The Friday Rant: Hard Work Is Hard

Are we socialists?

Is it Canada, Ontario, or Toronto?  Are we a socialist system?  Should the hard-working not benefit from their hard work?

Three Toronto city councilors argued last week that the city should purchase waterfront condos with great views to provide as “affordable housing” to the less fortunate.

Is this really what Toronto has come to symbolize?


I’m sure there will be a dozen comments on this post by the time I sit down to read it, and they’ll be mixed, no doubt.

As I mused last week, there are three things you’re not supposed to openly discuss: religion, politics, and money, and every time we open the door to politics on this blog, we get a solid debate.

I don’t want be labelled as an elitist, because I’m not.

And I’m not a cruel, insensitive jerk, either.

But one thing I am not, is a bleeding-heart.  I don’t believe in fantasy either.  And while I do subscribe to certain elements of socialism, such as free health-care on a grand scale, there are some places where I have to draw the line.

Earlier this week, the City of Toronto announced plans to purchase 70 to 75 waterfront condos in a brand new luxury development, and offer them as affordable housing to low-income families.

The units have a value of $22.5 Million, although after reading a half-dozen articles, I can’t conclude that anybody knows how these units will be financed.

Some city councilors are heralding this as a great day.

The prevailing idea among lefties on the council: everybody should be able to live in a gorgeous waterfront condo, with a great view, even those who can’t afford it.

I’m all for social equality and equal opportunity, but this idea is an absolute farce.

Is it fair?

What is fair in 2013, anyways?

Everybody will have their own opinion.

I do believe in the idea of subsidized housing, but in 2013, I think things have gone too far.  The concept of “temporary housing” has completely evaporated, as “temporary” has turned in to “permanent” for many people who recognize a free ride when they see one, and refuse to move onwards and upwards.

The City of Toronto is basically going to hold a lottery – because that’s what this is.  There are tens of thousands of people who want to live in these “affordable” units, but only 70 to 75 of them will actually realize their dreams.

This is a lottery, plain and simple, and the rest of the low-income families who want affordable housing will have to live on the outskirts of the city.  Sorry, no water-view for you!  No sunsets in your future!

Believe it or not, my issue with this isn’t entirely political, financial, or economic.

I’m not upset with this idea because it has anything to do with real estate, as a Realtor either.

My major issue here is that the growing theme I’ve noticed in society over the last few years is going to gain even more momentum if this project gets off the ground.  What’s that theme?  Aspiring to mediocrity…

Earlier this week, the Calgary board of education moved to eliminate honor rolls, awards, and ceremonies, in what can only be described as one of the most socialist-minded decisions I’ve ever seen.  National Post columnist, Kelly McParland, called it “a race to the bottom” in the best article I read all week.  I have been chronicling the demise of the public school system over the last few years, as ideas like this get put into action, and all it means is that we’re raising a generation of children that are being taught that they don’t need to work hard.

Work is hard.

Life is hard.

And hard work is what usually gets you ahead in life.

But in today’s society, we continue to demonstrate – through removing honor rolls in schools, and providing waterfront condos to the poor, that you don’t necessarily have to work hard anymore!

I busted my ass in grade eight to earn 80% in every single course so I could get the “Lamp of Learning” award, and today, those awards don’t exist.  Would I work as hard today?  Do kids in school today work as hard without the recognition for succeeding?

Removing an honor roll in school because you’re afraid the poor students might feel worse is so goddam counterproductive!  All it does is tell the top, middle, and bottom that mediocrity is the ultimate goal.  Everybody is equal.

It’s the same idea with these 70 to 75 waterfront condos for the poor, er, less fortunate.

Do you think that the family living in one of these units will raise children who have a true grip on reality?  Won’t those kids think that they’ve got it made – living in a unit where the rent is 1/3 of what the guy is paying next door?

This is the direction society is moving, and it scares me.

Nobody wants to work hard anymore, and it’s education boards, city councilors, and other regulatory bodies that are proliferating mediocrity!

Last week, I went out for Korean BBQ with my friends, in a sort-of semi-monthly event that we put together to try to keep in touch.  Most of us are married, some have kids, and it’s events like this (huddling over a dirty deep fryer and eating meat cooked by butane flames…) that allow us to connect.

At one point during the night, a friend of mine remarked, “My roommate comes home every night at 5:01pm and plays X-Box until midnight.”  My friend went on to say that his roommate is part of the leftist movement – a borderline “Occupy” type who believes that there are too many people making too much money in the world.

The comment conjured up a vision in my head of somebody who puts the bare minimum into their work, and undoubtedly expects greater returns.

And I have a major problem with this.

For the guys sitting at the table that night, most of us work 70-hour weeks.

I come home every night at 9pm, I watch TV with my wife for an hour (Criminal Minds, SVU – you know – the good stuff), and then she goes to bed, and I go to my computer for three hours.  That is how I plan on getting ahead, and so far, it’s worked.

The other guys at the table can relate.  A friend of mine works in government, which is supposed to be a cushy 9-5 job, but he’s working 8-8 instead, and Saturdays.  That is how he’s doing well.

Another friend of mine is in banking, and suffice it to say – I was shocked he was allowed to attend an early dinner – at 8:30pm.

The story of the guy who goes home at 5:01pm and plays X-Box for seven hours is a microcosm of today’s society, and the poor work ethic that a majority of the population have.  This guy could work from 5-10pm, two nights per week, and collect a couple hundred dollars to supplement his income.  He could then buy some of the material goods that he complains other people have.  Or, maybe he could pick up another shift at his job, work the odd Saturday, etc.

A client of mine has family in Italy, which is not exactly a thriving economy right now.  She told me that everybody in this small region of the country wants a government job, with a government wage, a guaranteed government pension, and benefits.  But she added that more than 50% of all the consumer goods they buy and sell are on the underground black market.  In the end, everybody wants to receive a salary and benefits from the government, but they don’t want to pay taxes.  So where does the government get the money from?  And how do these people expect to get what they want?

THAT is the problem that plagues today’s society.

People don’t understand, don’t care, and won’t listen to the basic principles of economics.  Somebody doesn’t want to pay any tax, but wants a government wage and health-care – and they will NOT listen when you say “That’s impossible.”  They just don’t care.

Do you think that anybody camping out during the Occupy Toronto protest would have taken a 9-to-5 job at minimum wage?  Not a chance.  But do they want all the same things that the evil corporate-baron has?  Absolutely.

An online newspaper poll showed that 90% of readers were against the idea of providing waterfront condos to low-income families, which is a staggering number considering 90% of people probably couldn’t agree that the sky is blue, and the world is flat.

While many of these people are upset at the idea, because they can’t afford the waterfront condo themselves, or because it’s a misuse of tax dollars, I look at the deeper issue: that people in society are no longer being urged to work hard.

Let’s face it: 70 to 75 waterfront condos isn’t going to address the needs of a fraction of the low-income families in Toronto that need help.  If these condos are really going to cost $22.5 Million, I’d much rather see that money spent on something more productive.

How much training and education can $22.5 Million provide?

This entire argument can be summed up with an ancient proverb, which we’ve all heard a million times:

“Give a boy a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day.  Teach a boy to fish, and you’ll feed him for life.”

Giving luxury waterfront condos to the poor is NOT going to address the massive income disparity that exists in Toronto, or in society in general.

But as we’ve seen in recent years, and as the trend continues, it’s possible that those who don’t know how to fish, have absolutely zero interest in learning…


Post A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Ray says:

    I think the purpose of subsidized housing in good neighborhoods is to put rich and poor people in the same neighborhood so that the problem with rundown, poor neighborhoods with all of its associated problems (e.g. high crime, poor living conditions) doesn’t arise. I also understand David’s rationale, in that poor people who might not be hard working should not deserve to live in such nice places. I can understand from both sides.

  2. Blinds says:

    your blog is very nice I like it if you want to get more entertainment you would click on

  3. LL says:

    Alternate title:

    “Able-bodied, straight, white male born to professional couple says long hours secret to success; pretty sure poverty is not systemic”

  4. Mike says:

    The benefits of mixed-income housing are well documented, and the flaws in segregating the poor are as well. There will always be those who need a helping hand for any number of reasons, and it’s no secret that the most countries with the highest rates of inequality are also some of the worst ranked countries in every other measure. Offering healthcare, education, safe and clean housing, and nutritious food to people less fortunate benefits every member of society in the long run.

    Surely, you work long hours but let me ask you this: What if you had been born to a single mother, in Regent Park, surrounded by troubled and impoverished lifestyles? What if you parents didn’t speak English? What if they or you had witnessed atrocities and war in your home country? What if you were exposed to violence, or sexual abuse at home? What if you were never taught the value of education, but rather the value of crime? What if you never knew an adult who was a doctor, or lawyer, or teacher, but the adults you knew were drug dealers, minimum wage workers, or unemployed? What if you lived in Dixon and never saw the Toronto waterfront first-hand? Who would you be, and what would be your goals today?

    As much as you try to deny it, you have been shaped by your privilege, and now you “rant” about denying that a small piece of that privilege to others. To me, that is shameful.

    1. Stella says:

      Well said Mike! I read this post over a week ago and it has been bothering me ever since but I didn’t want to reply with another “rant”. You have summed my feelings up perfecrtly!

  5. myeo says:

    $22.5 million divided by 70 units is about $320,000 per unit. If Toronto Community Housing were to buy an entire apartment building, the average price per unit of an average or below average building would be between $90,000 – $140,000 per unit. So for the same amount of money, we could get twice or even triple the units. For me, the whole point of community housing is to shelter people and I would much rather house 140 or 210 families/individuals than a mere 70. Community housing does not require granite counter tops and views of Lake Ontario.

    The only issue is Toronto Community Housing is unable to manage entire buildings properly and tenant wear is incredibly high in low income buildings.

  6. ScottyP says:

    I think the guy in the photo would have known a lot about hard work, but I don’t think he would’ve known much about waterfront condos.

  7. James says:

    The NHL has decided that the Calgary school has the right idea so it is eliminating the Stanley Cup and the playoffs. It would not do to have all those hockey teams feel that they are losers.

    For the same reason, we will not have any more medals at the Olympics.

    1. jeff316 says:

      The Stanley Cup Playoffs are a great example of the very idea you’re arguing against.

  8. Scotty says:

    You live in the St. Lawrence neighborhood – a neighborhood that has greatly benefited from mixed income dwellings! And, $22.5 million for around 50,000 square feet of condos averages $420 a square foot. Not a bad deal for the city right? If you want to read more about the details:

  9. johnny chase says:

    BTW – who said they were lake views? I can’t find any reference of this. I would assume that they bought units right over the gardner.

  10. B says:

    Could not agree with your post more. Thanks for having the courage to speak up – you’re not alone in your opinions.

  11. AndrewB says:

    Who will fit in these units? They obviously aren’t premium, Lake facing 2 bed units.

    As a mental health nurses, I find its extremely difficult to get my clients stable housing that isn’t ramping with bed bugs and roaches. Everyone who want it, deserves clean affordable housing. Some people are used to and want to live on the streets and that’s OK too.

  12. El-Mikeo says:

    All reasonable people care about equality. Everyone deserves equality of opportunity. That’s only fair. And common sense. As a society we must continue to strive as far as possible to attain this state, because we’re not there yet.

    Socialists, on the other hand, insist on equality of outcomes. That is idiotic. But hey, they mean well.

  13. Toronto says:

    I work my butt off to live in a Waterfront condo downtown paying $1550 for a 1 bedroom. It is infuriating to know that there are people who pay 1/3 of this to live in the same location (and more sq. footage). How is that fair?

    Since their buildings are using up prime space downtown I imagine it will drive up the cost of existing units due to space shortage, meaning folks who pay market price are getting screwed.

    I agree with subsidized housing, but not with putting it in prime real estate locations. If people are getting subsidized condos in awesome locations, what incentive do they have to improve their situation? They already have it made!!

    1. jeff316 says:

      Of course it is easy to agree with subsidized housing as long as it is not anywhere nice or near you.

      If they have it so made, why haven’t you joined their ranks yet?

      1. ScottyP says:


        Hahahaha. Excellent!

  14. Kyle says:

    “Give a boy a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day. Teach a boy to fish, and you’ll feed him for life.”
    I’m all for mixed income communities, but in this case the City is giving that boy a 12-course Omakase meal!

    Anyhow, I think the whole system would work better if the city actually administered subsidies like a subsidy rather than trying to be a landlord.

    1. moonbeam! says:

      Absolutely agree with the subsidy idea.
      The city should not be in the landlord business.

  15. David says:

    That’s quite the rant David………I was at a community meeting a little while ago. The head of the resident’s association from Cityplace was there and was talking about how the TCHC housing was saving the community for a whole wack of reasons. Mixed incomes are good for a neighbourhood especially in this day and age when developers want to build monolithic tiny condos for well to do single or dual income no kids professionals……..

  16. BOZ says:

    David – isn’t CaseyB your assistant?

    I see you’re running a tight ship over there!!! 🙂

  17. George says:

    I agree with the part about housing handouts, but I disagree with the part about hours spent working. I think a society that expects 12 hour work days and weekends on the job is a society that has lost focus of what is important in life.

    Acquiring more wealth is really an intermediate goal. The ultimate goal is to enjoy the passage of time through fun activities and positive relationships. No one has ever said on their deathbed, “I should have worked more weekends!” The real limiting resource for humans will always be time, not money. So feel free to work 70 hours a week if that’s what you enjoy, but let’s not declare a 40 hour per week worker lazy and entitled. They may just be strongly aware of how fast time slips away.

    1. JG says:

      Nobody is saying that a 40-hour week is lazy and entitled. But those who complain about what others have, or what others get, or about the income disparity in society are often those who aren’t working hard enough, or enough in general.

      1. Suburban says:

        Actually johnny chase just called me lazy and entitled for working a 40-hour workweek a few comments up, but I’m over it 🙂

        I’ve found that people who don’t work very hard, and who complain a lot, are pretty susceptible to get-rich-quick schemes, and it’s hopeless to talk them out of it. Maybe that’s just the people I’ve met.

    2. Frances says:

      I agree with you. A lot of blood, sweat and tears went into achieving the 40-hour week. My father, who did well in the banking world, didn’t work 12-hour days. Oh, a few times when there was a crisis about something he brought work home but that was rare.

  18. Patrick says:

    You say “elitist” and I say “logical.”

    Rational, honest, open, and providing the inconvenient truths.

  19. Jen says:

    David THANK YOU for bringing up the school system as a part of this post.

    I am a high school teacher in the east end, and every day is more and more depressing. The kids today have zero work ethic, and it’s not necessarily their fault; it’s the fault of the administration and government that oversees the whole system.

    Did you know that if a kid never comes to class, never hands in an assignment, and never writes a test, I’m not allowed to give him or her a zero?

    What lesson are we teaching our future generations with this? That they can get away with doing nothing? That they don’t have to work hard like generations before them?

    Did you know that if a kid swears at me, or throws chalk at me, and I send him to the office, there will likely be no discipline, and some socialist guidance councilor will talk to him and ask him why he’s acting out, instead of giving him discipline? The he’ll be sent back to my class, which justifies his actions in his mind, and shows his classmates that they too can get away with this kind of behaviour.

    I agree with CaseyB that there should be other initiatives in this city to help those who need it, but at what point are we just bending over backwards?

    1. says:

      I completely concur with Jen (teacher). I am also a high school teacher. Ontario is right up there with Calgary in its ridiculous “entitlement, no consequence” policies.

      No suspensions. Keep the bad kids in class, demonstrating to the others exactly what they can get away with.

      No zeros, and pressure to pass. Last year, I was “strongly urged” to pass a student sitting at 14% with a 91% absence rate.

      Meaningless deadlines. An assignment due on Oct. 30th must still be accepted in January. Or February. That’s very helpful for the real world.

      No mark deductions for chronic lateness. Come to an 8:45 class at 9:30? Nothing I can do about it (other than grit my teeth). Why? Punctuality is a “learning skill,” not something that can be academically assessed.

      Be away for 50 out of 51 classes? I can’t take one mark off. Again, absenteeism is a “learning skill” issue.

      And rooms known as “focus on success” areas (complete with couches, cookies, and Ipads) is where students who swear, yell, and disobey are sent. This used to be a “behavioural” room, or a detention AFTER school. I know what it’s called in the real world.

      I can only sigh.

      1. jeff316 says:

        Meaningless deadlines. Tardiness. Improper behaviour. Second, third, fifteenth chances. No consequences.

        The problem isn’t that school doesn’t reflect the real world. Having worked in both the public and private sectors, I know that the problem is that school reflects the real world way too accurately.

  20. OCD.Parkhurst says:

    Awesome rant, David. However, since what you’ve written is so bang-on true, you should give yourself more credit. It may look like a “rant,” but it is actually “the politically incorrect truth.”

  21. Casey B says:

    This is my first time commenting.

    Dan hit the nail on the head. Hard work only gets you so far, but affluence can take you leaps and bounds… I’m a 20 something year old who’s started from the bottom. I’ve lived in the infamous regent park projects, and I have a load of family members currently unfortunately living in housing projects. I’ve worked my but off to get through university and I am always trying to move forward, but it’s hard to get beyond a certain financial bracket when you have substantial school debts.

    As for mixed affordable housing, its a fabulous idea. Obviously, centralized housing have become ghettos filled with stigma and crime. The people I know in the city’s housing ghettos would really benefit from nice, affordable housing in which you don’t risk your life, are mugged, or are stigmatized. David have you ever been to the ghetto? Why shouldn’t poor people be allowed to live in safer environments. Yes, they do pay rent but the subsidizing rate depends on your circumstances. If you’re a single mother with four children, you will pay less than a childless family will. Also the rate changes when you get a better paying job, they are quick to adjust the rate back to market rent. Affordable housing in nice areas gives people a chance, yes, and in a way it is social (socially uplifiting!). Affordable housing on the waterfront will not lead to a lack of hard work, not will it depreciate the value of the area or whatever! It’s a good idea and it can lead to a better life for the people who really need a helping hand. Our city should offer this.

  22. Dan Dickinson says:

    I think “A Grant” and “Pete” have summed up the two main arguments here.

    First: hard work doesn’t always equal success…there are too many other factors at play. I’m a healthy white male, born in one of the most safe & affluent countries in the world, to responsible and stable parents, so I’ve never been discriminated against, or persecuted in some way. I’ve worked long hours (I won’t say that I’ve worked hard…I sit behind a desk) and done well, but not everyone’s had the same luck I’ve had, so I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help people who could use a helping hand. A lot of people disagree with that. That’s fine, but I wish people would ask themselves whether they really ran a marathon to get where they are, or whether they were born 2/3 of the way to the finish line. I grew up on a farm and worked my ass off and paid my way through university by working multiple jobs, but I can honestly say I was the latter, so I have no problem helping out the people running the full 26.2.

    Second: so if you ARE okay with the city providing assisted housing as one of those helping hands, there’s a question of how it’s done. The old model was to centralize assisted housing, and that obviously didn’t work well. The new model is mixing assisted housing into traditional spaces. The building on Richmond between Victoria and Church is a good example, the one with the kickass restaurant on the ground floor. But the key word here is ASSISTED. I don’t think people get to live in these units for free, though that’s certainly how some media is spinning it. The residents of those units pay rent. The city subsidizes a portion (20%, I think?) and helps them get into a better building and neighbourhood than they otherwise might’ve been able to find. So maybe their commute is shorter and they can spend more time at work trying to get ahead, as you described. Maybe their kids can go to a better school. Maybe they open a new business catering to a clientele they wouldn’t have had in the other neighbourhood. Maybe (definitely) they have better access to grocery stores and other services.

    And since you presented a few anecdotes about a lazy “borderline ‘Occupy’ type” and a client’s family’s friends in Italy, let me offer one of my own: the only people I hear complaining about paying too much tax are the affluent. They complain about how much income tax we pay compared to the US, about tax on booze, about the land transfer tax, and on and on. So I’ll trade my anecdote for yours and offer that neither are real data. Ultimately, whatever the fringe says or does to inflame other peoples’ confirmation biases, my assumption is that most people just want security — financial or otherwise — for themselves and their family. If the city made a deal with the other two levels of government to make that happen for 75 families in a way that doesn’t produce another Regent Park-type snafu, I’m all for it.

    By the way, which newspaper presented the poll to its readers about housing on the waterfront? I can’t find it, but I’m pretty sure I can guess which one it was. 🙂

    1. grasshopper says:

      Bravo Dan and Casey B! You’ve nicely summed up why integrated communities are better.

      There is a very good piece circulating right now about “The Logic of Stupid Poor People” which is a good complement to what you’ve already said:

  23. moonbeam! says:

    Aside from the issue of how hard people work… let’s look at the bleeding-heart issue of handing out keys to waterfront condos as public/subsidized housing. We can all agree that there are deserving souls, down on their luck, who must be helped by the taxpayer… but luxury housing?? Okay maybe not cardboard boxes… but why should the taxpayer provide anything more than basic housing? And don’t get me started on the 2nd & 3rd generation of welfare cases who expect and complain and demand entitlements. Voters, beware who you elect and re-elect… turf out the politicians who cater to them.

  24. Pete says:

    Have to disagree a bit on this one. Not so much about the waterfront condos, but about the hard work angle. You suggest that hard work = financial success. This can be true. But it’s not guaranteed. There are lots of people working hard for minimum wage, while at the same time there are people making millions just because they had money to invest. The system is skewed towards helping the wealthy stay wealthy, and the rest of us to keep working. Income inequality keeps growing not because people aren’t working hard, but because the people at the top keep wanting a bigger and bigger share and expect everyone else to get by on less.

    1. Suburban says:

      What Pete said.

      Your friend at the bank will work 12 hour days for 25 years to pay a mortgage, while his employer makes billions in profits. And if his job is like most, that overtime is unpaid, which means he’s giving free labor to a billion-dollar company.

      But that can’t possibly be what’s wrong here, right? It must be the poor people’s fault.

      1. johnny chase says:

        What David said.

        You can consider it “unpaid overtime” or “free labour” or you can call it working hard and paying your dues . I have a few banker friends in their 30’s making over $500K a year but it would never have happened if they just showed up for work and mailed it in everyday For 5 years they worked twice as long and earned about 70% of their peers.

        What wrong is your sense of entitlement.

        1. ScottyP says:

          What Suburban said.

          These days people throw around the words “entitled” and “entitlement” regardless of whether they pertain to the argument at hand. Johnny, don’t be one of those people.

  25. Long Time Realtor says:

    If one didn’t know better, one would be left with the distinct impression that it is your “non-elitist” conclusion that subsidized housing is strictly for the lazy and unmotivated. One may also be left with the distinct feeling that it is your thesis that subsidized housing should be restricted to basement suites, dreary hovels or perhaps cardbord boxes.

    What’s most troubling to me about this “non-elitist” piece, is the blatant stereotyping, sweeping generalizations and straw-man arguments; that apparently resonate with 90% of Torontonians.

    1. Linda says:


      I think you’re ignoring the fact that this is a RANT, and that’s how it’s supposed to be taken.

      You refer to generalizations and straw-man arguments, and I saw the word “thesis” in here somehwere at one one point too. But you have to consider the context in which this is written. It’s a rant, it’s supposted to be sweeping, and it’s supposed to overblow the point itself.

      I’ve been reading David’s blogs for years now and I’ve become familiar with his style.

      Sentence fragments.

      Words on new lines.

      Extreme use of elipses….

      I take this post with a grain of salt, and I see the point within. David is correct in his assertation that society is becoming a bit lazier, and work ethic is faltering, but his point isnt that ALL poor people are lazy, or that ALL lazy people are poor. We know that there are scores of twenty somethings that don’t work because their parents are rich beyond belief. But this RANT isn’t a university paper, written over three months. It probably took two hours to research and write, which is comendable given the amount of posts David writes and the amount that he works if his korean bbq roundtable holds truth.

      Every writer has a style, and this post is supposed to stimulate conversation, poke the beehive, and get people to agree or disagree.

      I’m not even concerned about the real estate angle. It’s the work ethic part that drew me in.

  26. Anonymous says:

    David, you hit the nail on the head with this. I didn’t hear about the Calgary Board of Education but that is ridiculous too. People who work hard in life should be rewarded for their hard work. I’m all for helping those in need, but like you said, this goes beyond that. There’s a difference between giving people a hand so that they can continue (re)building their life and giving luxury handouts. It’s a complete waste of taxpayers dollars and should be seen as a failure of City Hall.

  27. A Grant says:

    “Should the hard-working not benefit from their hard work?” I find it funny that the picture used for this article is of a man who probably worked 12 to 14 hours a day, six days a week, with no daylight, in the most dangerous conditions possible – and saw little real benefit from all his hard work.

    Here’s the thing – I’ve always believed in mixing subsidized housing with regular development (in fact, it ought to be a requirement for developers seeking to build buildings that are higher/denser than the current zoning allows). The alternative is social housing communities and all the issues associated with them.

    1. Ken says:

      China is laughing at this discussion right now as they continue their march toward world domination, and as their 3rd graders learn trigonometry. Meanwhile our 3rd graders run around during extended recess, but without any sporting equipment, since balls have been outlawed because they’re dangerous. We’re way too soft as a society and we’re going to get run over if we continue this nonsense. Waterfront condos as affordable housing. Wow, what’s next?