- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,219
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
Dozens of long-faced people filed out of city hall on Wednesday, leaving the clear impression the Vanier shelter debate has yielded no real winner or resolution. If there was agreement, of sorts, it might have been on the point that such a narrow process should not be used again to decide the difficult question of where such a facility belongs.
Yes, a majority of councillors were persuaded by the Salvation Army’s proposal and the planning department’s rationale for approving it, even as most accepted the likelihood that a future appeal will compel the Ontario Municipal Board to ultimately weigh in.
But what 333 Montreal Rd. will look like in five or 10 years is anyone’s guess.
“I don’t think this thing will get built and I’m not changing my mind on that,” concluded Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury, who has made his opposition clear in the five months since the Salvation Army’s ambitious plan became public.
How we got here
For more than a year, there’s been a sense something must be done about George Street, where the vibe outside the Salvation Army’s Booth Centre has raised concerns about open drug use, loitering and violence.
After a 30-year-old woman was stabbed to death there last year, Fleury said he was fed up with the organization. He’d “lost faith” the Salvation Army could get to the core of the issue, he said then.
A few months later, in February 2017, Mayor Jim Watson expressed his hope that one of the three emergency shelters operating within blocks of each other downtown would soon move.
The mayor also said at the time, according to a CBC report, that he’d heard the Salvation Army might have a plan to move out. In fact, the mayor knew as early as August 2016 that the charity had conditionally purchased the site now under such intense public scrutiny on Montreal Road in the heart of Vanier’s main street.
Having “heard the mayor and councillor loud and clear,” Booth Centre executive director Marc Provost agreed the Salvation Army was interested in opening a new, purpose-built shelter.
A few more months would pass before the question of where was answered.
As the sun rose on summer, the Salvation Army filed the necessary paperwork for its proposed hub of shelter, day programs, medical care, addiction services and administrative space to replace the Concorde Motel — which, incidentally, is currently under contract by the city to provide rooms when other shelters are full.
To build it, however, would require a rezoning.
What we learned
“Engage early.”
That’s Fleury’s answer to a question about how this could be done differently next time.
Whether the word is “engage” or “consult,” the point is people — particularly the residents and businesses closest to the development site in question, and those elected to represent them — want to have their say. And they want their input reflected in the end result.
In mid-September, after the seeds of discontent were already popping up around the community in the form of SOS Vanier lawn signs, the Salvation Army held an open house about its shelter proposal — at a conference centre outside of Vanier.
Perhaps the organization has since realized that wasn’t a good strategy, as spokesman Glenn van Gulik suggested to reporters after the planning committee vote last week: “We could have done a better job consulting with the community and we’re trying to make up for it.”
The lack of consultation, among other concerns, was highlighted in letters sent to city council by Vanier’s MP Mona Fortier and MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers. When was the last time federal and provincial reps felt compelled to weigh in so strongly on a municipal land-use decision?
Fortier outlined some concerns related to planning aspects, but also honed in on the social services to be provided at the proposed shelter.
“It is in my opinion disingenuous — while completely within the explicit rules governing the planning committee — to discuss this proposal in a vacuum,” she wrote.
In an interview, she said she wished the city had encouraged the Salvation Army to develop “a real economic and social study” to demonstrate how its shelter hub would impact the surrounding community.
Des Rosiers called for public involvement at the ground level — before the shape and size of the shelter is even determined — and a focus on best practices, such as harm reduction and a cap on the number of emergency shelter beds at 100.
Even with federal and provincial housing strategies in place, Des Rosiers said emergency shelters might be necessary, but only as the starting point to transitioning people to permanent housing. “We hope in the long run they wouldn’t be very big,” she said.
What happens now
Both sides will retreat to their respective corners to consider the next move.
As for the process, it’s unclear if — and exactly how — it might be changed or improved, and who would be responsible for doing that.
Though Fortier sent councillors a pointed letter, she “won’t be telling the City of Ottawa to start looking at their processes.”
Some want to “refresh the status quo” by no longer considering important planning decisions within a political and technical bubble.
Fleury points to committee mandates and, when there is overlap, joint committee hearings.
In the meantime, there are pledges to make the current plan — the proposal council just endorsed — somehow better.
“The conversation will continue,” Des Rosiers said. “We want to try to find a solution that works for everyone.”
mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78
查看原文...
Yes, a majority of councillors were persuaded by the Salvation Army’s proposal and the planning department’s rationale for approving it, even as most accepted the likelihood that a future appeal will compel the Ontario Municipal Board to ultimately weigh in.
But what 333 Montreal Rd. will look like in five or 10 years is anyone’s guess.
“I don’t think this thing will get built and I’m not changing my mind on that,” concluded Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury, who has made his opposition clear in the five months since the Salvation Army’s ambitious plan became public.
How we got here
For more than a year, there’s been a sense something must be done about George Street, where the vibe outside the Salvation Army’s Booth Centre has raised concerns about open drug use, loitering and violence.
After a 30-year-old woman was stabbed to death there last year, Fleury said he was fed up with the organization. He’d “lost faith” the Salvation Army could get to the core of the issue, he said then.
A few months later, in February 2017, Mayor Jim Watson expressed his hope that one of the three emergency shelters operating within blocks of each other downtown would soon move.
The mayor also said at the time, according to a CBC report, that he’d heard the Salvation Army might have a plan to move out. In fact, the mayor knew as early as August 2016 that the charity had conditionally purchased the site now under such intense public scrutiny on Montreal Road in the heart of Vanier’s main street.
Having “heard the mayor and councillor loud and clear,” Booth Centre executive director Marc Provost agreed the Salvation Army was interested in opening a new, purpose-built shelter.
A few more months would pass before the question of where was answered.
As the sun rose on summer, the Salvation Army filed the necessary paperwork for its proposed hub of shelter, day programs, medical care, addiction services and administrative space to replace the Concorde Motel — which, incidentally, is currently under contract by the city to provide rooms when other shelters are full.
To build it, however, would require a rezoning.
What we learned
“Engage early.”
That’s Fleury’s answer to a question about how this could be done differently next time.
Whether the word is “engage” or “consult,” the point is people — particularly the residents and businesses closest to the development site in question, and those elected to represent them — want to have their say. And they want their input reflected in the end result.
In mid-September, after the seeds of discontent were already popping up around the community in the form of SOS Vanier lawn signs, the Salvation Army held an open house about its shelter proposal — at a conference centre outside of Vanier.
Perhaps the organization has since realized that wasn’t a good strategy, as spokesman Glenn van Gulik suggested to reporters after the planning committee vote last week: “We could have done a better job consulting with the community and we’re trying to make up for it.”
The lack of consultation, among other concerns, was highlighted in letters sent to city council by Vanier’s MP Mona Fortier and MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers. When was the last time federal and provincial reps felt compelled to weigh in so strongly on a municipal land-use decision?
Fortier outlined some concerns related to planning aspects, but also honed in on the social services to be provided at the proposed shelter.
“It is in my opinion disingenuous — while completely within the explicit rules governing the planning committee — to discuss this proposal in a vacuum,” she wrote.
In an interview, she said she wished the city had encouraged the Salvation Army to develop “a real economic and social study” to demonstrate how its shelter hub would impact the surrounding community.
Des Rosiers called for public involvement at the ground level — before the shape and size of the shelter is even determined — and a focus on best practices, such as harm reduction and a cap on the number of emergency shelter beds at 100.
Even with federal and provincial housing strategies in place, Des Rosiers said emergency shelters might be necessary, but only as the starting point to transitioning people to permanent housing. “We hope in the long run they wouldn’t be very big,” she said.
What happens now
Both sides will retreat to their respective corners to consider the next move.
As for the process, it’s unclear if — and exactly how — it might be changed or improved, and who would be responsible for doing that.
Though Fortier sent councillors a pointed letter, she “won’t be telling the City of Ottawa to start looking at their processes.”
Some want to “refresh the status quo” by no longer considering important planning decisions within a political and technical bubble.
Fleury points to committee mandates and, when there is overlap, joint committee hearings.
In the meantime, there are pledges to make the current plan — the proposal council just endorsed — somehow better.
“The conversation will continue,” Des Rosiers said. “We want to try to find a solution that works for everyone.”
mpearson@postmedia.com
twitter.com/mpearson78
查看原文...
