This article provided to NetNewsLedger by the Fort William BIA
Thunder Bay – POLITICs – The city council will be deciding on the location of the “temporary village”. The location they have proposed is 114 Miles Street. When considering a suitable location for the temporary village, you would think that your council would also consider an area that would have a minimal impact on both the residences and businesses.
In the Miles Street area are 2 youth centres: The Underground Gym and the Youth Multicultural Association. The Faye Gleeson dance school and the Renegade Performance Arts also cater to the youth. Placing a low barrier shelter in this specific location directly jeopardizes the safety and security of these children and the positive momentum of the area.
The Fort William Business District BIA is the voice of the business community. It is committed to improving, promoting and advocating for the area of Fort William Business District as one of Thunder Bay’s shopping, business, entertainment and historic downtown destinations.
The area is experiencing tremendous changes. Simpson Street is finally rebounding with the multimillion dollar renovations in progress. When the Simpson Street project is completed, it will attract many new businesses.
Victoriaville is coming down and the revitalization of the area has finally inspired hope among the residents and businesses.
Millions of dollars have been invested in this area, and the results are showing. New building owners are buying properties with the vision of a transformed downtown and are starting to invest in their properties. This revitalization could be jeopardized with the temporary village located on Miles Street.
Some councillors repeatedly asked “What is better? People in a shelter or on the street.
Here is a question for those councillors. Would you rather have businesses open and operating, or vacant buildings?
The area was asked their opinion as to the selection of Miles Street. Overwhelming, the response has been disbelief and frustration among the residents and business owners.
The city says community engagement is priority for the success of the project.
Administration says they have heard us but are they listening? Obviously not.
They have ignored our input and are forging ahead. No one from administration or any of the councillors live in the area.
The very fact that councillor Hamilton has been going around trying to persuade people that this is a good idea, regardless of their opinion, says volumes about the desperation of some on council and administration.
When Hamilton was asked if people in the area support the location? His response is that he feels they are misinformed or don’t have all the information.
We believe it’s the other way around.
The city hired Urban Systems, experts in development and rejuvenation of depressed areas.
Urban Systems wrote the Fort William downtown strategic renewal plan that council and the city adopted.
They are vehemently opposed to this temporary village idea in the core area because it will negatively affect revitalization efforts that are currently underway.
Urban Systems were NEVER contacted or consulted about putting a temporary village in the downtown renewal area. Why not? Why hire true professionals and then not consult with them when deviating from the strategy of the renewal plan?
And why would they not listen to his experiences in these matters?
Many available city owned properties were eliminated from the temporary village site selection based on the criteria of being VALUABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT opportunities.
In fact, in the renewal plan the Miles Street location was identified as a key priority piece of property for redevelopment of housing (not temporary housing).
This development would quickly change the perceptions around vitality and safety in Downtown Fort William. It would also help connect the neighbourhood with the surrounding area, providing additional activity and economic development opportunities.
For the proposed Thunder Bay temporary village, key site selection criteria include proximity to supportive services, historical encampment areas, sufficient space, construction readiness, safety considerations, and emergency access.
THE CITY ALSO PRIORITIZES ALIGNMENT WITH GROWTH GOALS AND ACTIVE USES, AIMING TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLANS OR RECREATIONAL AREAS.
The choice of the Miles Street site is in direct conflict with all the city plans, yet was selected?
We heard so much about the human rights approach of the unsheltered by administration, but not one word about the human rights of people that live and work in the area.
A human rights-based approach to homelessness starts with the understanding that:
-Housing is a HUMAN RIGHT, not just a commodity.
-People experiencing homelessness are RIGHTS HOLDERS, not problems to be managed.
-Local business owners also have rights-economic rights, the rights to personal safety, and community involvement.
So the goal isn’t to prioritize one group over another, but to balance rights in a just and participatory way
The human rights approach applies to all people, not just the unsheltered.
We have not heard this from administration. Why not? Addressing homelessness shouldn’t intentionally harm others. If you are going to do this project pick a location that works for all of the City.
The question council keeps asking people is, what do you think is better?
Living on the streets or living in a temporary unit? They never once asked about living in a permanent living space. Why not?
There is more than one solution, and the DSSAB along with all the social providers have been doing an excellent job on reducing the number of unhoused.
Shelters accounted for 54 people finding permanent housing last year, and 35 people so far this year. That’s 89 unhoused people who have been given PERMANENT housing in 16 months since this situation started.
Why has this information not been brought up by administration to council?
Why has Brian Hamilton, who is the chair of DSSAB, not advocated for permanent housing as the solution instead of fighting for temporary housing?
Please note, in the temporary village, you will have to go outside for showers and to go to the toilet. Winter should be a challenge. Whereas in permanent housing, they have toilets and washrooms inside their personal space. Which is better?
That’s the question council should be asking.
Let’s look at the numbers from DSSAB of permanent units for the unhoused coming online within this year. Thanks to the over 50 million dollars from the province over the last 3 years.
Urban Abbey: 28 units
4 units on Machar Ave
16 units by Alpha Court on Miles Street (toilets and showers in the units)
58 units by Indigenous Organization of Junot St
44 units on Huron Indigenous Organization
12 units George St private developer
There are many more private units already available.
That’s 158 units developed since this discussion on unhoused started. Many more permanent units are waiting to be announced in the very near future. Why is this not being brought up at council when the unhoused is being discussed? Two years ago when this started, we did not have that supply within reach. Now we do. Why focus on “temporary housing” when permanent housing is the answer and is working? Why does council not have this information ?
“Temporary Village”? Who are you kidding?
Once established, it will never be removed.
No council will vote to dismantle the village and unshelter 80-100 people.
So temporary is very misleading. Why are we trying to build one of the largest villages in the country? At the very least, there will be 80 units because the funding is contingent on a minimum of 80 units, whether full or not. Most cities have 40 to 50 units.
Our administration has no experience in establishing a temporary village. Why bite off a huge piece?
Get 2.8 million dollars from the province so the city can spend 10 million dollars of taxpayer money to do the province’s job?That sounds like a great fiscally responsible plan.
Not!
Can’t wait to see the councillors that supported this when budget time comes and we must raise taxes to fill in the shortfall. Let the province fulfill its responsibility.
Supports is another big factor in location decisions. Most temporary villages have supports going to them. We have many agencies already going to the encampments. This has always been the case no matter where the encampments are established.
Administration thinks these people have no life skills and cannot find their way around the city. We are now we are suggesting they must be close to services to survive. Funny, we have encampments 10 kilometres away from the south core, yet these people are still living there. How are they surviving?
Administration said they have all these letters of support from many social agencies. What they forgot to mention is funding for most of them comes from the city. Do you think the agencies are going to say something negative about the city’s doomed plan and jeopardize any funding opportunities? These agencies see the permanent housing with supports is the solution to the problem.
Finally, it’s not too late to stop this insanity. Get back to your fiduciary responsibilities to all citizens. You have wasted tons of time, energy, and money, not only of council and administration but have created tremendous anxiety among the citizens and business of Thunder Bay.
The very people you were meant to serve. Please reconsider your actions.
