Jack at Angry Brown Butch drew my attention to this hilarious column from the Onion, entitled, “Sometimes I Feel Like I’m the Only One Trying to Gentrify This Neighbourhood.”

Speaking of gentrification: yesterday the elderly woman from two houses down dropped off a photocopied letter addressed to ‘local residents’ from ‘concerned local residents’. (A. was the only one home, and instead of ringing the doorbell, the woman came to the living-room window and knocked on it — frightening in an ironic way, given what was in the letter.) It seems that an ex-nursing home a few blocks away has been bough by the Department of Housing, to turn into government-subsidised single-occupant apartments. Now, although our concerned residents ‘acknowledge the need for public housing’, they write,

there is a very real risk that introducing a rooming-house for ’struggling singles’ will make these streets and their back laneways less safe — increasing the risk of violent crime, home break-ins and car theft and vandalism. [sic] We have the right to feel safe in our homes and in our streets. This is a threat to this right.

I see. So single people without homes do not have the right to co-reside near families, but home-owning families with heritage colour paintjobs and lavender bushes have the right to dictate who lives near them. Too easy. But now to the nub of the problem, property values:

A rooming-house with its implied risk of criminality will also greatly reduce the property values in the area….

Now, it’s not just homeless single people who might live here, but homeless single people who are mentally ill, possibly with substance abuse problems:

What is important is the criteria that ’single people’ must meet in order to be eligible to live in a public housing rooming-house. The critera is [sic] cause for concern, as the recurring theme is of violence, poor mental health (linking to alcohol and drug dependency) and past criminal record.

But wait. This is inconsistent. If we’re getting rid of the crazy people and the alcoholics, we better check up on everyone in the neighbourhood, right? Not just those who have already been classed as undesirable by the state itself, and are therefore subject to surveillance and public discussion of their private histories by the state, as well as the nosy ‘community’. Oh, but I forgot. Property ownership (or temporary ‘ownership’ under a lease) also gives you the right to privacy. Yet another right enjoyed by those who don’t need it, but not by those who do.

More badly-worded frothing at the mouth ensues, including the hilarious claim that this rooming-house will make both the local railway station and the public library more unsafe — and the library is already unsafe for children! (Art books with nudes! The gay and lesbian section! Old men reading Italian, Greek and Arabic newspapers! The horror!) This letter is accompanied by a form letter to the local council, phrased in slightly less outrageous language, demanding that the rooming-house not be built.

Most disturbing, though, was our ‘friendly’ neighbour’s comment. She gave A. the letters, and said, “I’ll come back tomorrow to collect your signatures. That’ll give you some time to read about what they’re doing to us!”

What they’re doing to us. I love the victim mentality of people who own property. When you own a house, suddenly you become a hypersensitive entity at risk of all kinds of potential violations, real and virtual. Even the presence of a particular kind of person a few blocks away is violent. It’s bullshit: when I lived on a street with a rooming-house in Brunswick, the increased saturation of people walking on the street made it feel safer, especially at night. Sure, some of these people were obviously unhinged; but you say hello, you roll them a cigarette, you have a chat. We often sat in the window of my room, on the front verandah facing the street, and felt safe. Here in Coburg, people don’t hang out on the street. (Okay, with the exception of the kids opposite who play with their cars weekends, and who are, frankly, obnoxious: loud techno all day, incessant revving, squealing brakes, and no hello.) The blocks in Coburg are big, the front yards are spacious and everyone drives, so the only time you see the neighbours is when they’re climbing into their car. No-one knows what’s happening outside, because everyone keeps their front blinds closed.

Anyhow. We’ve a mind to write some letters to the council ourselves — demanding to be rid of the assholes in the neighbourhood who whip up hysteria about single people to keep property prices high. It’s our right to be free of them and their pesky letters. Isn’t it? Isn’t it?