Comment 33456

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted September 14, 2009 at 13:12:47

"It's not necessarily due to an aversino to mixed use or subsidized housing. It is largely a matter of the PHYSICAL building. Here we have a beautiful building, designed as a hotel and used for a hotel for its entire life. WHy would we chop that up into residential units, subsidized or not?"

Well I guess I wouldn't mind some clarification from opponents of the project--is this a Connaught issue or a subsidized housing issue?

When someone writes, "The last thing government money should be used for is a massive project that will inject a huge group of more poor people downtown," I think it's pretty darn understandable that some people (myself included) might interpret this opposition to be anti-poor rather than against a poorly designed development scheme.

If this is truly opposition to the mis-use of a building or public money, I think that needs to be elucidated better by opponents. Having just stumbled upon this discussion this morning, it really appears to have been framed more as opposition to the potential tennants of a low-income housing development rather than the project as a boondoggle-in-waiting.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds