Landlord evicting military family shifts blame

[SupersonicMax]

This discussion is now bordering on the ridiculous.  A Pet is not a Child, and never will be.  Your conscious decision to own a pet is yours, but you must be prepared to give up that pet should the situation dictate.  A child is not a pet, and can in no way be discussed in any way as being similar or equal.  If you have to, you can give up your pet to a friend or family, or have it put down.  A child you can not.  When it comes to 'Rental' properties, there is no way that one can compare a child to a pet.  This whole line of argument is totally out to lunch.  If you insist on keeping it up, this will become nothing else but a topic that is relegated to Radio Chatter.

George, this is not as ridiculous as you think.  A few years ago in Montreal, landlords refused families with kids in their appartments.  On the North Shore of Montreal, last year, a contractor refused to sell one of his property to a family because they had kids below the age of 18 years old (kids disturb neighbours and it was bad for the sales in his development neighbourhood)  They both got away with it.

Again, I don't think this case is a case for the media, but the issue of accomodation in Edmonton should certainly be addressed by the chain of command.

Max

 

[camochick]

My building doesn't allow anyone under the age of 25 and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. We still have a few druggies and weirdos in here but it's not as bad as having to listen to kids screaming at all hours of the day.

It would suck to have to give up your pet because you can't find a place that will rent to you, but when you get a pet, you should take into consideration your living arrangements. If she wants to keep the dogs bad enough she will either pay the price, and do the leg work to find a place or she can pitch a tent and live in it. It's her choice.

 

[larry Strong]

When I was in Croatia with Roto 1, a cetrtain signals  M/Cpl got leave to go home and bury his dog that had been poisoned. They were a childless couple and he claimed the dog was as important as any child.

 

[battleaxe]

And the stories about Edmonton continue...http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/842018.html.

What strikes me about such stories- and annoys me- is that the media insists on adding weird little details that tend to trivialize the main issue- that being the high cost of living in Edmonton.  By adding in such distractions as pets and and daughters who want privacy, people are less likely to focus on the core problem and dismiss the complaints as whining. People are more likely to say- Oh suck it up, the dogs can go or the kids can share a room.

And they certainly can. I think the issue here is that should they have to.

Knowing, and having experienced, the media's ability to distort and distract, I have to give the people involved in the media attention on this issue the benefit of the doubt and assume that they didn't mean for their dogs or their kids' bedroom space to be the main focus of the article.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they simply want fairness and for someone in Ottawa to make the living situation in Edmonton a priority problem to be solved.

Bren

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I read that article and I think she is whining.........my two daughters, 11 and 14, have been sharing a room for almost two years now. I don't see my sad, : sad, story being news......

Quote,
"My daughter (Brandee) needs her own privacy."
Her children, aged five and eight, share a bedroom.

Yup. :crybaby:


When will all workers in Southern Ontario get more money?? :boring:

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

I agree that this sounds a bit ridiculous. Shared a room with my brother until I joined the military at 17 so the idea of privacy is just another part of the song and dance.  With the new mortgages out there, depending on a couple's total debt ratio, a mortgage is not unreasonable. Just purchased our first home in Ottawa despite the fact my wife has a large student and we have two young children.  We just tightened up the purse strings for the last couple of years and it worked out rather well. I do agree that the housing situation out west needs to be addressed, but throwing PLD money around may not be the best long term solution.  There must investment into the infrastructure.

 

[PMedMoe]

I read that article and I think she is whining.........my two daughters, 11 and 14, have been sharing a room for almost two years now. I don't see my sad, : sad, story being news......

Quote,
"My daughter (Brandee) needs her own privacy."
Her children, aged five and eight, share a bedroom.

Yup. :crybaby:


When will all workers in Southern Ontario get more money?? :boring:

I agree.  When I was born we were eight living in a two-bedroom tin house (anyone remember them?)  We moved into a three-bedroom in St. Margaret's and then finally into a four-bedroom in Chatham.  I got my own room when I was 16, and that was only because the older kids had moved out by then.  Yes, we all would have liked to have our own rooms but it just wasn't possible.  One of the girls where I used to work had the similar tale of "woe", her two daughters then three and six were sharing a room.  Give me a break! 
When are they going to stop charging CF members in Ontario Health Tax?  :brickwall:

 

[CdnArtyWife]

Well perhaps I should alert the media that Anglican Priests and other Protestant Ministers (whose parishes maintain a Rectory or Manse) are grossly being done wrong by too.

I not only shared a room with my sister who is 11 years my senior, but once I was out of a crib I had the pleasure of sharing a double bed with her until she moved out for college. Perhaps it was rediculous that the Anglican Rectory (my dad is a priest) had only 4 bedrooms!! Whatever to do when a priest actually has 4 kids?! Nevermind that my eldest sister (14 years my senior) could have shared with my sister, but she needed her privacy...as did my brother (10 years my senior). Perhaps the most ghastly part of the story is that my "cruel" parents thought fit to turn my oldest sister's room into a tv room instead of letting the other three kids have our own room...let alone our own beds. Perhaps they were jaded parents from having had to "make do" by living in a rundown trailer in Kentucky while Dad was in seminary...I mean, I wasn't around then, but my three siblings had to share one chest of drawers...and took turns getting their own room while the other two slept on cots that made into bunk beds. Oh the atrocities!

I guess in a nutshell, I roll my eyes and say "Suck it up Princess, you ain't got it that bad!"  :

 

[battleaxe]

If Ms. Levesque called the media, or agreed to speak with the media, for no other reason than to whine about the fact that her daughters have to share a room, then she deserves your scorn- and I will heap it upon her right along with you. I shared a room for years and my sons currently share one, so I- like many of you- do not consider it necessary for a child to have his/her own room.

I posted earlier because I think the way the articles (this one and the initial article that is the basis for this thread) are written are distorting the issue.  The quotes in the article about the bedroom sharing may have come from just a very small portion of Ms. Levesque's entire interview with the CP reporter. The fact that he had to use the same quote twice tells me that he didn't have a lot of quotes to work with on that subject- and that got me to thinking.

How many of you have done a lengthy interview with a journalist (radio, paper, TV - doesn't matter)- and felt that it went quite well and that you got your point of view across- only to feel like a whining, bleeding idiot when the interview was finally translated into print, broadcasted, or shown on TV?

I've been there- and I've read other posts on this site that would indicate others have felt likewise misrepresented.

Could it be that Ms. Levesque, and the couple with the dogs for that matter, spoke up in hopes of helping and raising awareness about the cost of living and housing issues in Edmonton- with only the best of intentions- only to find that they had unwittingly contributed to an article that discredited and belittled the problem instead?

It's another way to look at it-that's all I wanted to point out.

Unless she visits here and speaks up in her own defence, we're not likely to know what happened in that interview.  The fact that she has supported her husband through two tours in Afghanistan, works to supplement their income, and has told her daughters to be patient and "At least we’ve got a room over our heads"- makes me want to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt than the CP reporter who wrote the article- especially because I feel he was writing it to be deliberately divisive and inflammatory. My opinion only, of course.

 

[armyvern]

Although I'd agree with your reasoning as to the media angle here battleaxe, I'm guess I'm a little tired of constantly hearing about "Edmonton" and how bad they have it there, not by you specifically.

I guess I'm put off by all the hoopla because:

A) The 300K figure quoted in the article, amongst others, is comparable with housing costs for CF members in Ontario/BC and we don't see them in the news. Yes granted, some locations in Ontario/BC receive an offest PLD; but

B) Those CF members in Ontario/BC are also paying out 8% PST(Ont) & 7% PST(BC), in addition to GST, of their take-home on every purchase they make, unlike those in Alberta ( see here ); and

C) CF members in Ontario pay a higher provincial income tax rate on their earnings than do those in Alberta (BC pays slightly less than Alberta); and

D) Those CF members in Ontario are also docked OHIP (with no rebate at the end of the year); and

E) Those CF members in Ontario/BC are not receiving 'oil divided' cheques for each member of their household from the provincial government.

I guess that's why this whole "woe is me" attitude pertaining strictly to Alberta and it's proliferance in the media lately puzzles me.

What makes this last article an even worse example of a "whiney wife" is that the article mentions that the spouse, in this case, is a veteran of two tours in Afghanistan where he was, most certainly, earning allowances and benefits well above that which other non-deployed CF members receive (quite possibly entirely tax-free for his deployment period at that). What the heck did they spend all that extra cash on?? Apparently not an upgrade to their accommodations. Quite simply, I have no sympathy in this case. 

 

[GAP]

A well articulated POV & response....

 

[Blakey]

What makes this last article an even worse example of a "whiney wife" is that the article mentions that the spouse, in this case, is a veteran of two tours in Afghanistan where he was, most certainly, earning allowances and benefits well above that which other non-deployed CF members receive (quite possibly entirely tax-free for his deployment period at that). What the heck did they spend all that extra cash on?? Apparently not an upgrade to their accommodations. Quite simply, I have no sympathy in this case. 

(My emphasis added to above)
+1
I for one, after tour (Aug 08), will be fixing up my current hovel, paying off bills and using the rest (along with what is gained from the sell of the current homestead) as a downpayment on a new(er) house.

 

[armyvern]

(My emphasis added to above)
+1
I for one, after tour (Aug 08), will be fixing up my current hovel, paying off bills and using the rest (along with what is gained from the sell of the current homestead) as a downpayment on a new(er) house.

Then you have good priorities set in your life. 

 

[larry Strong]

Although I'd agree with your reasoning as to the media angle here battleaxe, I'm guess I'm a little tired of constantly hearing about "Edmonton" and how bad they have it there, not by you specifically.

I guess I'm put off by all the hoopla because:

A) The 300K figure quoted in the article, amongst others, is comparable with housing costs for CF members in Ontario/BC and we don't see them in the news. Yes granted, some locations in Ontario/BC receive an offest PLD; but

B) Those CF members in Ontario/BC are also paying out 8% PST(Ont) & 7% PST(BC), in addition to GST, of their take-home on every purchase they make, unlike those in Alberta ( see here ); and

C) CF members in Ontario pay a higher provincial income tax rate on their earnings than do those in Alberta (BC pays slightly less than Alberta); and

D) Those CF members in Ontario are also docked OHIP (with no rebate at the end of the year); and

E) Those CF members in Ontario/BC are not receiving 'oil divided' cheques for each member of their household from the provincial government.

I guess that's why this whole "woe is me" attitude pertaining strictly to Alberta and it's proliferance in the media lately puzzles me.

What makes this last article an even worse example of a "whiney wife" is that the article mentions that the spouse, in this case, is a veteran of two tours in Afghanistan where he was, most certainly, earning allowances and benefits well above that which other non-deployed CF members receive (quite possibly entirely tax-free for his deployment period at that). What the heck did they spend all that extra cash on?? Apparently not an upgrade to their accommodations. Quite simply, I have no sympathy in this case. 

I might be nit picking here, but only 1 cheque was ever issued, it's not like Alaska where they get one every year....I wish... ;D

 

[armyvern]

I might be nit picking here, but only 1 cheque was ever issued, it's not like Alaska where they get one every year....I wish... ;D

That was this year correct? I'll wait and see what happens next year ... but something tells me there'll be another cheque in the mail. 

 

[Roy Harding]

A couple of points, if I may.

I think Army Vern has, in general, pinned the subject down.  There IS no GREAT hardship involved that cannot be solved with prudent personal financial planning.

CdnArtyWife also makes a very good point regarding how the media may report what you say.  Having been a "victim" of this phenomenon myself, I can understand how one's words may be twisted - by guile, ignorance, or inattention - to emphasise points you had no interest in emphasizing.

Frankly, I don't see ANYONE (including Privates) in today's CF as being underpaid.  I am a "survivor" of the "food bank" days (which were also BS), and I agree that life can be tough for a Private, even, MAYBE (although I'd argue about it), for a Corporal.  HOWEVER - financially, the Forces are in very good shape in comparison to the civilians - if one's marker for poverty is whether one's children must share a room or not, then one does not understand what poverty is.


Roy

Edited:  To clarify the last sentence - the original made no sense.

 

[mummiebear5]

Actually that was January of 2006 and Klein is now gone.  No more cheques are being issued.

 

[armyvern]

Actually that was January of 2006 and Klein is now gone.  No more cheques are being issued.

Fair enough. I never had the luxury of receiving it one. If it's not re-issued this year though (and the year isn't over yet), I still believe that Albertans more than make up for its loss in the savings they see PST-wise over every Canadian citizen habitating in another province.

 

[CdnArtyWife]

CdnArtyWife battleaxe also makes a very good point regarding how the media may report what you say.  Having been a "victim" of this phenomenon myself, I can understand how one's words may be twisted - by guile, ignorance, or inattention - to emphasise points you had no interest in emphasizing.

I'd love to take the credit for that, but in reality, I was just B****ing and pointing out that there are other people in other careers that face the same "hardships"

Cheers,

CAW

 

[Roy Harding]

I'd love to take the credit for that, but in reality, I was just B****ing and pointing out that there are other people in other careers that face the same "hardships"

Cheers,

CAW

My bad - and good on ya' for acknowledging the error.  I'm sure you've said OTHER things that I'm in agreement with!!


Roy