Making Major Decisions at Thunder Bay City Council-Part II

 

As noted in the previous post, the last few weeks at Thunder Bay City Council have been busy with three major decisions of particular note: not approving changes to council composition, approving the Kam River Heritage Park site as the location for a temporary village of tiny homes to address homelessness and finally, not shutting down the County Park location and adding Intercity Mall as the location for a new more centralized library.  These were particularly thorny issues to deal with on several fronts and my take is that the correct decision was made in two out of the three cases.  In the last post, I provided my thoughts on the two decisions I think City council got right: sticking with the status quo on council composition and not putting a large new central library in the Intercity Mall.  However, on the third decision – going ahead with the Kam River site for the tiny homes project- I beg to differ.  However, there may yet be a silver lining to the decision made if it is truly a transitional decision and time it buys used to bring about long term social and geared to income housing.

After several other tries at establishing a tiny homes village first on Miles Street (which is separate from another project by Alpha Court), then in Intercity, and then on Cumberland Street, the nod has now been given to the Kam River Heritage site – for now.  This has been somewhat of a merry go round in terms of location selection. There is still another meeting for final ratification, however, and this location decision has been made and reversed before. However, my feeling is given the cycling across locations, City Council will stick with this final choice if only to avoid further eroding their credibility. 

This has been a charged and emotional issue given the need to address the homeless problem and the presence of tent encampments under third world conditions.   There are also the many concerns as what the impacts of such a village will be on adjacent residences and businesses.  And to be fair, this is not just Thunder Bay’s problem, but the provincial and federal government’s problem given there are homeless encampments across the province and the country.

In the end, several reasons were advanced as to why the Kam River site should be selected including proximity to essential services, the fact the area already houses an encampment, and that it is in keeping with the City’s strategic plan.  After numerous delays, there is also a sense of urgency to put the project in place to not jeopardize provincial funding though making decisions to just get the money is never sound public policy.

However, a key concern raised has been safety of the residents given the proximity to water and rail tracks with the prospect of drownings up front and center.   The City Manager commented that “You can drown in six inches of water like you can drown in 12 feet of water. The depth is not really the consequential issue. It's clearly delineating it, making people understand the risks, and putting in some prevention measures."  This somewhat less than sensitive response in the wake of recent history along our waterways also omits the reality that a drowning is a drowning whether in six inches or 12 feet of water and if it is a municipally run village on city land there will inevitably be additional liability issues.  Safety is a big issue with this site.

As well, even with these tiny homes, encampments will still not be eliminated as the tiny home village is part of a city homelessness plan that includes three approved encampment sites. Also not addressed as a concern is the reality that this plan  - unlike the other sites considered - puts the tiny village essentially out of sight and out of mind by locating it where it will not be easily seen.  This will be a problem given that the project is supposed to run for only five years as “permanent” solutions are brought into play.  However, if the problem disappears from public view, it will be difficult down the road to generate the attention and the resources for permanent solutions.  The risk of hiding the problem is that long term solutions will go onto the back burner.

Then there is the cost.  According to the media reports, Thunder Bay will spend $5.5 million to construct an 80-unit "tiny home" village, with the province contributing $2.8 million of that, and has targeted operating costs for the first year at $1.5 million. So, over the five-year span of the project, the total cost for 80 units based on these numbers will be close to 13 million dollars.  Given the history of public sector capital projects at the public sector level in Thunder Bay, one can certainly expect cost overruns in the building and operation of these tiny homes.  Hamilton (always my favourite example) has also erected a “temporary” village to house its growing homeless population with the cost for 40 units (80 beds) originally forecast at $2.8 million but that has ballooned to $7.9 million or about $100,000 per bed.  Operating costs annually are apparently going to be $40,000 per bed. 

Is this a problem?  Well, in the case of Thunder Bay, think about it this way. Spending $13 million for 80 tiny units over five years works out to $162,500 per unit – or $32,500 annually. Thunder Bay is currently undergoing an apartment building spree financed by federal and provincial housing money which is increasing the supply of rental units but not necessarily increasing the stock of affordable housing because two-bedroom units in these new build apartments are going for as much as $2500 per month. At $2,500 per month, the annual rent is $30,000 per year.  Essentially, for the same amount of money, the City of Thunder Bay could simply house up to 160 homeless people in new existing two bedroom apartments for the next five years in very nice lodgings.  If older buildings at somewhat lower rents were put into the mix, then you could house even more homeless people.

Of course, this modest proposal of a solution is not going to happen. One suspects that current rental accommodation landlords in Thunder Bay are not terribly interested in helping solve the city’s homeless population problem in a manner that might affect the value of their investments or the building environment of their current mix of tenants.  This does however lead to what I think the longer-term solution could be. 

Given the private sector does not appear to be either capable or willing to provide new build affordable housing and given the amount of money that is being spent simply for tiny homes, there can be a public sector role in longer term housing solutions.  There needs to be more social housing – administered by the district of Thunder Bay Social Services Administration Board (DSSAB) and funded by the City of Thunder Bay, the Provincial and the Federal governments with local groups (such as Alpha Court as well as Indigenous organizations) in partnership.  The partnership approach is key and has been noted by others.  Small apartment style buildings providing social housing and geared to income units need to be built in multiple locations throughout the city with city owned and other public land in the downtown cores and city being possible locations.

Again, as outlined in a much earlier blog post, a good model here is Finland which has through the building of social housing complexes that provide places to live and a fixed address for those requiring access to government services dramatically rescued its homeless population. As I have noted, “People who are homeless need to be housed and housed without questions being asked.  Creating a complex or dispersed network of complexes of transitional emergency housing with very small personal units combined with social support such as a community kitchen, social workers and even a nurse practitioner and mental health workers and basic security on site would be one way of dealing with the homelessness crisis.”   And once lives are stabilized in these homes, the next step is placing them in geared to income units.  As far as I am concerned, tiny homes on a riverbank are at best an expensive band-aid solution.  If you are going to be spending tens of millions of dollars, you need to be leveraging that money into permanent solutions, not stop gaps.  True, the social housing approach is seen as more expensive, but it is more likely to solve the problem rather than dilute or obscure it.  Moreover, the tiny homes approach is not exactly cheap either.

Still, these are all complicated questions, and one certainly does not envy the people who must wrestle with them. I suppose getting two out of three decisions right is not a bad score but as my old high school motto would say - Agimus Meliora – let us strive for better things. And doing better in the case of homeless encampments given that the Kam River site is likely a done deal, is to gain redemption by using the next five years to fully implement long term solutions and not hide problems along a riverbank.

 

Solving the Homelessness and Housing Crisis

 

As rents soar in Canada and encampments spring up in cities across the country, it is evident that the country faces a housing crisis which to date seems intractable.  Even the recent slowdown in home prices does little to improve the situation given that average housing prices in Canada remain just shy of $700,000 with prices varying across the provinces. Average housing prices in Greater Vancouver are just shy of $1.2 million while Greater Toronto is slightly less at $1.1 million.  And while at an average of $322,000, Thunder Bay seems more affordable compared to Toronto and Vancouver all of these averages mask the variation in prices around the average that realistically means something half decent that you may actually like is always substantially above the average. 

 

However, the housing and homelessness crisis and what has been termed the housing shortage is not really just about the price of an average house.  There are a number of issues here.  First, there is actually not a “shortage” of houses and apartments per se as a glance at any real estate listing in cities shows that there are always houses for sale or apartments for rent.  However, the price or rents of those housing units are well above what individuals are either able or willing to pay especially given the recent rise in interest rates which has increased the cost of home ownership in particular. One could term this a crisis in affordable housing rather than a shortage of housing. Second, there is the issue of homelessness which has manifested itself with rising numbers of people in cities across the country living in tents and encampments.

 

Solving these issues requires a two-prong solution.  First, dealing with affordable housing.  The sudden drive to expand the supply of housing to make it affordable is certainly a potential long-run solution. However, in the end building more $1,000,000 homes in suburbs, which developers like to do because they can make a lot of money, really does not solve that problem. Moreover a $1,000,000 new build home program does not solve the housing affordability problem unless it is done so incompetently by the private sector that they create a glut that drives prices down which seems unlikely.  Developers across the country over the years have learned that you just do not build a couple of hundred homes in a subdivision and then sell them – you build on spec with a large deposit.  Basically, every new home built already has someone lined up for it.

 

The solution to the affordable housing is the building of either rent-geared-to-income housing or the building of standardized-government subsidized housing units (much like the Wartime Homes Program) whose design, construction and sale is also geared to income.  One example of this is the standardized house designs being put forth by the government of British Columbia which could serve as a template for other provinces. This will enable homes to be built more quickly but it could also serve as a model for lower cost housing designs. As for rent -geared-to-income, all new apartment builds should have portions of the building ranging from 10 to 20 percent of rent geared to low and middle incomes with government social housing subsidies providing the incentive to builders. This is preferable to simple erecting mega projects of low-income apartments in neighborhoods that essentially creates clusters of low-income individuals.

 

In a sense, the Ontario government’s current approach to increasing housing supply by providing incentives and powers to municipalities to simply expand housing stock does not follow either of the above approaches.  Take the case of Thunder Bay where the target is to build over 2000 homes by 2031 according to the provincial target but given that the target has been exceeded in 2023 it is now seeking to build (with federal funding of course) 2000 homes over the next three years.  The optics tout this as a success story and the start of a housing boom fueled by mining but the 167 units for 2023 (which exceed the target of 161) is largely driven by projects already planned or underway and 60 of the units (plus another 60 which have started) are apartments being marketed as “luxury” apartments.  It means the rents for the smallest units will easily be over $2000 a month.  This will not be ‘affordable” housing given the cost-of-living crisis that has gripped the nation and its media.  Moreover, the target going forward is ambitious given the past track record of housing starts in Thunder Bay to date which given the cities rate of population growth to date has been modest. 

 

The other housing crisis – homelessness. -will not be solved by new suburban housing developments, neighborhood infill, or luxury apartments.    It is an entirely different problem all together.  The solution here is best modeled on what has been done in Finland where a non-governmental organization (NGO) called No Fixed Abode founded in 1986 reduced the number of homeless in Finland from 20,000 to about 3500 at present. Note that Finland’s population is 5.5 million and there are currently 3500 homeless people estimated.  In Canada, just Hamilton Ontario with a population of 579,000 has an estimated 1,500 homeless.  As well, since 2008 Finland has also embraced another program called Housing First which creates flats in social housing complexes that along with serving as places to live also provide a fixed address for those requiring access to government services and supports.

 

Now, Finland is not Canada and simply grafting another country’s solution to solve your problem can generate all kinds of problems. However, there is something here that needs to be explored.  Some of all the money that is going to be thrown at simply increasing housing stock irrespective of whether or not people can afford it needs to be directed to what I would term Transitional Emergency Housing.  People living on minimum wage or are evicted from apartments and have no place to live need some place to get back on their feet.  Boarding houses with rooms to let used to be a place where people of limited means often ended up til they got back on their feet, but no such places really exist anymore. People who are homeless need to be housed and housed without questions being asked.  Creating a complex or dispersed network of complexes of transitional emergency housing with very small personal units combined with social support such as a community kitchen, social workers and even a nurse practitioner and mental health workers and basic security on site would be one way of dealing with the homelessness crisis. 

 

 

 

Where to locate such complexes?  They need to be built on a scale that reflects their local neighborhood and are close to where many homeless choose to locate because of amenities – often downtown cores.  Most municipalities own land in their downtown cores that could be used for such a purpose. They will not be cheap to operate but realistically what else is the solution?  Simply leaving the problem to grow does not solve the problem.  Throwing money on market rent apartments and suburban subdivisions does not solve homelessness, never mind, really create affordable housing. Using resources in a wise and targeted way is the solution to both housing affordability as well as homelessness. True, perhaps these are the ravings of simple economist who does not fully grasp the complexity or enormity of the problem.  On the other hand, perhaps not.

Homelessness in Ontario: Creative Solutions Needed, Not More Planning

 

Urban centres across Ontario and indeed all over Canada are experiencing a wave of homelessness as rents and home prices continue to rise.  The ranks of the homeless not only include those with mental illness with no family or support or urban foragers but working people who despite their incomes and work have been evicted as their units are renovated and higher rents charged and cannot find affordable housing. 

 

In Hamilton, tent encampments are dotting the city and as of December 2022 there are an estimated 1,509 people experiencing homelessness.  In Toronto a somewhat more dated estimates puts the number of homeless people at over 7,000. In Thunder Bay, well over 200 are experiencing homelessness while the number experiencing chronic homelessness is around 600 people.  Encampments in parks and assorted green space in or around downtown areas have become health hazards to the residents in the absence of proper sanitary facilities and in parks the prospect of taking children to play with tents nearby has become understandably  disconcerting for parent.

 

The approaches to dealing with the problem and the strong debates involved are highlighted by what is going on in Hamilton.  The most recent proposal has been a plan to “pitch” tiny homes on Strachan Street East just off the downtown area rather than have sanctioned encampments.  Hamilton councillors have given early support for this revised encampment protocol as a pilot with plans to ultimately set up six such sites that would accommodate about 160 people.   

 

There has of course been debate and opposition because quite frankly, the narrative around this process is misleading because you do not “pitch” a cabin, you erect or build one.  Once you physically build something, it is not temporary but likely to become permanent especially given the torpor and inertia that accompanies most government decision making these days at all three levels of government.  One only need visit other parts of the world to see what a poorly policed or implemented tiny homes program could devolve to: essentially urban shantytowns.

 

Of course, even if such a program is approved, one suspects that given the plethora of plans, regulations, and processes at assorted levels of government, it will take a long and expensive time to get anything done.  After all, Hamilton has been working on a housing and homelessness strategy of various sorts since 2004 and here we are 20 years later and we are still working on solving the problem. If one checks in on Hamilton Housing and Homelessness Action Plan, here is the progress:

 

    May 7, 2018: Housing and Homelessness Action Plan Update

    December 12, 2016: Council receives 2015 and 2016 Report to the Community

    June 24, 2015: Council receives 2014 Report to the Community

    December 9. 2013: Council endorsement of Phase Two

    June 11, 2012: Council endorsement of Phase One

    October 2010: Housing and Homelessness Planning Group was convened to provide guidance to staff in the development of the Housing and Homelessness Action Plan.

    2007: Council approved Everyone Has a Home: A Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness, Hamilton’s first comprehensive plan to address homelessness.

    2004: Council approved Keys to the Home: A Housing Strategy for Hamilton, first housing strategy for the city since amalgamation.

 

Planning as a substitute for action has become an affliction at all levels of government in Canada and Hamilton’s homeless action plan has probably been about as effective in dealing with homelessness as the myriad of northern Ontario economic development plans have been in jump starting the northern Ontario economy. And with three levels of government using federalism not as a cooperative apparatus to tailor programs to local needs but as an excuse for passing the buck, we are a long way from addressing homelessness and housing issues at a national level.

 

What to do? Honestly, there is no quick and easy solution, but solutions do require some creativity, a willingness to work together to solve problems and the will and capacity to move and get something done.  Sometimes that requires a crisis or natural disaster.  Case in point?  The Great Haileybury fire of 1922.  In the fall of 1922, a massive wildfire hit the town of Haileybury in northern Ontario and several surrounding communities killing 43 people and leaving thousands homeless just before the onset of a northern Ontario winter.  The solution, a quick and rapid improvisation that saw 87 streetcars from Toronto being sent up and fitted out with stoves and used as temporary accommodations.

 

Honestly, could such a solution work today?  One imagines that there a lot of retired VIA railcars, TTC streetcars and GO Transit cars lying about that could be repurposed and set up on some of the sites being proposed for permanent encampments or tiny home subdivisions.  Being streetcars rolled in and set up with sanitary facilities, heat, and air conditioning, they would look better than the myriad of tents or tiny cabins being proposed.  And being rail cars on wheels, one might be able to afford the illusion that they are indeed temporary even though all of us know they are going to be around for a long time.  However, being in built up urban areas, they might even be considered a little funky and eventually become part of the landscape in a more palatable way than tents willy-nilly and assorted mounds of garbage.

 

Mark my words, this is not a permanent solution nor should it be but in the absence of any real steps towards effective urban solutions, moving on a solution like this might be the best way to move forward in at least a limited fashion.

 

 

Dealing with Homelessness

 

Among the growing problems of affordability in cities across Canada including Thunder Bay, is the specific issue of homelessness.  The latest point-in-time survey by the District of the Thunder Bay Social Services Administration Board that was published in January of 2022 of 221 participants documented that 43 percent used emergency shelters.  Indeed, the Board estimates that there are closer to 700 people experiencing homelessness in the 103,000-square-kilometre district of about 146,000 people and about 70 percent of them identify as Indigenous.  Finding solutions to this complicated set of issues is an on-going process and into it has stepped the City of Thunder Bay.

 

Thunder Bay City Council has decided to move ahead on a recommendation to establish a $1 million fund to support local capital projects addressing poverty and homelessness in Thunder Bay.  The fund is not intended as a stand-alone source of financing and is expected to leverage additional support from the federal and provincial government as well as other funders that could include private sector sources, philanthropic organizations as well as First Nations organizations.  The projects are designed to be in the area of transitional or affordable housing and grant applications will be reviewed by a committee of senior city staff.   The idea, initially proposed by Councillor Bentz, is innovative and perhaps one of the first in Canada and comes in the wake of the 2022 federal budget which has committed more funds for homelessness as well as a commitment to the redesign of federal housing strategies.

 

This program represents a start to fixing problems in a community that has received its share of bad press in the national media lately when it comes top homelessness, poverty and racism.  City council approved the recommendation though there was one dissenting vote from Mayor Mauro.  Mayor Mauro argued that such a fund would replace federal dollars and that the City is going to pour resources into projects that would have occurred with federal funding anyway. The Mayor is technically correct that funding to end homelessness is likely going to flow in greater amounts from the federal government anyway.  Moreover, the housing crisis is a federal and provincial responsibility to solve even if its effects are felt largely at the local level.  However, that does not mean a municipality should sit back and wait for someone else to start solving the problem.

 

At the same time, providing the municipal resources represents a way to kick start some aspects of the process in a cooperative manner given that the funds are expected from federal and provincial governments as well as other partners.  In some respects, it represents an action in tune with basic principles of subsidiarity in fiscal federalism by signalling change from the grassroots.  Rather than replace federal dollars, the Community Partnership Fund Thunder Bay is creating may actually attract more funding and give the option to the other levels of government, as well as private agencies, First Nations Organizations and philanthropy groups of an opportunity to accompany their verbal pronouncements with more effective actions.  And besides, the political optics for Thunder Bay with this fund are positive even if the marginal impact is ultimately small.  Change requires first steps to be taken and that is what this is.

 

Thunder Bay City Council has done some boneheaded things in the past but this is not one of them.