Months-Long Stalemate: From Initial Rejection to Renewed Push to Shutting Down Debate!
THUNDER BAY – The debate over establishing a Temporary Shelter Village in Thunder Bay began when council rejected the Miles Street proposal on November 25, 2024—citing concerns over location, safety, and community impact—despite Administration’s earlier recommendation to house up to 100 unhoused individuals in modular units at in the parking lot on Miles Street East.
Subsequent alternatives, including sites in the Intercity area and on Cumberland Street North, were nominally evaluated but ultimately abandoned in favour of Kam River Heritage Park—a plan Council scrapped only weeks ago, as the safety issues raised by the location precluded the site. The reigniting of calls for a definitive solution led city administration back to the drawing board, but instead they chose to revisit the parking lot at Miles Street.
Funding Clock Ticks: Deadline Drives Site Selection
City staff insist that time is running out on a $2.8 million federal-provincial grant, which mandates construction of at least 40 units by December 15, 2025, and full completion by February 27, 2026, to secure funding; otherwise the grant may be forfeited.
This speaks perhaps more to a greater distance between city officials and the Ontario government than admin might wish to share with the taxpayers.
The Temporary Village’s total capital and construction cost is estimated at $5.5 million, with the remaining $2.7 million drawn from the City’s Renew Thunder Bay Reserve Fund; ongoing operating expenses are projected at $1.5 million annually, funded through the municipal budget.
There is no assurances from senior levels of government for any future funding. Federal MP, Dr. Marcus Powlowski is on record stating he will oppose any federal funding for this project it is located at the Miles Street Location.
A proposal to return to Miles Street was passed at Council’s July 14 Committee meeting, where Administration expects to finalize the site recommendation.
Community Concerns Dismissed as NIMBYism and Worse
Critics from South Core businesses to neighbourhood residents lament that their substantive objections—ranging from traffic safety to property values—have been brushed off as NIMBYism, or even racism, shutting down constructive debate.
Online forums are rife with accusations that “anyone not swallowing Admin’s plan is anti-homeless or a NIMBY,” a tactic opponents say muzzles genuine discourse and undermines community trust.
This is being highlighted by McKellar Ward Councillor Brian Hamilton who is reportedly now supporting the Miles Street location, after previously voting against it. The McKellar Ward Councillor is apparently deleting social media comments on his Facebook posts that oppose his now obviously personal views.
Former Councillor Aldo Ruperto posted on Facebook, “Councillor Hamilton posted his thoughts on the temporary village. He took down all the comments that did not agree with his position. I know. I posted and he removed the comments …the funny thing is he voted against the project because he felt the number of shacks was too much at 80 plus….now he is going to change his mind again even though the number is still 80 plus. He claims its on a bigger plot of land. His excuse was the number of units not the size of the footprint.Here we go , Flip flop again …”
Another comment on that post, “Brutal – I just went back and looked and my comment had been deleted – I wasn’t rude or argumentative- asked what I felt were valid questions. He never answered and clearly just decided to delete.”
The reality here is that Administration seems to feel keeping the entire encampment picture in a mass location will see benefits.
Speaking with women living in some of the tent encampments around the city you hear of the fear, the sexual assaults, rapes, and violence. The level of desperation is very strong.
People looking for better options deserve more than name-calling, and their views simply being deleted. Yet for many that is exactly what they hear.
Unanswered Questions
Council Leadership Questioned Amid Decision Pressure
Observers note that Council’s hesitancy to challenge Administration has left Councillors scrambling, with many constituents urging a tougher stance on site vetting and public consultation.
At the June 23, 2025 meeting, Council reversed its earlier approval of Kam River Park—requiring a two-thirds majority under the city’s Procedural By-Law—thus paving the way for Miles Street to resurface; such procedural manoeuvres underscore fears of hasty decision-making under political and financial duress.
The Path Forward: Rebuilding Trust and Ensuring Due Diligence
Despite past consultations via the City’s “Get Involved” portal—where residents provided site feedback until January 15, 2025—many feel their input has been disregarded.
As the funding clock winds down, Thunder Bay faces a critical juncture: deliver a shelter solution or risk losing substantial resources.
Community groups and service agencies are calling for transparent, evidence-based site assessments and meaningful engagement.
Only by restoring open dialogue and rigorous due diligence can Thunder Bay reconcile the needs of unhoused populations with those of long-term residents, ensuring the city’s response to homelessness is equitable, sustainable, and borne of genuine collaboration.
