So in Calgary, apparently there's something called childfree housing. I was just wondering how others feel about this. For example, here's a condo for rent in Calgary that says Kids Allowed: No. When you go to do an advanced search, kids are a selectable feature, such as Kids Allowed (299), Negotiable (119), Not Allowed (202).

On the one hand, I think it's pretty neat. Because if seniors can have communities where it's against the rules to have children living with you, then it strikes me that it makes logical sense to allow adults in the prime of life the same tranquility as well.

But on the other hand, I think the Fair Housing Act was instituted for a reason in the United States. It seems like it's a slippery slope to start sanctioning housing in these kinds of terms. Although, I suppose some apartments allow cats, but not dogs. Or no pets at all. And isn't that horrible, etc. But we are talking about human beings. Mini human beings. I guess you could claim you're allergic to children. Heh. I know children make screeching noises, and some people literally have allergic reactions to the shrieks, breaking out in hives and rashes from the loud pitch. And some people have anxiety disorders.

So I'm not sure how I feel about it personally. I feel like it's nice for regularly aged adults (people from 18 to the age when you start getting discounts for movies and museums) to have this opportunity. But oftentimes, it's not the children who are the annoying neighbors anyway. It's the adults.

Labels: cfbc, childfree by choice, news, politics

( 3comments )

at September 26, 2006 4:31 PM  Anonymous said...

Whenever someone suggests the idea of adult-only housing (which, BTW, existed in this country within living memory), or restaurants, or what have you, the counterargument always seems to be the same: comparing the annoyances that adults visit upon us. Kid screeching at dinner bother you? Why aren't you complaining about the couple fighting at the other table?

I think this is a red herring. As an analogy: just because there are other annoying noises in the world doesn't mean I'm unreasonable for wanting my neighbor to fix his broken car alarm.

Children are not just short adults; they're qualitatively different from adults. Yes, there are annoying adults in the world, and there are non-annoying children. But when I'm thinking of minimizing my annoyances and I think "eliminate children," I'm playing some pretty long odds. For every problem adult at a restaurant, I've seen at least a dozen problem children. Also, for some reason the management doesn't seem to be quite as eager to ask the problem children to leave.

Nobody seriously questions my right to exclude children from my home; why can't I live in a neighborhood of like-minded people? Is it really because people with children will have trouble finding housing? (That's not a rhetorical question; I don't know how it would play out. Are they having problems in Canada?) If they would have trouble, why does that bother us, and the fact that my family--with two dogs--would have trouble finding housing is okay?

 

at October 8, 2006 1:19 PM  Lindsay Jo Beautiful said...

I currently live in Red Deer, however, I have lived in Calgary and Fort McMurray, as well as Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. All four of these cities offer childfree housing-- it's a norm here in Canada.

I agree a lot with what Anonymous had to say. In retrospect, this sort of housing segregation could have the potential to make it diffucult for people with children to find rental properties. But, from my experience, this isn't really the case. Most landlords seem warmer to rent to young families than a group of 20-somethings going to school or starting their careers. Not to mention, childfree housing tends to be a little pricier, which makes it less undesirable to families in the first place.

But there is a fine line.....

To answer Anonymous' question, this is why it would bother us if people with children had problems finding housing-- because children are important to our communities, whether we personally like them, or not, and in order for us to have a strong community, young parents need our support, at least to some degree.

But, as a Canadian, I can't say that people with kids have any more trouble than the rest of us when it comes to finding good rentals.

Around here, childfree housing is a non-issue.

 

at October 9, 2006 9:55 AM  Anonymous said...

Thanks for the Canadian perspective!

I wasn't asking why people with children having a problem finding housing was a problem in the abstract; I was just pointing out that some families (such as mine, with dogs) have more trouble than others finding housing. Some of those problems are protected under the law and some aren't, and it's not clear to me why some things fall on one side of the line and others on the other.

From the American side, it seems to me that restricting someone's right to decide who gets to live in their property is not something that ought to be done lightly. Given the history of discrimination against some groups, especially racial, I am comfortable with not allowing people to discriminate in housing based on race: The social benefit outweighs the loss of personal freedom.

It doesn't sound like this is the case with discrimination based on "familial status," or at least not in Canada. I've heard it said that familial status was being used as a proxy for race (i.e., certain groups tend to have larger families, ergo by limiting family size you tend to select against those races), but I'm not convinced that that argument is strong enough that it should have overcome the presumption that people are free to use their property as they please (so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others).

But, I don't get to make the rules, at least not directly, so here in America this is what we're stuck with for now.