“Uniacke Square faces the same threats that Africvillefaced,” says Jim Silver, recalling the African-Nova Scotiancommunity that was bulldozed into oblivion in 1962.
The province built Uniacke Square in 1966 and many formerAfricville residents ended up in the public housing project.
Silver, of the Urban and Inner-City Studies program at theUniversity of Winnipeg, was in town last week to warn of “a veryreal threat” to the future of Halifax’s highest-profile publichousing complex, a threat he details in a paper published by theCanadian Centre for Policy Alternatives website.
“Let me be clear,” he explains. “So far as I know, there’s not aplan afoot to get rid of Uniacke Square. But there are broad socialforces at work that will bring about thesame end.”
Public housing projects serve an essential service, says Silver,because the free market fails to provide housing that people withlow incomes can afford. “If the market doesn’t build them, the onlyalternative is for the government to build them. Uniacke Square is184 good-quality low-income units.”
There are two main social trends threatening low-income housing,says Silver. First is gentrification, as low-income housing in theblocks surrounding Uniacke Square gets rebuilt or replaced ascondos for upscale residents. Rooming houses, especially, aredisappearing at an alarming rate.
A related trend is what Silver dubs “the neoliberal city”—thehip, chic inner city, where lots of high-income residents live.
“The claim that many people are making—that the presence ofupper-income residents helps the entire neighbourhood—is notsupported by the literature,” he says. “People come in and theyhave very particular kinds of social and political skills, but itdoesn’t translate into the kind of policies that invest inlow-income people directly.”
That sort of investment should include programs tailoredspecifically towards low-income residents, he says. “In theaboriginal communities of Winnipeg, they talk a lot about’systems.’ Now, you and I think of systems—the school system, thepolice system, the medical system—as positive things, but forthem, systems are oppressive. We need to rework these systems sothey are of benefit to the people using them.
“If you can create something other than the standard system,people will take the opportunities and run with them.”
Silver mentions clinics and night classes he’s helped establishin Winnipeg and a program offered for women in Uniacke Square thatresulted in the establishment of the “PEP-Bro Divas,” an activistgroup that formed a tenants’ association and advocated for theestablishment of a parents’ resource centre and otherservices.
“The solution here is people—investment in people,” hesays.
Instead, however, there is an ideology that argues forprivatizing units at Uniacke Square.
“It’s stereotyped,” Silver says of Uniacke Square. “All it is iscrime, violence, drugs. And the argument is, ‘It’s in the interestof the people who live there, they’ll be better off because they’llown their homes.’
“It might help those tenants directly, but they’ll turn aroundand sell them for $20,000 more and those units are forever gonefrom the low-income housing stock,” he says. “They’ll be nolow-income housing rentals available.”
Eventually, such privatization will see Uniacke Square eithertransformed beyond recognition, or torn down completely.
The better approach, says Silver, is to “invest in the strengthsof Uniacke Square. Yes, there are problems. But there are manystrengths. Most people have no idea what Uniacke Square is reallylike. It’s badly needed, high-quality low-income housing. There arestrong, energetic individuals and families. There’s a strong senseof community spirit and really good community-basedorganizations.”
That community spirit is evident when Silver gives his findingsat a neighbourhood meeting at the North Branch Library. Residentsgrill a municipal planner who suggests that HRM’s “communityvisioning” process will help Uniacke Square.
“The municipality has done nothing for the average poor personfor 46 years,” says a resident. “Why should we believe them now?”
This article appears in May 1-7, 2008.
Here’s a question Tim: Why are we, as honest taxpayers (and however ill-infomred you may be, I assume you are one) subsidizing the criminals in this (or any) area?If it gets bulldozed, fine with me. The people themselves have been absolutely unwilling to offer any help to fix their own problems. Do the right thing? They won’t do ANYTHING. Stand up for your community by standing up to the drug dealers, and the thugs. Don’t think that by standing up to investment you are going to make things better.But here is an easy fix: Convicted of a crime while a tenant? Evicted. Everyone in the unit. Gone. No chance for low income housing assistance ever again (or least for a long ‘gone straight’ period. Sucks to get caught. Someone living with you (that boyfriend that you don’t tell the welfare folks about) convicted? Too bad. Should have given the police the assistance when they asked for it. Just released from prison? NO to government assisted housing for you! Trash your unit (inside or out)? Evicited. Start treating the honest people like functioning members of society who have responsibilities to the greater good, and maybe they will see that they DO have responsibilities to do more than just whine about discrimination when their kids go out an attack women with table legs, or shoot a young father over a drug deal.But instead, you are trying to set the stage for a ‘this is racism’ claim when the changes for the better finally come about. The problems of Uniacke Square aren’t racial, they are social though, and it’s up to the people of the area to stand up to their own problems, or be pushed aside for someone that will.Iin the meantime, since we can’t force them to improve their lives, get educations or better yet, turn back the clock and convince them that all the downsides of drugs and crime they were told about in school are real, and we can’t seem to put a stigma on going on welfare (which they should be trying to get off, not complaining about how much they get), Hell, let’s not even let those those that want to, take advantage of imporvements. Let’s not tell them that if they need help, we will try to help, but that there should be a little shame that you might want to work away from in being on social assistance. Let’s instead blame the people willing to invest in the community. Let’s make it about race, because then we can wait for another 50 years before addressing the real problem.(And to ‘says a resident’ (Tim, you are King of the unattributed quote!)): Why do you think that every time the city has a few bucks (of my money) it has to be spent on the poor. It my be too late for you, but get an education. Or a Job…. any job! You’ve been given a hand up (out?) for years with a subsidized home, now do YOUR part and start contributing, and let someone else have the hand. Maybe if you paid taxes instead of consumed them, you’d have a different outlook.