![Hamilton councillor calls for study of ‘sanctioned’ encampments](https://external-preview.redd.it/QiBkSOLY6u_cIwwGqoxxXeJnkYaDrry2qcxjwft5ZF4.jpg?auto=webp&s=f577c213cec25477ff97f1c8e5c6b14e2ba60f95)
www.thespec.com/news/council/hamilton-councillor-calls-for-study-of-sanctioned-encampments/article_16b34b96-79f7-56ea-8c63-5b1e706f972b.html
Well, unfortunately that isn't possible. Write to your MPP.
And if your MPP has zero credibility at Queen’s Park?
Sarah Jama, amiright?
Then write to other MPPs, especially those in Government and those with relevant ministries.
Sorry but the Hamilton Center representative is far too busy representing people in the mid-east to be concerned with constituent issues.
The provincial government needs to mandate each city to provide X amount of services per capita. None of this bullshit from affluent cities like Burlington, Oakville etc not carrying their weight and just shipping their unhoused population to Toronto and Hamilton. They can afford to support their unhoused neighbours
It's also been proven that spreading out the needs results in better integration than concentrating them.
It would be impossible to do this, but I agree it’s not fair. That’s why the plan and funding needs to come from the province, but that won’t ever happen with Douggie.
Most funding already comes from the government. Indwell, a big player, gets the bulk of its money to build new units from the federal government. Then operating costs, the majority comes from the province, charities and "rent" which in this case is primarily ODSP money. Of the 16 million they get in operating funds per year, one million is from the municipality.
What about individuals who get OW not ODSP, does that cost the city? I think there are other costs too, not sure how much, but my understanding has been that Hamilton always had disproportionately high property taxes because of the social services costs
Pretty much every city in Ontario has an encampment problem, yet you still see the argument that they’re bussing them in from somewhere else.
Where is this magical city that won the game of musical chairs and has no homeless people?
Just look at proportions for it. Hamilton has higher than average percentage wise, which is difficult for the unhoused individuals, and creates expense and sometimes interactions that impact businesses and residents who aren’t equipped to deal with the complex issues like mental illness and addictions that frequently accompany the homeless experience
Lets start with Oakville
I got a great spot for a sanctioned encampment. City Hall. Central location and they'll stay at the top of councillors' minds.
Better yet, tents in their parking spaces on the back elevated lot. Half these councilors don't even remember what the forecourt looks like
thats across the street from an elementary school, but the lower lot beside whithern woild be perfect
They already tried that lol
I like this idea, maybe we should get the public to vote on this one instead of usless council making decisons that make no difference.
council making decisons that make no difference.
See Legal Implications of a Municipal Referendum (LS16025):
Council may pass a bylaw to hold a referendum. This process is governed by the Municipal Elections Act which describes it as submitting a question to a municipality’s voters:
A question must be clear, concise and neutral. It also must be capable of being answered in the affirmative or the negative with the only permitted answers being “yes” or “no”. - Council is bound to act on the result of a question only if:
• at least 50% of eligible Hamilton voters vote on the question; and
• more than 50% of these voters vote either yes or no - meaning the winning side has to have more than 50% of all of the votes on the question.The percentage of eligible Hamilton voters who voted in each municipal election since amalgamation is as follows:
• 2000 42%
• 2003 38%
• 2006 37%
• 2010 40%
• 2014 34%
Since then:
Increase turnout by around 141% and you're getting into referendum territory.
Yeah, referendums are always a great idea (see: Brexit).
Sarcasm aside, it's a slippery slope. Some dope will want a referendum on any hot button item of the day - LRT, only allowing encampments in one area, transit, etc. And the most organized and deepest pockets will have a field day with getting their side to the polls.
Let us bear in mind that the current encampment protocol was born out of a compromise and largely worked last summer. I went to a few of the encampment public engagement meetings. If the encampment protocol was put to a public vote, I suspect it would have been defeated by a large margin which would have helped nobody - the homeless or the housed.
If we’re going to have a conversation about using municipal resources for a sanctioned encampment, let’s start with the municipal golf courses.
Currently the golf course bring in some money. If we just turn over one to an encampment, then that's gone. If you're going to do it, put it in a vacant lot that has no economic activity.
Yeah I am all for making municipal courses more park-like but the loss of any green space would be a no for me when we have parking lots and empty buildings the city owns that could be used first
The golf courses are also away from other supports so unlikely to be chosen anyway. Wards 1-4 are going to see the majority of these just because the shelters, meal options and free to see social workers are here
I’m mostly being hyperbolic, but it seems totally backwards that we are a city facing a dire housing and homelessness problem while also being a city with two taxpayer funded golf courses.
I mean, can't we have golf courses and address the other issues? I'd say yes.
Let us not forget that council voted (not unanimously) to increase their office budgets before they even passed the encampment protocol. How many shelter beds could be funded by the ratepayer-funded increases to council office budgets? Hmmmmmmmm.
They just don’t like golf lol
I vote we put them on one of the disc golf courses.
People don’t even pay to use those and who care about disc golfers?
Well the courses were there long before the current issue, and it's not like they cost a ton. Have a look at Chedoke clubhouse.
And I mean are we not supposed to have anything else in the city? Should we rip the sewers out of the ground to help "fight homelessness"?
Conversely, providing affordable recreational opportunities such as Chedoke, pools, playgrounds, tennis courts etc. Provides easy access to the children of today to engage in a healthy activity.
Take these away, and we probably end up with an entire new batch of drug addled homeless in 10 years time.
sure, lets spend money on allowing them to camp on a golf course, that negates it from bringing in money. Maybe you should run for council.
Selling off the golf courses would bring in a lot more revenue than operating them.
I just can’t wrap my head around why golf courses are a municipal priority while people are dying on the street. It’s not as though there aren’t privately owned courses around.
So, we’ve moved from putting the homeless on golf courses to privatizing them?
It’s shocking, but your bad idea just reached its worst possible form.
Wow.
There is something to be said for green space and exercise from the city where it isn't overpriced. I don't golf but I don't see them as that much different than a rec centre.
Their water use though... ooof - we need to work on that. There are other environmentally friendly courses that moved to fake grass etc and zero plastic
you do realize these bring in money, not to mention jobs. Fulltime/partime/student jobs. To sell them would be to a developer, which means more greenspace lost, more housing people cannot afford, as well as more congestion. Lets not think short term here. That is what politicians do as it makes them look good while in office knowing full well the burden will not take place to well after they are gone. We need people to look long term. The housing crisis is not an Hamilton, or even Ontario problem. It is happening in most Provinces. It is a National issue and should be started by the Feds. Thy could start with bringing in less immigrants/asylum seekers. Or at the very least, direct them to places that do not have a housing/job shortage. Why have the feds pledge to bring in 500,000 a year when we can't house/feed/provide jobs for thousands already here?
When it comes to golf, I am a Carlinist.
Mini golf, on the other hand…
Honestly for many years I defended the municipal golf courses. Lots of people across the income spectrum enjoy golf and we support recreation as part of being a community.
But at this point the housing crisis is just overwhelmingly more important. At least one of the courses needs to go for affordable housing. Hell even just *any* housing at this point. We simply can't afford to use that much land for a game anymore.
Yeah, let’s fuck up municipal golf courses (which are parks by the way), while we have perfectly salvageable land to build on (see abandoned lots across from the Go Station).
I drive around the city all day and am pretty shocked by the amount of vacant land there is.
The above ground parking alone in the downtown core…Jesus Christ.
We could put all the homeless in a single tower at Caroline and Main.
I'd be happy to keep the golf courses if we can build enough housing in other ways. I don't think golf is elitist and there are many valuable rec facilities that I don't personally use so there's nothing unusual there.
The main point of my post is that as a former strong defender of the courses I have become open to the possibility of getting rid of one of them in service of housing. Whether that should happen would depend on the plan as compared to alternatives. If turning a golf course into housing is part of our best plan for dealing with the situation, then I'm listening. If we don't need to, then certainly let's not.
EDIT: To add, I think your implied order of operations makes perfectly good sense. Truly wasted land like on the north end should definitely be first in line for new housing. However, I expect the housing crisis to be with us for a very long time and the golf courses should be in the conversation going forward.
Fair enough. Like you, I privilege affordable shelter over golf courses, but I’d like to see some movement on our vacant lands before we start discussing ruining some of the gems of the city. And before the HGCC folks start chirping me, Hamilton’s municipal courses ARE absolute gems, despite their faults.
Definitely reasonable.
Golf courses are only partially in place to service the region's golfing enthusiasts. Grounds like Chedoke also represent important bastions of meaningful green expanse integrated into rural cities (we're talking a 10 minute walk from thoughtfully zoned mixed use developments nestled on Locke).
We can accomplish our housing goals without paving over green space. No one wants to live in a city that is wall to wall residential development without providing for meaningful escape into nature or local commerce for that matter. Take a look at some of these awful subdivisions that are being built with wall to wall cookie cutter houses. You are lucky to find a "park" to escape to in these developments and they are often just an open field with a swing set and a handful of trees dotting the grounds. Let alone that these builds are a 10 minute drive from your local commercial park...
Don't let developers get thinking that we want our green spaces paved over in the name of affordability. It won't solve the problem and will only take away from the amenities that currently make life bearable in our cities.
Develop brownfields, gentle intensification, mid rise mixed use builds where utilities are well established. Keep our green space, if we're paving over that then we're growing in the wrong direction.
These are all important points. One of the things about golf courses is that the amount of space would allow for some much more human-oriented approaches that create green space and outdoor areas for everyone to enjoy; tough to do in smaller vacant plots. I would certainly want to see that rather than using every inch for mid-rises and concrete.
Granted, developers tend to make pretty drawings and then just maximize profits once ground is broken so that's a consideration.
I hope it's clear I'm not advocating for selling the golf courses to developers right now today. They have value and that would have to be carefully considered.
They land is in a prime location and worth good money. Using it for a homeless shelter would be a terrible idea.
We have plenty of under utilized properties around the city. Why not a program where land and materials are provided by federal government, and then the homeless themselves build their own homes? They would be taught the skills needed to do so. They get a place to live and a valuable skillet at the same time. This would also address the skilled trade shortage, and there would be exponential benefit as they could build even more a housing, affordable and otherwise, win win!
Teach a man to fish...
This is the Habitat for Humanity model. Volunteered with them years ago it was a great experience. Would love to see more of that in Hamilton.
Seems like the best solution to me. Give them an opportunity, if they don't take it, then society can wipe our hands with a clear conscience.
You stay away from my golf course!
Golf if you must, just don’t expect my tax dollars to subsidize it.
How about swimming, hockey, football, soccer, baseball, or jogging at a track at the park, should we stop subsidizing those too? Or is it just golfers you have a problem with?
Oh, what fun it would be to pick and chose what city-run rec programs we get to fund.
Personally, I don't care if kids learn to swim or play soccer.
I don't necessarily condone any city-run programs being compromised, but to be fair, general recreational activity requires a lot less specialized and exclusive space than a golf course.
I don't condone it either, mostly because the programs benefit a lot of people - even if I'm not one of them. But we also do have a lot of arenas that are only used half a year. Same with soccer pitches and baseball diamonds. Golf is an easy target because it's one (or, in the case of Hamilton, two) large green space with a bunch of (mostly) old white guys hitting a little ball only to go chase it and repeat several more times and is associated with people with cash.
Almost every arena in the city drains the ice and turns into ball hockey in the summer, and some still run year round for learn to skate and other leagues. Just sayin'.
Golf courses are a pretty significant outlier if we’re talking about how much space and resources are required. Also no one drowns because they don’t know how to golf.
How many hockey arenas are there in the city? How many soccer fields? Didn’t Hamilton just install a few outdoor pickleball courts?
I will die on this hill as someone that lived in Rosedale.
It is not just golfers that recreationally use the green space at King’s Forest. It connects to the Red Hill trail system and is a great place to get out for a hike/walk. If you walk through the neighbourhood, you can take the stairs and connect to the Bruce Trail network.
Golf is getting increasingly expensive to play (like hockey) at private courses. While there are a lot of people who don’t understand the appeal of the sport, it is great exercise - and especially for the crowd it attracts (often retirees). For seniors, it’s great for promoting ROM, ambulation, and continued mobility.
I understand we have a dire, dire, dire houselessness problem - but we are also experiencing a global epidemic of obesity. We should not put recreational spaces/exercise opportunities on the chopping block - that decision will directly impact our healthcare system.
The city needs to prioritize spaces for these people to gather/live safely, but they need to find indoor spaces now. Warm weather is a luxury we are not afforded long in Canada and these encampments need to be moved into safe, dry spaces before winter arrives again.
Makes it more affordable for me so I don’t complain Chedoke has been a huge part of my life I would hate for it to go imo tax money well spent… but everyone has their own opinions and yours is valid if it’s not your priority
I love this idea!!
City hall isn’t the spot because the councillors are not regularly there. The only way we’re going to get significant change is if we put the in the wards that always vote against any real solutions. So Ward 7, Ward 5, Ward 6. Ward 9, Ward 10, Ward 14. Add Horwath’s neighbourhood into the mix.
Make it uncomfortable for the neighbourhoods these councillors represent and then we may see some progress.
Because the councillors are the only people who work in city hall? Ffs
Exactly, people think it's OK for city employee's to have to deal with it on a daily basis, but if there was a crowd of high/drunk/violent people outside their work, they'd be complaining to their employer to address the issue.
Yep, the hundreds of staff at city hall are entitled to a safe workplace, like anyone else. Nor are encampments their fault.
These bums work from home every day, working in pajamas while their offices sit vacant. I support the idea but councillors don’t give a shit.
Mayor Andrea Horwath should be leading on this issue and getting out in the community and talking to organizations and finding a suitable place to recommend the tiny housing project and the homeless cabin community in another city and what is working and what isn't working with current camp encampment protocols.
The mayor barely talks about the cyberattack and what's being done to fix it.
She used to criticize police service boards as leader of the NDP party and now she's a fierce defender of the Hamilton board who doesn't want to hurt the feelings of police and won't hold them accountable for anything.
Horwath is a shameless sellout who is acting like the mayor's job is the soft landing she hoped it would be when she tossed her hat in the mayor's race.
I'm left-of-centre and I voted for her! What a mistake!
The Mayor's seat was a consolation prize after being a failure at the provincial level. Now she just exists to make excuses for the status quo and to appear for photo ops
She is horrible. I was expecting almost nothing and she under delivered
Well, it's easy to complain about police service boards when you aren't on one. And arguing for reform doesn't mean that you shouldn't do your job as a member of the board. FWIW, police service boards in Ontario have a pretty limited oversight role.
After a year of unsanctioned but not prohibited sanctioned sites, I think council might actually get on board with this idea. The current protocol largely worked, but it clearly is not perfect. The problem, as noted in the article, is that you cannot force people to stay at a sanctioned site. Will many people go? Likely. Would I be happier if local parks were devoid of tents and all that comes with it - needles, rubbish, fights, etc.? Yes.
The province also needs to step up to the plate and create a plan to address the ongoing mental health and addiction crisis that so any unhoused suffer from. Giving these folks a place to stay isn't a viable long-term solution if they can't care for themselves.
At this point sanctioned sites not by parks, schools or dense residential areas would be preferred. Have paramedics and police there, along with social workers that could provide care and guidance. It would likely cost less money than having the unhoused population sprinkled all over the city, so that emergency services are stretched thin and inefficiently used.
I mean you’re just listing what sanctioned sites are suggested to have, though not with police and paramedics there 24/7 (we don’t have the resources for that). But, again, the problem remains that there will be a sizeable number of those living rough who won’t want to go there for a whole host of reasons.
Sorry if I was not clear, I’m for sanctioned sites at this point with the addition of those services on site or nearby. Encampments should then not be allowed anywhere else. If those living rough do not want to go, they won’t be forced to, but they can’t set up a tent outside of those areas.
I agree 100%. There should not be any tents anywhere in the city besides sanctioned sites. This ridiculousness has gone on way too long.
Just what we need, more studies. More consultants.
We are looking to our elected leaders leading, and they are ducking and starting to go more insular. Francis says he wants 0 encampments in ward 5. Danko says he wants to remove most of the larger parks and any one that already has a plan or development for it. Hwang wants a study. Kroetsch wants to exclude things because reasons.
We need an actual housing strategy instead of more studies and saying all the places that people can't set up their home.
100% understand that this a problem plopped at the city's feet but we have to figure it out. The current process isn't working.
We need an actual housing strategy instead of more studies and saying all the places that people can't set up their home.
Where do you think housing strategies come from?
I think they should come from the feds or the province.
But they don't so it's up to municipalities to do it.
I mean I said that in my last line.
100% understand that this a problem plopped at the city's feet but we have to figure it out. The current process isn't working.
I think you’re missing their point… The housing strategy comes from doing a study.
So you'd just rather some politician shoot from the hip on housing policy instead of trying to determine what will actually fix the problem? That seems shortsited.
Read the Spec articles on how much we waste spend on consultants.
I think we can figure out a strategy - we had one with HATS - that would work to get housing to people who need it.
Consultants will affirm what we've already spent money on other consultants to tell us.
Common sense would tell you what you need to know about servicing a large number of people in a single place as compared to servicing that same number of people spread out across many sites.
I think the problem is that people don't want to spend money to fix the housing issue. They want a solution that ain't gonna affect them personally. Too late for that.
Would you prefer being on the hook for decades worth of salaries and benefits for permanent staff for various projects or pay for short term consulting work? It’s good to be critical of consulting expenses because it’s a great way for corrupt politicians and bureaucrats to siphon public funds off via corruption, but I think folks that are universally critical of consulting don’t consider how costly the alternative is as well.
Since that is a worst case scenario, I won't really talk about that; we have plenty of existing material and approaches that we can use. We need to stop thinking about this as one or the other - consultants vs. FTEs; we can look at what other municipalities have done and approach it like that. We can have council actually start to govern rather than rely on others to make the decisions for them and they just agree or disagree.
So they’re gonna to spend $100,000 on a “study” to come to a conclusion they already know - staying true to their roots.
It's ridiculous. I honestly can't wait to read their findings!.
Yes, yet another study will solve our problems...
I drove by the encampment on King street by international village yesterday, and saw people openly smoking meth and fentanyl within proximity of a child. A police officer drove by and nothing happened. This is failure from both the right and the left. Open drug use and other anti-social behaviour isn’t indicative of a healthy society. We need order, and we need it quick. I never thought I would say this, but we need a ‘law and order’ candidate to run for mayor.
Build real shelters you clowns
They priced replacing 15 beds at 650k last year - when the building already existed and just needed a refresh + staff costs. The cost of building shelters with the current budget and price of housing just isn't feasible on top of the ones we already have planned with non profit partners (and the massive opposition to those)
Then you still have people in tents because they can't or won't use shelters for various reasons (pets, couples staying together which possibly could be solved with a more flexible shelter and then drugs, following rules, banned for previous issues which is less easy to fix)
Exactly this. The cost of building shelters when taxpayers are already paying 6% is way beyond what Hamilton can support. And you just know that Kroetsch, Nann and Wilson will demand we build separate shelters for men, women, couples, pets, non binary, indigenous etc…
Running/building a one size meets all shelter is impossible. Not a solution.
Tiny homes worked in Europe for a reason. No idea how we plug something like that in North America successfully and research on pilots in North America are in infancy.
I think we are multiple years and research projects away from anything less stupid happening than this pointless song and dance where we talk about homelessness without a plan and no intention to throw any real money into anything due to polarized opinions on homelessness and political nonsense muddying reality.
Until then I guess it is encampment time in Canada.
The tiny homes recently built in Halifax...around 20 built so far will cost over $7.5 million dollars...hoping to build 200 in total. That's roughly $40K per unit. There's no way Hamilton can fund enough tiny homes to make a noticeable difference.
Does tiny homes work as transitional housing or is looked as the permanent dwelling for the current occupant? 20 temporary housing units where people get regulated and hopefully move up to permanent housing is something I guess. I’d take it over another 20 person shelter, but as I said I don’t know how the issue will be effectively addressed here.
I believe it's transitional housing, giving people enough time to stabilize their lives, find work and hopefully move on towards traditional housing. Sure, most people would think this is a great idea but what's the opportunity cost spending that much money...could those funds be better spent helping more people just get off the streets, and parks. If you've watched any of the recent General Issues Committee meetings (on Wednesdays usually), you'll see how council doesn't seem to have any answers and are mostly just blaming Ford.
Once the housing is built they should cycle and have interval goals I imagine in terms of further growth.
From what I understand in Europe they took a hit financially in Finland building these initially but they were proven in time to successfully transition people out of the chaos spiral of homelessness housing instability and led to a unfounded prior steady reduction of their national homeless rate.
I really don’t see anyone putting in the money needed to achieve changes at an exceptable rate to satisfy the populace. No one has any other ideas, So I guess we’ll just stand in place.
Sadly, it’s seems as though council has become as polarized as most of society…with right leaning councillors blaming the left for dragging their heels on sanctioned sites and other policies that would remove encampments from parks, and left leaning councillors arguing with the right over imposing higher property taxes, providing more support structures and generally, being unsympathetic towards the homeless.
All of this usually leads to directing staff to produce more reports…that only lead to marginal changes.
Too many rules for them hence the camps with more freedoms
Shelters are at 110% capacity on average. While I'm sure there's some people who will stay in an encampment even if there were shelter spaces, we're no longer at the point where there's empty spaces and people are just refusing.
Do you have a source for this? From what I’ve read there is space. One of the most recent articles about the encampment at Barton/Tiffany indicated that the individual refused housing. I’m not doubting your numbers, I just can’t find anything to support it.
A weirdly big issue with the homeless seems to be their pets.
I'm sorry, I definitely read it from an article but wouldn't know where to find it. There was definitely a 110% capacity stat specifically but it's possible it wasn't specifically Hamilton and was instead Ontario wide or something. I'll try to find it though!
Edit: This wasn't where I got the number from but (sorta kinda) confirms my numbers: https://housing-and-homelessness-dashboard-spatialsolutions.hub.arcgis.com/ (scroll to Homelessness, and then look for Shelter occupancy)
I probably misquoted and men's shelters specifically are at around 110% (the page is kind of screwy and doesn't let me hover to get a number, but well above 100% at any rate), women's shelters are at 97% and family at 101%. Youth does have some room in shelters though. That's as of January so something may have changed, but it's been pretty consistent so I wouldn't expect giant moves.
Thanks for this I’ll read it through! I also understand that shelters are not a space that many want to live in due to a number of reasons. Now that the weathers is “nicer”, I think many people would choose camping vs what a temporary shelter space has to offer. It’s such a complex issue with no real solutions. Or the solutions that may help, no one wants to pay for and the cycle continues!
I read this article in Macleans - https://macleans.ca/society/tiny-homes-fredericton/ and it was excellent (given the conditions, not excellent in a perfect world).
Would be awesome if any of our Millionaires stepped up - we've made cookie-cutter subdivision developers fabulously wealthy in Ontario, and all those clowns have done is put their names on Hospitals (Hospitals that the rest of us have paid for).
I agree that’s a good solution but with what money? They don’t have anything extra due to downloading and aren’t allowed to run a deficit.
Yes surely a study will help
It's amazing that the mentality here seems to be that this is all somehow the city's fault, and we now for some reason wish to be vindictive and want to punish the city for not solving the oldest problem in the world.
build more affordable housing like what up at queenston traffic circle.. folks that have been homeless the longest get priority.
I'd say the opposite. Long term homeless people need more supports than just "here's an apartment", and are more likely to trash it / be unable to afford it even with support.
Affordable housing should be for people who are on the brink of homelessness - think ODSP recipients or people with jobs but who are unable to afford rent. That's not to say we shouldn't help the long-term homeless, but that should be more about properly funding drug treatment, counselling, stuff like that, just giving them an apartment by itself isn't going to fix anything.
that makes sence, how do you feel about tiny homes IF done properly with security /common kitchens etc..
If we need funding start taxing the other municipalities campers are coming from. Hamiltonian taxpayers shouldn't be solely on the hook for these costs.