Sprawl

Mississauga Must Eventually Pay for Sprawl Legacy

By Jason Leach
Published October 05, 2009

Finally, a newspaper piece in the GTA about Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion that actually makes sense and dares to tread where the rest of the media won't.

She has become the Harold Ballard of Ontario municipal politics. Instead of owning the Toronto Maple Leafs, she has Mississauga, a city where expectations are so low residents couldn't be happier with what she has done for them.

Of course, only a quarter of Mississaugans bothered to vote in the last civic elections, one of the lowest turnouts in any jurisdiction. Some might say that the reason for such a turnout is the excellence of McCallion's leadership. Others argue it is a result of a level of indifference so profound no one cares anymore.

And what exactly do Mississaugans have to show for her decades in power. Low taxes, supporters might say, and lower civic debt.

Let's hope that's enough, because beyond that they have little to feel good about. The fact is that they have bought into a city so unprepared and ill-equipped for the 21st century it could serve as a poster community of how not to build a city.

I've been saying for years that her legacy will be known sometime in the next few decades when all of the sprawling underground services start to come to the end of their life expectancy at the same time. Have fun paying for that, Mississauga.

The only thing that has prevented her expanse of suburbia from being in massive debt already is the fact that Toronto's airport falls into her jurisdiction. Instead of the City of Toronto (the reason that airport exists) receiving the hefty tax payments each year from the airport and surrounding industry, Mississuaga gets the money.

That, and the fact that the province has paid for and maintains all of the highways through Mississuaga that made the sprawl-lands possible. Contrast that to Hamilton, where we have had to build and maintain two of our four freeways with local tax dollars.

With any leadership at all, Mississuaga could have been developed as a great example of modern city building in Canada. Instead, it's just another in a long line of unimaginative, unplanned suburbs that has filled North America in recent decades.

Jason Leach was born and raised in the Hammer and currently lives downtown with his wife and children. You can follow him on twitter.

60 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By rusty (registered) - website | Posted October 05, 2009 at 10:29:24

What? You are critisizing Hurracaine Hazel? But she's UNTOUCHABLE!!

Damn you!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Really? (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 11:21:03

It's b/c most Mississaugans don't consider themselves as Mississaugans, but rather Torontonians... so why would they vote in a Mississauga Civic Election or care about Civic Politics?

They live there b/c it's cheaper than Toronto, yet close enough. Not for that 'Civic Pride' feeling; Not for the Mississauga Ice Dogs; Not even for Square One!

They live there b/c it's cheaper than, yet close enough to, Toronto. Plain n Simple!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted October 05, 2009 at 11:38:57

Good article..

Really? > "They live there b/c it's cheaper than, yet close enough to, Toronto. Plain n Simple!"

Yep, that's about it. The way that the sprawl of Mississauga has compounded problems of poverty is also pretty unfortunate. It's even more difficult to work or get an education when you can't get anywhere without driving or hours on a bus.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 12:27:36

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By zookeeper (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 12:38:49

A Smith = hungry troll. Downvote and move on.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 12:49:01

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 13:30:02

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Curious (anonymous) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 16:09:03

This downvoting thing? Are you just trying to support decisions which the majority agrees with or are you truly interested in diverse opinions, even if you don't like them?

You may not agree with A Smith, but you should know what to expect based on the psuedonym he has selected. So, why add insult to ignorance by actually making his thoughts fade? You know just willing contrary opinions to go away doesn't work. In fact it may strengthen them....just saying!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 16:22:27

You must be new here.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 16:25:12

Calling people losers and Ryan's pet isn't a contrary opinion, it's abusive, and intended solely to disrupt the debate, not to add constructively to it in any way. I'm sure there would be some people would downvote him/her if s/he were stating a contrary opinion in a constructive way, but he would not be getting the resounding negatives you see here. It's the way s/he argues (name-calling, belligerent rhetorical questions, cherry-picking and torturing evidence, etc.), not his/her opinion that turns most people off.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 05, 2009 at 16:31:15

People aren't downvoting A Smith because they disagree with his opinions, much as he tries to present himself as some kind of victim. A Smith is getting downvoted because he is a troll.

His comments are routinely inflammatory, insulting, abusive, and off-topic. He evinces deep disdain for basic principles of reasoning, and he discounts or flat-out ignores any evidence that contradicts his narrow ideology.

A Smith has managed to disrupt and derail many otherwise productive comment threads by inciting frustrated attempts to rebut his inflammatory posts. It was getting to the point where it threatened the viability of this site as a place for people to read and share information and ideas about the city.

Comment fading allows a community that has repeatedly tried and failed to debate with him on an assumption of good faith to skip past comments of his that readers have flagged as trolls by downvoting. It allows people to carry on the discussion without feeling obliged to respond to his trolls.

It does not block his comments altogether (even the most faded comments are still visible) and because it is comment-by-comment based on votes, it does not prejudge future comments by the same person. On the rare occasions when A Smith posts reasonable, topical and respectful comments, they are generally not downvoted.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 18:03:04

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Curious (anonymous) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 18:22:52

I see. Some good points made and civility must be maintained. So, would Jason's sarcasm above be a candidate for downvoting? It really doesn't add to the debate other than to show disdain for ASmith which has already been amply done. Will Jason fade slightly too?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Hamiltonian (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 18:29:11

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 19:23:43

....and yet only one poster's comments are continually turning white. Hmmm....

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 19:26:03

Well at least the people standing up for Smith have an interesting take on Mississauga's future. Another topic successfully derailed.
Congratulations, I'd bake you a cake if you accepted handouts.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lukev (anonymous) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 19:41:15

Mississauga had a nice Ponzi scheme going for 40 years. As long ad greenfield developers paid in, the city was "doing great". But like all scams must, it has finally come down in flames.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted October 05, 2009 at 21:15:39

"Will Jason fade slightly too?" Given that jason's comment is sitting at -2 right now your haughty implied claim of hypocricy seems a bit misplaced. Read JonC's comment above, that's why we're trying to make it harder for ASmith to take over every comment thread and ruin it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By shaddupsevenup (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 07:40:31

I like the feature. This way, I don't have to bother reading the troll bait. Like there isn't enough of that on the net. If I wanted to read troll's thoughts, I'd go to fark.com.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Really? (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 09:51:01

Not sure how many actually follow GTA developments, but Mississauga actually has several plans out there to make their Cold & Empty MCC (Miss. City Ctr.) into a 'liveable' downtown: http://www.hurontario-main.ca/

http://www6.mississauga.ca/onlinemaps/pl...

It may seem like too little too late... but who knows; with all those people living in those towers, it's amazing no one spends time outside and around them!? It's because there's nothing to do, so maybe this 'downtown plan' might help.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 10:19:07

part of the problem with those towers is that they are all brand new with massive underground parking. It's not like Manhattan or old neighbourhoods in Toronto where there are far more living spaces than parking spaces. I don't have facts, but I'd venture to guess that there are more parking spaces than living spaces among the new towers in Miss. That, combined with the fact that there is no downtown and it's going to be pretty tough to get any street life happening. It would require a complete rebuild of the main streets in that area from their current high speed, 8 lane design to get folks enjoying life outside.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LL (registered) - website | Posted October 06, 2009 at 10:33:50

My career would advance much faster if I moved to Mississauga. But I'll pass. Not only is car ownership mandatory. Traffic is horrendous. And there's no civic life to speak of - no activism, no music scene, no street life (good or bad). Plus its economy is even more exposed to energy price than Hamilton.

Time will tell...

The sad thing is that Hamilton's rulers are trying to imitate Sauga, while devaluing the local geographical advantages.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jonathan Dalton (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 10:58:09

You have to give mayor Hazel credit for fighting the very creation of Mississauga 30 years ago. MCC is a unique experiment in planning. I can't think of any other place in Canada where a city has been created from scratch in the later 20th century. Given the enormous geographic area allotted to Mississauga when it was created, and the economic pressure to build sprawl in the last 30 years, I think it could have turned out worse.

Of course I find the place to be a nightmare myself and can barely stand driving through, let alone living or working there. I guess my point is that the state of affairs is only partly the fault of the municipality, who is at least beginning to mitigate the damage.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 11:15:34

I work in Mississauga and out of the 30 some-odd employees at my work only 2 actually live in Mississauga. The rest of us commute from places like Markham, Orangeville, Hamilton and Brampton. I considered moving to Mississauga for the convince to get to work, but I soon realized that being close to work would be the only advantage. I'd be paying Toronto housing prices without the advantages of being within Toronto proper.

For now I guess I'll just suck up the commute and keep an eye out for positions closer to my home, where I at least am able to do pretty much everything I need to do without having to drive and have some semblance of community.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rusty (registered) - website | Posted October 06, 2009 at 11:17:16

What's curious - to me anyway - is that people actually seem to enjoy living in Mississauga. My work colleague commutes by GO every day to Toronto. She lives in a high rise. She loves the place. She says it's affordable, easy to get around and there is 'lots to do'.

'If I want to have a drink or walk around' she tells me, 'I go to Toronto'.

I asked her about McCallion and the local political scene and she just shrugged, 'I'm not intersted in that'

I get the sense that Mississaugans are not necessarily proud of their town - they don't seem to get much identity from the place - but they do like the affodability and convenience it offers. Some of them may look down on 'proper towns' like Toronto as being scary and crowded. Mississauga appears to be a nice compromise for a lot of folks - close to TO, not as far and expensive as Oakville, and not as rough as Scarborough. It's a shame that this is enough and I wonder how much it will change once the green fields are all used up.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 13:54:20

Mississauga Property Tax Rates - 2009

Residential 1.0176%
Multi-Residential 1.6138%
Commercial 2.5185%
Industrial 2.8839%

Hamilton Property Tax Rates - 2009

Residential 1.5876%
Multi-Residential 3.9116%
Commercial 4.3239%
Industrial 6.1243%

If you choose to invest 500k in Hamilton, rather than Mississauga, this is how much MORE you have to pay in taxes...

Hamilton Mississauga
Residential: $7,938 $5,088
Multi-Res: $19,558 $8,069
Commercial: $21,620 $12,593
Industrial: $30,622 $14,420

As long as Hamilton charges tax rates that are 56% (Residential), 142% (Multi Res), 72% (Commercial) and 112% (Industrial) higher than Mississauga, how can the city expect to attract anything but small investments?

Does anybody think that investors want to pay, on average, 95% more in taxes just so they can locate in Hamilton? If so, please explain why you think this is?

Furthermore, who thinks that tax rates matter more than bike lanes when it comes to attracting tens of millions of dollars of property investments? Once again, please explain why you think this is?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 14:38:48

It's amazing that Mississuaga can afford to charge such low rates. I thought after they'd lost their 30,000+ industrial jobs over the last couple of decades, coupled with being a mature, urban centre with aging infrastructure that they'd need to raise the rates in order to make ends meet. Incredible stuff.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 15:05:56

Isn't it amazing how simply presenting verifiable FACTS can lead to downvotes? But then again, this site isn't about presenting the truth, it's about promoting leftie beliefs. The kind of beliefs that have made Hamilton into the poverty capital of Ontario.

Ryan, I find it interesting that you can't answer very easy questions. I'll try this once again...

Do you think that investors want to pay, on average, 95% more in taxes just so they can locate in Hamilton? If so, please explain why you think this is?

I understand you don't want to answer this because it will force you to admit that Hamilton's tax rates need to be lowered dramatically, but why not be a person of character and try anyway.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 15:08:47

What smith refuses to admit is that the same $500K will buy a lot more property in Hamilton than it will buy in Mississauga so you end up getting the same value for the money you pay in taxes. Mississauga property is worth more because it's closer to Toronto, period.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 15:16:26

nobrainer >> What smith refuses to admit is that the same $500K will buy a lot more property in Hamilton than it will buy in Mississauga so you end up getting the same value for the money you pay in taxes.

In other words, per acre of Hamilton land, high property tax rates result in less consumer value, less tax revenue and less investment.

How again is this a good thing?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 15:49:10

Ummmmmmmm no. The greater distance from Toronto leads to lower land values. Do you actually read anyones comments or just keep blabbing the same schlock? I noticed that you ignored my response to your comparison chart and instead tried to turn the focus on Ryan. I was being sarcastic yet making a great point about the differences between heavily subsidized suburbia and an old industrial centre.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 15:50:16

"high property tax rates result in bla bla bla" Haw haw, you fail at thinking ASmith. Here is a link that will get you started in not sounding so rediculous...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation...

Mississauga property is worth more because it's closer to Toronto, they get to charge lower tax RATES because property is more expensive thanks to the close-to-TO premium so they end up getting as much from each owner as Hamilton does.

What I can't figure out for the life of me is whether you know this but don't care because its more fun to troll or you really can't think. I kinda hope it's the first one, at least that just means your a misanthrope. I'd hate to think what it means if you really, honestly can't figure out something so basic, maybe "despairing scientist" was right......

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 16:19:25

Ok, since zookeeper isn't around, don't feed the troll!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Really? (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 16:30:34

What I don't get is why Mississauga didn't build on one of their EXISTING Downtowns (Streetsville, Port Credit, Meadowvale (more of a hemlet), Cooksville (which would have had direct connection to Downtown Toronto via GO) etc...)

I mean, imagine a Downtown Skyline along Lake Ontario, in an older/built up neighbourhood like Port Credit! What a beautiful setting... but instead they decided to build, literally, in the middle of nowhere 30years ago. And now, most of MCC is still empty lots/unserviced lands/banality.

And only NOW, 30 years later, did Mississauga realize they made a planning mistake and are trying to correct that with this 'Main Street Master Plan': http://www6.mississauga.ca/onlinemaps/pl...

So if Hamilton--for whatever reason--is still trying to 'imitate' Sauga's plan; then perhaps they should refocus their plans on Mississauga 2010 rather than Mississayga 1975.

Some places in Mississauga (and even BURLINGTOn--well Aldershot) even have better Urban Designs than Hamilton! While Aldershot tries to build up their 'Plains Village' idea with mix-used townhouses (street retail, condo/townhome ontop) along Plains Rd; Hamilton concentrates on crap development where single-storey faux-stucco framed aluminum boxes put their backs to the street... literally!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 16:55:19

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 17:12:24

ASmith, do I have to spell it out? I was being SARCASTIC. Hamilton is the city that lost over 30,000 jobs and is an old urban centre. Not the subsidized suburbia.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 18:04:45

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 19:06:54

again, I have zero interest in comparing us with new, subsidized suburbs. The Toronto comparison would work except for the fact that is the financial/business capital of Canada. That's like Wilkes-Barre Scranton scratching their heads and wondering why investment is more robust in NYC.

Let's look at Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland etc.... for better comparisons.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 19:49:42

It's obvious that there are a number of factors affecting Hamilton's property values.

Those factors include commuting distance to a white-collar jobs centre (Toronto, Kitchener).

It also includes older infrastructure, a heritage association with dirty industry, and an older demographic. It also includes a high percentage of residents living on government assistance.

Being honest, yes, high taxes are a disincentive for businesses to invest in Hamilton. They are not a significant factor in whether or not residents are willing to pay to live in the city. It is the secondary impact of businesses deciding not to locate in the city that reduces opportunities for residents, and makes it less attractive to live in the city.

If you have access to the same opportunities living in Hamilton that you do elsewhere, you'd easily choose a $250K home in Hamilton with $3K/year taxes over say a $400K home in Mississauga with $3K/year taxes

The question is, how do we make it so that someone will view the opportunities as similar here in Hamilton?

I see bike lanes as a big benefit. They allow opportunities for individuals to have more flexibility in how they travel. For every cyclist on the road, the city spends less on wear and tear, traffic enforcement, road building, etc...Diverting high traffic out of cars onto bikes opens up space for others who must drive to have more reasonable commutes without putting a drain on families. It opens up more opportunities for those too young or unable to afford cars to work instead of collecting government assistance. Less people on social assistance leads to...bing bing bing...even lower taxes! I still can't see how, if one is for lower taxes, they can be for maintaining high government subsidization for cars and against increasing cycling rates.

While bike lanes are not the be-all and end-all, a coherent cycling network is definitely a step in the right direction. So is making better use of former industrial land, needed to rebuild the industrial tax base so rates can come down without having to pay the costs to develop and service new greenfield business parks on the outskirts of the city.

In the long-term, having infrastructure that is dedicated to cars is expensive. It manifests itself in unaffordable tax increases when maintenance has to be done, and often we can't even afford routine maintenance needed to keep things in a state of good repair. Hamilton has already learned this lesson, and Mississauga is inevitably following in Hamilton's footsteps.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 19:56:10

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 19:58:57

ummm, actually it lowers the density. do the math.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 20:19:54

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 21:21:39

it would increase the population density of a farm, but the city's overall average density continues to go down as we add new sprawl projects. Check the density of the downtown core, and then the lower city from the 403-Centennial. Then start adding in the Mountain and new developments and the density continues to drop. Add in Burlington and Grimsby and the density drops even more. You're forgetting the starting point - one of the most dense urban cores in Canada. Unless we are building massive towers all over the place, the density only has one way to go.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 22:55:04

Population Density - Wikipedia

Toronto, ON: 10,287/sq mi
Los Angeles, CA: 8,205/sq mi
Mississauga, On: 5,504/sq mi
Portland, OR: 4,288/sq mi
Houston, TX: 3,828/sq mi
Hamilton, ON: 1,169/sq mi


If we know that the geographical area of Hamilton is fixed, than anytime people move here, regardless of whether they live in the suburbs or a downtown condo, it will increase our population density.

At this time, Hamilton is very sparsely populated, less than a quarter the density of Mississauga. If Hamilton stopped putting restrictions on suburban development, this city could quickly double in population density.

If we could eventually match Mississauga's population density, regardless of the type of housing, Hamilton would have a population of 2.38 million. I don't know about you, but I think Hamilton would be a much more interesting place if that were the case.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 22:57:14

"If we know that the geographical area of Hamilton is fixed"

Yeah, it's not. See, we keep expanding the urban boundary. That's where we put all the new low density houses that reduce the city's average density.

Man, you must REALLY love to argue if this shit is the best you can come up with.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 23:09:31

z jones >> we keep expanding the urban boundary.

Unless you think Hamilton will be annexing other regions soon, it's geographic area IS fixed. That being the case, if even one more suburban house is added to the city, it WILL increase Hamilton's population density.

Population/area = Population density.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By grassroots are the way forward (registered) | Posted October 06, 2009 at 23:10:23

arienc writes: It also includes a high percentage of residents living on government assistance. This statement is not correct and misleads others.

If you wish more information on poverty stats, that are documented, and not some imaginary number that you have pulled from who knows where, please read the following report.

http://www.sprc.hamilton.on.ca/Reports/p...

Actually when you read the report, some areas of the city, poverty rates are growing, but not in areas that one would expect it to be growing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 07, 2009 at 00:22:28

For the love of God, stop feeding the troll.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By grassroots are the way forward (registered) | Posted October 07, 2009 at 00:42:56

A Smith wants to cover up the farmland with houses, yet we have areas of the city that sit vacant and empty.

I found this, I think it is very interesting article:

http://www.slowfood-detroit.org/articles...

While the city is in transition, it would help feed those who struggle, to make them independant, also gives them access to healthy, fresh food, instead of the processed food that is hight in fat, salt and sugar, at the food banks.

It would create a healthy community all the way round.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted October 07, 2009 at 07:33:46

To clarify for people that actually care, the population density calculations that people actually use for things like planning are:

urban population/urban area (does not include the burbs) residential population/residential area (does include the burbs)

Neither case covers agricultural land, mountains, lakes, conservation areas and other inhabitable ares. All the things encapsulated by total pop/total area. Which of course is why no one sensible uses it to define density in the case of cities.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted October 07, 2009 at 10:19:09

JonC I think you mean uninhabitable...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JonC (registered) | Posted October 07, 2009 at 11:03:34

yes. Although in hindsight, that wouldn't really be the right word to use anyhow, since agricultural lands are habitable.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted October 07, 2009 at 12:32:05

grassroots: If you wish more information on poverty stats, that are documented, and not some imaginary number that you have pulled from who knows where, please read the following report.

I must assure you that while my statement is a general observation, it is supported by the facts, although the only document I could find quickly is one from 1995.

http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2000/up/chapter1...

Hamilton's poverty and social assistance rates are well over the average poverty rate for cities in Ontario, and are considerably greater than that of the cities A Smith likes to trot out as examples of low-tax jurisdictions (Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, Kitchener).

I did not point out, based on your link, that Hamilton's poverty rate has in fact been on the decline since 1995. That is an important observation...even with the deteriorating industrial sector, that poverty has actually declined is impressive.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By grassroots are the way forward (registered) | Posted October 07, 2009 at 14:14:50

arienc: Thanks for the link. Yes the poverty rates did dip down, mostly due to the fact the many seniors who did not know they could access income supplement. They was a concerted effort by many in the community to ensure seniors got what they were entitled to.

But based on historical data and the current economic conditions, the poverty rate could rise back up to 21 to 24 percent, of course this is just an estimate.

It should be noted too, that many other communities tend to ship their people to Hamilton, The term I found to describe this is suburban colonization, where the suburbs sends their problems around drugs, prostitution and homelessness to urban areas.

Th poverty rates include everyone that falls below LICO, just not everyone who accessess social assistance. So as of April this year, the number of OW cases was still below 12,000.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted October 08, 2009 at 09:59:47

JonC your list includes lakes and those are pretty tough to build a house on. Although houseboats aren't unheard of ;)

And uninhabitable can still be the right word for these areas, it's just not uninhabitable because of the environment but because of the legislation protecting them

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted October 08, 2009 at 10:21:08

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By zookeeper (registered) | Posted October 08, 2009 at 10:55:41

Man the trolls are really getting frantic now that it's easier than ever to ignore them. Remember, angry reactions are their lifeblood, just keep on downvoting and picking up the thread of real discussion around them! Oh and thanks highwater for stepping up while I was out of town!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted October 08, 2009 at 14:34:43

Some people need to learn how comment votes work as well as develop a thicker skin (and maybe a thinner skull). Have a comment that adds to the discussion or zip your lips.

I hate driving and being in Mississauga, it's ugly and in my opinion planned on the back of a napkin. Makes me think the plan was done on a Friday just after the boss said "Hey guys, let's get this done quick so we can go out for an afternoon beer".

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Eva (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2010 at 14:02:26

Mississauga is now ugly. It is now only a city of houses (ugly ones too, now the majority which are north of eglinton) with roads, stoplights and traffic/buildup. Oh yes and some pointless malls. I call Mississauga CAR-ASAUGA (no wonder they have that festival) and the city of lack of responsibility in planning. You cannot just put up a city and let it grow without preparing proper public transportation and pedestrianization - Mississauga by the way is almost a million people which means they could have their own light rails or subway lines now. All of these are normal and common sense if you develop and allow for many people to move into the city. The more houses there are, the more people there are, and that means more foot traffic and cars naturally should take second place and give way. Why do you think places like New York City are the way they are? If Mississauga wanted to be and remain a suburban paradise so open, then they shouldn't have overbuilt and made all of these houses and barrack communities to begin with in the last 30 or so years.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Eva (anonymous) | Posted January 04, 2010 at 14:04:38

*Oh and it's not just the houses north of eglinton, but don't forget the ugly houses/sprawl west of Mavis. Bad planning.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds