@andreareimer i don't think such a definition would do nothing, or provoke the developent of 231 units of nothing. both senior levels of government have significantly shifted gears on housing since the last instance of re-definition that you cited
@andreareimer i guess it's a legit debate - eg 10 units at shelter rate in a 100 unit building, 50% condos = gentrification/displacement, therefore "no building at all," which is the local position. i don't want to get stuck in the past, i hope that is the past.
@andreareimer unlikely there are perfect actions. 100%/375 has become an ideologically-driven ideal; it is a terrible way to live in reality. and "social housing" that includes $962/mth provokes confusion, anger, cynicism... the hopelessness emoji
@andreareimer i don't think it's cool to impose such ideals on how other people - who don't have a choice in the matter - have to live, however well-intentioned. a re-definition like this is one lever among many possible - for considering
@andreareimer that's the idea - kathy felt bad that she didn't explain it well, but she gave me a chance to talk about it. let me know if it makes sense, @Khelsilem @BuiltJustice i appreciate yr thoughts about it; thx @andreareimer for replying
the unroll thread thing @threadreaderapp
the unroll thread thing @threadreaderapp
