The herculean challenge of ‘reincluding’ the excluded
Scott Radley writes that the first spot for legal encampments is “in some councillors’ neighbourhoods.” Let’s cut right to the chase here: they already are.
To the argument that councillors should “lead from the front” and have encampments in their neighbourhoods, I have underwhelming news: they most certainly already are. Based on their recent election materials, the councillors from each of the wards where the problems of precarious housing and homelessness are most visibly manifest — Wards 1, 2, 3, and 4 — emphatically and proudly live in the ward they represent.
These councillors are not advocating that the unhoused should be moved to other neighbourhoods. Radley says, “Show themselves to be anti-NIMBYs.” I don’t see a downtown councillor making the argument that encampments should be relocated south of the Linc. Councillors are trying to come up with a response that meets the needs of people facing the stone wall of decades-long underfunded affordable and supportive housing and mental health care at every level of government.
I live in one of those wards, too: when I take my children through Gage Park, I teach them about why people have tents in the bushes. When I wrap up my shift at a volunteer-run harm reduction drop-in in the city centre, I pass the tents and blankets of those people with whom I’ve just met. When I go for an early morning run through Strathcona I step with care around the literal bodies of people curled up on the concrete.
Radley sets up the straw-man argument that some councillors are suggesting reports of fires, violence, drug use and garbage are exaggerated or untrue. Show me the quotes, man.
These councillors aren’t in denial. In fact, they’re very aware of an important fact: these people in encampments aren’t camping for recreation. They don’t wrap up their stay at the campsite and head home to toss their clothes in the laundry and their sleeping bag on the line.
If a person in a tent has a mental health need, they might need a family doctor: Ontarians know better than anyone that GPs don’t grow on trees. They will probably need mental health support, particularly for trauma and substance use: the wait-list for the trauma program at St. Joseph’s is in fact several years long, and the social service sector, due to deep cuts and underfunding, is desperately understaffed and overworked. They’ll probably need a house, but Hamiltonians already know that the current market rate for rental housing is out of reach for someone making a living wage, let alone minimum wage or OW/ ODSP.
This assertion that councillors should “step forward and volunteer to be first” is sick. It uses people facing the worst marginalization and exclusion as a pawn to score a point. It completely disregards the advocacy by councillors for wraparound support for people in encampments. In fact, in honesty, it reads of someone who themselves does not live face-to-face with people facing homelessness.
So, let me propose an alternative. The first spot for legal encampments? We call them “houses.” Sometimes even “homes.” They should not be located in urban sprawl on the Greenbelt, nor should they be exclusively singlefamily dwellings that “preserve the neighbourhood esthetic.” They should not be privileges for those with access to cars in those kinds of jobs that let them work-fromhome. They should not be somebody’s second, third, or ninth home rented at market value.
And given how long we’ve let greed run rampant — which, to be clear, is the primary impetus behind that ubiquitous saying these days, “I bought my house for soand-so, and now I can’t believe it’s worth six times as much!” — we will have some damage control to do: providing adequate mental and physical health care, community and social work, and the laborious effort of reincluding the excluded.