Councillor Ch'ng, in answer to your question as to where can they go after breakfast, how about going to work? This should be the goal. Everyone has something to offer. Everyone needs a purpose. We are entering perilous times and this calls for some serious reflection on what we want our city and society to look like. Mindless tokenism just will not cut it. Years ago the term inconvenient truth was bandied about, mostly regarding climate change. This term now has an additional application. What is it about current policy that allows so many to fall so far? Certainly not lack of funds as it seems the more that is being spent the deeper the pit. Why are so many healing yet no one seems to be getting better? Have we inadvertently monetized/incentivized victimhood to the point that getting well means getting poorer? Tough questions requiring an adult conversation that needs to extend well beyond the boundaries of this city.Leaders need to lead and it best get started soon.
It is my understanding that there are upwards of twenty organizations currently receiving funding to deal with the homeless/encampment issue. I suggest cutting this part of their budgets and assigning it to the stated price tag. There is way too much being spent on things that do not work. Assuming that spending more in itself creates progress, is folly at best. There is a story in one of the Toronto papers that outlines how 74 million dollars has been given to an organization that self-identifies as indigenous. One would think that at least some of those funds could be better spent helping Thunder Bay deal with the encampment issue.
We are going to prioritize those most at risks...well okay if that is the plan. However would it not make some sense to prioritize those that are actually in or seeking treatment? Is this going to be determined by some type of point system and, if so, what is it? If not, what is the criteria and how are they weighted. The detail is important and I am hoping that the city has not agreed to fund a plan that really isn't. Providing shelter is essential but it is not the end but rather a means to an end which is getting people back on their feet and becoming responsible and valued members of society.
When something is free, there will never be enough. Something for nothing is demeaning and does the exact opposite of what it is intended to do. Hopefully any subsequent review of this program will look at results instead of intentions.
There is something to be said for the human rights approach however why the silence on its corollary, the corresponding responsibilities. Rights do not exist in a vacuum. Following the law and contributing to a greater good are part of the package. People need a sense of worth and normalizing their predicament does nothing for this.
Regarding the statement that we are in a housing crisis, again, what does this really mean?There are currently a number of houses for sale in the 250k range. Mortgage rates are falling. Maybe the problem is more easily addressed if we say there is an employment problem and plan accordingly. Getting people to work and contribute should be the ultimate goal. I think, somehow, this is getting lost.
There was a recent article in one of the national papers citing the difficulty our armed forces are having regarding recruitment. There seems to be a possible match here. I will not solve the problem but it would certainly make it smaller.
There is also the inconvenient truth that Thunder Bay is not large enough to provide ongoing support to single purpose buildings of this size. Earlier news articles cited difficulties with the cost of maintaining the Thunder Bay Museum and the Sports Hall of Fame. Wings devoted to each of these could have been incorporated into the design. A pavilion housing the carousel that has been described as a work of art, could also have been included. While not addressing the issue of increased labor/building costs, such inclusive planning does insure increased foot traffic and reduced maintenance costs overall. Too many silos and many with a "friends of" designation. Thunder Bay itself seems to be very lonely.
If we are going to talk about moral obligation then that should extend to a number of other governments as well. Where do these people come from? Have funds been made available for them and if so, to whom? Maybe this money should follow them to Thunder Bay. It would seem to be the moral thing to do.
Absolutely! There should be a jobs/skills/employment component to all social programming. The goal should be to return people to self sufficiency. The longer this is ignored, the more difficult achieving it becomes. The premise must be that everyone has something to contribute and there is a personal responsibility to do so. In those cases where this is impossible, then providing the necessary support can be provided. Creating/normalizing a permanent underclass must be avoided.
Rights are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable limits. There is the right to free speech but that does not confer the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. There is so much talk of rights but so little of the corresponding responsibilities: to obey the law; to respect other peoples rights and freedoms and the list goes on. We are getting to a point when a growing number of people are concluding that the system in place no longer represents their interests. The social contract between those that govern and the governed is becoming increasingly frayed. This will not end well unless there is a complete rethink. The narrative that seemingly assigns vice to virtue and virtue to vice needs to be put under some scrutiny and rewritten as necessary.
There should be a jobs component for every social program. Having those that are able bodied having to report to work (make work if need be) at 8 am would likely reduce the numbers involved considerably.
Although much of the push back regarding location is valid, an even bigger negative is the plan's lack of coherency. Although it satisfies the immediate need of shelter for some but it does little to address the larger issue. Such is tokenism. Why not apply an aspect of the merit principle. For those addicted and not wanting to get clean (yes, they exist), construct a barracks type shelter away from the city center. Someone mentioned Chippewas Park and this would seem appropriate. For those in counselling and attempting to reenter society, the proposed village would be suitable. One of the administrators mentioned that this type of housing would be assigned to those with the greatest need which would have the effect of penalizing those who are actively on the road to recovery. This cannot be right. For those that are homeless while trying to hold a job, subsidized housing would be provided. The triage method is used to determine the order of care at the hospital and should be tried.
More experience with these issues than you could possibly imagine. Regardless, if you have a criticism just state it. One other point, if you think you can spend your way out of this you are dreaming. Spending is easy, solving a problem, not so much. It beggars belief that some want to double down on what has never worked.
In an earlier article, the Minister involved, mentioned that the term "affordable housing" was to be further defined this fall. Is the use of this term in this article consistent with this new definition? Is this project to provide housing at no more than 30% of the renter's income or has its primary purpose changed? It would be helpful if there was some clarification around the various types of housing being bandied about ie supportive, affordable, social, geared to income etc.
I am not sure your premise is correct. There is significant support for those trying to recover from addictions but I have not read that agreeing to enter treatment is a criterion for housing. If it isn't, then that is a concern that is legitimate. If it is, what happens to those that refuse? A bit of clarity around the end game would be helpful in lowering the temperature around this issue.
Is there a site where one can view the approved permits; Ideally both residential and commercial? I have tried without success to navigate the city portal. Thanks