One thing has been an issue in our family’s contributions to Mole Hill Community Housing is the sense that, if you are in fundamental disagreement with a policy direction or the wisdom of the moment, you are somehow in conflict with the Society. John’s on the Board of Directors at Mole Hill. He’s not comfortable there.
Now, as I’m moving into speaking out about what’s going on - moving to take on Mole Hill’s application at the RTO - we’ve had a bunch of people mention that this puts John in conflict.
Now, John’s probably a guy who shouldn’t be privy to planning Mole Hill’s STRATEGY to take us on - but nor should any tenant board member who will not be able to pay their increased rents. Yet John is a representative on the board of those of us whose rents are going up. The culture on the Hill makes it the common wisdom that one cannot be both landlord and tenant; these are combatative roles. Yet it works for Co-ops. This strikes me as a repressive problem, this fear of ”conflict of interest” - although from my days on the board, I can say that being a tenant member sucked rocks for exactly that reason.
However, I will quote Mole Hill Community Housing Society’s Constitution:
” 3a) To ensure the current residents have access to and control over housing in the Mole Hill redevelopment which is consistent with their shelter needs. This clause is Unalterable.
b) To build upon the existing fabric of rooming house uses in the houses on the block in order to best preserve the heritage qualities of these houses while serving lower income people’s housing needs.
….
d) To ensure the existing historical Mole Hill community is maintained and enhanced in perpetuity. This clause is unalterable.”
To my reading, any ACTION THE BOARD TAKES ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY that will unhouse a *historical* (ie: pre-redevelopment) tenant - which this certainly does - is already in conflict with the Society’s own Constitution, full stop, and those of us who could be considered an “enhancement in perpetuity” of the community had some reason to believe the warm and fuzzy promises that this was our community have reason to complain about our abandonment as unconstitutional too. (Although it is a full AGM that may have to clarify that for us.) So I call foul on those who suggest that, somehow, standing up for tenants as a board member is… is what? Unpatriotic? It is certainly not in conflict of interest; tenant interest is built into the constitution of the society, and you cannot represent it if you are unable to speak to it.
There is NOTHING stopping the society from acting less like a landlord and more like an activist board. There is nothing but lack of political will. It is possible to regard Mole Hill’s constitution and proudly stand in defence of tenants, suggesting other sources of funding, making a stink, saying to the political forces of the day:
“No, you cannot pull our funding and unhouse people who by design could not pay the market rents of a rapidly gentrifying area. Our operating agreement was forged in a climate without a ”geographic increase” loophole. Your actions are abandoning people who we all made a promise to, and we, on behalf of our members, vigorously object and ask what other options there are besides forcing long term members of our community to move.”
There. That wasn’t so hard.
( It IS true that over the past 6 years I’ve been here, they’ve missed the opportunity to raise our rents 3 times. Mistakes based on a faulty understanding of our operating agreement. As I’ve said: our family has budgeted for a rent increase each year, and I, for one, would be willing to phase those missed rent increases in *for our family*, with the understanding that not all people on the block can afford 3 years made up in one jump.)
I remember John coming home utterly defeated the *first* time this came up, a year and a half ago, told by another board member not to take it all so much to heart. To which I call bullshit - lots of us “take this to heart”.
Of course we take this to heart. We are people who invest in space, community, and geography; not your most active of activists, but committing in small ways every day. It is why we’re in Vancouver still, when every pragmatic bone in my body (and calculator) says that Vancouver is a losing economic game for us. It’s insanity. But we’ve got all our close family and most of our friends in BC, and our commitment was first to providing community support to the kids. We’re both of homes without complete parental stability. We promised to raise children in community and consistency.
Other people may not value the way we do, and that is their business. But the village that raises the family is my first priority; John and I might fail, but our kids have a safety net made of people, and I will work to be a safety net for others. It’s why we didn’t just move.
I do wonder why having a stake in the discussion has given Mole Hill tenant board members such a bad name. From my own experience it seems there are two approaches; either looking contrarian, or going unheard. I was completely open to this being a personality defect in me, at first, and indeed I’m long winded and passionate both. It’s why I stepped down. However, I’ve seen it with others, too. It’s not just me, or even just me and John.
But when you’re a tenant, you’re obviously ”biased” on your own behalf. Otherwise, you don’t give a damn about having to move - so why would you volunteer? I think this is why the people who’ve been on the board for a billion years aren’t generally tenants, and tenant recruitment and retention is a problem. It doesn’t work to be told to be disinterested in your own housing situation.
Yet Co-ops manage to run, because everyone shares the same self-interest, so it’s not impossible.
What strikes me as so interesting in all of this pressure is that it’s really a microcosm; of the backbencher who must vote with the party, (although in this case, there’s no party unity on the board), of the whistleblower, the order follower, those who are told to sit down they’re rocking the boat. It’s intense, that tribal pressure. Intense enough that I finally understand how all sorts of bad things can happen in its name.
Housing is one thing - I have lost sleep, lost all sorts of stability here. But my kids aren’t being threatened; we can decamp. If their lives were on the line, I now know I would crumble. The pressure really exists.
It’s interesting, because on the other side you have flame wars on the internet. People who have no problem thumbing their noses and screaming.
Our tribal ingrouping, accidental or intentional, is an incredibly, incredibly powerful tool. You find the lever to speak to and for people, and you can move the whole world. I understand better, and it is both liberating and scary.