FFWD Weekly
Copyright © 1998 All Rights Reserved.
 |
| COVER STORY Recent figures on housing construction and sales in Calgary are an indication of the boom that continues to envelop our city, yet the numbers fail to show that the products of this robust sector are out of the price range of many Calgarians. Given the boom and the fact that housing is left largely to the vagaries of supply and demand, the supercharged market is driving up costs considerably. It's at the point where many individuals and families can't secure adequate rental accommodation - some of their options are to stay with friends, live in shelters, or survive in unsafe, squalid, inadequate dives. True, there are pockets of subsidized housing available through Calhome Properties Limited and the Calgary Housing Authority, but the waiting lists are long and the location of the units themselves are not always suitable. As a result, many have to grab whatever crumbs fall from the table. Often these morsels turn out to be single-room occupancy units and apartments in the inner city neighborhood of Victoria Park. One resident, Myra (all names in this article have been changed), explains her reasons for living in the area: "I'm on welfare, and I only get a bit of money, so I don't really have a choice where I live. But I guess it's a place, and I've lived in worse places (in Victoria Park)." Once a vital neighborhood, the ever-present threat of Stampede expansion has served to encourage the flight of capital from Victoria Park. And let's face it, why would anybody make a sizeable investment when the expansion of the Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth could negate the value in one fell swoop? Consequently, the remaining houses are occupied either by long-term residents who can't afford to leave the area or won't be pushed into leaving, or by renters lured or forced into the area by the promise of low rents. But are these rents worth it? And are they low? There is decent housing within the community, mostly occupied by homeowners, but there are also more than enough slum-like units. A number of absentee landlords don't want to upgrade the houses because of the Stampede, but in true entrepreneurial spirit they see the opportunity to secure a certain segment of the rental market. Some of the houses have been haphazardly subdivided into a large number of one-bedroom units with a shared bathroom and kitchen. There is little privacy, the walls are paper thin, doors are smashed open, used syringes are left lying in the hallways, appliances don't work, and belongings and mail are stolen. Sadly enough, even these inadequate and unsafe rooms are going for upwards of $300 to $350 per month, with unscrupulous landlords charging an additional $50 to complete the rent report form required for social assistance. Unfortunately, however, because of the tight housing market, the diminished stock of subsidized housing and the unwillingness of government to become more involved in the housing sector, families are being forced into what should be unacceptable/condemned housing. Additionally, there are landlord and property managers who continue to operate in direct contravention of the Residential Tenancies Act with seeming impunity - after all, small claims court appeals take time, and time passes slowly if one is homeless. And people need a place to live. Catherine, a single mother, says she feared for her life when she lived on 14th Avenue SE. It was okay at first, because the resident manager "looked out" for her and her daughter, but when she refused the sexual advances of the building's owner, the situation changed dramatically - the looking out turned into looking the other way. Eventually, Catherine left the apartment, but in the weeks before she could do this, she had to barricade her door with furniture at night. And then there's Shelley. She is also on social assistance, and as a single person gets $394 per month. Within that, the provincial government allocates $165 per month for rent. Naturally, Shelley couldn't find a place in Mount Royal for this princely sum and eventually secured accommodation in Victoria Park, but that doesn't mean that she got the place for $165. The rent was $11.26 per day, which works out to approximately $337 per month. As a result, Shelley had to dip into the remaining $229 (the so-called standard allowance) to cover the rent, which cut into food and clothing. The situation perpetuates the cycle of poverty. "My lock was broken and I had to put a spoon in the door to stop the drunks from next door coming in and harassing me. They wanted food and demanded sex," she says. "The landlord wouldn't fix the lock to the front door, and everyone came in and used the bathroom. There were also a lot of mice, one even bit my toe. Then one of the mice had 13 babies. It was disgusting." But it was all she could afford. Shelley tried to make a go of it for six months because she couldn't find alternative housing. Eventually, however, she'd had enough. Rather then remain with her rodent roommates, she has chosen to stay in a friend's car. While in Victoria Park I was reminded of George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), which provided an exposé of living conditions of working class families in the northwest of England in the 1930s. Orwell spent weeks living in the flea-ridden boarding houses, speaking to the marginalized lumpen laborers and eating tripe to gain a deeper, first-hand understanding of the vast inequalities in pre-World War II Britain. I admire Orwell's fortitude, as I doubt that I would be able to stay even a night in some of the properties in Vic Park. Nevertheless, the situation in 1937 Wigan and 1998 Victoria Park seem similar and points to the need to consider the implications of the increasing gap between rich and poor, especially as it relates to the basics of food, shelter and clothing. This gap was narrowed with the advent of the welfare state, but now with the triumph of the market-based, debt-obsessed neoliberalism, we are once again witnessing the domination of vast impersonal forces and a situation where people are not even having their basic needs met. It is ironic that despite the massive increase in the collective wealth of the city, such horrible conditions still exist in Calgary - and only blocks away from the corporate opulence of downtown. But this brings up the dilemma of low-cost housing. If the inadequate buildings are razed, it is improbable that appropriate low-cost housing will be built in its place - the market isn't really set up for the provision of social housing. So we have a problem. And as Buddy, a former Vic Park resident now in subsidized housing, says, "I'm glad Calgary didn't get Expo 2005. If they did, they would have got rid of the cheap housing in the area and made it more expensive. The rents would really have gone up. 'Victim Park' is bad, but where would the people have gone?" While the housing in Victoria Park is patently inadequate, there are few other alternatives. Unfortunately, given the supremacy of the market, slum housing will continue in Calgary until the government acts in a appropriate manner. Anyway, first things first... anyone for rent controls? (Tim Wild is a social worker in Calgary who has worked on social justice and housing issues for several years.) |
| |