This week on Market Squared we look at how Woolwich Street is once again demonstrating the lack of urgency around the issue of homelessness.
There was a packed gallery at the monthly meeting of the Wellington County Social Services and Land Ambulance Committee this week, and as the Guelph Tiny Home Crash proposal was on the table after a public hearing at Guelph city council last month, one thing I was sure of was that the tiny homes would be sent to the county to be wiped out.
Well, the project didn’t disappear, but it was greeted with such indifference that I might have had more respect for the process if the proposal had been dropped instead of being sent back to the City Council after another month of uncertainty.
To be clear, if there is uncertainty, it is not for a lack of trying on the part of the Guelph Tiny Home Coalition. I think they gave a better, more forceful presentation at the Joint Committee meeting than they did at Council. Perhaps they understood that Woolwich Street had bigger hurdles to overcome than Carden.
The coalition was supported by leaders from Guelph General Hospital, the Canadian Mental Health Association Waterloo Wellington, Guelph Community Health and Stonehenge, who came together to offer their support for the project, as well as a woman who spoke about her son's experience in A Better Tent City in Kitchener and how this once novel project has transformed people struggling with mental health and addiction issues into thriving in their communities and finding permanence in their lives.
Not surprisingly, presented with first-hand testimony, unanimous votes of support from Guelph’s frontline workers, and committed community groups that appear to have organized significant community resources to make tiny homes a reality, the joint committee directed county staff to write another report.
Unfortunately, there has been no support for this idea or even the success it has had in other communities that have tried it. I understand that there are still some challenges remaining, and that there remains the issue of finding land on which a tiny home community can be established, but when those issues are resolved, there has been no indication that the Joint Commission will provide the support, or even in-kind support, necessary to make the project a success.
The lack of support may stem from the apparent confusion about the project. The Joint Commission seems fixated on ideas of how tiny homes fit into the housing continuum, whether they are temporary or permanent. They're trying to force a square peg into a round hole, completely overlooking the fact that the shape-and-hole system was established in an entirely different era, when the scope of the problem was less acute.
And if the housing continuum was OK, we would have all the tools we need to find ways to help people. And it's frightening that there's been such a huge disparity in the last few years. You hear politicians talk all the time about “thinking outside the box” to find solutions, but that's not where we get tripped up. Acting outside the box is where most politicians never want to end up.
Another problem was the rigid way the meeting was run. The agenda included no formal reports on temporary organized encampments, only communications from the City of Guelph. After hearing from the delegations, the committee went into closed session for 45 minutes without even a verbal report of what had been discussed or what the outcome was.
The committee then considered the rest of the agenda before debating Guelph city council's resolution again and calling organizers from the Guelph Tiny Homes Coalition back to the stage to answer questions, then directing county staff to write another report.
Borough President Andy Lennox had something interesting to say about the process: He said he appreciated the way the council sent the proposal to the committee and asked for feedback, but he wasn't sure for sure this was a project the city wanted to move forward with.
Earlier, Ward 7 County Councilman Matthew Bloomer objected to the council's recommendation 5. The council had asked the county to “respectfully” present an alternative plan to the Tiny Homes Coalition to address the issues of people living in the encampment if the proposal is rejected.
While some might interpret this as the city wanting the project, or at least wanting it enough to “politely” solicit other ideas, to Bloomer, that's not “polite” and not only puts a burden on the county, it also holds the county accountable for essentially doing nothing.
But there's a lot to be said for the blame, because I think Lennox has a point when he says Guelph city council doesn't support the Tiny Homes Coalition, and I think it has to do with the relationship between the city and county of Guelph. After years of anxious separation, everyone is on edge, at least in public, fearful of breaking the bonds of newly realized community friendship.
But as a reporter and commentator, I am so unhappy with the county, both in style and substance, that I’m going to poke the bear with a stick.
As for content, we are still waiting for the official reports from the Health and Housing Symposiums held in January and April. So far we have only received verbal reports. Also, I think the County's presentation at the Strategic Planning Workshop held at City Council this week was the weakest, speaking only to the County's state-defined jurisdiction and not to the larger gap that the Symposium and Tiny Houses are trying to address.
In terms of style, I am extremely frustrated that the business of County Councils and committees is inaccessible unless you are physically there. The lack of video or audio makes it difficult to share verbal reports, but also difficult to foster confidence that any progress is being made in resolving serious community concerns.
If the Joint Committee on Social Services and Land and Ambulance Services does not want to be seen as doing nothing to solve the problem of homelessness, then at least it has achieved its aim.
