. No City tax money will be involved except possibly the waiving of development charges for the buildings. There will be lots of occasions for more input along the way.


A presentation was then made by the representative of the opposing group of residents. One of the concerns from the opposition's perspective was the parking lot usage. Claiming that their records showed more vehicles parked daily than what the church had identified, they inferred that the parking spaces will be lost with the project. They conveniently overlooked that any project will have to replace the lost parking spaces. The new housing development would provide the former owner an equal number of underground and/or structured parking spaces within the new development at no cost.


A second concern is the traffic congestion in the morning and that the current serious condition may be further exacerbated by the project. Regional Councillor then pointed out that seniors do not drive during rush hours to go to work since they are retired. The current congestion is an issue in itself that needs to be resolved, with or without the new development.


Green space is yet another concern expressed by the group. There are fears that the building will “rob” more of the precious green spaces nearby. The city's building requirements stipulate that each development must allocate a percentage of land for its residents within lands owned by the developer! This can even be built into the building as exposed terraces. No green spaces will be lost.


The next concern was the lack of transit and/or facilities to service the seniors and “mentally disabled”. Wait a second, no one mentioned the words “mentally disabled” throughout the meetings so where did this come from? In many of today's projects, facilities are built as part of the housing complex. In any event, the feasibility study and their experts will look after this item.


An example was then cited on a supposedly case of conflict between seniors sharing their project with “low income people” resulting in the bullying of seniors. This apparently had nothing to do with the proposed sharing groups. Overall, these “Not in my back yard (NIMBY)” excuses presented were either illogical or flawed.


There was anger directed at the attending politicians with traffic congestion issues and why developers did not provide senior housing units within their large developments. All valid questions are to be answered in a different forum and at a different time. A valid question may be why the communication from the Church has broken down at the first meeting for involving the local residents.


Some other ridiculous and unrelated questions and comments included:
1)Why are there no affordable housing for young people?
2)Why is my tax money going to help “other” people i.e. seniors?
3)Is the Church running out of money and facing a shrinking congregation?
4)My personal experience with “Mental patients” previously elsewhere is still haunting me to this day and I don't want that to happen here!


The message from the opposing group is loud and clear. They have collected 1200 signatures in 10 days hence they felt that they are representing the majority view in Unionville and they want the whole proposal to go away. They were then reminded by the Minister that there are 5000 families in the area and many have not been heard from yet unless we have the feasibility study started. There was a thinly veiled attempted to threaten the local politicians especially the one councillor representing Ward#3 who will not bend to their views and agree with them.


Later on, the 5 attending politicians from the three levels of government drafted and issued a public statement based on their lowest common denominator agreed on this matter:


“We support the creation by the Church of a stakeholders group, including community representatives, who will work to facilitate community communication, transparency, consultation and education, and to explore options for the Church site. “

我对声明中的“引导”一词特别赞赏。 人们必须接受加拿大社会的包容精神。 反对者必须了解“智商障碍”,“身体残疾”和“精神残疾”或“精神疾病”之间的区别 。该项目与“身体残疾”和“精神残疾”或“精神疾病”的人无关。 可悲的是,这批发起反对该项目的人没有搞懂彼此的区别,或者他们只是想混淆身体残疾和精神残疾来激怒他们的邻居,加入他们反对老人廉价屋开发的行列,因为他们自己不敢公开喊“别让我的房子掉价”。

I immediately identify the keyword in that statement as “education”. People has to learn to be inclusive in Canada. They have to understand the difference between “Developmental Disability”, “Physical disability” and “Mental disability” or “Mental illness” - the last two categories of people have nothing to do with the housing proposal. Sadly, the opposing group leaders cannot tell the difference or they just simply want to use those last two categories to confuse and exasperate their neighbours to achieve their hidden “save my property value” goals.

我们鼓励所有读者在我们的文章和博客上分享意见。We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit the FAQ page for more information.



Hahaha (未验证) on 星期五, 七月 19, 2019 - 23:38
事实证明:胡扯可以增加阅读量. 想必被人关注的感觉很Nice.
Kev (未验证) on 星期五, 七月 19, 2019 - 22:27
拜读了Mok先生的2片文章。对于一位没有参加任何会议的新闻媒体人,完全没有调查清楚,只是通过片面的臆想,使用暴徒绑架等词汇,博眼球 造新闻 拉仇恨 分裂和丑化大陆移民 低级无聊。毫无新闻媒体的职业道德和素质,让人不得不怀疑其中是否有利益输送关系和暗箱操作
Betty (未验证) on 星期五, 七月 19, 2019 - 22:10
bluej (未验证) on 星期五, 七月 19, 2019 - 22:01
这篇文章充满了恶意和污蔑。教堂说地下停车位,一个地下停车位造价5万。现在停车场一共120个左右停车位,就地下停车场就要近600万的造价。既然是关爱弱势群体是否应该把钱用在刀刃上?万锦北部大量的空地,这6百万善款在那里不是能修更多房子帮助很多人?资金不论是来自纳税人还是教堂捐款,都绝不应该浪费。区内有5000多个家庭也是居民提供的数据,教堂做这个事情连这些基本情况都不知道。1200个签名是短短10天收集的。作者如果不是故意那就是诚心误导,没签名要不是不在家就是没有访问到,而不是表示支持。相反,拜访到的家庭绝大多数都是反对。作者或是教堂能拿出1200个支持的签名再讨论。教堂还说这1200个签名means nothing。这就是对待民主应有的态度吗?作为仅有5000个家庭的社区,方圆3公里内有多大8各不同服务老人和弱势人群的设施,提供近1000个单位。这种密度还要再增加?这是什么规划?另外这个地点离商店,诊所这些设施都要步行40分钟,把老人放在这里难道是丢垃圾吗?你们考虑过老人的生活质量吗?看看别的affordable housing的选址,都是近公交,近诊所餐馆这些设施。作者对项目本身缺乏基本了解,对本区更是完全不熟悉,也没有采访过任何的居民,就凭想象写出这篇错误百出,充满偏见谎言的文章,一副专制的丑陋嘴脸。加拿大是一个民主立国的国家,尊重民意,既然作者身在加拿大,真应该好好学习一下。不要缩在套子里用小人之心度君子之腹。