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.

 

 

Making Decisions at Thunder Bay City Council

Thunder Bay City Council does have a tough job when it comes to making decisions that affect the public welfare that have to balance diverse interests and needs as well as financial and economic criteria.  At the same time, they sometimes do not do themselves any favours.  Two cases in point come to mind - the soccer bubble on Golf Links Road and Dease Pool.

First, the decision to finally allow a private developer to go ahead with a project to build a soccer bubble on Golf Links Road.   According to the news story, the project - which was proposed in spring of 2019 - was intended to open for winter 2020 but zoning restrictions halted the progress.  Essentially, the area of the building site was zoned "Prestige Business Park" which meant that a recreational facility could only be built as an auxiliary feature to a "prestige" item like a hotel.  This hurdle was finally overcome apparently by allowing the project to proceed with a promise to build the hotel later.  No doubt, the City of Thunder Bay probably also has a planning definition of what a prestige hotel should be like and will intervene when it sees fit.

Why this could not have been done sooner is a good question.  There is a shortage of space for soccer in the city and having a private developer step up is a good idea. Indeed, why should the City spend scarce resources on a publicly funded indoor turf facility at all if the private sector could provide the services thereby freeing up resources for things the private sector would likely not fund - like a swimming pool in a socio-economically challenged neighborhood?  One wonders if the decision to stall the private developer was in part in the hopes they would go away so that there would be less competition for the City run turf facility - once it was finally built.  If that is the case, they should move faster - taking years to decide and build the facility while not allowing for an alternate facility is a disservice to those who want their children to play soccer - and are willing to pay the fees for it.  The need for the space is all the more urgent given the collapse of the Sports Dome in 2016.

Regarding the decision to close Dease Pool and "repurpose" the space, I have already opined at some length on the issues here in a previous blog post.  The final decision is apparently going to be made tomorrow night and the outlook is grim for the people who want a new pool rather than any of the suggested alternative uses given the recommendation is for demolition.   Moreover, there is some division in the local community itself given that the survey respondents happy with the alternatives proposed by the City (44%) is greater than those who are unhappy (38%).  At the same time, one suspects that those happy with the alternatives are divided four ways while those who are unhappy all want to see a new pool but that nuance will likely escape the decision makers.



In the end, a decision will be made and the appropriate imperial decree made that  public comment has been received and considered and had no effect on Council’s Decision as the proposed accepted redevelopment is consistent with all relevant planning legislation and represents good planning.  

Thunder Bay City Council has spoken, the case is closed.

The City of Thunder Bay Has Spoken, The Case is Closed

Thunder Bay City Council and its municipal administrative apparatus seems to have embarked on its Roman imperial phase with respect to community relations with its taxpayer base.  In response to those who provided input ( my input here ) on the 105 Junot Avenue South Rezoning application and following the October 21^st decision to uphold the rezoning in a 7-5 vote, the Office of the City Clerk provided a Notice of Passing decree that begins as follows:

“The Thunder Bay City Council passed By-law 94/2019 on the 21^st day of October 2019, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 as amended.

Public comment has been received and considered and had no effect on Council’s Decision as the application is consistent with all relevant planning legislation and represents good planning.”

I suppose all that was missing at the end of this statement was a simple “All Hail the Glory of the Emperor” to convey the full message of conquest and victory.  The implied message seems to be that any resistance to the edicts of City Council is futile and has no effect.   Whatever is decided is consistent, represents good planning, and the final collective decision is ultimately infallible. 

The entire public drama and division over 105 Junot was amplified by The City of Thunder Bay because they encouraged the Ontario Aboriginal Housing Corporation to expand the scale of the transitional project from 20 to 58 beds to “maximize” the use of the site which one suspects probably really means greater property tax revenues for the City - assuming that the OAHC pays property taxes.  A smaller scale facility more in keeping with other such projects around the province would have been more suitable given the many concerns raised by residents in the area and generated less discord. 

Unfortunately, the Aboriginal Housing Corporation was caught in the middle of this unfortunate situation and making it into an emotional issue that attracted the attention of the Globe and Mail did not serve anyone’s long-term interests.  What the City of Thunder Bay should have done in response to the input received was return to the original proposal of 20-beds but that would have required actually listening and accepting at least some of the arguments made by those who presented their concerns.  Really, how can a facility approved on a much larger 58-bed scale in a neighborhood with the social and crime issues that were raised be “good planning?" 

In the end, it is water off a duck’s back because many members of council believe they have been annointed as “progressive” thinkers who love their community.  The strength of their love means that they are doing good and therefore the ends always justify the means.  If that means tacitly implying that opponents to their good works are insensitive to poverty or diversity, then so be it.  They constantly solicit input from constituents but listen through a set of political noise cancelling headphones so that the discordant notes from any input not coinciding with their vision of fighting social and economic injustice is politely filtered out.

Those in Thunder Bay who uncritically champion all social injustice issues with unquestioned fervour and feel they have the ear of City Council and its municipal-corporate apparatus should be cautious.  In the end, any dispensed progressive works are to be accepted on The City’s terms because they know what is best for you.  Take the example of Dease Pool as a case in point.  Here, a long-standing community pool in what is considered a disadvantaged neighborhood was closed because it was old and needed substantial and expensive renovations.  There is continuing opposition to the closure but The City forges ahead.

The proposed new draft plan (available here) will essentially replace the pool area with a tennis court and a community garden.  Given that swimming pools accommodate a greater and more diverse number of users than a single tennis court, it seems like an oddly elitist rather than progressive use for the site.  However, consciences will be soothed with a multi-user community garden – which also atones for the environmental sin of an asphalt surface on the tennis court.  If all this redevelopment was designed to somehow deal with the rising costs of an old and aging pool, those of us with a more fiscally conservative bent could be understanding.  However, this will still cost a lot of money and in the end not fully serve the needs of the area.

As for the money that will be spent, it does not seem to matter because a “progressive” council that wants to do great things will simply raise the tax rates on its residents - who by the way are now responsible for the lion’s share of property tax revenue given the declining industrial and commercial base.  Be prepared this year for an initial budget proposal that stakes out a high increase in the tax levy.  This will be blamed on the provincial government who, being conservative rather than progressive, are the source of all fiscal evil.  After a cleansing public ritual of debate and input of appropriate length, The City will then retreat to an increase of between 3 and 4 percent thereby demonstrating that it is both fiscally responsible and generous in matters of expenditure. 

We should not complain too much.  We elected them.

 

Planning for the Boom

The talk of booms and rumours of booms continues in Northwestern Ontario and with good reason given the ramping up of mining activity.  Along with several mines currently in production, there are a number of planned projects. Cliffs Chromite Project in the Ring of Fire is about to undergo an environmental assessment.  Thunder Bay is currently the host to some 26 exploration companies with projects expected to produce gold over the next 3-5 years at Greenstone (Hard Rock), Atikokan (Hammond Reef), Pickle Lake (PC Gold Inc.) as well as several other places.  As well, Stillwater is planning to develop a copper project near Marathon. 

All this activity is generating exploration and supply work but the mining boom is not here yet.  Nonetheless, area governments are beginning “to plan” for the development that is underway and yet to come.  Atikokan apparently has commissioned a community readiness study that among other things argues that six major projects in the area will lead to substantial construction activity, home building and potentially a doubling of the population.  Thunder Bay is apparently also undertaking  a Mining Readiness Strategy that will attempt to capitalize on the mining development.

A boom with population growth would be a welcome development in Northwestern Ontario.  This would be a much different region if Thunder Bay had 150,000 people and Nipigon and Atikokan were communities of 20,000 people each.  Yet, it remains to be seen if all of this mining development will come to pass and yield the expected employment and income benefits given the volatility of world commodity prices.  Most of the economic benefits will flow from the prospecting, exploration and setting up the mines as operating mines today are much more capital intensive.

With respect to all the planning being undertaken, the emphasize seems to be entirely short term – that is, how to meet the needs of the anticipated increase in population and demand for housing as well as capitalizing on the mining employment.  A longer view needs to be taken. Three other things these communities need to plan for.  First, making sure that new construction and development creates urban density in communities rather than a short-term build it where you like frontier  mentality.  Second, that some of the resource rents generated from these projects are invested in sovereign wealth funds for both the First Nations and the rest of the region’s residents to serve as a long-term source of income from a non-renewable resource.  Third, there be some thinking devoted to what happens when the mines close.  Is this too much to ask?

Northern Growth: Adding Up the Successes

Well, the provincial government has not forgotten about the Northern Growth Plan after all.  It would appear that planning for the plan to plan all plans is still being planned.  This morning's opinion piece in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal by Northern Development and Mines Minister Rick Bartolucci "Consensus in the North: The arithmetic of success" was no doubt designed to provide a quantitative bent to the government's activities not by listing the investments it was planning to make in Northern infrastructure or documenting the size of the budget for new projects but by listing the number of consultations and their participants.

Indeed, according to the Minister:"When it comes to consulting, listening and collaborating with northerners, the McGuinty government is also ahead of the curve."  The provincial government is working with northerners "to create two regional economic development planning pilots in Northern Ontario".  The Northwest Joint Taskforce has posted their draft online and according to the Minister "The local planning teams will be inviting your input on their proposed approach.  This is a time for us to work together on a made-in-the-North solution, and I urge you to participate." And finally, "I encourage you to keep contributing your advice and ideas for increasing prosperity in Northern Ontario."

What would be a more interesting pursuit by the Minister is not asking what we think about the Northwest Joint Task Force draft framework but what he or perhaps the MNDM Deputy Minister or perhaps Cabinet thinks of it. What the Minister is outlining is yet another set of consultations on a plan devised in response to a plan and whose implementation ultimately requires approval and action on the part of the government.  Unless of course, by asking our views yet again on a proposal, the minister plans to finally base his decision on what we want. Is the Minister gradually moving towards a view of more regional autonomy for the North?  Otherwise, all of this is simply another exercise is Northern economic development arithmetic in which the squared sum of the time spent consulting Northerners plus the number of ministerial announcements on progress in planning is equal to zero.