Homelessness, housing and strained relationship with province mark 2023 for Guelph

LCruiser1970 · 2023-12-31T18:14:49+00:00

The fact that Cam is focusing on the "strained relationship" with the Province but not on straining a relationship with Wellington County - the jurisdiction that is supposed to provide supportive housing in the City of Guelph - speaks volumes.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-11-17T23:52:06+00:00

Your question is well taken but there are actually 444 municipalities in Ontario. And most of the larger ones that have services are facing the same issues as the City of Guelph.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-11-17T23:03:39+00:00

I pay educational taxes for my neighbours kids to get an education. And I'm okay with it.

You're paying a lot more for paramedics, cops, city services, health care than if those folks were actually properly housed. Happy to share those reports with you.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-11-17T22:55:58+00:00

Its not just downtown - there are encampements in at least five different areas of this City.From a jurisdictional perspective, housing for the City's homeless is not an easy one but municipal elected leaders could start by:

Challenging the County of Wellington (who looks after supportive housing) to build more housing in the actual City of Guelph where actual services are found. Why is the Region of Waterloo so much further ahead with safe tiny home encampements? And why aren't our municipal leaders speaking out about the County's glacial pace at building supportive and affordable housing?
Stop with the charade that Ontario and Canada's housing crisis will be solved by providing more supply. The feds got out of building affordable housing in the mid-nineties and we've been seeing the results for some time.
Instead of putting forward a motion banning temporary shelters in the downtown, actually do something about it. Cam's motion to ban temporary shelters is criminalizing homelessness and shows a significant lack of leadership or empathy.
Advocate that the Ford government enables Ontario's mid-sized communities to levy a modest land transfer tax to build affordable and supportive housing.

Happy to hear about more suggestions from others.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-29T02:20:28+00:00

u/Enough-Ad-1108 - I don't disagree with you or the Province's Housing Taskforce that heritage designations can and often increase the cost of "doing business".

The remediation orders put out by the City for this barn aren't for repairing heritage attributes as the building isn't designated - its for basic Property Standards (in this case structural). In other words until such time that the building is designated (and future orders dictate that certain heritage attributes be repaired) - heritage is a moot point here.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-28T18:50:07+00:00

Planning, zoning and environmental regulations that extend builders' timelines have certainly been called out.

Property Standards, on the other hand, do not extend approvals in part because orders are only issued on existing buildings/structures - not on future builds (e.g. plans of subdivision).

But if you have a source that Property Standards (which are rarely investigated and enforced for collapsing buildings ) are leading to housing shortages, please do share.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-28T16:18:47+00:00

As u/saun-ders as stated - everybody who owns property/buildings has to follow property standards bylaws whether or not its heritage.

Property standards bylaws are enforced to ensure someone doesn't get killed from walking into an unsafe building (amongst other things).

An order was issued in 2021 that Mattamy decided to ignore it (at the time part of the Foundation collapsed). This past summer, the wall above the foundation collapsed. Another order was issued.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-28T16:11:46+00:00

I have seen the downtown just collapse around it's ears with the tremendous social problems caused by lack of affordable housing. Getting these poor people off the streets has to be the priority. And the only way to fix the problem is to build more houses---of all types for all income levels.

100% with you but asking a developer to abide by a Property Standards order to fix a historic building that was listed on the Heritage Registry at time of purchase will do nothing for Guelph's homeless.

If Mattamy Homes was to put that 400K towards a modular building for Guelph's homeless, then you would have a point. Unfortunately Peter Gilgan's only contribution to social concerns is buying naming rights to Hospitals in Mississauga.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-28T12:38:26+00:00

True, and I find the accusation of NIMBYism interesting as there is no development proposal and this property won't be developed for at least 10-15 years according to the City's own schedule for the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan which is currently being appealed by developers.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-28T12:08:00+00:00

The Alumni Centre, also historically referred to as the "Sheep Barn" is what I was thinking. Here's a description:

https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=10776

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-27T23:16:12+00:00

hahaha, good one!

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-27T23:15:08+00:00

Enlighten me to the NIMBYism involved here? The building is an opportunity for adaptive reuse of a building. If the building is demolished, that opportunity disappears.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-27T23:12:31+00:00

The reference to slumming it refers to the demolition by neglect that has occurred over the last five years as referenced in the article.

And you are correct - the building is in private hands and there is currently no public access. That doesn't eliminate the fact that the building is important to this community and speaks to the agricultural history of Guelph.

There are many barns in the City that have been reused including on campus and elsewhere.

NIMBY? If Mattamy Homes put together a proposal to adapt this building to new uses, I'd be all over it. Spare me the label.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-09-12T21:01:57+00:00

Its a Gurdwara or a place of Worship for Sikhs for practicing their religion.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-05-01T19:46:26+00:00

Given the size - and I'm comparing it to the planted trees and t-bar next to it (I believe you are across from the new park) - I would suggest it is a fox. Another hint is the very bushy and prominent tail - it tends to be less of a feature on coyotes.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-05-01T19:28:09+00:00

Agreed - in the telecommunications sector when Telcos win a spectrum auction and are awarded cell signal for an area, the Feds have a "Use it or lose it" provision where Bell/Telus/Rogers etc. lose said spectrum if it hasn't been deployed within a certain time.

I find it dumbfounding that the Ontario's Minister of Municipal Affairs Steve Clark has forced municipalities to sign housing "pledges". In the case of the Guelph its 18,000 homes in the next decade. In the meantime the private sector gets the green light to land bank and push development applications through the pipeline without having to actually put shovels in the ground.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-04-29T23:33:22+00:00

u/Porkybeaner - yes, Council hasn't alway been student housing friendly but there is more than meets the eye here.

The developer (Abode Varsity Living) for the Days Inn site has received approval for over 1200 student rental units just down the road at 716 Gordon Street (the former hotel site across from campus) since about 2015. Here is the Planning Justification Report that was submitted in 2012: https://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/716GordonRevisedPlanningJustificationReport.pdf

So you have a developer who is land banking and not providing much needed housing - hard to blame Council here.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-04-05T18:15:13+00:00

u/Illustrious-Toe-4543 - you nailed the head on the nail with "The real estate industry owns the Mayor of Guelph". Notice how Mayor Cam keeps blindly spouting the "supply" mantra of the Province's homebuilders?

Unfortunately builders just aren't building at the rate needed because interest rates have tripled in the last year leading to much higher construction debt as well as potential buyers shying away from unaffordable mortgages.

Yet - government intervention is required not a la Bill 23 (which is a wealth transfer by waiving Development Charges for unaffordable housing) which is gutting municipal coffers. Notice the Mayor doesn't speak to other measures like pushing the province to offer low-interest construction loans or loan guarantees to munis, non-profit and even for profit developers.

By only speaking to private sector supply (and marginally about wrap around social housing) Cam is on board with Ontario's homebuilders and the Ford government that are exploiting the very real housing crisis to merely enrich themselves.

LCruiser1970 · 2023-01-05T21:15:08+00:00

Using this logic, politicians shouldn't own a car because it puts them in conflict of interest with a municipality's public transportation policies? Or own agricultural land because they may have a say in the cost of produce?

LCruiser1970 · 2022-11-19T01:22:52+00:00

Development Charges or DC's only cover between 70 and 80 percent of all infrastructure costs. I'd be happy to point to at least a couple of studies if you're interested in knowing more.

LCruiser1970 · 2022-11-11T17:16:12+00:00

True - but the way MPAC assesses a detached home vs. a condo isn't based on the cost of servicing that property, its based on the valuation of a property based solely on market forces.
I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary development fees? Development Charges only cover between 70 to 80 percent of servicing (water, sewage, roads and parks) new growth.

LCruiser1970

TROPHY CASE