Thunder Bay – Business – As the chair of the South Core Business Community, I would like to clarify why we were against the shed village for the homeless and why we are lobbying hard to see the project terminated.
First and foremost, this is not a NIMBY situation since the South core has the most social agencies in the city.
What people forget is the first pallet village was going to be put on the corner of Victoria and Simpson St. No consultation with anyone in the area. Not one business was contacted, nor any residence. We had to go to council to give a deputation as to why this was a bad idea. Council thankfully listened and we were told not to worry that location was off the table. Administration came back with two other locations basically across the street from the original proposal. Red flag number one.
We met with administration. They informed us this was temporary project and that it had to be in proximity to services. We had about twenty questions. They had to take the questions with them and come back with the answers. We original thought this was a good idea. It would help solve the encampment situation. We also started on own research based on the locations they provided. Kitchener, Waterloo and Peterborough. Once we called them, we found out that contrary to what we were told, you don’t have to be located close to services.
Peterborough is about 1.2 km from downtown, Kitchener is about 5.4 km, and Waterloo is approx. 9.1 km away. We asked about success rates.
How many people transitioned to permanent housing? In Kitchener six people transitioned in four years. In Peterborough, one person transitioned in one year. As we dove deeper into temporary housing the results were not impressive at all. There is no empirical evidence to show that they have better results than permanent shelters. Contrary to what we were led to believe.
We also had a contact living in Kitchener, and we asked them to gather information and take pictures of the present-day facility. Not impressed. Furthermore, to date not one of these temporary shelter’s has stayed temporary and the encampment issues still plagues the cities.We were told they would be here from 3 to 5 years. Red flag number 2
When we saw the city survey in regard to location selection, we couldn’t believe that way it was formatted. No where on the survey could a person object to the project, nor could one vote for a different location. I was shocked a survey of this low standard was allowed to be sent out.
We did our own consultation and could not find one person, resident or business
that supported this idea or location. Yet the survey resulted in 700 people liking the location and project. Red flag number 3
When we asked what other locations were selected, we received no specifics and were told that many other sites were removed because of future development? Really? No future development potential of properties in the south core? I thought we were spending millions on the revitalization of the south core area. Red flag number 4
Who will be liable when we have a death, injury in this village on city property and in partnership with the city? No one has brought this up from administration? Red flag number 5.
You wonder why council flips on decisions? A lot has to do with poor reports that don’t give all the information or omit key information. Once council got the facts, the project started to look like a losing proposition no matter where it’s built. This whole thing is a disaster, for many reasons. We have stated a few above. But the biggest mistake the city will make is they are NOT the experts in homelessness, mental health, nor addictions. That is obvious from the disaster with the drug strategy, how they handled the encampment issue, and how they tried to rush this project through.
Why are we trying to do the job of social services? Housing is a federal and provincial issue. Let the experts that are presently doing the job continue to do so. If there is a problem with permanent shelters? Then find a way to address those issues.
You keep stating human rights, well human rights say you must provide shelter, basically a roof over someone’s head. Human rights do not mention having to provide an apartment, or independent unit.
Questions council should be asking, is why was this was brought forward when you originally asked for an encampment strategy? Why was key information omitted from the report regarding location, success rate and longevity of the project ? Why the big rush to push this through?
Finally, why did 5 councillors praise administration for the great work on this? Thank you for the opportunity.
Aldo Ruberto
