Preserved Stories Blog


Toronto’s 1950s emergency housing: An informative, comprehensive overview by Kevin Brushett (2007)

I've added this photo as a way to help position the 1950s in Toronto, in my mind. The Bentway The image is from ‏@thebentway, whose Fab. 2, 2017 tweet reads: "This 1950s photo shows the last tenants of the space under the Gardiner Expressway. The Bentway is ready to be the next."

I’ve added this photo as a way to help position, in my mind, the 1950s as it played out in Toronto. The image is from ‏@thebentway, whose Fab. 2, 2017 tweet reads: This 1950s photo shows the last tenants of the space under the Gardiner Expressway. The Bentway is ready to be the next.

Where will the people go?

At a previous post, I’ve shared a PDF link for a paper entitled: “Where will the people go: Toronto’s Emergency Housing Program and the Limits of Canadian Social Housing Policy, 1944-1957 (2007).”

This is a valuable paper. I’ve learned a tremendous amount from its overview of the history of Toronto-area postwar emergency housing.

You can access the paper at the above-noted link. The question mark in “Where will the people go?” is omitted in the title of the paper; I’ve copied the title as it is. Actually, from my perspective, the lack of a question mark works fine.

In this post, I’ve condensed the paper, in order to ensure that site visitors can readily acquaint themselves with its key contents.

You can access the PDF link to the article here

To read the original paper, by Kevin Brushett of the Royal Military College of Canada, please click on this link for the PDF version of it.

Radial bridge over Highway 2 (now Lake Shore Blvd. West) approximately 1927. In the background is Etobicoke Creek. To the west of the creek still further in the background of the photo, is the land on which the Small Arms Ltd. munitions plant was located during the Second World War. Photo © Durance family and Robert Lansdale. Click on photo to enlarge it; click again to enlarge it further.

In my condensed overview, I’ve occasionally added comments of my own. For example, I’ve noted that the Long Branch emergency housing, which is discussed in the article, was located west of the Village of Long Branch, not east of it as the paper asserts (p. 381).

At the end of this post, I’ve included a sampling of the bibliographical notes for the paper.

A previous post about postwar emergency housing is entitled:

Ted Long shares photos from the Long Branch army camp in the 1950s; with comments from Garry Burke

Related topics include military history, the rise and fall of Nazi Germany, and the history of the Second World War.

Fifth Canadian Div-Perth Regiment & Lord Strathcona Horse tanks reach the Zuider Zee; civilians greet them,Harderwijk,Netherlands.19Apr1945 Source: Tweet from ‏@CanadasMilHist pic.twitter.com/pUqm7bsRXP

Fifth Canadian Div-Perth Regiment & Lord Strathcona Horse tanks reach the Zuider Zee; civilians greet them, Harderwijk, Netherlands. 19 April 1945
Source (from about Feb. 2, 2017): ‏@CanadasMilHist
pic.twitter.com/pUqm7bsRXP Click on photo to enlarge it.

Association of Women Electors: Brief presented in 1954

The paper begins with an excerpt from an Oct. 12, 1954 brief, to the Board of Control and City Council (Toronto), from the Association of Women Electors (AWE).

The brief refers to families that are “unable to find decent housing because of low income, unemployment, number of children, disability or illness.”

“There is no justification,” the association asserts, “for further waste of public money on outworn army barracks that have become hovels conducive to every form of mental and moral degradation.”

The brief adds that the wartime emergency shelters were not necessarily the worst housing in Toronto. Even more residents, elsewhere in the city, experienced housing conditions “characterized by doubling up, overcrowding, substandard accommodation, and rents beyond their means to pay.”

Toronto’s emergency shelters were intended, according to the article, as a temporary solution to wartime housing shortages.

By 1954, however, they had become “the city’s ‘other’ public housing program, accommodating more than 450 families and nearly fifteen hundred children.” For a decade, many groups had appeared before city councillors, “to tell them to clean them up or close them down.”

The other public housing program, that the previous sentence refers to, is probably the Regent Park housing development.

Shelter program lasted until September 1958

The last family moved out from the wartime shelters (to be specific, the Long Branch shelters) on Sept. 1, 1958, but the problem of where people were going to go had not been solved, given that “more than a thousand Toronto families were effectively homeless during the 1950s.”

Brushett adds that “former army barracks housed more than five thousand people well into the early 1950s.”

The paper refers, as well, to emergency shelters in other Canadian cities including Vancouver, Halifax, and Quebec City.

History of Regent Park has been explored at previous posts at the Preserved Stories website

Toronto was the birthplace of Regent Park, which was set up in 1949. The paper describes Regent Park as “Canada’s first slum-clearance public housing project.”

The reference to a “first” brings to mind a reference to Regent Park in another study, namely Social Policy and Practice in Canada: A History (2006). It’s noted (p. 228), in the latter study, that the redevelopment of Regent Park “became the country’s first large-scale social housing program since Halifax’s Hydrostone project after the First World War.”

That is to say, when we speak of “firsts,” it’s good to keep in mind that what is first is often a matter of definition. For information regarding the Hydrostone development, a good resource is a CBC Digital Archives article entitled: “Halifax rebuilding after the explosion.”

I have explored the history of Regent Park in previous posts including:

History of Regent Park

Framing Regent Park: The National Film Board and the construction of “outcast spaces” in the inner city – 1953 & 1994

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

Construction of new housing was slow in Toronto given a lack of land for building, and the inability of suburban municipalities to pay for servicing new housing developments, until the formation of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1953.

[To round out the discussion, we can add that, on Jan. 2, 1998, 19 years ago as of today’s date, the six previous municipalities that made up Metro Toronto – Etobicoke, Scarborough, York, East York, North York, and the City of Toronto – were amalgamated into a new singular City of Toronto, as a Jan. 1, 2017 Toronto Star article notes.]

Provincial and federal governments were reluctant, Brushett notes, to develop a significant social-housing program, instead preferring private solutions.

In addition, there were disputes between Toronto and the outlying municipalities where most of the housing projects were located:

“Suburban mayors demanded that the projects close, not only because these projects occupied valuable land awaiting development but also because of the additional costs the residents of the projects placed on lean municipal budgets. Suburban residents and officials refused to be burdened by Toronto’s poor and disadvantaged.”

Dominion Housing Act (1935)

Canada gave minimal state support for social housing during the interwar years, as compared to other Allied countries, according to the paper. Instead, governments were strongly committed to the private market to remedy housing shortages.

“Canada’s first housing act, the Dominion Housing Act (1935),” Brushett observes, “reflected this philosophy by working with financial institutions to reduce down payments on new houses and to amortize mortgages over longer terms.”

With financial institutions reluctant to lend during the Depression, few houses were built. Low-cost housing was not a significant feature of the Dominion Housing Act, given that the private sector was unwilling to build or finance it. With the approach of war, furthermore, the federal government curtailed the building of houses, in order to avoid diversion of labour and materials from the war
effort.

Caption: Ajax, Ontario, 1951. Most of the housing shown here was built during World War II by Wartime Housing Limited. Source: Ontario Archives. The photo is featured in an Urban History Review 1986 article by Jill Wade entitled: "Wartime Housing Limited, 1941 - 1947: Canadian Housing Policy at the Crossroads."

Ajax (east of Scarborough), 1951. Most of the housing shown here was built during the Second World War by Wartime Housing Limited. Source: Ontario Archives. The photo is featured in an Urban History Review 1986 article by Jill Wade entitled: “Wartime Housing Limited, 1941-1947: Canadian Housing Policy at the Crossroads.”

Wartime Housing Limited

As a consequence, the government body known as Wartime Housing Limited (later CMHC) was set up in February 1941, in order to alleviate the significant housing shortage that existed at the time.

Click here for additional background about Wartime Housing Limited.

[A 1986 Urban History Review article by Jill Wade is entitled: “Wartime Housing Limited, 1941-1947: Canadian Housing Policy at the Crossroads.” ]

Emergency Shelter Administration (1944)

Social-service organizations in the city noted that the housing shortage was responsible for the “breakdown of the family and of individual dignity.”

“Unable to cope with life in single rooms and basements,” the paper notes, “many families left children with relatives or turned them over to foster homes until they could find suitable housing.”

Public Notice on Housing Shortage July 29, 1944 City of Toronto Archives Series 361, Subseries 1, File 566

Public Notice on Housing Shortage
July 29, 1944
City of Toronto Archives
Series 361, Subseries 1, File 566. The image is from a City of Toronto webpage entitled; “Your Home Our City: Wartime Housing.”

In December 1944, the federal government had set up the Emergency Shelter Administration (ESA) to address the acute shortage of housing across Canada. All cities were assigned administrators to address the shortages, but the supply of accommodations remained restricted. As a consequence, the ESA restricted people from moving to Canada’s major cities without prior authorization.

National Housing Act (1944)

Federal officials estimated 15,000 to 20,000 eviction notices would be given, in cities across Canada, nearly half of them in Toronto, before the fall of 1944. At least 60 percent of the evictions would affect families of servicemen still overseas. Citizen and veterans groups began to block evictions and called for veterans and public housing projects. In response, authorities froze all evictions in July 1945.

I've added this photo as a way to position Toronto in 1945 in my mind. It's from a ‏@TOhistoricsites tweet, entitled: "1945 at @ZionSchoolhouse Mr. Herdman, School Superintendent, is the distinguished gentleman in the suit and tie #TOhistory #TBT"

I’ve added this photo as a way to position Toronto in 1945 in my mind. It’s from a ‏@TOhistoricsites tweet, which reads: 1945 at @ZionSchoolhouse Mr. Herdman, School Superintendent, is the distinguished gentleman in the suit and tie #TOhistory #TBT. [End]. Click on image to enlarge it; click again to enlarge it further.

Faced with a shortage of close to an estimated near-million habitable dwellings, the federal government promised to build at least 750,000 new homes by 1955. A new National Housing Act was enacted in 1944 and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) was set up, with a focus on financing for private home building. Public housing was not a priority.

Given the ongoing shortage, veterans had begun to occupy abandoned buildings and barracks. In August 1945, the Emergency Shelter Administration sought out surplus army barracks and staff houses, which could be transferred to municipalities to create temporary shelter.

The federal-municipal partnership was pursued enthusiastically in Toronto, Halifax, and Vancouver but with less enthusiasm in Montreal and Quebec City. In Toronto, more than 1,600 units of emergency housing were found and converted.

Camp Little Norway, Toronto, ca. 1940. from Jon Tvedte: Flyvningen. Det moderne eventyr (Oslo, 1958) Image courtesy Wikipedia.org: Little Norway

Camp Little Norway, Toronto, ca. 1940.
from Jon Tvedte: Flyvningen. Det moderne eventyr (Oslo, 1958)
Image courtesy Wikipedia.org: Little Norway

The shelters were deemed a refuge of last resort. A family had to be homeless, or about to be, in order to qualify. The official CMHC policy was that the shelters were to provide minimal housing needs but not “all the comforts of home.” The expectation was that people would make it a priority to seek out housing on the private market.

Workers at the Victory Aircraft Plant in Malton, Ontario celebrating the roll out of KB799, the one hundredth Canadian built Lancaster. Source: The Canadian Lancasters webpage/

Workers at the Victory Aircraft Plant in Malton, celebrating the roll out of KB799, the one hundredth Canadian built Lancaster. Source: The Canadian Lancasters webpage.

Only $1,000 per unit was allocated for conversion, and the municipalities had to cover the administrative costs. “At best,” Brushett notes, “the projects provided four walls and a roof. Families were herded together, isolated from the larger community, and provided with few recreational facilities for their children.” The conditions were associated, the paper notes, with marriage breakdown among other effects.

Emergency housing in pre-Amalgamation City of Toronto

In Toronto, the first property in this category, acquired in 1944, was known as Little Norway, because the facility had been used in wartime to house and train Norwegian airmen.

Toronto also acquired Stanley Barracks, on the grounds of the Canadian National Exhibition.

The barracks were first built in 1841 to house British solders, and later to house soldiers before they went overseas.

[An article by Carl Benn in the Fall 1996 issue of Material Culture Review, entitled “British Army Officer Housing in Upper Canada, 1784-1841,” provides background related to the Stanley Barracks.]

Emergency shelters outside pre-Amalgamation City of Toronto

Three other facilities were located in areas outside of Toronto, including staff houses built for war workers at Victory Aircraft in Malton.

Factory worker posed with finished Sten sub-machinegun, Small Arms Plant, Long Branch, Ontario, Canada, 26 May 1942' Photographer" Nicholas Morant Source: ww2dbaseLibrary and Archives Canada, Identification Code WRM-1929

Factory worker posed with finished Sten sub-machinegun, Small Arms Plant, Long Branch, Ontario, Canada, 26 May 1942
Photographer: Nicholas Morant
Source: ww2dbaseLibrary and Archives Canada,
Identification Code WRM-1929

Just beyond the western edge of Toronto was the Small Arms Ltd. munitions plant in what is now Lakeview in Mississauga. The paper describes the plant, [originally known as the Small Arms Factory,] as “just east of the village [lowercase] of Long Branch.” In fact, it was just west of the Village [uppercase] of Long Branch, in what was then called Toronto Township.

[An interesting feature of the Long Branch emergency housing facility is that the housing did not, in fact, have a direct, geographical connection to the historic Village of Long Branch.

[As was the case with the Long Branch Rifle Ranges and the Long Branch Aerodrome, the Long Branch Barracks and Staff House were in fact located in Toronto Township, a community that existed to the west of Long Branch. Toronto Township is now called Mississauga; the rifle ranges, aerodrome, and emergency-housing buildings were never located inside the boundaries of Long Branch.

Corporate logo of the Village of Long Branch (Toronto not New Jersey). Source: Long Branch Historical Society archives

[As I’ve noted at a previous post about the history of Long Branch, nearby neighbourhoods, we can speculate, appeared to enjoy naming things after Long Branch. Brevity may have been a factor – “Long” and “Branch” is each a single-syllable word. The two words roll off the tongue easily.

[The name may also have given rise to visual imagery that appeals to people: One can picture a river; it has two branches; one is the short branch, the other is the long branch, of the river.]

Click here to access a PDF resource at mississauga.ca with background about Small Arms Ltd. >

Click here to access a Toronto Transit overview about the wartime Small Arms streetcar loop >

A third location for emergency housing was at the General Engineering Co. (GECO) munitions plant in Scarborough, in buildings that were only intended to last the duration of the Second World War.

“Since the latter three projects housed Torontonians outside the city limits,” the paper notes, “the city had to pay any education, health, and welfare costs to the suburban municipalities.”

Upwards of 1,000 families lived in the five former military installations

More than 1,000 families, of the nearly 1,500 families housed by the emergency programs, lived at the five above-noted former military installations.

Work takes place at the General Engineering Company Canada Ltd. (GECO) munitions plant in Scarborough during the Second World War. Source:

Work takes place at the General Engineering Company Canada Ltd. (GECO) munitions plant in Scarborough during the Second World War. Source: Nov. 7, 2016 insidetoronto.ca article entitled: Scarborough’s Bomb Girls helped win Second World War.

The housing gave rise to complaints of overcrowding. In some cases, 10 to 12 family members occupied a three-bedroom unit. Walls were thin and often did not reach the ceiling. There were communal bathrooms and showers. Rats and cockroaches abounded. Recreational and school facilities, constructed for wartime workers, had been dismantled.

“Stagnant water on the grounds of the camps and damp apartments,” Brushett notes, “led to various health problems including an outbreak of polio at Stanley Barracks in the summer of 1947. As part of its response to the out-break, the city erected a twelve-foot-high fence topped with barbed wire to quarantine residents from the fair goers during the annual three-week Canadian National Exhibition.”

He adds that “residents, many of them veterans, did not appreciate the concentration camp-like conditions.”

The rents were low at about $30 a month [about $420 in 2016 dollars, according to a calculation at Bank of Canada – Inflation Calculator] but transportation and food costs could be high.

Only a small percentage of the residents were “on relief.” Many residents in Malton had jobs in aircraft manufacturing.

Veterans who lived in emergency shelters noted that the setting was reminiscent of army life. “The enemy was defeated,” one veteran noted. “We were welcomed home, but many of us were forced back to wartime shelters.”

In the summer of 1947, tenants at the shelters began to form tenant councils.

Royal Canadian Dragoons leaving Stanley Barracks through the arch, c 1925 (courtesy City of Toronto Archives/Fonds 1266, Item 4985). The photo is from a citiesintime.ca webpage entitled: "Stanley Barracks: Toronto’s Last Fort."

Royal Canadian Dragoons leaving Stanley Barracks through the arch, c 1925 (courtesy City of Toronto Archives/Fonds 1266, Item 4985). The photo is from a citiesintime.ca webpage entitled: Stanley Barracks: Toronto’s Last Fort.

“The movement began,” the paper notes, “among resident veterans at Stanley Barracks who threatened a protest during the CNE unless the city cleaned up the conditions at the camp that had led to the out-break of polio. Encouraged by their initial success, tenant organizations from the other camps headed to City Hall to protest both the poor living conditions and the lack of recreational facilities for their children.”

Despite the protests, progress in repairs and cleanup did not follow.

Citizens’ Emergency Housing Council (1947)

In 1947, after the city proposed to raise rents by 25 percent, tenants at the camps formed the Citizens’ Emergency Housing Council.

The council demanded adequate recreational facilities, a 20-percent rent reduction, and prevention of evictions unless alternative accommodations were available. In 1948, rent strikes followed. The city tried to evict those in arrears, but the size of the protest and lack of alternative accommodations thwarted the effort.

H.V. Locke Realty takes over management of emergency housing (1949)

In 1949 the city, which had had incurred large deficits in running the shelters, withdrew from the emergency housing business.

“Many on the city council,” the paper notes, “believed that the city was doing these families a favor in providing them with cheap emergency shelter. Those who complained were labeled as ‘agitators,’ ‘troublemakers,’ and ‘reds.’ ”

The city received four bids to transfer management of the emergency housing program to a private firm. The winning bidder, H.V. Locke Realty, proposed that the city would make an estimate of its emergency shelter operating expenses for 1949, and that the private firm’s fee would be based on a 75-percent portion of any savings that would be realized on the expenses. The resulting agreement, the paper notes, was “controversial from the outset.”

Stigmatization affecting families in emergency housing

Brushett describes the second decade of Toronto’s emergency housing program as the “dump estate” phase of the program’s history.

“Although the shelters continued to house some veterans,” the paper notes, “they soon became the last refuge for the ‘hard to house,’ large families, families on relief, female-led families, and ‘multiproblem’ families, or in other words, those deemed ‘unfit’ for public housing.”

The camps became stigmatized as “city-owned slums,” and the residents became stigmatized as “slum dwellers.”

“Media coverage helped to dramatize the situation and reinforce a ‘moral panic’ through the creation of sensational and often distorted stereotypes of residents. More important, the concentration of such families in these run-down cramped barracks produced nightmarish conditions for the residents and mocked the ideals of state assisted housing as a social service that could help families get back on their feet.”

Many people believed that families at the shelters were taking advantage of the cheap rents.

National housing boom in place by 1949

Toronto did not initially participate in the national housing boom that was in place by 1949.

The number of new dwellings built in Metropolitan Toronto between 1947 and 1954, the paper notes, represented only one-tenth of its population growth.

Toronto and its inner suburbs lacked room to build, while the outer suburbs (North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough) had space but lacked service land, a challenge that played a key role in the founding of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1953.

In 1956, according to the CMHC, Toronto’s housing shortage was no better than it was in 1945, and overcrowding remained a major issue, in comparison with other Canadian cities.

Rising house prices and and difficulties with financing also remained a barrier for many families. In 1956, a suburban house in Toronto cost about $10,000, with new homes selling for $15,000 to $18,000 [in value that in 2016 would be about $131,900 to $158,300 – Source: Inflation Calculator – Bank of Canada].

Income required for a National Housing Act mortgage was $3,600 [$32,700 in 2016 dollars]. Average Toronto income was $3,120 [$27,440  in 2016 dollars].

“Previous strategies,” the paper notes, “of owner building in the suburbs – prevalent and popular in Toronto in the first half of the century, as historical geographer Richard Harris has shown – were largely closed down after the war because of more stringent building standards established by suburban municipalities and CMHC.”

Redlining of unserviced suburban land

The paper also notes that mortgage lenders redlined – [that is, refused mortgages within specific geographical areas] – unserviced suburban land, making it difficult to get NHA financing until the late 1950s, when services the outer suburbs were installed.

Brushett notes that the Veterans Land Act, which put home ownership within the reach of limited-income families, “had an antiurban bias that initially limited its use for veterans who lived and worked in or near urban centers.”

Home ownership, despite the barriers, went from 40 percent in 1941 to over 60 percent in 1951. In Scarborough, site of the GECO project, homes were reportedly available for as low as $1,200 down, with monthly payments of $48 to $55 a month.

Of the 827 families at the camps in August 1952, only one-quarter relied on some form of government assistance. Some government reports noted many families at the camps owned more than $3,600 annually, including a few earning over $6,000 [$54,640 in 2016 dollars]. Given these statistics, some councillors believed tenants were unable to move into private housing because they were mismanaging their resources.

Brushett notes, however, that a majority of shelter families earned combined incomes that were too low to make them eligible for NHA-backed mortgages. As well, more than two-thirds of the families had at least five members and another quarter had more than seven members.

Rent-geared-to-income policy

In addition, a rent-geared-to-income policy, set up in 1954 (with provisions for family size), made it difficult for families to save for a down payment.

A 1952 survey of working families in the shelters in the shelters indicated over 70 percent wanted to become homeowners. However, only a minority believed they could come up with the down payment.

At the Malton camp, early in 1952, the aircraft manufacturer A.V. Roe bought the land on which the camp was located, in order to expand its production during the Korean War.

The company was concerned that a fire at the camp would disrupt employment, and thus hinder defence production. The tenants asked for a delay so they could explore formation of a co-operative to build prefabricated houses on nearby farmland. However, CMHC refused mortgage support, because it would not meet the CMHC’s building regulations, and, according to the paper, because CMHC “frowned on co-ops.”

The paper argues that local politicians had ingrained stereotypes about the “undeserving poor” and were ignorant of the barriers low-income families faced in finding housing.

Doors to private rentals were also closed, Brushett adds. In 1947, CMHC had recognized that rental housing was the most pressing need in Canadian cities, but did little to encourage private builders to enter the rental market. A shortage of apartment buildings led to rising rents. In the mid-1950s, a six-room house rented for $125 a month plus services; a five-bedroom apartment rented for $90 a month.

Hard to close the camps

Many landlords refused to rent to families with children. Low-income families consequently had “to accept high rents for substandard and cramped accommodations.”

For families on relief, 70 percent of budgets went to housing costs. For families not on relief, rents consumed 40 percent of monthly budgets.

For these reasons, it was hard to close the camps. To close some of them, such as the Stanley Barracks and Malton Staff House, tenants were moved from one housing project to another, while the city’s welfare department continued to place evicted families in the emergency shelters, given a lack of other options.

Local politicians, welfare workers, and social-housing activists argued, in the circumstances, that the solution would be the building of more public housing, such as Regent Park.

The paper notes, however, that although amendments in 1949 to the National Housing Act allowed the federal government to subsidize the operating losses of public housing, “other  changes to the act were primarily responsible for ensuring that CMHC would be subsidizing as few units as possible.”

The amendments, Brushett adds, “virtually ensured that the housing market would remain in private hands.”

These views of Regent Park, showing the re-introduction of local street patterns, are from the Regent Park Revitalization Study (2002) A previous post, entitled History of Regent Park, outlines the relation between Regent Park, as originally designed, and the “modern movement” in architecture.

The units that were added in the Regent Park South and and suburban Lawrence Heights projects had minimal impact on the waiting list for public housing.

Among those with a hostile attitude toward public housing, the paper notes, were Ontario Premier Leslie Frost, Metropolitan Toronto Chairman Frederick Gardiner, and suburban mayors.

The paper also refers to an “unwritten rule that the number of welfare recipients admitted to the city’s public housing projects should be no more than 20 percent.”

The camps were used, Brushett adds, to keep certain families away from public housing, and “were also isolated in the least desirable units or locations within the camps.”

Conditions for other families, aside from the “problem” families, also deteriorated under the management of H.V. Locke Realty. The company saved money by curtailing maintenance, a strategy that coincided with the city’s lack of reinforcement of relevant health and building bylaws.

Condemnation of emergency housing projects by social reform groups

Between June and October 1959, social reform groups submitted reports condemning the projects as “city-owned slums” and a “public disgrace.”

The groups included the Community Planning Association, the Association of Women Electors, and the Welfare Committee of Peel County, which pointed to an increase in demoralization, break-ups, and deterioration in mental health.

The groups noted that in a decade, conditions had deteriorated despite the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“The two largest camps, GECO and Long Branch,” the paper notes, were filthy, verminous, dangerously rundown, and seriously overcrowded. One of the huts at Long Branch, which had been claimed by fire, remained half demolished, while another building that had been condemned by local health officials still housed families. Although officials remarked that the conditions inside many the apartments bore little resemblance to the filth they found outside and in the communal areas, they were still grossly overcrowded; at times as many as eight children lived in two rooms with their parents.”

Many observers noted that “in spite of the conditions, the residents, especially the children, were clean, healthy, and well behaved.”

“Officials of the Greater Toronto Investment Corporation,” the paper adds, “which assumed control of the GECO properties on their closing, remarked that the residents were ‘far from the dirty, delinquent . . . very bad lot’ that they had been made out to be in the newspapers.”

That said, many commentators scorned the residents, Brushett notes:

“A report by Peel County social welfare workers on Long Branch camp tenants commented that ‘many residents lacked self-respect, honesty, respect for the rights of others, regard for law and the principles of good citizenship.’ ”

There were also comments regarding children.

“Although reminiscences of children who grew up in them sometimes recalled a great life of adventure,” the paper notes, “the camps did not provide safe or appropriate places to play. One child drowned at the Little Norway camp, while another couple of children had been killed or injured by explosives while wandering on the neighboring Long Branch rifle ranges formerly used for grenade practice. Most attention was paid to the problems of teenaged children.

“According to police and social workers, gangs of teenagers roamed the camps, vandalizing the property, tearing out screens, and painting graffiti on walls in the bathrooms and corridors. Others turned to petty, and in the case of an elaborate bicycle-stealing operation at the Long Branch camp, not so petty crime.

“Scores of teenagers had been hauled before the authorities in recent years, while dozens of others reported regularly to police or juvenile court officials. Skirmishes between gangs from the different projects were a regular enough occurrence that area police forces organized ‘flying squads’ to cope with the situation. Teenagers also reportedly consumed alcohol given to them by their parents.”

“Second only to concerns of juvenile delinquency,” the paper adds, “was the concern for the sexual morals of children. The lack of privacy both within the apartments and especially in the dark communal hallways and washrooms was most disturbing. Walls in the camp were paper-thin and often did not extend to the ceilings.”

There was also concern about “overcrowded units, which did not permit separate sleeping areas for girls and boys.”

Re-evaluation of the emergency shelter program

In time, the city re-evaluated its decision to pass the management of the emergency housing program to H.V. Locke Realty. In 1956, the Toronto Housing Authority assumed control over the Long Branch Staff House, Little Norway, and 166 temporary houses across the city. It also took responsibility for finding 424 families more permanent housing.

The Toronto Housing Authority reportedly tried to hide the existence of the shelters when it assumed management of them.

To help some of the families, the city developed an experimental rehabilitation program, seeking to house the families in city-owned housing Wartime Housing, away from the shelters. However, the Wartime Housing dwellings were not permanent destinations, as they did not meet the city’s building code.

A pilot project featured a duplex, built to be “fireproof, vermin-proof, and indestructible,” in a middle-class neighbourhood. The better housing would feature regular visits by social workers, who would engage in a form of “moral instruction.”

The last family left the Long Branch camp on Sept. 1, 1958.

In its conclusion, the paper notes that Toronto spoke of the need to ensure decent housing for all, but the need was not met. The senior levels of the Canadian state, the paper observes, were reluctant “to assume the responsibility for housing low-income Canadians.”

“The number of social-housing units in Canada is tiny,” the paper adds, “representing less than 5 percent of the total housing stock, much of it built in a brief flurry between 1964 and 1974. Before the 1960s, social housing in Canada was negligible at best, insignificant at worst.”

The 2007 paper concludes that the City of Toronto “reaps the seeds of Canada’s late and feeble entry into the field of social housing,” and that homelessness remains “the most visible failure of Canadian housing policies.”

Bibliographical notes: Following excerpt is a direct quotation from the end of the 2007 paper by Kevin Brushett

A person who’s keen about biographical notes can readily consult the online PDF of the 2007 paper.

Below are listed the first five, out of a total of 60 notes, from the paper.

[I have added links, to this sample of references.]

1. City of Toronto Archives (hereafter CTA), Brief to the Board of Control and City Council, October 12, 1954, Re: Emergency Housing Shelters, Papers of the Association of Women Electors (hereafter AWE Papers), SC 8, Box 7, File 2.

2. See Doug Owram, Born at the Right Time: A History of the Baby Boom Generation (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996); and John R. Miron, Housing in Postwar Canada: Demographic Change, Household Formation, and Housing Demand (Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988). For a more critical appraisal of suburban development in the 1950s, see S. D. Clark, The Suburban Society (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966); and more recently, Richard Harris, Creeping Conformity: How Canada Became Suburban, 1900-1960 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004).

3. According to Jack Layton, a search of newspapers from the 1960s to the early 1980s reveals not one reference to homelessness. Jack Layton, Homelessness: The Making and Unmaking of a Crisis (Toronto: Penguin, 2000), 3.

[A 2008 edition of the book is also available.]

4. See J. Bacher and D. Hulchanski, “Keeping Warm and Dry: The Policy Response to the Struggle for Shelter among Canada’s Homeless, 1900-1960,” Urban History Review, 16 (1987) 147-63; J. Bacher, Keeping to the Marketplace: The Evolution of Canadian Housing Policy (Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1993); Jill Wade, Houses for All: The Struggle for Social Housing in Vancouver, 1919–1950 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1994); and Chantal Charron, “La Crise du Logement à Québec et le Village des ‘Cove Fields’: Ghettoïsation de la Misère et Stratégies de Survie sur les Plaines D’Abraham (1945-1951)” (master’s thesis, Université de Québec à Montréal, January 2004).

5. The most accepted definition of homelessness embodies not only those without a physical place of shelter but also those whose shelter is impermanent, temporary, or unstable, is generally not intended for permanent residential occupancy, or cannot fulfill the essential functions of shelter, including privacy, security, and personal control. Furthermore, most definitions also include those who are “doubled-up” with family, friends, and others involuntarily because of a lack of shelter for themselves and their family. The latter element of the definition would significantly expand the number of homeless people in Toronto during the first decade after World War II. See Layton, Homelessness, 19–35.

[End]

[The following is some additional background, which I have added to this post, highlighting the demographic changes that have occurred in the Toronto CMC (Census Metropolitan Area) since 1970. Toronto in the past had many people in the middle class. With the passage of time, the middle class has been steadily shrinking. The proportion of people living in poverty has been increasing.

The Three Cities Within Toronto (2010)

[A wide range of data visualizations Canadian cities are available online, showing demographic changes that have occurred since the Second World War, in cities across Canada. Among them is a 2010 study entitled: The Three Cities Within Toronto: Income Polarization Among Toronto’s Neighbourhoods, 1970-2005.

3cities-home-bottom-graphic

Source: The Three Cities Within Toronto: Income Polarization Among Toronto’s Neighbourhoods, 1970-2005 (2010). Click on the map to enlarge it.

[Links to additional studies are available at the Neighbourhood Change website at http://neighbourhoodchange.ca]

 

Share this:

This entry was posted in Jane's Walk, Long Branch, Mississauga, Newsletter, Toronto. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Toronto’s 1950s emergency housing: An informative, comprehensive overview by Kevin Brushett (2007)

  1. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    A Ph.D. thesis By Kevin Brushett is entitled: “Blots on the Face of the City: The Politics of Slum Housing and Urban Renewal in Toronto, 1940-1970.”

    An thesis by Leonard J. Evenden is entitled: “Wartime Housing as Cultural Landscape: National Creation and Personal Creativity.” Urban History Review / Revue d’histoire urbaine, vol. 25, n° 2, 1997, p. 41-52.

    A Ph.D. thesis by thesis by Ioana Teodorescu is entitled: “Building Small Houses in Postwar Canada: Architects, Homeowners and Bureaucratic Ideals, 1947-1974”

    A Jan. 7, 2016 Spacing article is entitled: “The good intentions of Toronto’s suburbs.”

  2. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    An article by Jill Wade is entitled: “Wartime Housing Limited, 1941-1947: Canadian Housing Policy at the Crossroads,” Urban History Review / Revue d’histoire urbaine, vol. 15, no. 1, 1986, p. 40-59. It’s also mentioned at the post you are now reading. I mention it again, by way of bringing attention to it.

    The article’s concluding paragraph reads:

    In 1944-1945, the Canadian government had the opportunity of implementing the Curtis report’s major recommendation – a comprehensive, planned national housing program emphasizing low income accommodation. When it created CMHC, the government could as easily have channelled WHL’s expertise into the constitution of a national low-rental housing agency. A single federal authority could have administered and co-ordinated both agencies and initiated a comprehensive nation-wide housing plan. Instead, the government disregarded the Curtis report’s suggestion and maintained its pre-war commitment to private enterprise and home ownership. In retrospect, federal affirmation of the “market welfare” approach has restricted state activity in public and social housing and precluded the introduction of a national housing plan for forty years. Only a shift in attitude fully recognizing the social need for housing will bring about any significant change in federal policy.

    [End]

  3. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    I’ve also discussed postwar housing at a post entitled:

    Ville St-Laurent, Quebec: Wartime housing and architectural change, 1942-92: Article by Annmarie Adams & Pieter Sijpkes (1994)

    The article suggests that “architectural change is tied closely to changes in family size and structure, the availability of credit, and evolving trends in the use of building materials.”

    With regard to wartime housing in Malton, a document entitled “Heritage Impact Statement on the Property at 7181 Lancaster Avenue, Mississauga (Malton Community)” is of interest.

    An excerpt reads (p. 5):

    Adams and Sijpkes go on to describe four basic house models erected in WHL neighbourhoods: 1) Type H1, a one-storey, 24 by 24 foot dwelling with a living room, two bedrooms, kitchen and bath; 2) the reverse of this plan; 3) Type H22, a slightly larger, 24 1⁄2 by 28-foot version of Type H1; and 4) Type H12, a one-storey, 24 by 28- foot dwelling with an additional two bedrooms in the loft enclosed by its tall roof. They include illustrations of three of the types as published in the Journal of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (Fig. 14).

    In Malton, in April 1942, WHL expropriated 15.75 acres along Airport Road from farmer Frederick Codlin (where he and a Toronto developer had in 1939 registered a plan of subdivision), another acre on a branch of Mimico Creek for sewage disposal, and a right- of-way and easement for a sewer between the two parcels of land (Fig. 15). In June, WHL expropriated another half-acre adjacent to the parcel for sewage disposal; and in October, it took and paid for 73.36 acres contiguous to the two parcels.

    In 1951, Ontario land surveyor H.C. Sewell surveyed the small subdivision of 200 house lots on the east side of Airport Road (Fig. 16). The dashed lines on his plan, Plan 436, showed the limits and streets of the 1939 plan of subdivision that was totally ignored when Victory Village was laid out. The house lots, usually 40 feet wide and 100 feet deep, were laid out in a grid that was intersected by curving Victory Crescent. Block A, where the park and community hall are, and Block B, where the church is found, were common lands in the planned community. The street names evoked the war effort. Lancaster Avenue, for example, was named for the Avro Lancaster heavy bomber, a variant of which was built at Victory Aircraft Limited in Malton. The four-engined Avro Lancaster was the main night bomber used by the Royal Air Force, Royal Canadian Air Force and squadrons from other Commonwealth and European countries serving with the Royal Air Force. The street currently called Etude Drive was originally named Anson Avenue for the standard twin-engined training plane used in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan – the Avro Anson.

  4. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    A Jan. 9, 2017 Pacific Standard article is entitled: “Why Grandpa Is Homeless:
    A sagging economy, a complex job market, and a lack of social programs have led to an increase in the number of elderly people living – and dying – on the streets.”

    An excerpt reads:

    Cherie’s odds of securing a Section 8 were close to zero, but, as a veteran, Herb stood a fair chance. In 2010, President Barack Obama launched an initiative to end homelessness among veterans, greatly expanding funding toward that goal (with $534 million in spending from the Department of Veterans Affairs that first year, and $1.6 billion budgeted for 2017). The VA went to work implementing several research-backed solutions for getting veterans off the streets and preventing at-risk individuals from losing their homes in the first place. Part of this work involved developing analytic models for predicting who is most at risk of becoming homeless, of returning to homelessness, and of suffering adverse outcomes while homeless, and then ensuring those potential outcomes do not play out.

    [End]

  5. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    A Jan. 12, 2017 Science of Us article is entitled: “Why Scandinavians Care More Than Americans About Inequality.”

    The opening paragraphs read:

    Scandinavia is held up by American lefties as a socialist alternate reality — look at how good statecraft could be! It’s a fantasy that gains urgency when you’re reminded that one-percenters take home 18 to 19 percent of all the income in the U.S., compared with taking in 5 to 8 percent in Scandinavian countries.

    Given that gap, you have to wonder why — save for an Occupy Wall Street or two — Americans are so comparatively chill about inequality. It’s a question that a team of researchers at Norwegian School of Economics — Ingvild Almås, Alexander Cappelen, and Bertil Tungodden — recently sought to answer in a cleverly designed discussion paper, highlighted by Alana Semuels at The Atlantic. The research team came to a startling and illuminating conclusion: Maybe Americans and Scandis frame fairness differently, and maybe that’s part of why the two societies are set up so differently.

    [End]

  6. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    An Aug. 4, 2016 Projects for Public Spaces article is entitled: “Equity and Inclusion: Getting Down to the Heart of Placemaking.”

    With regard to the long-term influence of planning, or the lack of it, on many aspects of life, a Jan. 29, 2017 CBC article is entitled: “People in Peel drive when they could walk, but don’t blame car culture, planners say: Region updating transportation plan in effort to get more people out of their cars.”

    With regard to planning for the future, in areas such as sustainability, my sense is that the City of Mississauga is very much on the right track.

    A Feb. 10, 2017 Toronto Star article reads: “GTA builders warn of looming housing shortage: Census data reveals the community has grown 30 per cent in the last five years.”

    A Feb. 10, 2017 Guardian article is entitled: “Out of the box: councils try innovative projects to provide social housing: Constrained by government and with a lack of funding, local authorities are becoming developers to tackle the homes crisis.”

  7. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon longbranch army camp and staff house 1954 year of hurricane hazel what is faith what is love a miracal happen to me i did not at the time it for me to remember i was 11 years old it never came to me untill i was70 years of age my first intorduction to love and faith purpose the miracal on a hot sunny day when over to the staff house toronto emergency housing there was a young girl and other children playing a soft light wrap around us blocking out the sun and blocking out all sounds of children around us ever thing became peace full i looked upon her the wonder of her the and how beautiful an angle in my eyes we were joint of one flesh but i did not know at the time our love and faith will take both on a journey thought our life on mother earth our love will be sacrificed it now been 53 years sacrificed our love for all the children our heavenly children given birth in the house of the lord that day in 1954 when we were joint of one flesh sacrificed our love for all the children our children and all our social families frients childrens we are their social family friends to be continue

  8. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    Good to read your message, Douglas. As your story underlines, so many things have happened over the course of the years, in Long Branch and elsewhere.

  9. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    By way of sharing backstories and contexts related to urban planning issues in the GTA:

    A Feb. 8, 2017 CBC article is entitled: “Population of metropolitan area of Toronto outpaced national growth rate: City of Toronto population hit 2.7 million, 2016 census data shows.”

    A Feb. 10, 2017 Toronto Star article is entitled: “Don Mills home sells for $1.15 million over asking: The sellers have lived in the three-bedroom home for 50 years.”

    A Feb. 10, 2017 CBC article is entitled: Brampton home draws 532 showings and 82 offers: And by the way it sold for more than $200K over its asking price.”

    The opening paragraph reads: “The intense competition in the GTA’s record-setting real estate market is starting to baffle even veteran realtors, who are seeing a startling amount of interest in certain properties.”

    A Feb. 11, 2017 Toronto Star article is entitled: “Sheltering Toronto’s most vulnerable proves to be a struggle: Toronto’s emergency shelter system struggles to accommodate all those in need in an increasingly unaffordable city.”

  10. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon from to be continue emergency housing longbrancd army camp and staff house lake shore and dixie rd 1954 hirricane hazel longbranch army camp closed one year later the young girl lived at the staff house the girl friend moved i move all friends moved all the families moved she is the girl next door ther were no next doors any more untill six year later at the toronto general hospial we be came joint of one flesh prince of one self princess of one self to rejoint with our heavenly who live in the house of the lord jeuse our big brother to all the kingdom of one self children all the kingdoms of our social families friends as we are their kingdoms of one self social family frients they to have heavenly children in the house of the lord jesus their big brother all we have is love and faith the foundation of the cycle of life the journey around mother earth faith is a frient to take use home one day i place my faith in the hands of a young girl and my love one day to take us use home to our heavenly children homes to their gift of love and faith my best friend my wife joint of one flesh 1954 our frist home to gether toronto general hospital to be continue love faith the soul the spirit and how small we all are use and all our social familiy friends there were two song that day in 1954 i when to a small caft store with a jukebox there were two song came on i just push the bottoms not knowing with song was going to play the yellow rose of texas and you got the whole in your hands i played them over and over untill the owner unpluged the jukebox i was ment to remenber these songs song of the jointing of one flesh our songs to be continue

  11. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon why are we all so small mother earth is only the size of a grain of sand in the universe a jewel call mother earth why was there a emergency housing longbranch army camp 1950 real estate that why first european 1437-1502 settlers all our forfarthers from england spanish france where the goverment from european countries our for farthers again.real estate corperations on a grain of sand they must have though they were the only kingdom of one self on mother earth the longbranch army camp and the staff house we are all story teller no one own land on mother earth we all readly have a land lord his name jesus land lord over us and all our social family friends he our big brother look at your self dividing up a grain of sand the richest of life faith and love for eternal life for eternity eternal love

  12. douglas hanlon says:

    the man made world the whole world now it began be for the time of rome there was at one time the natural world there would be no emergency housing 1950 no wars no depression no cold war the closes we can come to the natural world to day is homesteading the emergency house all five locations was the wild wild west of homesteading the man made world exportation of ever thing around it ideology creations of a 1000 temtations exporation of earthy childen over the last 2000 year and long befor rome all this to create emergency housing in the year 1950 toronto ont all our social family friends around mother earth have been exporation for food since the begining of time stop eating our social family friends children kingdom of one self around mother earth

  13. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon 1950 emergency housing there was no waiting location lakeside (little norway) stanley barracks – malton staff house -longbranch army camp and staff house geco 1956 overview kevin brushett the emergency housing 1950 created a70.000 home waiting list in toronto alone plus 32,000 each year after to 2017 waiting list 160,000 family waiting list i douglas hanlon spent 16 years inprision in the man made world toronto created be for rome was build the man made world do as i said the only way to go 2017 private ownership people must joint as one to start our exit from the man made world i did not know untill i was 70 years of age housing is unhealty inprisonment of you and your children for life generation after generation no foundation of the purpose of mother earth freedom to joruney mother earth people became lazy people be came farmer all around mother earth inprison kingdom of one self and created the industry revolution for creation of cars trains ships planes for tranportation we all stop walking and got fat and lazy a creation of the man made world city housing a no were place to be another man made world help each other go private there a carbon tax now 2017 the man made world has created the end of all life on mother earth

  14. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    It’s really valuable to read your message, Douglas. Many things to think about. I’m really pleased you contacted me some time back. I’ve been writing many posts about emergency housing as a result. Have been doing some valuable networking among people, who have a connection with emergency housing as well.

    One of the interesting things about the 1950s is that kids as a rule were physically very active. We now have all manner of labour saving devices. Cars are everywhere. People tend to go by car instead of walking; in many parts of Canada, the car has taken over everything. Fortunately, there is a push-back against having the car take over everything. Speaking for myself, I try to get some walking in, every day. I also work out at a fitness place. We as human beings were meant to be active. Kids know that. But as adults, we have on occasion forgotten this basic thing about what it means to be human.

    I will be posting more things at this website about emergency housing and postwar housing, and also I make a point to connect the past to the present, to the here and now. Because we only know the past from what we can see, in the present moment.

    And each generation looks at the past anew, and makes sense of the past all over again, as if for the first time. Because when we look at things in the present moment, it’s like we are looking at things for the first time.

    We are constantly look at things afresh. And it’s great if we have the opportunity to compare notes with each other, as we take a look at the past and at the present, and as we try to see the future as well. Although the future is a little murky. Not clear at all, until it arrives, which is happening all the time, in the present moment.

  15. Jaan Pill Jaan Pill says:

    For more background related to current demographics trends, a recent post is entitled:

    Urban Toronto’s Growth to Watch For Takes Stock of Toronto’s West End: Feb. 8, 2017 Urban Toronto article

  16. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon there are no conclusions to the emergency housing 1950 toronto five housing locations today there are 462 emergency shelters across canada temporary shelters jails and prisons are emergencey honsing across canada there operations hidden from the pubic like a concentrations camps they all should be open to the pubic for they to are living in the emergency housing of 1950 the new prisons have cell units made to order one at a time to be installed when needed how many social housing temproary units toronto 93,404 number under administration by the social housing number of active on the social housing waiting list 2014 78,246 they are all big money for contrators tender put out by goverments around world it all started 300 years ago in europe england lreland france it all started with good intentions but good intention did not last long this is the man made world all of us were give birth in to on mother earth mother earth is here for one porpuse only prince and princess joint of one flesh to have their child and there heavenly children are given birth in the house of the lord and to build your own shelter on mother earth for each child a prince or princess their own shelter conclusion it not heathly to live together as family in one home it was never ment to be you all be come enablers of each other cause dsyfuntional familys around the world farmers only one farm house house in canada why because their ideoglogy is three hundred years a go a copy of their for father from europe the man made world is the enabling factor ideoglogy for all family on mother earth creators of dysfunctional family and a dysfunctional world a world with no pospuse there is no freedom no more just do as i said the man made world made them self dysfunctional and inprison them selfs for all time god wisdom DO HAS I SAID NOT HAS YOU DO

  17. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon the man made world creation out of greed and taxes started 1917 canada taxes their source of power created a dysfunctional world three hundred ago taxes barter another form of taxes personal tax each one public schools a other emergency temporary housiig paid by taxes tender hand out to biulders contrators schools schools aministrator wagers teather wagers penson benifts there all kinds of penson by taxes now darlington nuclear generating station wants 12 billion dollars to fix the time clock

  18. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon what is the different between the man made world and the natural world from the begining of time man made world 2500 years old the different is the man made world christmas come once a year the natural world christmas is every day 365days a year said no more return to the natural world private housing for all the children of one self and all their social family friends children

  19. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon age 73 longbranch army camp toronto ontairo emergency housing 1950 mother earth as been ours and all our social family friends emergency shelter from the begining of time provider of all that is needed for a happy long healthy world at no cost no local politicianes welfare workers no social housing activists argued low – income housing and temporary emergency housing our social family friends were first to come to mother earth their ideology has not change from the begining mother earth our porvider for a million of earth years at no cost not a cent

  20. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon longbranch army camp toronto 1950 the man made world created 2500 year a go europe our for farther and mothers came to north and south american 350 year ago to create poverty and slums in canada by emabling them to have a fix address in canada a postal address in canada to day every address is an emergency address created in 1947 to 1950 then came regent park emergency housing it still here 2017 down town toronto anther make over from europe ideology of emergency housing another money making tender given to contractors in ontairo all this is doing is buying time for no one taking responsible government actons contrators tenders 701 housing connection buildings toronto and ontairo contractor tenders out of town housing programs another tender chart well retirment residences 200 plus tenders given out by metro hall cit of toronto long terms care still no one has a fix address but metro hall has their fix address and the operation of 200 retirment building plus anther tender library all out dated service 250 library in ontairo not needed homeless children need home fix address not library open 6 hours a day pubic housing pubic librarys tenders for building contractors needs to go 701 housing 250 librarys plus all the towns and citys across canada 701 housing and 250 libarary is just toronto701 housing 250 libarary is just ontairo children need their own fix address when a child is 12 year old they have the right to live where they feel safe and well a way from their mother and farther brother and sisters to stop any enabling by other family menbers their own fix address after 12 years old dysfuntional family are created children need to be look after and raised by seniors not their mother or fathers anther creation of dysfunction family their to young this should have been since the beging of time our social family friends do not have any dysfunctional famitys another emergency housing foster care statisties canada total 47.888 children another wallfare tenders united state 415.000 1913 in foster care 2017 creation of 1950 emergency housing toronto ont hirricane hazal emergency housing we need over a million single units to have a fix address to day 2017 for a fix address of these children right now the cost of housing these children does not benitfit them they need their own home now anther tender schools we need to end TCHC AND TDSD pay off their penson plans and give the tax money back to the childen close all the public schools open them for temperary shelters operated by caring seniors if not in twenty years the citys and town across canada will turn in to slums for children with no fix address it all ready here vancover canada temperary modular homes single units plug in units when needed cost low but it a fix address portal address plug in units build by owner bricon jail cells and prison cells are mada as plug in when need having a million made and pay for by the owner and can be moved any were across canada or around mother earth city of toronto leave the housing emergency housing 1950 -2017 and the eduacation to the children and their mothers for their furture you better look now at what the future hold for you pollution cars buses trains plane cargo ships oil tanker ships garbag trucks world wide good luck it to late all this should have started in 1950 hirricane hazle emergency housing longbranch army camp and the staff house i see their going to build housing on the staff house property dixie rd and lake shore blvd west we should have build it in 1950 and call it the hope for all the children around mother earth and all the social family friends the hope for all the children around mother earth

  21. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon 73 young spent 17 years city of toronto emergency housing emergency housing closed 1958 longbranch army camp and staff house other single home closed three years later all the home and barracks removed or sold for homes or cottage to people with land ownership toronto ontairo canada all our fore fathers and fore mothers from great britain and france and ireland then came regent park emergency toronto housing for the longbranch army camp evictee and many other family of the second world war private tax money builder tenders to contractors and an example kg group a pricate toronto real estate company from 1850 tenders private people then taxes 1917 then the gate was open to all the tenders building groups a good life for them all the way up young street to barrie ontairo canada know fix address tender paid by our tax money school residents tenders schools all of ontairo tenders toronto city houing connection seven hundred and one buildings emergency housing and cost of operating and management tenders no fix address just money tenters city of toronto long term care buildings tenders two hundred buildings no fix address FOSTER HOMES tenders for 60,000 canadians childens no fix address for the children the children are now tax tender united state FOSTER HOME 1 MILLION PLUS NO FIX ADDRESS children have be come homeless tenders tax tender 606 retirment living long term care homes in ontairo tax tenders build these private homes cost to stay there 30,000 to 100,000 dollars monthly tax tenders your tax money prisons tender emergency housing police station fire station army barrecks navey housing navey bases air force bases air craft carrrers tax tender schools canada federal taxes provinal taxes federal tenders home morage temporary emergency housing 25 years to paid full cost interest plus mountly payment twice the cost of the home plus property taxes for 25 year no fix address for 25 years lost your job lose your home get a divorce lose your home medacial bills lose your home no fix address rentals tenders taxes hotel motel emergency temporary housing our tax money is us to finish any projects apartments building the contracters can not a pay to finish no fix address tenders NOW the longbranch army camp is gone the children are all over the county ONTAIRO MUNICIPAL BOARD TRIBUNALS TORONTO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTAIRO MAYOR JOHN TORY CITY HALL KG A PRIVATE TORONTO REAL ESTATE COMPANY JOHN FISHER SCHOOL JUNIOR SCHOOL is the test location for thngs to come our taxes are paying to give a eviction notice to 500 children to leave get out of a school that been there 130 years who own the school another longbranch and staff house city of toronto city emergency housing 500 children no were to go in stead of an eviction notice GIVE 1 MILLION DOLLARS TO EACH CHILD TO BE PUT IN TRUST AN ANOTHER 1 MILLION TO RELOCATE 500 MILLION PLUS 500 MILLION HAVE KG A PRIVATE REAL ESTATE COMPANY RELOCATE THE SCHOOL NEED BE PREMIER KATHEEN WYNNE WHO IS MPP FOR THAT RIDING

  22. douglas hanlon says:

    douglas hanlon 73 years of age longbranch army camp emergency housing 1950 peel operated by city of toronto 1100 children living in very poor housing army barrecks and staff house dixie and lakeshore blvd west toronto canada 1943 -1958 if this is all our FREEDOM IS WORSE after two world wars and a great depression with out any compersations for the lost of our FREEDOM 1100 children and their parents hirricane hazal 1954 1800 homeless more lost their homes no comperstion paid and their FREEDOM the larger a town or city become the less FREEDOM we have then rules and then one day taxes and no FREEDOM 2017 JOHN FISHER JUNIOR SCHOOL 500 HOMELESS STUDENTS ALL THEIR FOUNDATION AND FREEDOM N OMORE AND ALL THEIR SCHOOL FIRENDS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *