Comment 33312

By UrbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted September 09, 2009 at 13:19:13

AnnonObserver wrote: "One solution would be to set up the mixed income building like a condominium, with an elected board of owners (and in the case of subsidized housing perhaps someone from the city) which can pass bylaws, put liens on noncompliant owners, and deal with the small issues before they escalate. It would also give the owners a united voice in case of problems with the city or the building owner."

This idea is brilliant, allow those who actually live in the building to help govern themselves. Not only does it give them a voice when things go wrong, it also lets the residents know that they are accountable not just to some faceless bureaucracy but to their own neighbours. I can also see it fostering a sense of community sorely lacking in today's neighbourhoods. My only concern would be if one group managed to take over the board and run it like their own little kingdom, this is why I think someone representing the city would need to be on the board to act as a tiebreaker in votes and to keep an eye out for problems with the board.

Unfortunately, that kind of solution is a little too forward thinking and proactive for a city that had to wait for chunks of the Lister Block to collapse before they started enforcing the existing building bylaws. I fear that any new housing projects will wind up, as Ryan put it, "tax gifts to well-connected local investors".

Raising the Hammer and user name character limits since '09

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds