The wind cuts across an empty stretch of land on the southern edge of London, Ont., where rows of small, cabin-like units sit far from bus routes, shops and the downtown core.
For Tim Magee, who spent years living in a tent in the woods, the move there was supposed to be a step forward. Instead, he says, it feels like being pushed further out.
“I’ll go back to the streets or back to the bush somewhere,” Magee said. “I’ll be more comfortable out there than here.”
Magee said he plans to leave the site, citing isolation, strict rules and the cost of staying there.
“Poverty and homelessness are constantly having rules imposed on them — how they can access things, when they can access them and in what way. In combination with isolation, that can feel too burdensome for day-to-day living.”
Magee said much of that frustration stems from the site’s location on the outskirts of the city, far from transit, services and daily amenities.
“My cheque went from $1,400 down to $466 … I can’t justify that,” he said. “Where is all this money going? I’d like to know, but we don’t get answers.”
Holy fuck that sucks. $115/week would barely cover food and clothing, let alone transit, Internet access, and fun.
No wonder he’s upset.
Yes, but he has four walls now, so he’s not homeless and can’t complain/can be removed from the statistics.
/s, although that’s the vibe of how a lot of systems for poor people work, probably because they’re designed by never-poor poiticians.
Edit: And for what they’re charging and in what area, I wonder if these are actually profitable rental units.
They shouldn’t be profitable. They should be geared to income.
Per the article, it’s money the government gives these people in the first place, so it kinda is.
It does raise the possibility that if the government had just not made it legally impossible to build these things on a normal property, they’d already exist, and probably in a less dumb place.