Coming Up: October 19
Council meets on Monday. On the agenda:
Activity/Reception Centre
Business Licensing Bylaw
Bee City
Supportive Housing Projects
Inclusion Report
Following is more information and my take on agenda items.
As always, any mistakes or opinions belong to me and me alone, not to Council or City staff.
While I express my current views below, I work hard to go into meetings ready to listen and with an open mind. I learn new information and participate in debate. This always informs, and sometimes changes, how I vote on issues.
If you would like to watch the meeting or read any of its supporting material for yourself, you can do so by clicking here. The City will post the highlights of Council’s decisions here.
ACTIVITY/RECEPTION CENTRE
Council recently allocated $4,000,000 of federal COVID-19 economic recovery funding to an Activity/Reception Centre.
This facility will be a low cost recreation centre. It isn’t going to have bells and whistles for its recreational uses: mostly just a concrete floor that can accommodate various types of sports. The idea is to keep costs affordable for both users and taxpayers.
This building will also have showers and other facilities necessary to house people in an emergency. For example, last year our community received people who were evacuated from forest fires up north. This building could be used in similar situations in the future.
It’s going to be a great asset to our community. And it’s going to open soon: the funding received for it requires construction to be substantially completed by December 31, 2021.
On Monday, Council will be deciding where this facility should be located. There are two options.
Option One was recommended by Administration because it has the least complications in terms of getting construction done before the grant timeline. It is just north of Riverstone School:
Option 2 seems to be favoured by a lot of Councillors. It is in Smith near the soccer fields. This site doesn’t currently have road or utility services, but those are already planned to be built in 2021.
Both sites would be a great place for an Activity/Reception Centre. And they are only 7 blocks away, so both neighbourhoods will benefit no matter where it gets built. However, Council needs to pick which site it prefers.
Pros of the Riverstone Site:
Less complicated construction in terms of geotechnical studies and connecting to utilities
Already zoned for recreation uses
Next to a school, playground and sports courts: these could complement programming in the Activity/Reception Centre
In a community which is seeing quick growth, primarily from young families
Engaged residents in the community will be an asset to building effective programming
Pros of the Smith Site:
On land planned for seniors and low income housing: this centre would provide a necessary complement to those potential future projects
Surrounded by senior led and low income families who could benefit greatly from this centre
Smith has less community assets than Riverstone- it would be good to put this in the community that has less amenities for its residents
I honestly don’t know what site I’ll be voting in favour of. I’ll be spending time this weekend wondering around both neighbourhoods and thinking about this. As I do: I welcome any feedback you might have.
BEE CITY
Seven Generations has asked to partner with the City to turn our community into a Bee City. What that requires:
Council passing this Resolution committing to the standards of the Bee City Canada Program
The City working to promote green spaces which are friendly to bees and other pollinators (we already do this)
An annual membership fee of $400. Administration has said that this can be absorbed by existing budgets, and will create a net savings as it will grant access to resources that will otherwise be created internally
Seven Generations has said that if Council becomes a Bee City, it would like to work with us to develop, promote, and deliver community initiatives to support pollinators.
I’m supportive of becoming a Bee City. Making sure we have healthy pollinators is important for both our environment and our agricultural economy. I’m also excited for the opportunity to work with one of our largest employers to better our community.
BUSINESS LICENSE BYLAW
Council will be debating a new Business License Bylaw.
This is an initiative that started under the previous Council. My understanding is that it was originally suggested by the Chamber of Commerce in order to collect better information about local industry.
You can read the proposed Bylaw here.
The City already requires a Business License for some industries. This Bylaw would require ALL businesses to get a license.
Some benefits of this Bylaw:
It will put all industries on equal regulatory footing
It is more streamlined and easier to administer than the current Bylaw
Collecting data about what is happening with businesses in the City will help our Economic Development department, the Chamber of Commerce, and other organisations to attract and support businesses.
Collecting contact information for businesses will allow City staff to reach out and offer recovery help if the City ever faces a large scale disaster
City Administration met with various industry stakeholders, hosted open houses, and conducted an online survey about this Bylaw. The majority of people who engaged with this process were supportive of the Bylaw.
I do support the idea of a Bylaw for the benefits listed above. However, there are a few changes I’ll be advocating for. These include:
Having no fees for Resident Businesses
Require Mobile Cooking Operations to provide waste and recycling receptacles
Writing into the Bylaw the information City Administration is allowed to collect from businesses applying for a license (as currently written, it allows City Administration to collect whatever information it deems necessary)
Writing into the Bylaw a requirement for Administration to have strong privacy protections for the information collected.
INCLUSION REPORT CARD
It is recommended that Council “approve the creation of an annual diversity inclusion report to be shared with Council and the community.” The goal of this report is to make sure the City is doing a continuing to do a better job of being welcoming and inclusive of all people regardless of their race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, or physical, cognitive and mental abilities.
I support this recommendation. Making sure that the City is inclusive of all residents, employees, and other stakeholders is very important to me.
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
Council will be debating re-zoning land to allow for two supportive housing developments. These will be a big part of getting people away from living on our streets. However, they are not open to anyone living rough. Instead, they are for people who are interested in improving themselves and their situation. People in them will pay rent, and take part in on-site health and social services.
Both sites would have continuous on-site professional care and supervision for residents.
One development would be near City Hall. It would retrofit an existing building and be for people who need help getting on their feet and finding mental wellness, but have a good chance of living independently in the future. Here is its location:
The other is a medical based model on 105 Ave in Avondale South. It would be a new build for people that deal with challenges so great that they will likely be in supportive housing permanently. Here is its location:
It’s important to note that supportive housing is not the same as emergency shelter.
In an emergency shelter (ex: Rotary House mats), people use the facility just to sleep. They don’t have a permanent place to store their possessions, they don’t get to stay in shelter through the day, they don’t pay rent, and there is no programming or care they can access as part of their stay.
In supportive housing, people are living in a unit. They pay rent. They get to keep their possessions with them. They can stay in their place 24/7. There are social and health care workers on-site to provide care. And there is social and other programming delivered on-site to contribute to their health and wellness and encourage sobriety.
Supportive housing is crucial in our community. We have many people dealing with mental health and addictions issues living on our streets and in our parks. It’s next to impossible for them to get better while living rough.
The first step to getting someone mentally healthy is getting them physically healthy, and that is next to impossible to do when they are chronically sleep deprived and have no warm/dry/safe place to be during the day. Additionally, many of these people have troubles accessing counselling, medical help, social workers, job readiness preparation, and other important services. Having these programs and social workers on-site where they live, to monitor and support them, is a HUGE help.
Supportive housing is an important step towards getting people off our streets. And that isn’t just good for the people in this housing. Getting them off the street and healthy decreases social disorder in our community. And getting people into supportive housing is a lot cheaper for tax payers than cycling them through medical and justice systems, and constantly having them interact with emergency services.
I strongly support the development of Supportive Housing in our community.
That being said: I honestly don’t know if I’ll be voting in favour of re-zoning these on Monday. Supporting these initiatives in general is very different than supporting the particulars of a single project.
I’ve got a number of questions I’ve submitted to our administration, and I’m waiting for our meeting to get answers. They include questions about what programming and security will be offered on site, what alternative sites were considered, budgets and funding, timelines imposed by grants from senior government, and how neighbourhood impacts will be mitigated. I won’t know how I’m voting until I get more information.
I do want to take some space here to address many of the common concerns I hear about supportive housing. That includes:
“There are already too many people wandering our streets.” Everyone has a right to be on our streets and in parks as long as they are behaving appropriately. However, people who are living rough will spend less time out in the community if they are transitioned into supportive housing. We often have people wandering our neighbourhoods because they have nowhere else to be, and because they have to go different places to sleep, eat, socialize, and access various services such as counselling or medical treatment. Giving them a place to be 24/7 and delivering services they need on-site will lead to them spending a lot less time walking through communities. The monitoring on-site will also help make sure people aren’t acquiring possessions that aren’t theirs and that there is accountability for them when they are in the surrounding area.
“These people need accountability, not hand outs.” People in supportive housing pay rent- unlike shelter space, they don’t get it for free. And there is next to nothing the City can do to hold them accountable to anything when they are living rough. Our police are limited by federal and provincial legislation and courts, and those provide little to no tools to hold someone accountable when they are living on the streets. However, to be in supportive housing, people have to sign and get held to a housing agreement. And the relationships they build with staff on-site is the best way to hold them accountable to working towards sobriety and health.
“These projects will just draw more street engaged people to our community.” Supportive housing requires rent to be paid and a housing agreement to be adhered to. It won’t attract people to our community who are just looking for a free place to be with no steps towards getting healthy. Additionally, most people who are street engaged in our city are long-time residents of our community. And when someone shows up from another community, we work to get them back home.
“We shouldn’t be encouraging drug use.” There is no “safe consumption” elements of these projects, and public intoxication has consequences under the housing agreements. Supportive housing doesn’t encourage drug use. Quite the opposite. One of the big goals of it is to get people mentally healthy and sober by making them physically safe and giving them proper sleep. It also engages them with on-site health and social workers.
“We should just incarcerate, institutionalize, or banish these people.” The City does encourage and help people from elsewhere to get back home. However, it has no legal ability to prohibit someone from being in Grande Prairie, nor to incarcerate or institutionalize people, even if it wanted to.
"There are better priorities for tax dollars.” Saving taxpayers dollars is a priority for me. Which is one reason supportive housing is needed. We spend a HUGE amount on homelessness. The City spends money on having RCMP, Bylaw, and Fire responding to emergencies and complaints generated by people living rough, having Parks and Bylaw cleanup encampments, and funding emergency shelters. Our community also loses money as social disorder drives investment (and therefore tax revenue) from our core. Homelessness also costs the province a lot of money in terms of medical and justice resources. Someone living rough costs taxpayers a lot of money. Getting them into supportive housing is less expensive in the short term, and WAY less expensive in the long-term when it succeeds in getting someone healthy enough to live and work independently.
That’s what is on our agenda for Monday. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
You can comment below. Or, you can contact me at dbressey@cityofgp.com or 780-402-4166. I'm happy to talk online or over the phone. I'm also always willing to setup a time to meet for coffee.
We also always have great conversation in the GP Round Table group on Facebook.
After Council meeting, you will be able to find highlights posted by the City here.
Thanks for reading!
-Dylan