9 Sep 2024 Council meeting Housing

Update Lease Disposition to BC Housing - Portion of 1030 Old Victoria Road

Motion

That Council direct Staff to amend the 2024-JUL-08 Regular Council Meeting motion relative to the report 9.a. titled “Update Lease Disposition to BC Housing – Portion of 1030 Old Victoria Road”, by replacing “a good neighbour agreement and a Community Advisory Committee” as a condition of the lease with “Neighbourhood Integration Plan”, approving the disposition of a 3- year lease, with the option for two 2- year renewals, for a portion of City -owned land located at 1030 Old Victor ia Road to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation.

Minutes, page 9

The City’s vote record words it differently

That Council direct Staff on Council’s preferred option for the lease disposition for a portion of City-owned land located at 1030 Old Victoria Road to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation.

Sources

Agenda itemCity agenda

Staff reportPage 1

Purpose

To provide Council with an update on a letter received from BC Housing regarding Council’s request to provide a Good Neighbour Agreement and a Community Advisory Committee as conditions of the lease disposition for City-owned property at 1030 Old Victoria Road. Staff are seeking Council’s direction on the preferred option for the lease disposition.

Staff report, page 1

Staff recommendation

That Council direct Staff on Council’s preferred option for the lease disposition for a portion of City-owned land located at 1030 Old Victoria Road to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation.

Staff report, page 1

DocumentsStaff report about Community Health & Wellbeing, Housing

Ian Thorpe No

Gisselbrock, please. Thank you. Thank you, Your Worship. When When the earlier delegation was speaking from BC Housing, I did not have questions for them, but I've read their material and quite honestly, I didn't want to get into a debate or appear impolite. I give them credit for courage in coming and speaking, but I cannot support option two of these revised conditions and I quite frankly just don't buy the rationale for it. And that's about as polite as I can be. read that BC Housing says we're no longer implementing good neighbor agreements at any supporting housing sites in the province because we find that one point is they stigmatize our tenants may pressure operators and BC Housing to create rules that are different compared to other residential buildings in the area. Well you know what the tenants are in a different situation than those in other residential buildings in the area. Good neighbor agreements place additional to fund supports that are outside of our mandate such as policing and security services. Yes, yes, too bad. Good neighbor agreements typically assign the responsibility for being a good neighbor on the housing provider without any reciprocal responsibility from the community to be a good neighbor. Well I'm sorry but I have yet to hear of any community being accused of being a bad neighbor to the housing provider. It's always the other way around. So I just do not buy this rationale. We heard a lot of assurances tonight that this will be a more robust response to concerns, but I read on the other hand that it's a four month time frame. Oh well, you know, we can we can be flexible on that. That there annual meeting after that. Oh well, maybe we can be flexible on that. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. I don't see this as more robust. I don't see it as more responsive. I see a bunch of assurances that I just cannot take at face value. So again, without belaboring it, I will not be supporting option two with the revised conditions. Thank you.

Ben Geselbracht Yes

Thanks, Mayor.

Sheryl Armstrong No

Myself and Mr. LaBerge, we've sat on those. They're not the issues that I heard. I've never experienced that, and I don't know if Mr. LaBerge has, but they were always very well done. I don't understand why, if it's such a great process, why they can't commit it to paper, like everybody else does. There's other, I think it's Island Mental Health, they commit to paper, so if they can, why can't BC Housing? So I think everybody forgets about the upheaval this brings to the neighborhoods. You know, we're always focused on the people, and I agree that yes, there's a lot of people, but what about the people who's, as we heard from this lady, whose blood pressure's through the roof, who's scared for her own security? We've seen this time and time again in the neighborhoods, and I believe the neighbors should have some assurances from BC Housing that they will work with them, and one of the ways to do this is through the community agreement, so I will not support the motion. Thank you.

So I have a big concern with that in this business about, oh, well, 60 people won't get housed. Why do we always have to house those with addictions? There's all sorts of seniors on our streets. They're not getting housed because the people that we're only housing right now are those with addictions or mental health. So why does it always have to be this? push back and say we've got what is it six or seven already supportive housing units and zero right now for our mental for our seniors right down the street we have the one butter tubs but that's very expensive we don't have any of our seniors paying 350 dollars getting three square meals a day in air conditioning and tvs so i'm just really tired of hearing all the time well 60 people won't get housed maybe we need to start housing some other people on our streets that are are homeless as well, due to exactly what you said, financial reasons, before all of a sudden, they become addicts because they're tired of living the way they're living. I'm just really tired of hearing all this time, but you know what? We're not helping people. We're warehousing people. As soon as you put 60 people into one place, you're warehousing them. And I'm sorry, but I just go back to the model that was created back under the original housing task force here, where it was 30 people, and those models work very well.

Erin Hemmens Yes

I agree with Councillor Thorpe about the inflammatory nature of that news release and the language around stigmatization, and I wish that had been brought up with BC Housing in the room, and I wonder why it wasn't. We should be having this conversation with them. But what I heard tonight in both conversations are two crucial pieces are being addressed, and these are crucial as identified by a functioning neighborhood association who currently sits on a CAC, is that it has to start early before residents are in and there has to be a cleared line of who to call if there's an issue and BC Housing has addressed both of those I I wish that we could keep going with what the community sees as supportive the community sees as working BC Housing has come to us and said we have a different model and I BC Housing is building all over the province and I imagine their visas resources are stretched as well so But I play this out. I play go to the outcome of us saying no to this. This is 60 units for people who are unhoused right now. And if we say no to this, then we better say no to all the others because they're also going to be contingent. And so we're actually saying no to hundreds of units if we say no to this. Because that is the structure that BC Housing, who is the only provider who is building housing in our community of this nature, there are no other people coming in and saying we'll build 400 supportive housing units for you. BC Housing is the only game in town. The cavalry is not coming, it is them. so if we say no to this we're we're condemning we're saying no to 60 people getting off the streets and then 60 more and then 60 after that and I just when I play that out I think that that's not that's not leadership to me I'm sorry this is not perfect you know I've said this in previous arguments I could probably throw a rock and hit 702 nickel from my house It doesn't always go well. There has to be opportunities for dialogue and communication. I'm hearing PC Housing saying that they will do their best to do that. And like Ben said, all of our phone numbers are on the website. If there are issues, you have nine people who will advocate for you. But I will not say no to housing.

Paul Manly Yes

If you ever have a problem with people on your property you can call the RCMP. Somebody tries to set up a tent on your property you call by-law they're trespassing and they can't be doing that right so yeah and I understand there's already an issue with homeless people in your in your community I know there's a large encampment on Chase River at the estuary and there's people camped out as they are throughout our community we have people camped out along the parkway anywhere where people can find a place where they can feel hidden and safe they are camped out and and you can find them in our community, including Bowen Park, where I live close to. Half a block from me, I can walk down to the park and find tents if I want. So it is a problem right across this community, and we have an estimated 800 to 1,000 homeless people in this community, and not all of them have mental health and addiction challenges. There are many seniors, low-income, low-wage workers, people with disabilities. They're always the first ones to lose their housing when we get into a process where people are moving to the community and our community is being gentrified at a rate that is unsustainable. And so those are always the first people that end up on the street. And they are all vulnerable. And we do have a responsibility to take care of our most vulnerable citizens. BC Housing is not operating. facility. This facility is going to be run by Vancouver Island Mental Health Association and they have a very good reputation. They have supportive housing units and they have group homes throughout our community and we haven't been receiving emails about those supportive housing units or those group homes. I have yet to see complaints about those facilities because they're well run and and the same is true I talked to the operator that they had a facility up in Campbell River that they opened and there was a lot of backlash to it but eventually think the neighbors settled down because it was a well-run facility it's not about BC housing because they're not the ones run operating the facility it's the operator and they're gonna have an operator's agreement with BC Housing that makes them reach certain standards and if there are problems there they can have that agreement pulled out from under them so they're gonna try to make sure that they meet those standards and they're also gonna have agreements with with their people living in these facilities with program participant agreements and that's the same kind of thing do with the shelters do at other facilities. You know you ask people to sign an agreement stating that they're going to meet certain expectations and behave in a certain way. This facility is going to have security cameras around it. It's going to have a fence around it. There's going to be rules for people at the facility the same way that they've been the rules have been put in place at 250 terminal that was you know wild when it started but now they the the people that are staying in that facility have said that they don't want guests at these facilities they don't want to see people dropping in you know in particular some of the women who don't want to see the you know predatory types or drug dealers coming to these facilities and so there will be rules about who can come and go from this facility and I think that that you know just discussing with the operator that they they've already been in touch with the Chase River Community Association I know we're talking kind of in a gray area between South End Community Association and Chase River Community Association but they're reaching out and I think that this has got to be part of the process that if you've got a good operator that knows what they're doing and has experience they're going to do the right thing and ensure that that there is as little disruption in the community as possible and I get it people aren't happy people aren't happy with the status quo but nobody wants to see the status quo fixed in their neighborhood they don't want to see the fix in their neighborhood and I get that but as Councillor Hemmonds has said this is this is it BC housing is the game in town they are the Calvary we're not waiting for somebody else to come in with a private sector solution to deal with us this is what we have to deal with and so I'm gonna support this as much as I'm displeased with the way BC BC Housing has popped this the way they have rationalized it, but we have a need to deal with our homeless crisis and this is part of the solution. Thank you. Thank you.

Tyler Brown No

And that's not a good, not a good mix for success, especially, you know, I think Ms. Hartman said being proactive is, you know, not three, four weeks.

Janice Perrino Yes

Then the other part is the neighborhood agreement versus the neighborhood integration plan. They shouldn't be all in one motion, so I'm just going to say that up front. And I certainly agree with Councillor Thorpe and Councillor Armstrong. I think the public heard tonight that none of us were particularly thrilled with the discussion that we had with Ms. Hartman. However, she realizes there have been tons of problems, and we're well aware of it, and we're going to question her. Is it perfect? No. But I think that they are genuinely trying to make it better, and I'm with Councilor Hemans on this. If we say no to this one, and the longer we stall it, just the harder the problem is to cure, we have got to get people into homes. They do so much better. They're much healthier. year we have a chance to give them a second chance at a life that's worth living. This is the best thing that we can do for these people in need, and this is costing all of us a great deal of money. It is just such a horrible situation. Do I like the neighborhood integration plan? You know what? I don't necessarily want to hear what they're going to do two months beforehand.

Questions and answers

Councillor Sheryl Armstrong
No

asked

Thank you. I'm just wondering why, if you're committed to doing that, why you wouldn't agree to keep that in the lease? Because you're the ones that are actually responsible as the lessee, not the operator. And I think from everything I've heard from neighborhoods and people, that's their big concern, that there's no emphasis on the person that is actually the lessee to do that. Like if we do nuisance properties, whatever, it goes to the owner. It doesn't go to whoever's operating. It goes to the owner of the property. So there's a lot of concern. A lot of people that I've heard from, and I've heard from many, are concerned that you're not taking any neighborhood concerns at all into consideration. And it's their lives that are being, in their opinion, totally turned upside down. So I'm just wondering why you can't give them peace of mind to say that you will engage in call it what you want, could be your neighborhood-to-neighborhood agreement, whatever, but why there wouldn't be a formal commitment in a lease.

City staff answered

BC Housing is committed to the model. Any of the requests that have come forward from communities to have more operational commitments have remained separate from our lease. And that is the advice of our legal counsel as well.

Councillor Erin Hemmens
Yes

asked

Thank you, Your Worship, and thank you for being here. This change is a bit nerve-wracking for the communities, I'm sure you can imagine, and so I just have a series of questions. The first, Ms. Hartman, you indicated that these new, the neighbourhood integration plan would be more responsive than a CAC. Could you please outline how?

City staff answered

Absolutely. I'd be happy to. And again, this comes from experience and participating in CACs. We found through experience that many times some representatives at the CAC or Community advisory committee meeting are bringing forward issues that happened three or four weeks ago. We want to be responsive. Our nonprofits want to be responsive in the moment, so we would really be encouraging that the use of the who to call she, contacting the operator promptly so it can be addressed promptly. Our experience has found that addressing something three or four weeks after it happens isn't a proactive way of addressing and really limits how we can respond.

followed up

You also indicated that this model would engage more broadly with the community than a CAC. Could you explain that a bit more, please?

City staff answered

I can, and that's going to be through the community, the members that develop the neighborhood implementation plan. I have heard in other communities where they didn't, other members who weren't on the CACs didn't feel their voices were heard. So through this model, it will be more inclusive. And again, the model is really going to be based on what the City of Nanaimo partners and neighbours see as what the plan will be. We will have a broad template, but again, it's about honouring what the community needs for that particular housing site.

followed up

And when you say the community, are you speaking residents? Are you speaking neighbours of everyone?

City staff answered

That's what we want to hear from the City of Nanaimo is who should be part of that neighborhood implementation plan development.

followed up

Okay. I had a conversation with the South End Community Association over the weekend just to get their sense of this. Sydney Robertson, who is their chair, has been the appointee to the CAC at 7.02. And just some thoughts from her. She said that having the CAC was a crucial part of the process. It allowed them to address immediate concerns. So at 7.02, according to her, they didn't experience that lag time of three to four weeks. Some of the things that they addressed immediately were lights pointing into bedroom windows from the new development. And that just happens as development happens. You have to tweak that stuff. One of the things that she was very emphatic about was that the CAC began, the conversations began ahead of residents being housed at 702, so relationships were formed, and I'm hearing, we heard earlier that the community integration plan or the neighbourhood integration plan would start when doors were open, but I heard you just respond to Councillor Eastmere that you're flexible on that that you would be willing to begin the integration plan ahead of residents so so neighbors would have an opportunity to ask questions and be curious that are before residents written is just confirming that's

City staff answered

flexibility absolutely we want to be flexible again that comes speaks to what we stated in the slide deck customized I use the word honor the community but it

followed up

really is a unique plan based on the community needs and timelines. Thank you. I would also reflect that she noted that that who to call sheet was absolutely crucial and I actually want to give out to a shout out to Sika. I think that was developed by the South End Community Association and spread to the city and then wonderful to hear that it's being spread to the province. I have one more question. I just want to confirm in terms of 1030 Old Victoria Road, I'm going to make some statements I'd like you to just say if they're accurate. So different than 250 terminal, the residents, there's going to be thoughtful and intentional placement of individuals. The gateway for these individuals is through the shelter system, so they've already been assessed and likely connected to supports and stabilized. So that would be the big difference that we saw with 250 terminal to 1030 Old Victoria. Is that accurate?

City staff answered

Correct. BC Housing, through all the learnings from our encampments, has learned some really important best practices. It's taking the time to assess people before we move them in. It's very rare for us to move people directly from encampment into housing. gateway to housing and do that careful assessment. It also recognizes that some votes coming directly from encampment may not need supportive housing so we would be trying to obtain rent supplements that are available in the community to move them into housing that's appropriate to their needs. Thank

followed up

you. Final comment, I will say this this reads makes sense. I would prefer, like Councillor Eastmear, that the process was the same, that it was six months rather than four. However, I do want to share with you that the community in many ways is perceiving this as BC Housing backing out of engagement. So we're gonna put supportive housing in and we're gonna leave it with the operator. Whereas I'm hearing from folks like Sika, it's actually been super valuable to sit down with BC Housing to say, you know this is what's going on in the neighborhood here's how we'd like it addressed etc etc so there's there's not a question I just want to share that but the perception of this landing is that BC housing is kind of abdicating a little bit and I spoke with our CAO in terms of if we need additional time for that neighborhood integration plan is so is that something that the city can pick up and we we know through our social planning department that we're already very engaged in these conversations, so that was a yes. But I do just want to, again, share that sense that as BC Housing is changing their policy, now City's kind of trying to come in and support and fill those gaps, but those gaps are certainly perceived. So I just want to share that with you. Thank you for being here.

Councillor Paul Manly
Yes

asked

Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, thank you for the presentation. I understand through discussions with Easy Housing that people in these hearth sites are not tenants in the same way. They don't have the same legal rights as somebody that's in supportive housing or in affordable housing, more permanent housing. The Residential Tenancy Act doesn't necessarily apply the same way. And so they would be required to follow certain rules that are set out by the operator. And I'm curious about what kind of guarantees you ask for in your agreements with the operator for working with the neighbourhood for addressing those concerns to make sure that the behaviour of the people that are in these facilities is appropriate for the neighbourhood and there are consequences, etc. Normally those are kind of done with some kind of contract with people that are getting the service. They would sign some kind of agreement saying that they will adhere to certain rules, often called good neighbourhood agreements. And I'm just curious about what kind of guarantees you get from the operator that they would be doing those kind of things with the people accessing these facilities.

City staff answered

I think I've understood your question. So first of all, I mentioned we enter into operator agreements that have specifics about the standards and requirements that the nonprofits have to follow. In turn, the operator enters into probably what will be a program agreement because this to be seen as temporary housing and won't fall under based on what we're understanding the residential tenancy act there is more flexibility with regard to a program agreement and there is more opportunity that if a if a residency isn't working out that the operator can find another option for the person to move along to.