Motion to push for homelessness strategy
By Al Beeber - Lethbridge Herald on January 24, 2023.
LETHBRIDGE HERALDabeeber@lethbridgeherald.com
An official business motion will be presented to Lethbridge city council today calling on administration to develop a long-term approach to deal with homelessness.
The motion, to be put forward by councillors John Middleton-Hope and Nick Paladino, stated that the province has indicated that $1 million in funding is available for shelter space if Lethbridge has the location and approvals in place.
Therefore, they are asking council to direct administration to develop “a strategic, long-time response for sheltering residents in need and those who are difficult to house (high acuity), including the establishment of a permanent shelter that may also be used to temporarily house citizens during severe inclement weather or in the event of a disaster (including any required funding amounts and the proposed sources of funds).”
The motion asks that administration report back to city council through its Cultural and Standing Policy Committee by the end the second quarter of this year.
In their motion, Middleton-Hope and Paladino say sheltering the “difficult to house” has taken an ad hoc approach which leaves gaps in service, particularly during extremely cold weather.
The council meeting starts at 1:30 p.m. in City Hall.
In another matter regarding the homeless, Lethbridge Housing Authority CAO Robin James will be asking council to accept a letter formally rescinding rezoning applications for Castle Apartments and Halmrast Manor.
The decision was jointly made by Lethbridge Housing Authority/Lethbridge and Region Community Housing Corporation and the Canadian Mental Health Association.
Instead, a development permit will be applied for under their existing downtown commercial zoning for the discretionary use of Supportive Housing – Restricted which will allow only up to 25 units of supportive housing at each location.
Two public hearings had been scheduled in council chambers this afternoon regarding amendments to Bylaw 6390 affecting Castle Apartments and Bylaw 6391 which impacts Halmrast Manor.
Follow @albeebHerald on Twitter
13-12
Not the City’s jutisdiction. Stop wasting my tax dollars on this!
Provinvial or Fed responsibility,
Perhaps I am mistaken. Approximately a month ago, wasn’t there an announcement the city was working on a lease agreement for some undisclosed location to serve as shelter for homeless? I thought the article said an announcement identifying the location would be made on January 24th, 2023.
I believe that was withdrawn. Looks like the city may be secretly endeavoring to acquire and use the old Eldorado RV site. But don’t let on, it’s a big secret!
Thanks
Yes, while they claim no location has been decided while they deal under the table to do exactly that.
There are a few things going on which are easy to confuse. First, the Council held a special meeting on December 23 (for an unrelated purpose dealing with a borrowing bylaw to cover regulated rate electricity provision), at which time they also met in secret to discuss the lease for the shelter changing over to the Blood Tribe Department of Health. They authorized the lease but kept it secret until today, where it appears as an item on the “Consent Agenda” (thus something that will not be discussed and, on a cynical view of consent agenda items, will not therefore attract media or public attention). Scanning the document quickly, I cannot ascertain why it needed to be kept secret, particularly on the grounds claimed. But that sort of thing is par for the course in this city.
Second, on November 29 the Council rescinded its plans to use the Civic Centre as a temporary shelter and directed administration to look at alternate sites for an “interim sober shelter”. Admin was supposed to report back to the Cultural and Social Standing Policy Committee on these efforts. Since that time the SPC has met twice, and no report has been given. There is no “return date” for the report. Again, speaking cynically, it is my observation that return dates in this city are not worth much, dates to report are constantly revised behind closed doors, and many things which are supposed to be reported on simply disappear from the “status of directed resolutions,” never to be seen again. I may write a letter in the relatively near future with some examples of that.
A third interesting item dates back to November 8. At that time administration sought (and obtained) a direction to start drafting a new Direct Control bylaw for the existing shelter lands. The rationale for this was that the “existing approval process” was somehow (not specified) untenable. There is a suggestion that the current bylaw prevents the shelter from “expanding.” I don’t know what the expansion plans are, and make no comment on the desirability of those plans (expanding the size of the current operation may well be a needful and desirable thing). I do not recall, at present, the area covered by the current zoning. All three readings of a DC bylaw are supposed to occur by the end of March.
I’d be inclinded to accept that given the heat they have taken for various mis-steps and proposals advanced then withdrawn and the waffling of certain council members in apparent accordance with the prevailing winds that secrecy and misdirection are the new” mantra” of this Council. It seems that if a decsion is too hard to make, the option is to spend a hundred thousand on consulting and ” seeking input of stakeholders ” [ a b.s buzz word ] and defer defer defer until memories fade.
I had high hopes for this Council when the some of the obvoius lefties were kept off its benches. Sadly backbones seem to be made of gelatine no matter the claimed affiliation.
Very true.
Yes until memories fade for when they run for a MLA position in the next provincial election.
Thanks
It is confusing on purpose.
The 19 acres plan (Burnside)that was presented to the Cultural and Social policy standing committee publicly close to or over a year ago. Secretly or under the table probably years ago, it was presented to some councilors. The 19 acres around the city bus barns,shelter ,El Dorado area. As you probably know but maybe to diplomatic to say, HansDad. That plan is now several years old.
As others have voiced before,”The city has policies and then there are actual practices”,that don’t always match. Depends on “areas political,economic and social networks”, as they say. It has also been expressed that “direct control is a nice tidy package with which to sweep issues under the rug”. As then public debate is denied.
It is no surprise that some of the businesses around castle apts. hired a lawyer to address the direct control request around them. In the agenda package on that debate a lawyer threatened to sue the city if direct control was used and for good reason. I agree with those who observe: “areas that don’t have time,ability or money to unite get raped by the city(admin and council) on a regular basis”. Welcome to democracy!
Thank you for your factual and rational comments, HansDad.
You are not mistaken.