Editor:
A lot of people have been opposed to the new affordable housing project in New West and it got me wondering about what is the value of a safe and stable home for a human being.
If there are a proposed 96 units, and people are arguing for a three-storey building instead of a six-storey building, then that would be 48 fewer units. But just to make the math easy; let’s round it to 50. And since the units are geared towards families, let’s assume there are four people in each unit. So this would reduce the capacity by 200 people. So what exactly is the safety and security of 200 people worth?
It’s been argued that the extra units would increase the traffic in the neighbourhood. But what exactly does that mean? Let’s say it increases a person’s commute by 10 minutes. Ten minutes divided by 200 is three seconds. Is the safety and security of an individual worth less than three seconds of your day?
It has also been suggested that it would lower property values in the area. Again, using round numbers, let’s say it reduces the value of a home by $200,000. Divided between 200 people, that’s $1,000 each. Is the safety and security of a marginalized individual worth less than $1,000?
But these arguments are about numbers and this is a largely emotional issue. Emotionally, having a safe and stable residence is fundamental to a person’s ability to build happiness. A rose garden on the other hand provides additional happiness, an extra, a nice to have. If the shade cast by the building affects 20 people’s gardens, then it would mean their extra happiness is as important as the baseline happiness - the safety and security of 10 people each. So what is it about these 20 individuals that makes their cherry-on-top happiness more valuable than the basic human dignity of 10 people? Why are they so special that their aesthetic preferences are more important than other people’s lives?
And if these gardens are so precious, so valuable as to leave 200 people without housing, what plan do these individuals have to share these spectacular gardens with the public? Because if myself and other citizens of New West are to be convinced that these residences are so important as to outweigh the lives of marginalized families, I think that we should have access to these places that are clearly of paramount importance to our city.
Erin Hayashi, New Westminster
