By REVEREND GLYNN FIRTH (Bathurst Street United Church) EMBERS or clergy in churches which are cen- ’ trally located in the huge _ Metropolitan cities of North ‘merica are becoming increas- ‘ingly aware that life in the _ Inner city” is often an in- Coherent struggle for survival or many of the people who live there, Church people are particul- arly conscious of this, for if they take their Christian res- PoNnsibilities seriously, they go Out to visit the people of the downtown areas in their homes, they see their children at play _ in the back alleys; they talk With adults about their work (or lack of it), and they listen _ 4S people come to them to dis- _ CUss personal or social needs. Those of us engaged in these _ tasks are getting a first hand _ Picture of what it is like to _ live in economic and cultural deprivation, for the central _ areas of our cities are places _ Which have a large percentage of people who live in poverty. Some Canadians may be sur- Prised to discover that poverty exists in the second richest coun- try in the world. To them it May be news that welfare and Mothers’ allowances are so in- adequate that those who must €ke out an existence on them never have enough to provide for the necessities of life. ‘Persons who are employed at the lowest end of the wage Scale are in almost as bad a Plight, for our present minimum Wage law in Ontario is much too minimum for urban ‘condi- tions. I personally know fami- lies in which there is only one bread-winner, who cannot, on 50 per week, provide the food and clothing needed by their Children, : In addition to these basic eco- Nomic factors, the children of Welfare and low-income fa- Milies are culturally deprived. €lr parents are often unable to provide them with opportun- Ities for personal and artistic ae Some parents are so €spairing that they simply al- low their children to run the Streets, : _ The rate of school dropouts in the central city is also alarm- Mgly high, since our educa- tional system is still not com- Ing to grips with the needs of Seo eR SEE U Members of Bathurst Street pues Church have shown a €en interest in public, low- rental housing. Published here 'S_an abridged version of an Grticle printed in Ontario Hous- 2 August, 1964, Since then ere have been new commit- Meee to go ahead with the eee Park development. i ile that is welcome news it ‘S Not the first time that prom- ‘ses have been made. public & slow learners and problem children. Many young people are thus coming into the labor market with insufficient skills to meet the demands of an in- — creasingly technological age. It is in this social context that concerned members of the Church see the housing needs of low income people. Therefore we do not look at housing prob- lems in isolation, and we are not so naive as to imagine that the provision of adequate hous- ing will, in itself, resolve these other questions. But we do see housing as a key issue, for, at present, low income families are paying a very high percentage of their earnings for shelter and are get- ting very poor value for their money. We are told, by social ser- vice agencies, that a family should not pay more than 25 percent of their income for shelter, if they are going to be able to provide the other ne- cessities of life. Yet welfare fa- milies who are not living in a subsidized housing project must pay 40 to 50 percent of their income for shelter, and many wage earning families are pay- ing 33 percent. What they receive for this large percentage of their meagre wealth is often shocking. I personally know families (in which there is one wage earn- er) who live in apartments which are so deteriorated that it is impossible to keep them clean and tidy. Because we do not as yet have in Toronto an adequate housing bylaw which defines minimum. standards and en- forcement, these conditions often persist from year to year with no improvements made. The effect of this on the house- wife and family is devastating. Yet the tale is not ended here, for inadequate space de- prives the children of “nty own back yard to play in’, and the city has not answered this need by providing more public parks. We have a smaller park acre- age in Toronto than we had 40 years ago. Churchmen do not have any special training in housing needs or city planning. But when we see what bad housing and low incomes are doing to individuals and families we feel we have a right to speak. In Toronto the public housing program has slowed to a crawl. There is one exception to this, in that we have done a reasonably good job of provid- ing adequate facilities for se- nior citizens. But, publicly-financed, low- rental housing for needy fami- lies is a horse of a different color. Here we encounter op- position, an opposition which seldom comes out in the open for an honest debate, but which he.church and “We live in a allure which achieyemertr. We ane proud that we are able to wert 4 comprar which com ovt-thirk tr human component in a chen fame, on that we can harm televinion pictures ccrons the Atlantic. (tia inconceivable to me that auch a eultune cannot provide food housing, for all As people.» is none the less real and power- ful. It is sufficiently powerful to have caused repeated delays in the Alexandra Park project, which has now been under con- sideration for seven years, and which, at this writing, is still not finally approved. Can it be that the area which comprises the Alexandra Park project has now become so com- - mercially desirable that its opponents are able to prevent its use as a residential area? The families who live in pov- erty find themselves short- changed. They are told, on the one hand, “it is too expensive to house you near the city centre” and on the other, “you are not wanted in the suburbs”. We have recently had some pretty good evidence that peo- ple who own property in “good” areas of this city are not wil- ling to accept the kind of peo- ple that they think a housing project will bring as_ their neighbors. I trust these contra: dictory positions will not result in a reversion to the shack town, located far enough from the city centre that the rest of us can easily forget about the misery of its people. Church people are the first to say they are concerned for sl housing moral and = spiritual values. Some of them do not always recognize that these values are at stake in the decisions which urban communities make about our common life. One wonders whether the decision to build the Spadina Expressway was seen in.this light. I submit that its completion will serve to destroy, not enhance, human values in this city. On the other hand, I submit that a cheap system of public transportation is essential if the people of a huge urban center are to have freedom of move- ment. The inevitable fact of congestion forces us to decide if streets are for people or cars; if parks are necessary or just a frill; if high rise apartments are suitable for family living; if the waterfront should be ‘pre- served for use by the public, and a host of related questions. We live in a culture which continually boasts of its tech- nical achievements. We are proud that we are able to in- vent a computer which can out- think its human opponent in a chess game or that we can transmit television pictures across the Atlantic. It is inconceivable to me that such a culture cannot provide good housing for all its people. The middle and upper income portions of the Canadian public are now living in the best hous- ing that any nation (except the USA) has even been able to pro- vide for the majority of its people. Yet, in Canada, mil- lions of other people are still putting up with inconveniences that most of us forgot 40 years ago. There is no technical reason why we cannot have good hous- ing for all. The reasons why we don’t are economic and poli- tical. Last summer these girls posed for a photo on one of the streets in the run-down area of Alexandra Park (near Dundas and Spadina streets). Recently, a few blocks from this scene, a woman and thres-ycar-o!ld child lost their lives in a fire on Cameron street. January 15, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5