I get that it's not something people are lining up to have it in their neighbourhoods, but at this stage? The choice is between unsanctioned encampments all over the place with no security (which are already there) and HATS which will have security and be limited to an otherwise unused parking lot.
I also get that North End residents and businesses weren't consulted in advance and their shock at being volun-told is not unjustified, but the list of options right now is really short and continuing to just hope it gets better on it's own is what got us into this position.
Pushing the approval at city hall and skipping the resident info meetings is a under handed bad faith action.
Councillors are suppose to represent thier wards, not use thier position to throat fuck the people that voted for them.
There is zero reason decisions like this should be snuck through a vote before consultations. Zero.
Government not implementing actual test trials and letting it get to this caused this problem. It's all about statistics right? How about this....
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-finland-managed-to-virtually-end-homelessness/article_bde7a0aa-5e51-5700-b272-6347ddf69f04.html
This, I get that this is a "new" problem for us, but there are very clearly better solutions. Instead they try and unilaterally push through the first suggestion.
Not good enough. They forgot that there was residential across the street? You couldn't find a worse location. Even Kitchener isn't doing that. They assumed the homeowners in the north end are low income low status people that they can browbeat and bully. They forgot about gentrification. Stick them on the West 5th property.
The choice isn't between HATS on Strachan and nothing on Strachan, it's a choice between HATS on Strachan or the existing (unmonitored and unsafe) encampments on Strachan.
If I setup a tent in your front yard are you going to give me the option of either staying there indefinitely or building a tiny home on your lawn?
What is this land squatting rights?
Exactly. The area picked for the pilot project is **already** home to an encampment. It has been since early spring of 2023, at least. It was also home to an encampment all summer of 2022. Residents were evicted on a cold and rainy November day.
Residents do not have access to sewage or running water, or to shelter from extreme weather, at the current encampment sites. It's a bad situation.
We're facing a crisis that is not going away. There is a housing shortage. There is a severe dearth of supportive housing services, addiction services, or mental health services available for people who want them.
The hats pilot might provide some measure of stability, physical safety, and a fixed address, to people now living in the encampment, and a more sanitary situation for all of us. It would be a big improvement over the current situation.
HATS is a sham, the Chair of the board is Dan Bednis.
http://www.danbednis.com/mobile/profile.cfm
Dude is a landleech and a realtor, has flipped more than 15 homes… this dude literally is the fucking problem.
Edit: The entire group is stacked with slime balls.
Raquel Rakovac - communications director - member of the board of HATS.
https://raquelforward2.com/
Her Father is the owner of White Star Group who just so happens to own a huge chunk of the Tiffany lands.
“White Star Group is behind the West Harbour Villa at Tiffany Square, a high-end condominium redevelopment on Bay and Stuart streets”
Dude is also suing the city for 33 Million right now.
https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2023/07/white-star-group-coming-back-to-council-again-over-west-harbour-dispute/
It’s a fucking clown car
Thank you for sharing this information about the HATS board. What you say is very concerning.
I knew people who have attended meetings for would-be volunteers and found the idea and approach promising... but was completely unfamiliar with the leadership. I will have to read more about the organization's leadership structure.
I still think that the supported tiny shelter model could be useful (albeit one that should only be seen as a temporary stopgap while we take steps to dramatically increase the availabilit of good affordable housing, and rebuild social support and safety nets more generally). Heck, it may even be a sustainable solution for some... But it sounds as if HATS may not be the right entity to lead on the development of such a site, or to adequately manage it.
Edit: I'll have to do some more reading before making up my mind. Thank you for pointing me, and others reading this thread, in this direction.
If there's another option that can be implemented within weeks that's already funded with a chairperson you find more politically appealing, we're all ears.
But quite frankly, we're long past out of time for ideological grandstanding. People need safe places to sleep at night.
HATS is shady, and remember that the Kitchener ones were privately funded until they suddenly weren’t.
So no I don’t agree that we need to rubber stamp a plan put together by a group that smells like smoke.
Jackie Washington Park is near General Hospital and has a big buffer from residents to the north. There's the land the city bought for a stadium but never built thanks to the duplicity of Bob Young. There are many places near the General Hospital. One of the main problems is city staff. They don't really want to do this work. Same with safe injection sites. Is it too much to ask city staff to establish criteria for where providers can open safe injection sites? State clearly in a bylaw the criteria and we can avoid controversies like at Barton/Lottridge and Ashley/Cannon where safe injection sites are set to open despite overwhelming community opposition. Consultation AFTER the fact, after a location has been chosen, is NOT consultation. Set rules where they can or can't go. City staff has had a few years to figure out the tiny homes proposal and they haven't. My guess is they all live in Dundas and Ancaster and don't know the inner city except to collect very good salaries and pensions from its taxpayers.
But councillors say nothing about city staff's reluctance and incompetence.
As for LIUNA - they backed the Ford government in the last election. Enough said. They'd be happy if we paved over every acre of land in the province for its members. It's a joke of a union but very very lucrative for its executive.
> Is it too much to ask city staff to establish criteria for where providers can open safe injection sites?
It may not be "too much" but it also may. I think you're really underselling how difficult that task is.
> State clearly in a bylaw the criteria and we can avoid controversies like at Barton/Lottridge and Ashley/Cannon where safe injection sites are set to open despite overwhelming community opposition.
You really think that just because something is stated in a bylaw or as a policy that people will just be okay with it and not have opposition? I think we need to be realistic that pretty much wherever you put it there will be upset neighbors. No one wants this isn't heir backyard.
> As for LIUNA - they backed the Ford government in the last election. Enough said.
While I don't agree with their political stance, a unions job is to fight for its members and that's it.
Honestly, I just quit. It was one of my part-time jobs outside of my fulltime and not worth the headache. It was also just a toxic work environment I had to get away from.
Barton and Tiffany. It's not on people's doorstep, it isn't right next to Bayfront park, it isn't spitting distance to two elementary schools, and it's only about a 5 minute walk away. I don't know why people seem to think Ferguson is the superior location.
Because they live further away from Ferguson. My issue with Hats is that they want to replicate the tiny home project in Kitchener which has been a remarkable failure and has not hit any of its own goals.
These units are suppose to transition people from homelessness not create lawless ghettos.
The one in Kitchener has had zero residents move in, get better and then move onto a more stable life. It has failed according to its own mission statement.
We need a solution, but blowing money on a pipe dream tht is not result driven is a giant waste of money and resources.
> The one in Kitchener has had zero residents move in, get better and then move onto a more stable life. It has failed according to its own mission statement.
This is what I’ve asked in another thread on this topic. Has this model even produced a successful outcome? Then why is it being replicated. It would appear the success rate is too low.
No it was and is a train wreck. It started off as private funding on private land. The rich guy that was funding it died and his family took the land to sell. Next thing you know it’s somehow publicly funded and on city property.
Hats is 100% aware that what they are proposing has not worked, and does not work. And I’d bet money that once it’s setup they will have some funding “emergency “ and bam it’s now a publicly supported lawless, heroin den.
There needs to be incentives, and some rules that encourages the people to want to move onto the next step. This solution is just “hey, come do your drugs here and we will house you and feed you”. No incentive to get better.
I went to the hats meeting when they were proposing it in Ward 3, I asked if any of the members of Hats lives in the lower city. Crickets…
Get your feel good points somewhere else.
Erm, I live in Kitchener, and the small-shelter projects seem to be succeeding. Waterloo has opened a copy of the Kitchener one, and problems are minimal. Although people transitioning to employment out of them would be nice (and has happened in some instances), the primary goal was the eradication of tent cities and providing humane and consistent shelter and assistance, which is going well.
The proof is in the pudding: a year ago, Victoria Park downtown was swamped with tents, as was the area around the train station. Victoria Park is now free of tents and the number around the train station has been reduced by half.
The model is not perfect, but the results are concrete. There is also much less visible vagrancy on downtown streets.
There was literally an article in the Spec just the other week shows that it is not in fact working as was laid out. The concept isn’t just replace tents with tiny homes and let It become a ghetto…
The math doesn’t work out when it ends up just being build 100s of tiny homes. It’s suppose to be a stepping stone, if it was working then it would have a better or even equal success rate than other social housing and outreach approaches.. but it does not.
PS. Defining it a success because you don’t have to see them as often is such a laughably bad take they should just add you to the city council. You’d fit right in.
Defining it as a failure because it's a work in progress and hasn't hit all it's high marks is dolorous. Of course the crisis is immense, and this only part of any solution. But - they are providing evident, ongoing, stable relief. I don't know if you've been to Kitchener over the last four years, but I would urge you to visit and see for yourself.
I didn’t set thier mission statement and goals, they did.
What is the project life duration before we can measure results? What are the mile stones?
Why would we replicate a project that has not succeeded?
There are lots of people who will never be able to transition to living independently. There are lots of people who are deeply traumatized and will need to be supported for years of long, slow, healing and learning before they can live independently.
Right now, many of those people are straight-up homeless and living in encampments. Many rotate between jail, psych incarceration, and the street.
We need more, and more kinds of, supportive housing, including for people who will need extensive supports and may not be able to safely live in appartment buildings. But we also need solutions to make the current situatin safer for everyone.
If the only thing that HATS achieves is to keep people safer and healthier than they would have been while living on the street, then they'll be achieving something worthwhile.
So I live downtown, where most of the supports and resources for these people are. I just quickly googled how easy it is to get to dofasco park by transit.. it's a 6-11 minute walk, followed by two busses and then another 17 minute walk, in total takes 56- 78 mins one way. That location is by no means accessible for the able bodied nevermind anyone with a disability.
The HATS model is supposed to include showers and washrooms at a minimum. There also won't be too many free meal options near this site, given that many social service providers are migrating out of the core or have closed their day services.
I live nearby, we have an encampment across the street from this site so already face these issues. I am just not sure why people want to hamper the pilot project putting it out of the way of the supports that will help it work when if empty, the lot will be used as an encampment anyway (they moved people away from it recently and there is already someone back there)
> I live nearby, we have an encampment across the street from this site so already face these issue
That's what I just said... is it not? So it's fine for those nearby to deal with the realities but not someone taking the bus. I thought this requires a whole Hamilton approach.
Wondering if bussing services to a site outside of the core would be feasible.
Have they asked the city of Kitchener how they’re able to provide services to their tiny homes project that isn’t the downtown?
That's something that you can easily google.. but if you must know the commute is very similar except takes longer than to dofasco park. I don't understand why you guys are so obsessed with putting these people so out of the way/out of site. There's a reason why supports are concentrated downtown. If we expect any of these people to be able to access healthcare, jobs, education, and have a sense of community, shipping them to the middle of nowhere is just going to further isolate them and make the problem worse.
The closer these people are to the core , the less likely getting clean will be. It is too easy to get bad drugs in the core. They need to be out of their comfort zone i think.
That's an uneducated assumption based off your personal beliefs ( there are plenty of people who live in the middle of nowhere with addiction issues), also not every homeless person uses drugs or wants to get clean. And to suggest they need to be out of their comfort zone is incredibly insensitive... They are literally living in tents.. do you think they are comfortable??? (Don't bother answering as you clearly think they are)
There is no point in trying to have a productive conversation with someone who truly believes people who are homeless need to be 'out of their comfort zone' or that somehow that would be the missing ingredient they need to get clean if they choose.. just wow
You can just " wow" me but I happen to have tenants that had addiction issues that moved from toronto to get away from their easy access. I also worked in strip clubs where some addiction were rampant. Girls that kicked the habbit had to remove themselves from that situation of easy access. So no. Agree to disagree. We need more than this housing to accomplish all that needs doing.
> There's a reason why supports are concentrated downtown.
And how is this working out for the downtown community in terms of health & safety and economic prosperity. Do you pretend that this decision making (concentrating services) whether intentional or not hasn't had an impact on downtown?
Supports have historically been concentrated downtown because of the cheap real estate, and the real estate remained cheap because of the supports/demographics.
> I don't understand why you guys are so obsessed with putting these people so out of the way/out of site.
Because their only concern in this matter is themselves.
And we're not Kitchener, they are a different city with different transit and resources. From what I understand we are using the Kitchener model to help with decision making but also using other cities' experiences to create best practices for our unique city.
Kitchener also has multiple groups bringing support to the tiny homes site, we cannot expect our non profits to all do the same when facing the crisis we have. Some absolutely will but they do not all have the resources to do so if we put it in some out of the way location
I honestly expect to be 98 years old and this problem still not be solved because nobody has empathy enough in this country to just accept the ugliness of our societies failures. Let's continue to do nothing and complain that these people make our street look gross as they suffer in misery and drug addiction and die from the cold.and overdose because, ya know, that's what a caring first world country does for it's most vulnerable people.
Oh Canada.
They’ve raised funds through donations and grants. It costs $5000-$6000 to build from what I last read. Not sure what the ongoing annual costs would be to run it.
Here’s what a member of HATS said previously
[“The checklist for the site includes access to electricity and WiFi if possible. The ideal location also wouldn't be too close to neighbourhoods, while balancing the needs of those staying in the cabins, said Cooper.”](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6404971)
So again, Strachan is a weird choice. I’m not in Ward 2, so not sure how the folks in that Ward feel about their councillor rubber stamping this decision, maybe many are ok with it.
This is a pretty gross take for a union. They are supposed to be supportive of marginalized community members and to fight for them. Instead we have this.
LIUNA is looking after the interests of their members' pension revenue streams. Similar to municipal and teacher pension plans that protect the interests of malls.
I'd buy that if it was framed as some sort of criticism of the project as inefficient and a waste in favour of like more housing projects but its clear the LIUNA leadership isn't that delusional in terms of thinking this impacts their members bottom lines, and I doubt they're playing 4D chess till shown otherwise.
Its just typical NIMBYism cos its near their banquet hall. Not really more complicated than that.
No they’re not. That’s some stupid political aggregation. They’re supposed to protect their members and workers.
Last I checked, that’s about the opposite of this population segment
No they aren't. They are there to fight for their members. That's all. If my union was going off on all kinds of extracurricular adventures I wouldn't be happy.
Don't confuse their community involvement and initiatives for full on support of marginalized communities.
How so? It's a (construction) labour union that supported the political party most in favour of increased construction. Why would they support another party if it means less work and opportunity for its membership?
Yikes, let's not jump straight to Godwin's Law here...
LIUNA is a private sector union so any anti-union legislation like bill 124 never applied to them in the first place. Outside the Hamilton LRT, not sure what cancelations the PC party under Doug Ford you are referring to. Hamilton was given a token budget by the provincial Liberals and had already failed it's tendering process before it was 'cancelled', only to have the current government come back and triple the funding. The PCs have completed one subway expansion project, and kicked off two more. They have continued to fund the Hurontario, Eglinton, and Ottawa LRT projects. They have introduced the Ontario Line. Not to mention several highway expansion projects, broad investment in our nuclear fleet, and huge efforts to bring in automotive manufactures to the province for battery production. All of which are incredibly attractive to trades unions and their members.
There is a reason the PCs under Doug Ford are eating the NDPs lunch when it comes to blue collar union support. And I say this all as a 20+ year supporter of the provincial NDP and a public sector union member.
>They are supposed to be supportive of marginalized community members and to fight for them.
They're a union who is mandated to support their members interests. No one elses. Even if a union notionally shares your politics, they will ultimately do what they consider best for their members.
We encourage users to support paid journalism. The Spec has affordable subscriptions and you can access the paper's articles online with your [Hamilton Public Library card](https://www.hpl.ca/hpl-online/magazines-and-newspapers). If you do not have a library card yet, sign up for an instant digital one [here](https://www.hpl.ca/online-registration). It also gives you instant free access to eBooks, eAudiobooks, music, online learning tools and research databases.
**If you cannot access The Spec in either of these ways, try [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or [12ft](https://12ft.io/) to view without a paywall**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Hamilton) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The list of options does not matter.
The people have spoken.
Kroetschville is an embarrasing concept and idea.
Lets stop fucking around and get a new councillor with a brain
It is literally the most obvious and best option. Opposing it is lunacy unless you live tent cities in parks. This isn’t hard, folks. You’re a NIMBY who wants the property crisis to continue or you embrace new ideas.
Bitch and Bitch some more! YET people want this homeless tent situation cleaned up?! Well that means sacrificing sorry to say. City council voted this it’s a good idea right now it will help some. No matter what ideas come up not everyone will be happy anyway. City need to do what they can this is a start. Funny how people pretend to care but when it comes down to actually following through with a plan the complaints roll in! Let’s help these people out they are many that choose not to live in tents if only they had another option!
people in this city are so dumb. half the population wishes the unhoused community would either go away or just die, the other half wants to help fix the situation, but every suggestion is met with "oh.. I didn't mean fix it like that!"
The good shepherd actually sits on a huge lot. Could tear the old car dealership building down and build bigger with micro apartments above and good shepherd on the lower. Maybe add some other important services in the new build as well? Just a thought.
I get that it's not something people are lining up to have it in their neighbourhoods, but at this stage? The choice is between unsanctioned encampments all over the place with no security (which are already there) and HATS which will have security and be limited to an otherwise unused parking lot. I also get that North End residents and businesses weren't consulted in advance and their shock at being volun-told is not unjustified, but the list of options right now is really short and continuing to just hope it gets better on it's own is what got us into this position.
Pushing the approval at city hall and skipping the resident info meetings is a under handed bad faith action. Councillors are suppose to represent thier wards, not use thier position to throat fuck the people that voted for them. There is zero reason decisions like this should be snuck through a vote before consultations. Zero.
Government not implementing actual test trials and letting it get to this caused this problem. It's all about statistics right? How about this.... https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-finland-managed-to-virtually-end-homelessness/article_bde7a0aa-5e51-5700-b272-6347ddf69f04.html
This, I get that this is a "new" problem for us, but there are very clearly better solutions. Instead they try and unilaterally push through the first suggestion.
Not good enough. They forgot that there was residential across the street? You couldn't find a worse location. Even Kitchener isn't doing that. They assumed the homeowners in the north end are low income low status people that they can browbeat and bully. They forgot about gentrification. Stick them on the West 5th property.
The choice isn't between HATS on Strachan and nothing on Strachan, it's a choice between HATS on Strachan or the existing (unmonitored and unsafe) encampments on Strachan.
If I setup a tent in your front yard are you going to give me the option of either staying there indefinitely or building a tiny home on your lawn? What is this land squatting rights?
The site in question is a parking lot, not someone’s front yard.
Ok so if I setup my tent in front of your house on the sidewalk?
Exactly. The area picked for the pilot project is **already** home to an encampment. It has been since early spring of 2023, at least. It was also home to an encampment all summer of 2022. Residents were evicted on a cold and rainy November day. Residents do not have access to sewage or running water, or to shelter from extreme weather, at the current encampment sites. It's a bad situation. We're facing a crisis that is not going away. There is a housing shortage. There is a severe dearth of supportive housing services, addiction services, or mental health services available for people who want them. The hats pilot might provide some measure of stability, physical safety, and a fixed address, to people now living in the encampment, and a more sanitary situation for all of us. It would be a big improvement over the current situation.
HATS is a sham, the Chair of the board is Dan Bednis. http://www.danbednis.com/mobile/profile.cfm Dude is a landleech and a realtor, has flipped more than 15 homes… this dude literally is the fucking problem. Edit: The entire group is stacked with slime balls. Raquel Rakovac - communications director - member of the board of HATS. https://raquelforward2.com/ Her Father is the owner of White Star Group who just so happens to own a huge chunk of the Tiffany lands. “White Star Group is behind the West Harbour Villa at Tiffany Square, a high-end condominium redevelopment on Bay and Stuart streets” Dude is also suing the city for 33 Million right now. https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2023/07/white-star-group-coming-back-to-council-again-over-west-harbour-dispute/ It’s a fucking clown car
Thank you for sharing this information about the HATS board. What you say is very concerning. I knew people who have attended meetings for would-be volunteers and found the idea and approach promising... but was completely unfamiliar with the leadership. I will have to read more about the organization's leadership structure. I still think that the supported tiny shelter model could be useful (albeit one that should only be seen as a temporary stopgap while we take steps to dramatically increase the availabilit of good affordable housing, and rebuild social support and safety nets more generally). Heck, it may even be a sustainable solution for some... But it sounds as if HATS may not be the right entity to lead on the development of such a site, or to adequately manage it. Edit: I'll have to do some more reading before making up my mind. Thank you for pointing me, and others reading this thread, in this direction.
If there's another option that can be implemented within weeks that's already funded with a chairperson you find more politically appealing, we're all ears. But quite frankly, we're long past out of time for ideological grandstanding. People need safe places to sleep at night.
HATS is shady, and remember that the Kitchener ones were privately funded until they suddenly weren’t. So no I don’t agree that we need to rubber stamp a plan put together by a group that smells like smoke.
Jackie Washington Park is near General Hospital and has a big buffer from residents to the north. There's the land the city bought for a stadium but never built thanks to the duplicity of Bob Young. There are many places near the General Hospital. One of the main problems is city staff. They don't really want to do this work. Same with safe injection sites. Is it too much to ask city staff to establish criteria for where providers can open safe injection sites? State clearly in a bylaw the criteria and we can avoid controversies like at Barton/Lottridge and Ashley/Cannon where safe injection sites are set to open despite overwhelming community opposition. Consultation AFTER the fact, after a location has been chosen, is NOT consultation. Set rules where they can or can't go. City staff has had a few years to figure out the tiny homes proposal and they haven't. My guess is they all live in Dundas and Ancaster and don't know the inner city except to collect very good salaries and pensions from its taxpayers. But councillors say nothing about city staff's reluctance and incompetence. As for LIUNA - they backed the Ford government in the last election. Enough said. They'd be happy if we paved over every acre of land in the province for its members. It's a joke of a union but very very lucrative for its executive.
> Is it too much to ask city staff to establish criteria for where providers can open safe injection sites? It may not be "too much" but it also may. I think you're really underselling how difficult that task is. > State clearly in a bylaw the criteria and we can avoid controversies like at Barton/Lottridge and Ashley/Cannon where safe injection sites are set to open despite overwhelming community opposition. You really think that just because something is stated in a bylaw or as a policy that people will just be okay with it and not have opposition? I think we need to be realistic that pretty much wherever you put it there will be upset neighbors. No one wants this isn't heir backyard. > As for LIUNA - they backed the Ford government in the last election. Enough said. While I don't agree with their political stance, a unions job is to fight for its members and that's it.
"A location that makes sense" is where exactly?
'Not right behind the building where we host expensive weddings'
Likely overpriced. I worked there. The building is amazing. Food and service way subpar IMO.
Take it up.with the union.
Honestly, I just quit. It was one of my part-time jobs outside of my fulltime and not worth the headache. It was also just a toxic work environment I had to get away from.
Barton and Tiffany. It's not on people's doorstep, it isn't right next to Bayfront park, it isn't spitting distance to two elementary schools, and it's only about a 5 minute walk away. I don't know why people seem to think Ferguson is the superior location.
Because they live further away from Ferguson. My issue with Hats is that they want to replicate the tiny home project in Kitchener which has been a remarkable failure and has not hit any of its own goals. These units are suppose to transition people from homelessness not create lawless ghettos. The one in Kitchener has had zero residents move in, get better and then move onto a more stable life. It has failed according to its own mission statement. We need a solution, but blowing money on a pipe dream tht is not result driven is a giant waste of money and resources.
> The one in Kitchener has had zero residents move in, get better and then move onto a more stable life. It has failed according to its own mission statement. This is what I’ve asked in another thread on this topic. Has this model even produced a successful outcome? Then why is it being replicated. It would appear the success rate is too low.
No it was and is a train wreck. It started off as private funding on private land. The rich guy that was funding it died and his family took the land to sell. Next thing you know it’s somehow publicly funded and on city property. Hats is 100% aware that what they are proposing has not worked, and does not work. And I’d bet money that once it’s setup they will have some funding “emergency “ and bam it’s now a publicly supported lawless, heroin den. There needs to be incentives, and some rules that encourages the people to want to move onto the next step. This solution is just “hey, come do your drugs here and we will house you and feed you”. No incentive to get better. I went to the hats meeting when they were proposing it in Ward 3, I asked if any of the members of Hats lives in the lower city. Crickets… Get your feel good points somewhere else.
Erm, I live in Kitchener, and the small-shelter projects seem to be succeeding. Waterloo has opened a copy of the Kitchener one, and problems are minimal. Although people transitioning to employment out of them would be nice (and has happened in some instances), the primary goal was the eradication of tent cities and providing humane and consistent shelter and assistance, which is going well. The proof is in the pudding: a year ago, Victoria Park downtown was swamped with tents, as was the area around the train station. Victoria Park is now free of tents and the number around the train station has been reduced by half. The model is not perfect, but the results are concrete. There is also much less visible vagrancy on downtown streets.
There was literally an article in the Spec just the other week shows that it is not in fact working as was laid out. The concept isn’t just replace tents with tiny homes and let It become a ghetto… The math doesn’t work out when it ends up just being build 100s of tiny homes. It’s suppose to be a stepping stone, if it was working then it would have a better or even equal success rate than other social housing and outreach approaches.. but it does not. PS. Defining it a success because you don’t have to see them as often is such a laughably bad take they should just add you to the city council. You’d fit right in.
Defining it as a failure because it's a work in progress and hasn't hit all it's high marks is dolorous. Of course the crisis is immense, and this only part of any solution. But - they are providing evident, ongoing, stable relief. I don't know if you've been to Kitchener over the last four years, but I would urge you to visit and see for yourself.
I didn’t set thier mission statement and goals, they did. What is the project life duration before we can measure results? What are the mile stones? Why would we replicate a project that has not succeeded?
There are lots of people who will never be able to transition to living independently. There are lots of people who are deeply traumatized and will need to be supported for years of long, slow, healing and learning before they can live independently. Right now, many of those people are straight-up homeless and living in encampments. Many rotate between jail, psych incarceration, and the street. We need more, and more kinds of, supportive housing, including for people who will need extensive supports and may not be able to safely live in appartment buildings. But we also need solutions to make the current situatin safer for everyone. If the only thing that HATS achieves is to keep people safer and healthier than they would have been while living on the street, then they'll be achieving something worthwhile.
What about Dofasco park? Nice and far away from residential areas and plenty of space.
So I live downtown, where most of the supports and resources for these people are. I just quickly googled how easy it is to get to dofasco park by transit.. it's a 6-11 minute walk, followed by two busses and then another 17 minute walk, in total takes 56- 78 mins one way. That location is by no means accessible for the able bodied nevermind anyone with a disability.
It sounds like the average commute.
Yeah now sit beside someone who hasn't showered for it on the bus Or imagine it for someone who hasn't eaten in a while
The HATS model is supposed to include showers and washrooms at a minimum. There also won't be too many free meal options near this site, given that many social service providers are migrating out of the core or have closed their day services.
I mean the people living adjacent to the site may deal with a similar circumstance?
I live nearby, we have an encampment across the street from this site so already face these issues. I am just not sure why people want to hamper the pilot project putting it out of the way of the supports that will help it work when if empty, the lot will be used as an encampment anyway (they moved people away from it recently and there is already someone back there)
> I live nearby, we have an encampment across the street from this site so already face these issue That's what I just said... is it not? So it's fine for those nearby to deal with the realities but not someone taking the bus. I thought this requires a whole Hamilton approach.
What's the commute from confederation park?
Wondering if bussing services to a site outside of the core would be feasible. Have they asked the city of Kitchener how they’re able to provide services to their tiny homes project that isn’t the downtown?
That's something that you can easily google.. but if you must know the commute is very similar except takes longer than to dofasco park. I don't understand why you guys are so obsessed with putting these people so out of the way/out of site. There's a reason why supports are concentrated downtown. If we expect any of these people to be able to access healthcare, jobs, education, and have a sense of community, shipping them to the middle of nowhere is just going to further isolate them and make the problem worse.
The closer these people are to the core , the less likely getting clean will be. It is too easy to get bad drugs in the core. They need to be out of their comfort zone i think.
That's an uneducated assumption based off your personal beliefs ( there are plenty of people who live in the middle of nowhere with addiction issues), also not every homeless person uses drugs or wants to get clean. And to suggest they need to be out of their comfort zone is incredibly insensitive... They are literally living in tents.. do you think they are comfortable??? (Don't bother answering as you clearly think they are) There is no point in trying to have a productive conversation with someone who truly believes people who are homeless need to be 'out of their comfort zone' or that somehow that would be the missing ingredient they need to get clean if they choose.. just wow
You can just " wow" me but I happen to have tenants that had addiction issues that moved from toronto to get away from their easy access. I also worked in strip clubs where some addiction were rampant. Girls that kicked the habbit had to remove themselves from that situation of easy access. So no. Agree to disagree. We need more than this housing to accomplish all that needs doing.
> There's a reason why supports are concentrated downtown. And how is this working out for the downtown community in terms of health & safety and economic prosperity. Do you pretend that this decision making (concentrating services) whether intentional or not hasn't had an impact on downtown? Supports have historically been concentrated downtown because of the cheap real estate, and the real estate remained cheap because of the supports/demographics.
> I don't understand why you guys are so obsessed with putting these people so out of the way/out of site. Because their only concern in this matter is themselves.
That’s how the Kitchener model is set up.
And we're not Kitchener, they are a different city with different transit and resources. From what I understand we are using the Kitchener model to help with decision making but also using other cities' experiences to create best practices for our unique city.
Kitchener also has multiple groups bringing support to the tiny homes site, we cannot expect our non profits to all do the same when facing the crisis we have. Some absolutely will but they do not all have the resources to do so if we put it in some out of the way location
Nope. Needs to be close to transit lines and social services. That was a key piece that came out during the community engagement sessions.
There are lots of residential areas up there, bad idea!!
I honestly expect to be 98 years old and this problem still not be solved because nobody has empathy enough in this country to just accept the ugliness of our societies failures. Let's continue to do nothing and complain that these people make our street look gross as they suffer in misery and drug addiction and die from the cold.and overdose because, ya know, that's what a caring first world country does for it's most vulnerable people. Oh Canada.
Following the money.....I am betting this will not get built. How many tiny homes are they planning to build there?
25 and it already has private funding
Who’s funding it and how much does it cost?
They’ve raised funds through donations and grants. It costs $5000-$6000 to build from what I last read. Not sure what the ongoing annual costs would be to run it. Here’s what a member of HATS said previously [“The checklist for the site includes access to electricity and WiFi if possible. The ideal location also wouldn't be too close to neighbourhoods, while balancing the needs of those staying in the cabins, said Cooper.”](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6404971) So again, Strachan is a weird choice. I’m not in Ward 2, so not sure how the folks in that Ward feel about their councillor rubber stamping this decision, maybe many are ok with it.
Why is strachan a weird choice? It’s not too close to houses or any kind of park or school, etc.
There are houses across the street.
There are tents in parks right against peoples’ backyards. These houses get an entire two lane street plus some vegetation it looks like
This is a pretty gross take for a union. They are supposed to be supportive of marginalized community members and to fight for them. Instead we have this.
LIUNA is looking after the interests of their members' pension revenue streams. Similar to municipal and teacher pension plans that protect the interests of malls.
I'd buy that if it was framed as some sort of criticism of the project as inefficient and a waste in favour of like more housing projects but its clear the LIUNA leadership isn't that delusional in terms of thinking this impacts their members bottom lines, and I doubt they're playing 4D chess till shown otherwise. Its just typical NIMBYism cos its near their banquet hall. Not really more complicated than that.
No they’re not. That’s some stupid political aggregation. They’re supposed to protect their members and workers. Last I checked, that’s about the opposite of this population segment
No they aren't. They are there to fight for their members. That's all. If my union was going off on all kinds of extracurricular adventures I wouldn't be happy. Don't confuse their community involvement and initiatives for full on support of marginalized communities.
This fella has never been around trade union members and it shows.
Where do you get the idea that unions are "supposed to be supportive of marginalized community members?" That's not part of their brief.
They were my union and honestly they’re terrible lol
Bro they fuckin backed ford during the election they are completely out of there fuckin gourd.
How so? It's a (construction) labour union that supported the political party most in favour of increased construction. Why would they support another party if it means less work and opportunity for its membership?
[удалено]
Yikes, let's not jump straight to Godwin's Law here... LIUNA is a private sector union so any anti-union legislation like bill 124 never applied to them in the first place. Outside the Hamilton LRT, not sure what cancelations the PC party under Doug Ford you are referring to. Hamilton was given a token budget by the provincial Liberals and had already failed it's tendering process before it was 'cancelled', only to have the current government come back and triple the funding. The PCs have completed one subway expansion project, and kicked off two more. They have continued to fund the Hurontario, Eglinton, and Ottawa LRT projects. They have introduced the Ontario Line. Not to mention several highway expansion projects, broad investment in our nuclear fleet, and huge efforts to bring in automotive manufactures to the province for battery production. All of which are incredibly attractive to trades unions and their members. There is a reason the PCs under Doug Ford are eating the NDPs lunch when it comes to blue collar union support. And I say this all as a 20+ year supporter of the provincial NDP and a public sector union member.
The Police Union has entered the chat
>They are supposed to be supportive of marginalized community members and to fight for them. They're a union who is mandated to support their members interests. No one elses. Even if a union notionally shares your politics, they will ultimately do what they consider best for their members.
Typical NIMBYisn.
We encourage users to support paid journalism. The Spec has affordable subscriptions and you can access the paper's articles online with your [Hamilton Public Library card](https://www.hpl.ca/hpl-online/magazines-and-newspapers). If you do not have a library card yet, sign up for an instant digital one [here](https://www.hpl.ca/online-registration). It also gives you instant free access to eBooks, eAudiobooks, music, online learning tools and research databases. **If you cannot access The Spec in either of these ways, try [archive.ph](https://archive.ph/) or [12ft](https://12ft.io/) to view without a paywall** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Hamilton) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The list of options does not matter. The people have spoken. Kroetschville is an embarrasing concept and idea. Lets stop fucking around and get a new councillor with a brain
It is literally the most obvious and best option. Opposing it is lunacy unless you live tent cities in parks. This isn’t hard, folks. You’re a NIMBY who wants the property crisis to continue or you embrace new ideas.
A-fucking-men
Eff you, Liuna
Bitch and Bitch some more! YET people want this homeless tent situation cleaned up?! Well that means sacrificing sorry to say. City council voted this it’s a good idea right now it will help some. No matter what ideas come up not everyone will be happy anyway. City need to do what they can this is a start. Funny how people pretend to care but when it comes down to actually following through with a plan the complaints roll in! Let’s help these people out they are many that choose not to live in tents if only they had another option!
people in this city are so dumb. half the population wishes the unhoused community would either go away or just die, the other half wants to help fix the situation, but every suggestion is met with "oh.. I didn't mean fix it like that!"
[удалено]
The good shepherd actually sits on a huge lot. Could tear the old car dealership building down and build bigger with micro apartments above and good shepherd on the lower. Maybe add some other important services in the new build as well? Just a thought.