Societies selected for Nanaimo supportive housing sites
Pacifica Housing and Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society, in partnership with
Columbian Centre Society and Haven Society, have been selected as the
successful non-profit providers to develop, manage and operate two new
supportive housing developments for those who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness in Nanaimo.
The
societies were selected as the result of a Request for Proposal call issued in
September, which included an extensive evaluation process carried out by a
committee comprised of representatives from the two funding organizations – BC
Housing and the City of Nanaimo.
Pacifica
Housing will operate the 6025 Uplands site, while the three societies will work
in partnership to provide housing with supports for the 1612 Dufferin Cres.
development.
Expected
to begin construction in early 2013, each of these new buildings will create
between 35 and 40 units of supportive housing, for a total of up to 80 new
units that will connect individuals with the services and supports they need to
stabilize and regain their independence.
With
the non-profit selection process now complete, the Province and the City of
Nanaimo will work in partnership with the societies to fully develop plans for
community consultation, design and programs to be offered at the facilities.
The
Dufferin and Uplands developments are part of a partnership between the
Province of British Columbia and the City of Nanaimo to help address
homelessness in the city.
The
new locations are in addition to two sites:
·
Salish
Lelum at 477 Tenth St. was recently completed and provides 18 apartments for
Aboriginal youth and elders.
·
437
Wesley St. is under construction and will provide 36 apartments of supportive
housing.
In
total, these four sites will create approximately 130 new apartments of
supportive housing in Nanaimo.
Mayor Ruttan is quoted as saying:
“I
am excited to see these much-needed projects moving forward for people in need
of support in our community. The construction of almost 80 units of housing for
those most in need will generate jobs and respond to one of the City’s long
standing problems, homelessness. I am confident that the operators will bring
their years of experience to manage these facilities safely and securely,
consistent with the expectations of the surrounding neighbourhood.”
Victoria Housing Unit Had Difficult First Year
There is an article in today's Time Colonist spotlighting some of the problems Victoria has experienced providing affordable housing for the homeless.
The article states the Traveller's Inn motel which had been purchased to provide affordable housing has increasingly been the source of police attention and frustration for neighbouring businesses, which complain of drug-dealing and illegal activity.
Lessons For Nanaimo
Low barrier housing has become a very divisive issue in Nanaimo this year and has become the only hot button issue during our current election. It has pitted north against south in many ways and resulted in a lot of 'NIMBY' name calling on the part of citizens and many on city council.
Those in favour of the current low barrier housing planned for Uplands Drive keep telling everyone how successful these projects are in other places and keep assuring residents their concerns are completely unfounded. Then along comes a report that all was not well with Warmlands last year which saw a high number of police calls, and now this article coming out of Victoria.
A lot of these ideas look good on paper, and sound good when being pitched by politicians but being able to actually trust those in authority to deliver what they promise is one thing most citizens can be justifiably skeptical about.
Video Letter To Christy Clark
Supportive Housing Operators Not Decided
The provincial government has now said the operators for the supportive housing projects in Nanaimo will not be announced until early December.
City council had repeatedly said the decision would be known by the end of this week. This is yet another example of the reasons residents distrust what city council has said about this program. Apparently they chose the Uplands site in Oct. 2010 but it was not announced until Sept. 2011 which makes you wonder who and how this program is being run.
It means another month of uncertainty for the Uplands residents in spite of Councilor Unger's urging to wait and see who the residents of the Uplands site will be, claiming it could be occupied by people other than drug and alcohol addicts.
Conflicting statements from Mayor Ruttan and MLA Ron Cantelon about whether funding for the entire project is in jeopardy don't make it any easier deciding who you can believe.
As an observer who supports the housing strategy, but does not support the way the city and province have administered the project it seems to me it could be a candidate for the Gong Show, if it were still on the air.
In the first few months of 2008 there were at least three studies (I imagine costly) which outlined the Nanaimo homeless plan. In November of 2008 the MOU was signed with the government of the day which included a timetable to implement the program outlined in those nice studies done earlier in the year. The MOU states that the date for completion of the buildings was to be November of 2010 ... that was last year already. As it stands one building is done on 10th Street, and one is partly underway on Wesley Street and one is moved to the back of the bus, on Bowen Road, but neither the city nor the province can tell you three years after signing the MOU who will be running the facilities.
Yet, this same group comes to the public, after clearly ignoring the plans outlined in their own Action Plan and keep expecting local residents to have confidence in how they will administer the program?
I repeat .......... the Gong Show!
Nov 5/2011
Bestwick Asks Council To Reconsider
Uplands Drive Low Barrier Location
In what could prove to be a contentious issue, or a non-starter without a seconder, Councillor Bill Bestwick will be asking council to reconsider the Uplands project.
At the FPCOW meeting at city hall on Oct. 24, Bestwick gave council a notice of motion he would be bringing at council this Monday evening. The notice of motion read:
"That Council direct Staff to place the Uplands Site for low barrier housing on hold and submit a review of other site options to Council and the Provincial Government for consideration".
This is the first real ISSUE during an otherwise yawn inspiring civic election campaign with very few issues to clearly set any candidate apart from another.
The Same Project - The Same Concerns
No Answers From City Hall
Last April I sat through four nights of open council meetings where hundreds of residents of the Quarterway and hospital area made presentation after presentation to city council expressing their concerns about the proposed low barrier housing projects in their areas.
Last night at Oliver Woods community Center, resident after resident expressed the same concerns about the low barrier project being built on Uplands Drive. The meeting room was filled to over capacity with standing room only. The opposition to the low barrier project on Uplands Drive is based on exactly the same information hospital area residents presented council with months ago.
One issue both groups have deals with the apparent lack of supporting studies which would indicate that high density wet housing is an effective way to deal with the issue of drug and alcohol addiction. In fact both groups have reports indicating that this type of approach simply does not work. The city has yet to offer any supporting studies to the contrary.
Mayoral candidate Jim Routledge who initiated a petition supporting the Uplands site said before he made up his mind he visited some other sites on Vancouver Island. The Fairwinds site in Victoria which apparently houses seniors was the example that convinced him to support the Uplands site. However, during his address to the group in referring to his opinion of the Warmlands site in Duncan he said "not so much".
I found it interesting that Mr. Routledge who does support the Uplands site was not impressed by the site in Duncan which both councilors Pattje and Johnstone said they were impressed with when they went on a fact finding tour earlier this year. Those in favour of the wet house concept seem to ignore the letter from the RCMP Insp in Duncan who said they had received 150 calls in a 12 month period to the Warmlands site and met with less than stellar cooperation.
Councilor Bestwick was highly critical of the 'behind closed doors' decisions this council has made with respect the Bowen Road site, saying that the council had been dishonest at best and deceitful at worst in their dealing with the rezoning of that property.
Seniors living in the 360 unit Seniors Village adjacent the proposed site are fearful their peace and security will be seriously impacted if the Uplands site proves to be the home for up to 40 active drug and or alcohol addicted people.
Noticeably absent from the proceedings were any sitting councilors who are in favour of the Uplands Road decision. Both Holdom and Unger who favour the site are not seeking re-election. However neither Pattje, Johnston, Greves, Ruttan or Kipp were present at the meeting to offer their views on the choice of Uplands Dr.
Bestwick offered a suggestion as to how to overcome voter apathy and how to get people involved in the process and he rightly observed 'you piss them off'. Which does seem to have worked in this case.
I would like to address two things. First the people living in the Uplands
area are facing exactly the same problems the Hospital area has had with the
City of Nanaimo. The land for the proposed wet house on Uplands was changed
from fire hall designation to wet house. The land on Dufferin and Boundary was
removed for the Cemetery Act without public consultation and while we were
fighting the proposed wet house. It was done underhandedly and deceitfully.
What developer could get away with that? Both neighbourhoods are fighting these
proposed wet houses. What developer could get away with building something that
caused such an outcry from neighbours? These proposed wet houses aren’t going
to have the proper amount of parking. The City is going to remove approximately
10 parking spots on Dufferin for a turning land into the wet house and are only
going to provide 4 parking spots on site. The Hospital area has a severe lack
of parking and the City is going to remove much needed street parking. What
developer could get away with that? It seems the City has one set of rules for
what they want and another for the rest of us.
The second item I would like to address is our School Trustees. They have
put a policy in place regarding cell phone towers and also smart meters, but
when asked to put policy in place regarding having a 500 meter radius around
schools from wet housing they refused HANA (Hospital Area Neighbourhood
Association). We asked for a policy around ALL SCHOOLS, not just Quarterway
Elementary and Woodlands.
The election is coming, start asking school board trustees and candidates
for City Council where they stand on this matter and vote accordingly. These
people are suppose to be representing all of Nanaimo; families, seniors and
children.
Denise Goldsack
Nanaimo BC
Ron Cantelon Adds Fuel To Fire
As if the Supportive Housing project firestorm wasn't already hot enough, local MLA Ron Cantelon is reported in the Daily News as saying the city had other options for low barrier housing projects.
Cantelon is reported as saying there were several other sites, the city could have chosen which may have been more acceptable to the community.
In Darrell Bellaart's article, Cantelon says there were undeveloped lots north of Boundary Ave., a property adjacent the city yard on Labieux Rd., the now closed Northfield Alternative School and a lot north of May Richards Bennett Pioneer Park.
While I support the low barrier housing concept, and am not opposed to allowing active addicts the opportunity to get off the street and turn their lives around, I have always wondered if the city could not have chosen locations that could have caused less community upset than the ones they chose. There also appears to be less than forthright tactics employed by those on city council and city staff tasked with providing locations for this type of housing.
The acceptance of this whole program is based on a trusting relationship between the residents and their elected and non-elected officials and the way this project has been mishandled could be the poster child, for how NOT to get a community to support a low barrier project.
On the one hand those in favour of the project say there is nothing to worry about with the placing of 40 active drug or alcohol dependent people in one facility in a residential area. Then on the other hand you have councilors trying to appease Uplands opponents that the residents may only be single moms with children. Hidden in that assurance is the acknowledgment that 40 active addicts would not be as acceptable as 40 single moms.
You also have people singing the praises of facilities in Victoria while ignoring the issues in Duncan raised by the RCMP Insp. who said they had 150 calls to Warmlands in a 12 month period.
Perhaps the biggest single fault in the whole process is the fact that the procedure outlined in the city's action plan was never followed. The fact that no one can actually say who will be housed in any of these projects just leads to more and more distrust with those responsible for managing this project. A general distrust in the assurances of politicians and public employees is a simple fact of our day and age, and that distrust seems to be amplified in the handling of this whole project.
Concerned Citizens Launch Website
Seek 1000 Signatures On Petition
The Concerned Citizens of Nanaimo is a community group made up of residents in the Uplands and Hammond Bay Road area. They represent a cross section of society including young moms, seniors, business professionals, retirees and high school students.
They are organizing and making a concerted effort to let the powers that be know, they are not in support of the low cost housing project proposed for Uplands Drive beside the firehall. They have launched a website which can be seen HERE.
The group will be making a presentation to city council this coming Monday night to express their concerns about this project and questions they feel are still unanswered.
Uplands Residents Oppose Housing Project
Now that the northend location of the low barrier/supportive/wet housing project has been announced, Uplands area residents are taking up the same fight Quarterway and hospital area residents have been fighting with the powers that be.
Originally over 70 units were intended to go near the hospital but when area residents expressed their concerns the project was revisited and hence the locating of some units in the north end.
What city councilors seem to be reluctant to tell the public is that they will have nothing to say about how these projects are run or who the residents will in be, that decision being totally in the hands of VIHA. This idea that city planner John Horn and city council will somehow be involved with selection of operators and the daily operations if simply not correct.
Remember when VIHA says "jump", city council and city hall simply respond "how high?". That is why were are having to buy a $65 million water treatment plant when our water is perfectly safe now. Thinking that city hall made up of staff and councillors are somehow on the same level as VIHA is just so much smoke and mirrors.
Whatever assurances that city councilors or John Horn would like you to believe are really meaningless as it is VIHA who are calling the shots at the end of the day. They have been noticeably absent from all public discussion surrounding these projects.
As to the type of residents who will occupy these housing units, that will all depend on who the operator of the site happens to be. Some maybe the unfortunate souls who find themselves in the grips of addiction who simply can't live on their own and need support. Some maybe hardcore users who see this as a way of keeping out of the weather while they continue their chosen lifestyle. Some maybe model neighbours and some maybe the neighbours from hell, requiring police calls at all hours of the night. The simple truth is, that NO ONE on city council or city hall will have ANYTHING to say in the matter beyond telling VIHA "here is the city land we will give you, now build these units and run them as you see fit".
All Is Not Well At Warmlands in Duncan??
I have received copies of emails coming from Duncan with regards the Warmlands site which councilors Pattje and Johnston assured us was the model of supportive housing which caused no concerns for area residents or schools. Their visit being a reason they were supporting low barrier housing projects in Nanaimo, in spite of concerns about the proximity to schools etc.
One letter dated June 29, 2011 was addressed to Mayor and Council from a Lewis St. resident expressing her frustration over what had happened to the area as a result of activity stemming from the residents at Warmlands.
The second letter is from an RCMP INSP at the North Cowichan Detachment dated June 30, 2011 in which he/she states they had 150 call for service to Warmlands in the past 12 months and had less than stellar cooperation.
It would seem that while the Nanaimo RCMP detachment claim support of low barrier housing, the Duncan RCMP are not of the same mind. It should be noted, that Duncan has actually had some experience in the matter.
Make This An Election Issue
If local residents want to see a halt to these projects and a re-think as to size and location, then right now, leading up to the next civic election is the time they will have to make their concerns known. Council has demonstrated in the past they are committed to the low barrier housing projects as are currently underway.
'High Risk Takedown' At Warmland House
It is being reported in the Cowichan Valley Citizen that last Friday morning at about 6:30 am the North Cowichan/Duncan RCMP executed what is described as a high-risk takedown when it was reported that two men with guns were at the Warmland House shelter trying to sell guns.
It is not clear from the report if one of the men was an actual resident at the Warmland shelter, or simply thought it was a good place to sell guns. According to an unnamed source the two men were is possession of a number of long guns and hand guns which they were attempting to sell at the shelter.
Another report quotes police as saying they suspected the guns were ones which were reported stolen earlier and that the potential sale was drug related.
Apparently Warmland House Manager Anne-Balding was not available for comment, nor would a staff member comment on the incident.
This incident adds more concern to local groups opposed to the low barrier, wet housing projects planned for the Nanaimo hospital area who are still opposed to the high density project planned for the hospital area.
Wet Housing
Low Barrier Housing
Supported Living
Opponent and Proponent Participation Invited
These projects come with different names, but all do not come without controversy. This page will be devoted to this hot Nanaimo topic until it is resolved and just a part of history. Both sides in the debate are invited to present their opinions and why they either support or oppose the project in it's present form.
The two maps assembled here, show the location of the current wet housing projects, with one showing the locations as they relate to Nanaimo as a whole, and the others showing the proximity to Quarterway School and the Hospital.
As much as any person with a shred of humanity has a desire to help those souls among us which would appear to need out help, the disagreement comes surrounding the method of delivering such a service.
One of the strong objections the opponents have is the density of housing the proposed units will create. It is felt these housing units should not exceed 12 units in any one location. Proponents clearly disagree, as originally the unit proposed by the hospital was for twice it's present size.
Opponents are not convinced that putting 70 people with drug, alcohol and mental issues in one relatively small area will serve those afflicted, and will be a detriment to the neighbourhood which has an elementary school sandwiched between two such projects.
Click To Enlarge
This map shows the locations of proposed wet housing projects across the city.
Click To Enlarge
This map shows the proximity of wet housing in the Quarterway School area.
The following letter was sent to Premier Clark asking her intervention on the wet housing issue. It is reprinted her with permission of the author:
Good Day Ms Clark, Mr Coleman and Mr Krog
I want to start off this letter by saying that I have voted since I was old enough to vote and have always thought it was a privilege that I lived in a place where I had the right to vote. I'm starting to understand now why people don't vote though. It seems that a lot of elected representatives are choosing to follow their own personal agendas over representing the people that got out there and voted, and that they are suppose to be representing. I feel like Mr Krog and Nanaimo City Council has basically given me the royal finger.
I presently live in the Nanaimo Hospital Area. Its a diverse, high density neighbourhood. We have low and high income earners, blue collar to professional and everything in between, we have young families just starting out with elementary school aged children, people that have lived in their homes for 30 plus years and a huge amount of seniors. We have retired people in condo's, seniors in assisted care, full care and dementia care. (Kiwanis, Dufferin Place and Traveller's)
We also support a large amount of social housing including youth housing, John Howard homes, assisted low income housing, island phoenix club house, island crisis centre, Haven house shelter for women and a Schizophrenia home to name a few. The Hospital is in this area as well. We daily have a huge influx of people to the area coming to work or going to see the many specialists, doctors, dentists, eye doctors or to the Hospital for appointments, (with the ongoing related parking problems that go with having so many people coming daily).
The City of Nanaimo is planning on building two wet houses on either side of Nanaimo's largest elementary school in the Hospital area. The site on Dufferin is only 100 meters from the school. There is a high school a few blocks down the street on the other side and there are many senior's care home facilities. These two proposed wet house sites are within walking distance of each other.
Its interesting that the people that are pushing the hardest for these locations in our neighbourhood don't live here. Our mayor told one of our orthodontists that he wouldn't want to live next door to a wet house and yet he is unrelenting in pushing this on our neighbourhood. He also won't reply to any of my emails. This is a man that I voted for twice and am extremely disappointed in.
I know every neighbourhood struggles with drugs and addiction problems, even the best neighbourhoods, but we are all trying to keep our neighbourhoods safe for everyone to enjoy.....children to seniors. What the City of Nanaimo is doing is not only moving problems to our area, they are also trying to concentrate them in Central Nanaimo. Placing two wet houses in our high density area is going to cause nothing but problems. Drug dealers are good business people. They will come and service their clients. People needing their next fix will rob to get money to pay the dealer. People that are mentally ill and drug addicted do become violent. These are all facts and one only has to watch the news or read the paper to know its true. Ask any RCMP officer what causes most of the crime and they will tell you its drug related. So is it any wonder that our already overloaded, high density neighbourhood doesn't want wet houses. Every neighbourhood has a tipping point, even the RCMP will admit to that. We support so much social housing already and wet houses are just to much too push on this neighbourhood.
I want to make another point as well. There are many people fighting against these two projects in my neighbourhood. We all work and are doing this fighting on our own time and dollar. Its interesting that the people that we're fighting against are all getting paid by us and our tax dollars and they are doing it on work time not personal time. We have a City councilor, Mr Fred Pattje, that asks people regularly "Where would you put the wet houses?" We are not the paid City Planners. Maybe they should start doing their jobs and find some better locations for such facilities. I have a list of City owned properties, there are options unlike what Mr Krog has said to me. There are also lots of realtors in town. If the City doesn't own an appropriate piece of property maybe they should look at selling some land and buying elsewhere.
I feel that the people of this neighbourhood have been lied to over and over. In June of 2010 a very poorly advertised flyer came out asking if the residents were concerned with Crime in the area, Parking Issues and Affordability of Housing. No where on that flyer did it say we want to put two wet houses in your area. My husband, as President of our Strata went to that meeting along with our VP to discuss the ongoing parking problems in the area. They were both more than surprised what came out at that meeting and they both came back thinking it was going to be a rehab. Again we weren't given the whole truth. (This is the public consultation that our city planner keeps talking about). In August my door bell rang and one of my neighbours said its not going to be a Rehab facility its going to be a wet house. After she explained what that was to me I thought I would throw up. The feeling hasn't left.
On October 21 of 2010 HANA (Hospital Area Neighbourhood Assoc) had a meeting. Our City social planner John Horn was invited and several city councilors showed up. We had an open mike so that people could express their thoughts as opposed to being told vaguely what was going to happen to their neighbourhood. Person after person got up and said they didn't want the wet house in the proposed location. That was about the time that we found out that there was not only going to be one, but two!!!! The site on Bowen Rd was supposed to be a commercial space on the bottom, with low cost housing above. The Quarterway residents had no idea that it had been changed to a wet house.
On October 25 of 2010 HANA made a presentation to City Council pleading with them not to build the two wet houses in our neighbourhood and also presented a petition with over 1100 names on it asking them to stop!!!
At the same time as all of this was going on our City Social Planner, Mr John Horn was busy getting the land on Dufferin taken out of the Cemetery Act. Changing the designation of that land was never brought up at any one of the above meetings. There was no public consultation. Again underhanded and secretively. Government whether municipal, provincial or federally should be transparent. That land should never have been taken out of the Cemetery Act. The Chinese Society donated the land along with the Cemetery to the City over 30 years ago. It should have stayed a Cemetery or turned into a park where people could still go and visit the gravesites of their relatives in peace.
I have several questions that I would like the three of you to think about.....
1) When did the worker bee tax payer go to the bottom of the pile? No one listens to us and we are the ones paying property taxes, income tax, & HST to pay for all of this!
2) Why are there one set of rules for the hard working tax payer and another set for the addicted? Crack cocaine is illegal !!!! (the drug of choice according to VIHA).
3) Do you personally think that it is okay to place wet house facilities in close proximity to schools and senior's care homes? Or do you think there is probably more appropriate land elsewhere?
4) Do you think there should be a provincial ruling that there should be a 500 meter buffer zone between schools, senior's homes and wet housing? Little kids don't need to see drug use and both children and senior's should feel safe when they are in their neighbourhoods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5) Do you think that taking people off the streets without rehab, education and a requirement to take their meds if they are mentally ill, will decide to get clean on their own?
6) And lastly.........What happened to Democracy?????????? Why is no one listening to this neighbourhood??????????? We're asking for help!
These are our tax dollars at work. I have asked Mr Krog about rehab, education and dry housing, all to no avail. Wet housing is only enabling the problem. Its not going to solve anything and will have horrible affects on the people forced to live by these facilities. Ms Clark if you really mean that families come first please help us. The Mom's and Dad's at Quarterway Elementary School are frantic. My neighbours and their families are worried sick about this. There has to be better locations to house the "hardest to house" other than this high density neighbourhood that is getting overwhelmed and at its tipping point.
I know this was long and drawn out, but I hope you can appreciate that I am very frustrated and have written many emails and talked to many people with no success. Thank you for spending the time to read this. Please, please help this neighbourhood. We are good people here and we do our share of helping the less fortunate.
Regards
Denise Goldsack
Resumption of Public Hearing
April 20 - 7:00 pm
Shaw Auditorium VICC
This is the resumption of the Public Hearing which was recessed on April 14 - 2011 which ended at 11:00 pm with many people wishing to express their opinions who had not been heard.
It is a long time since any issue in Nanaimo has generated as much public input as this one has. I don't even recall the conference centre issue being as hotly debated as this project is being. It is good to see, people actually participating in the process rather than just passively sitting by letting the bureaucracy steam roll over them with a social planning experiment.
It will require the wisdom of Solomon for Council to make the right choice here, which most likely should be a compromise of some kind as the public opposition to these two projects in such close proximity to the school is nothing less than fierce. Whether those fears and concerns are misplaced is another matter all together. Whether the city staff have simply made a first class mess of this whole project is another topic of discussion, they certainly do seem to be lacking accurate answers to peoples concerns, which does not exactly instill confidence.
There are several areas where this whole project demonstrates the lack of good planning and execution and one is the density of these units which were to be "located in small housing developments distributed across the City". There is nothing about the concentration of these units that is 'across the City' when in fact the two units causing the greatest contention are within spitting distance of the same school.
There are still far too many questions being inadequately answered by staff and reports referenced which are purported to support claims simply don't stand scrutiny. Conflicting numbers, lack of verifiable data and much anecdotal support, simply do nothing to dismiss the distrust felt by area residents.
When councillors are asked why the heavy concentration near Quarterway school, the only answer is "that's where the city owns land, where else can we put it"; if that is an example of the planning that went into siting these buildings it is little wonder it is in the glue now.
This whole affair is turning into just one more example of a poorly handled project of considerable size and importance, not unlike a conference centre which shall remain nameless.
At the end of the day, it is a crying shame because there are many poor souls in this community who can benefit from a well run program if it can live up to the ideals held out by this one. But in the current hands, it is just becoming one huge fiasco.
Third Public Meeting Scheduled
With still at least a dozen people waiting for their turn at the podium at 11:00 pm it was necessary to recess the hearing one more time on this contentious issue. The meeting began promptly at 7:00 pm and the Bowen Road rezoning application was the only item on the agenda.
One by one dozens (?) of speakers took to the podium with opponents outnumbering proponents at least ten to one. The decorum was considerably improved over the last meeting with everyone staying 'on topic' with a minimum of emotional outbursts. At one point a clearly upset opponent objected when the Mayor tried to correct him on something which led to a bit of a shouting match with the opponent resenting being interrupted by the Mayor. The outburst caused a visibly shaken Councilor Holdom to vacate his seat and left the auditorium until that speaker was finished.
What followed was more akin to the kids in the sandbox when the next opponent took a shot at Councilor Holdom for leaving the room, newbie Councilor Greves took exception to the comments which he felt were directed at him also and responded with a less then professional attitude.
The evening was not without humor when one presenter repeatedly referred to the Mayor as Mayor Ruttin, even after being corrected several times. I believe she simply did not hear the corrected pronunciation for she was clearly apologetic when she finally realized she was pronouncing his name wrong.
It seems that one stumbling block around this whole issue is the either real or perceived deception on the part of city staff to try and 'slip one by' without anyone noticing. Clearly staff tried to imply that the projects elsewhere in the province were also wet housing when in fact they are not. There also does not appear to be any clear evidence of the success of these types of units with the example of the one in Kelowna starting as a wet house project but after three months they revisited their policy and are no longer wet houses.
Housing immediately adjacent the Bowen Road project on White St., Pryde and Venlaw to name a few have apparently already suffered negative impact when it comes to residents ability to sell their property. The location and purpose of the wet housing project is simply something causing potential buyers to avoid the area all together.
The opponents to the project were well prepared, well researched and well organized and their presentations were pretty much compelling and to the point. Much research was presented which would contradict the information city staff seemed to rely on when they spear headed this project, which at the very least has been poorly planned and executed.
It is likely fair to say that the residents have spent far more time doing actual research on this whole project than most on council.
Perhaps local social advocate, Gord Fuller had one of the best ideas when he suggested the city sell the Bowen Road property to a developer who would be required to provide a % of low cost housing in the project, and then use the proceeds of the sale to buy two or more properties in other areas of the city.
Another idea with merit would be to purchase many smaller existing properties throughout the city which could save considerable tax dollars as the proposed projects are costing in excess of $200,000 per unit to provide this type of housing.
No one is opposed to helping those among us who need and are willing to accept help, the problem lies with the density and proximity to schools of the Bowen Road and Dufferin projects.
The third public hearing meeting addressing this issue is scheduled for May 5 at 7:00 pm in the Shaw Auditorium in the conference centre.Perhaps something like this will actually shake enough people from their slumber, that come next civic election we might get a respectable turnout for a change and perhaps even some fiery new blood running for council. Among the presenters at this meeting were several candidates which sounded like they would make good candidates.
Supportive Housing
Low Barrier Housing
Wet Housing
No Barrier Housing
Whatever You Call It There Are Questions Unanswered
Firstly, I am in total agreement with society's responsibility to provide help for any hapless soul who is bound by substances and destructive behaviour, that is not an issue whatsoever. I believe it is society's responsibility to see that all of our citizens enjoy a healthy standard of living which a country such as ours should be able to provide. That includes all citizens and not just those visibly afflicted with debilitating addictions or mental issues.
Stress and anxiety are two of the major causes of many other diseases that afflict the human soul and currently the approach to helping some among us, is creating very real health issues for others among us. The fear and anxiety being experienced by people living in the hospital area is very real and can have very real health impacts. To sit by and casually dismiss these very real impacts by saying things such as 'your fears are unfounded' seem most shallow when coming from those not affected such as councilors and city staff.
Some of the major concerns of residents opposed to these projects planned for the Quarterway area which have not been adequately addressed:
- Since there is no solid assurance to the contrary, it is entirely possible that either of these projects could house up to 36 active drug users at any one time. This puts up to 72 active drug users in a concentrated area which could destroy the neighbourhood and causes serious concerns for the safety of over 300 children attending Quarterway School.
- Those 72 active drug users are not required to abstain from drug use as a condition of being housed in this project, so logically you would assume they will be buying drugs to consume. Buying drugs of course brings the unsavory elements of society into the area to service their customers, and there is little evidence the local justice system does anything but tolerate this activity. If they could, there would be no drug problem as all the 'bad guys' would be locked up. No more drug pushers would mean no more drug addicts, but of course we are incapable of making that happen.
- Since the residents of these no barrier projects will only have welfare as a means of income and addictive habits such as drugs and alcohol would likely exceed their welfare income, the question arises --- how do they supplement their income? What does the prospect of having 72 poor souls needing to steal to support their habit do for the other citizens peace and security?
Some contrary proof that has been offered included the statement that other projects in the province have successfully employed the no barrier model, when in fact that is not true. Pointing to other studies and reports to support the Nanaimo model is like comparing apples and oranges. Some success is reported for projects in the 10 - 12 client size, but not the 36+ size being proposed in Nanaimo. Some of the supportive housing success stories turn out to be housing people with differing degrees of mental issues and drug use is neither the problem nor is it tolerated.
On a very local level, on the one hand the social engineers would have you believe there will be no problems created placing 72+ active drug users in a small area. On the other hand, the city and downtown businesses have spent considerable time and money developing and employing strategies to get these people out of the downtown core.
Most recently, the prospect of a 24 hour 7/11 store on Nicol Street met with serious opposition from the South End Community Association fueled by their concerns of the 'types' of people that the store will attract to their area.
Yes, Nanaimo needs to tend to the health and well being of ALL of it's citizens and the current unanswered questions about the concentration of these two projects with the policy of housing active drug users is creating serious health and well being issues for far more citizens than these projects are designed to help.
Low Barrier Housing
Round 3
Tomorrow night the city will once again continue the public hearing process dealing with the zoning application which would allow 36 units of no barrier housing on Bowen Road.
The public hearing will also deal with the Brechin-Newcastle rezoning as well, so it would be hoped that those wishing to address the Bowen Rd. rezoning will respect the fact, that theirs is not the only issue City Council has to deal with.
For the most part the contingent from Quarterway School area have conducted themselves courteously but there have been a few exceptions where unhelpful shouts and catcalls from the audience do nothing to enhance the process or forward their cause. It could also be noted that at least one councilor gives the impression that they are not really interested in listening to the delegations, which is not helpful either.
Another 'hurdle' which faces council and adds to the frustration of delegations on this matter, is the perception that many, if not most, Councilors had already made up their minds on this whole matter and are merely going through the motions by conducting these hearings.
Follows are a few questions I hope are answered during this process as they need answering , it seems that the process, as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding has not exactly been followed which has contributed to the conflict we now see. For example, had the actual design and purpose and operating conditions of the Bowen Road project been clearly shown to the affected public, the storm we are now seeing , would have come much earlier.
Questions:
1. In the Memorandum of Understanding on page 7 at 26. Public Consultation, it states: “Where required by regular development approval processes, the Society will present the proposed Building for consideration at a public information meeting where the public will be able to speak to any issues or concerns they may have.” Since the ‘Society’ has not been selected, I presume the approval for the design of the actual buildings for the Quarterway sites is not finalized as presented in current rezoning applications? In other words, the public still has to be consulted about the final proposed Building?
2. Schedule A of the MOU at 2.) states in part that the Bowen Road site “could serve more independent tenants in approximately 30 bachelor or one bedroom units.” Who made the decision to deviate from this objective and make this location the site of wet housing allowing active drug use? By that, since the Society does not exist, I presume the decision to deviate from this intended purpose was made by city staff?
3. Where is the study which would indicate that moving 70+ active drug users into a neighbourhood is not a detriment to the area? For example, is it not considered likely that the potential base of 70+ ‘customers’ is going to attract drug dealers to the area? This would seem the logical outcome, as active drug users still require the procurement of drugs, I presume the dealers will not be too far away?
4. If there is no concern about the potential of housing 70+ active drug users in the Quarterway area, why was the opening of a 7/11 with 24 hr. per day operation on Nicol St. considered so undesirable by the SECA ? If a concentration of these poor souls is not considered problematic, why has there been such a concerted effort to remove them from the downtown core?
5. On the question of the site that is to be placed in the ‘north end’ of the city, is this site planned to accommodate a wet house where active drug use is condoned, or is it to house ‘more independent tenants’ which seem to be displaced from the Bowen Road project?
6. The city website states these are to be small units spread ‘across the city’. Since this is a stated objective, other than the fact the city currently owns the two lots adjacent Quarterway school, what is the other rational for putting such a high concentration in one area? Over 50% of all planned no barrier housing units are currently planned for the Quarterway area, which had previously been as high as 66% of all planned units.
7. The number of people in the area that these projects propose to help is most ‘fluid’, the number is said to be between 150 – 300 (2008 document) and VIHA currently has a caseload of some 45 likely candidates for these projects. Since the Wesley Street project is designed to accommodate 40 people, it would appear it would provide shelter for most of VIHA’s current case load. The number of 150 – 300 (fluctuates seasonaly) are not all likely candidates for ANY type of housing and are not all considered to be living on the street, but do not have a place they call home. At this present time how many ‘beds’ are available in existing facilities to house those in need and how many of them are sitting empty right now?
8. Since it would appear that the Nanaimo 'homeless' will not fill the intended 160 units, and it will actually be the province, through a contractor, who runs these facilities, it begs the question, will these projects become 'provincial' in nature? In other words, if they can not be filled with people currently needing help in Nanaimo, will the occupants be 'imported' from elsewhere?
9. Since the city is granting a 60 year no taxation benefit to the operators of these sites, in the eventuality the project fails, and the sites are reverted to high barrier housing where higher rents are charged etc., does the city have any mechanism to start charging taxes before the 60 year period expires?
10. What is the fair market value of the two parcels of land the city currently owns, where these two Quarterway no barrier housing projects are planned to operate? I refer to the Townsite and Bowen Road sites.
11. Does the city have any plan or policy in place which would reimburse any stakeholders in the area of these two projects, should it be proven their property values have been negatively affected by the impact of housing potentially 70+ active drug users in this area?
