City stuck in neutral on homelessness
Hamilton’s new city council came into office on a wave of demand for change. Voters could not have been clearer about their desire for a different way of governing, a lot more transparency and overdue action on key areas of public interest.
It is far too soon to pronounce, as some critics have already, that council hasn’t delivered on that promise overall. It is not, however, too soon to raise some troubling questions about how council is approaching one of those priorities — homelessness, tent encampments and the host of issues that go along with those things.
We are not pronouncing failure on this file. But it is fair to ask why more isn’t happening with a greater sense of urgency. Consider where we are.
The situation may not be entirely status quo, but neither is dramatic change happening or coming in the near future. Council and staff are considering a list of questions, challenges and options, but beyond that, the existing policy remains in force. That means bylaw officers with police support evicting tenants from homeless encampments and tearing down the camps themselves. Either unable or reluctant to stay in shelters, residents disperse and shortly set up camp in a new location, at which time the process is repeated.
To what end? Is displacing the residents and their tents a solution? Does it mean residents are more likely to get support, help or get secure shelter?
No one likes encampments. And no one aspires to live in one, especially in winter. Neighbourhood concerns are real and understandable. But pronouncing encampments unacceptable without answering the second part of the equation is not only inhumane, it’s pointless. Where are the people to go? Is there enough secure housing? Are there enough shelter spaces to accommodate even the people with diverse needs? Are encampment residents better served by front-line support workers when they are kicked out of their accommodation and spread around?
Hamilton’s encampment policy has been widely denounced as an abject failure. It further victimizes homeless people without offering any solution to the overall problem. The previous city council knew all this very well, and made a deliberate decision to not deal with it. This council was supposed to be different.
So, on the overall approach to the crisis, council is moving slowly, if at all. Are there things it could be doing sooner rather than later?
What about the Hamilton Alliance for Tiny Shelters proposal for a pilot project that would see 10 homeless people housed in small, heated cabins? Alas, there is no joy here, either.
HATS, a community-based, volunteer-driven, initiative has approached city hall repeatedly. Various sites for the pilot project have been pitched, and one after the other, shot down. HATS has raised a lot of money, planned the project, studied construction and operational suitability. It needs some financial support from the city, and an endorsement for a site or short list of sites.
What it is getting instead is repeated stalling, kicking this can down the road into the depths of this winter. It is now unlikely the project will even begin before spring, if it happens at all. Organizers are understandably frustrated, and who knows how long they will keep banging their heads against the proverbial brick wall.
Why? Is there evidence we don’t know about that tiny house projects don’t work? If so, why are they springing up across Canada in response to the housing crisis? Are there concerns a tiny shelter project isn’t sustainable? That’s why it is called a pilot project.
Or is there something else, something more nefarious, happening? Are councillors and senior staff simply determined to say no to HATS for parochial ward politics or other reasons? Is this a case of, “sure it might be a good idea, but not in my backyard?”
Hamilton’s new council is doing some things right. It has passed a bylaw taxing vacant properties to encourage more housing stock. It has regulated short-term rentals for the same reason.
But it is stuck in neutral on homelessness. We have to ask: Why? Perhaps we will see that on Feb. 1 next time council tackles the issue. It can make real change for the better then, but it needs to get moving and soon.