Any sustainable solution to homelessness must begin by addressing the long-term underlying causes. The truth is that Toronto is an expensive city in which to live. Changes in rental policy by the provincial government have helped to drive rents up. At the same time, changes at the federal level have helped to reduce the number of new rental constructions (Wong, 2002). In short, the number of affordable housing units in Toronto is decreasing. Combined with the increase in poverty in the city, this means that the poor are at increasing risk of homelessness.
Transit problems in Toronto impact in many ways on the health and wellbeing of the city, but funds and programs addressing the issue are wanting. Hall (2001) notes that “major American cities spend at least 40 per cent more per capita on transit building than their Canadian counterparts and offer their citizens incentives to use the systems.” The consequences of failure to provide adequate public transit are increased use of automobiles and grid lock. The result is lost time and revenues due to traffic delays. More alarming, however, is the consequence to the health of residents due to compromised air quality from automobile emissions. Referring to Table 1, “Numbers of Deaths and Illnesses by Causative Pollutant,” cites the deaths and hospital emissions due to specific pollutants, predominantly from automobiles. In total, automobile emissions result in almost 1,400 premature deaths and 7,600 hospital admissions annually (Saunders, 2000).
The city’s auditor lays the blame squarely on Toronto’s city council, which “has consistently opted to adopt clean-air policies and principles but not implemented them in practice” (Moloney, 2002b). While it is universally accepted that the answer lies in the promotion of public transit, Toronto’s TTC has experienced cutbacks in spending and in ridership even as fares have increased (Moloney, 2002b). In large part, decreasing emphasis on public transit is a consequence of downloading at the provincial level and the failure of higher levels of government to subsidize alternative transportation (Lakey, 2002). However, a sustainable solution to this problem, like so many others, must bring include a broad spectrum of players. Transit is an issue that crosses municipal boundaries, especially in the Greater Toronto Area, so the various municipalities and regions must cooperate and coordinate efforts. In addition, businesses can effectively be brought on board in measures such as those in which large employers encourage workers to adopt transit (Brennan, 2002).
Nor is air pollution the only environmental problem facing Toronto. The problem of disposal of the city’s solid waste is a perennial one. Shipping waste to other municipalities has been controversial in Toronto as well as the receiving municipalities (Palmer, 2001). McAndrew observes that companies of the GTA have made the list of the top ten Canadian polluters, contributing to the environment, among other things, known carcinogens (2001). Among alternative solutions that have been proposed is the local incineration of solid waste (Moloney, 2002), a proposal that has alarmed environmental activists because of the potential impacts on health and the environment. Others have suggested approaches such as the return of the returnable (Bring, 2002).
A Star editorial observes that clearly the problems besetting Toronto, as well as other major cities, require more than just a little cash thrown at the municipalities (Whittingon and Lu, 2003a). They require the cooperation of municipal, provincial and federal governments in a new deal—new funding, new policies and new relationships. Concerns are even greater for the future because of anticipated growth in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) over the next 30 years (Time, 2003). While municipalities in the GTA, and indeed throughout central Ontario, are meeting to hammer out cooperation and coordination in future directions, higher levels of government continue to tackle the issues like political football. Federal Finance Minister John Manley this year flatly stated that in his view, the welfare of urban areas was a not a federal but a provincial issue, that there would be no new deal for the cities as far as Ottawa was concerned (Whittingon and Lu, 2003b), in spite of future prime minister Paul Martin’s own promise of a such a deal. The province of Ontario has not helped. A Star editorial summarizes the history this way:
The province downloads social costs on the city, hobbles Toronto’s ability to survive an economic downturn, refuses to give the city new revenue streams, and then proposes an election platform that says a city can have other sources of revenue, if it holds a referendum every time it wants to raise property taxes or a gas levy. (Enough talk, 2003)
It is clear that the approaches taken by higher levels of government have helped to create municipal woes and have further taken pains to prevent effective solutions.
Municipalities are attempting to carve out a unified and coordinated direction for the future. Unlike the provincial and federal leaders, those at the municipal level realize that no solution can be forged that does not focus on cooperation among urban centers and regions. The necessity for a cooperative approach is particularly relevant when we look at past and projected population growth. In Figure 1, “Population of Toronto and the GTA, 1996 to 2031,” taken from data cited by Immen (2000) the greatest growth has been and will continue to be outside of the city of Toronto itself, even as the city is the economic, transportation and employment centre of the GTA. An approach that is widely endorsed is known as “smart growth,” which recognizes the need to restrain urban sprawl and focus growth within existing urban centres. It further emphasizes more equitable housing construction, public transit, and environmental protection. In addition, revitalization of infrastructure and investment in public services are stressed (Gillespie, 2003). Clearly cooperative and coordinated solutions in which all parties work toward a sustainable future is required.
_______________________________________________________________________
Table 1: Numbers of Deaths and Illnesses by Causative Pollutant
Respiratory Cardiac Congestive
Hospital Hospital Heart Failure
Deaths Admissions Admissions in the Elderly
Nitrogen dioxide 511 1,234 2,207 —
Carbon monoxide 441 — 274 439
Particulate matter* 226 555 812 —
Sulphur dioxide 119 172 — —
Ozone 59 199 2,155 —
Total 1,356 2,160 5,448 —
*Including sulphates
_______________________________________________________________________
Taken from Saunders (2000)
References
Brennan, R. (2002. August 15). Drivers urged to use transit.
Bring returnables back? (2002, March 31). Bring returnables back?
Crowe, C. (2000, November 16). Silence of homeless.
Dunphy, C. (2000, November 29). Tent City residents vow to stay on contaminated site.
Enough talk, time for action. (2003, June 5). Enough talk, time for action.
Gillespie, K. (2003, February 1). Panel targets region boom: housing, transit, waste cited.
Hall, J. (2002, May 22). Report compares spending, finds Canada lacking.
Immen, W. (2000, September 25). Sprawling city at a crossroads. Globe and Mail.
James, R. (2002, August 19).
Kalinowski, T. (2002, March 14). Needy suffering in boom: study.
Lakey, J. (2002, April 19). Shelter bylaw pushed to backburner.
McAndrew, B. (2001, April 26). Greater Toronto firms make top 10 polluters list.
Moloney, P. (2002a, January 16). Port plant would use 400,000 tonnes of garbage annually.
Moloney, P. (2002b, July 8). Good intentions aren’t backed by funds, group says.
Palmer, K. (2001, January 5). Fight brewing over garbage exports.
Pockets of poor growing. (2002, March 14). Pockets of poor growing.
Saunders, J. (2000, May 18). Air pollution kills 1,000 a year in Toronto, study says. Globe and Mail.
The state of the homeless in Toronto. (2001, February 13).
Time for action on New Deal for Cities. (2003, February 1). Time for action on New Deal for Cities.
Whittingon, L, and Lu, V. (2003a, February 19). $3 billion over 10 years for cities is ‘a joke.’
Whittingon, L, and Lu, V. (2003b, May 1). Manley: provinces responsible for welfare of urban areas.
