We’re not opposed to CTS sites, just this one

I attended the Feb. 13 meeting of the Hamilton Board of Health and the city council meeting of Feb. 22 in order to hear what is happening with the proposed consumption and treatment services (CTS) site at 746 Barton St. E.

At the council meeting, my Ward 3 Coun. Nrinder Nann moved an amendment to the board of health report, to implement robust community engagement with local residents and stakeholders to help identify and address safety and impact concerns in the neighbourhood (which would take place after the site was confirmed).

When she spoke in support of this, I was completely dumbfounded by her statements.

And I quote: “There have been a public few in the area who have not only been inciting fear but have also been intimidating neighbours near the Barton and Lottridge area who have been supportive CTS and supportive of this exact application. Those supporters have been harassed, they have been targeted and they have been threatened.”

I find these unsubstantiated allegations very disturbing and they should not have been permitted in a city council meeting. I have to wonder who Coun. Nann was referring to.

Was it me?

Was it Pat Daly, chair of the Catholic School board who is opposed due to its closeness to St. Ann’s school and daycare?

Was it Father Kruszewski from St. Stanislaus parish or Father Trynoga of Holy Spirit Church who also have concerns?

Perhaps it was the numerous drivers of the DARTS vehicles picking up and dropping off young clients with special needs and physical disabilities going to Luso support centre (located just 30 metres away).

Perhaps it was some of the 1,200 Ward 3 constituents living nearby who signed petitions and the more than 100 who wrote letters that opposed that location?

Perhaps it was one of the owners of a retail business who may be at risk of closing?

Regardless of who actually perpetrated these allegations, these statements by councillor Nann should be proven or she should apologize to everyone involved or resign her seat.

She fails to understand the vast majority of those opposed to this location are not against supervised injection sites — only this one.

They feel it is too close to schools, daycares, facilities such as Luso and local businesses.

My biggest concern was the lack of transparency and any kind of public consultation regarding this site.

When asked by Coun. Esther Pauls what consultation has taken place, the executive director of the AIDS network, which will be responsible for the site, seemed to stumble a bit for an answer.

His response was they did hand out some cards in the area, consulted on social media and email. It is my understanding very few if any cards were distributed.

I also fail to understand how one can consider social media as public consultation.

Who would they be emailing?

Their known supporters who don’t necessarily live in the immediate area?

They didn’t have my email address or any of the opposing residents in the immediate area.

Any public consultation and engagement after the decision has been made is of no benefit to any community.