In Conversation

As I campaign through the vibrant streets of Thorncliffe Park, I’m struck by a profound sense of community, resilience, and determination. This neighbourhood, nestled at the southern gateway of Don Valley West, has been a beacon of hope for new immigrants and low-income families for over a decade. It’s a place where cultures blend, where stories of struggle turn into tales of triumph. But behind the smiles and the vibrant market stalls, a glaring injustice persists—a question that demands an answer: Where’s the money?

 

The Billion-Dollar Mirage

Let’s break it down. Over the past year, Toronto has been promised or allocated over $1.259 billion in funding from both the provincial and federal governments. Yes, you read that right—over a billion dollars. These funds were meant to address transit issues, support shelters, and tackle homelessness, all critical areas for a city as diverse and populous as ours. But here’s the catch: a significant portion of this funding is contingent on conditions that are either unmet or conveniently delayed. Meanwhile, the residents of Thorncliffe Park—home to some of the most vulnerable populations in our city—have seen none of this money, despite being the very demographic these funds were intended to support.

 

The Breakdown of Funding

Provincial Funding: Over $1 billion was promised, with major allocations tied to transit and shelter support. However, much of this funding is conditional, dependent on federal contributions and specific city targets that may never be met. This bureaucratic tango has left Thorncliffe Park in the lurch, waiting for funds that might never materialize.

Federal Funding: A total of $259 million was allocated to Toronto for housing and shelter support between July 2023 and February 2024. This includes a $97 million boost last summer and an additional $162 million in February 2024. These funds were supposed to alleviate the housing crisis, yet Thorncliffe Park, a historically significant neighbourhood for new immigrants, remains overlooked.

 

Where’s the Money?

It’s a simple question, but one that no official seems willing to answer. Despite the billions promised, the residents of Thorncliffe Park continue to live in a community that has been neglected for far too long. Our streets are filled with hard-working families who contribute to the cultural and economic fabric of this city, yet they receive little in return.

This conversation goes beyond funding—it’s about aligning our investments with the priorities that were voted on. When you promise over a billion dollars and then fail to deliver it where it’s needed most, you’re sending a message that the people of Thorncliffe Park don’t matter. You’re telling the newcomers who arrive here with dreams of a better life that their struggles are invisible.

 

The Burden of High Taxes on Don Valley West Residents

As we continue to examine the billion-dollar funding promises made to address the crisis in Thorncliffe Park and beyond, it’s essential to recognize the burden that has been placed on the residents of Don Valley West’s affluent neighbourhoods—Hoggs Hollow, Lawrence Park, Teddington Park, Bedford Park, Bayview-Leaside, and others. These communities have been subjected to continuous tax increases under the pretense of helping to resolve the serial crisis in Toronto. But let’s be clear: there is no need to keep asking these residents to dig deeper into their pockets when billions have already been earmarked for this purpose.

The reality is that the money is there, promised and allocated by both the provincial and federal governments. So why are we still being asked to pay more? To continue imposing higher taxes on these neighbourhoods to fix a federal initiative—one that they had no hand in creating—is not just poor governance; it’s discriminatory.

Discrimination, by definition, involves unfair treatment of individuals or groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, or economic status. In this case, the residents of Don Valley West, including its affluent neighbourhoods, are being unfairly targeted to bear the financial burden of a problem that should be resolved with the funds already promised. Leaning on these communities, squeezing them for more and more tax dollars, is not just unsustainable—it’s a failure in fiscal responsibility and governance.

Thorncliffe Park and the broader Don Valley West community have been ignored and fiscally squeezed for too long. Our neighbourhoods deserve transparency and fair tax management, ensuring their contributions aren’t exploited to conceal broader fiscal mismanagement. It’s time to bring the common-sense, transparency, and fairness Don Valley West deserves.

 

Examples of Similar Cases

The examples below illustrate situations where specific communities, often affluent or targeted based on their financial capacity, were asked to bear additional burdens for broader social issues. In many cases, these burdens could have been more equitably distributed or addressed through appropriate use of existing government funding, similar to the situation in Thorncliffe Park.

• • Mount Pleasant and Eglinton’s Roehampton Hotel Shelter Conversion: In 2020, during the height of the COVID pandemic, the quiet residential area of Mount Pleasant and Eglinton faced a situation strikingly similar to that of New York City’s Upper West Side mentioned below. The Roehampton Hotel was converted into a homeless shelter without prior consultation with residents, who were only made aware once the last box was moved in. This decision placed the shelter within meters of a local elementary school, leading to a noticeable increase in crime and burglaries in the neighbourhood. The community, which had not been adequately informed or prepared for such a significant change, was left to deal with the consequences of a poorly managed decision.

 

• • New York City’s Homelessness Crisis and the Upper West Side: Similarly, in 2020, New York City’s Upper West Side, a wealthy and predominantly white neighbourhood, was selected as a site for temporary housing of homeless individuals in converted hotels. The city cited the need to address the homelessness crisis as a reason for this decision. However, residents of the Upper West Side voiced strong opposition, arguing that the city was placing an unfair burden on their community without addressing the root causes of homelessness. They felt that their neighbourhood was being disproportionately targeted to solve a problem that required broader, systemic solutions and adequate government funding.

 

• • San Francisco’s “Wealth Tax” Proposal: In 2020, San Francisco introduced a “wealth tax” proposal targeting the city’s wealthiest residents to help fund services for the homeless and support COVID-19 relief efforts. The tax would have imposed additional financial obligations on high-income earners, with the intention of using the revenue to address social issues. Critics argued that the tax unfairly singled out a specific demographic, placing the burden of funding systemic social problems on a small segment of the population. They contended that such issues should be addressed through broader fiscal policies and federal or state funding, rather than targeting individual communities.

 

• • London’s Congestion Charge and Environmental Taxes: London’s congestion charge, introduced in 2003 and expanded over the years, was initially aimed at reducing traffic in the city center. However, it effectively placed a higher financial burden on residents of affluent neighbourhoods who frequently drove into the city center. While the revenue from the congestion charge was intended to fund public transport improvements and environmental initiatives, many argued that the wealthy were being unfairly targeted to fund public services that should have been covered by broader governmental resources. This led to debates about the fairness of using targeted taxes to address environmental and infrastructure challenges.

 

• • Australia’s “Robodebt” Scandal: In Australia, the government implemented an automated debt recovery system known as “Robodebt,” which targeted welfare recipients, including those from disadvantaged demographics. The program was designed to recover overpayments, but it disproportionately affected low-income individuals, many of whom were incorrectly charged. Although this example doesn’t directly involve affluent communities, it highlights the issue of targeting vulnerable populations to shoulder the burden of systemic issues, which parallels the idea of affluent communities being unfairly burdened in other contexts.

 

Balancing Compassion with Consultation

It’s important to emphasize that my concern is not with the presence of shelters or the people who rely on them—I have always been, and forever will be a staunch advocate for the betterment of unsheltered individuals and families, and firmly believe in providing them with the resources and support needed to rebuild their lives.

However, it becomes challenging when decisions about shelter placements are made without proper consultation, especially in communities where residents are already paying high taxes with the expectation of a certain level of service and security.

It’s crucial that these decisions are made transparently and thoughtfully, ensuring that all voices are heard and that solutions are developed with both compassion and strategic planning. This way, we can successfully integrate services in a manner that benefits everyone involved, without creating unnecessary burdens on any one group.