Thank you Neil for your story. Here’s a little excerpt from a letter that was sent to Mayor Sutcliffe recently.
“You are just completing 230 Queens at which is a converted downtown office tower turned into a temporary housing building for newcomers. The space will hold 143 beds with a 5 year lease for $4.38M (including $1.48M renovation) thereby costing $6,125.87 per bed/year. Normalizing the numbers from the proposed $15M Newcomers centre (sprung structure) will cost over $20,000 per bed/year. How is that value???
Good analysis. One thing to note. I believe those are capital costs you refer to (or the equivalent for the lease arrangement). There will be operational costs on top of them.
I don't know the on-going O&M costs(utilities, maintenance, cleaning, food, security etc.) of each. So both are net of on-going O&M costs. This is just key in hand for 5 years.
The inability to have a permanent solution for asylum seekers almost entirely overlaps the lack of affordability by low/no income (job based vs social funded income). For example: market driven residential development in Kanata/Sittsville is su stzntial and is entirely (single, row, missing middle home, apts), geared to downsizing homeowners with $ from their home sale and those who have the upper income levels to afford high end Apts and new homes.
Any "affordability" of market built housing is merely a somewhat reduced prices that are still far out of reach for too many.
We need to reinstate housing policy and funding to the pre-Mulroney era.
You said this “ could be any other suitable building (and experts can point to a few different possibilities).” Before accepting your premise, I would want to know what these buildings are and where. To arrive from a traumatic environment in their home country, to be shuffled away from others sharing the same language and experience, to separated buildings and trying to find out the bus system to reach the services of the reception centre, maybe without local volunteers willing to shepherd them to integrate into life in Ottawa, seems harsh treatment. I think this might have been the reason for the Sprung structures. You point out that a reception centre could be any suitable facility including a tent structure. So why the harsh description of the Sprung shelters “no one wants a new shelter in their back yard”, yet communal houses ARE in our neighbourhoods? I agree that the cost is a definite factor. For this reason I agree with your Plan B. However the attitude of many citizens about even allowing refugees into Canada and where to put them and financially support them is a great disappointment to me.
The other half of this housing issue is our population of homeless, many ill, who are not being moved quickly into supportive housing within our communities. Personally I would like the federal government to give all municipalities enough money to purchase modest houses scattered around their communities to become permanent housing. Obviously the kinds of supports required by the differing populations of homeless requires different approaches but do not leave out the many people who want to volunteer to assist our new neighbours and show them the welcome we Canadians can give. We might not be able to belong to a sponsor group but we can still offer kindness and little assists.
The example I give is the former convent on St Joseph boulevard. Another potential site could be the Queen St office that the city has acquired. The tents are effectively open-concept living, with cubicle dividers. Adequate but hardly a first choice.
I'm curious about why you think that the 9m transitional housing from Plan A wouldn't be required in Plan B? The purchase of 30 additional communal homes would be sufficient to house the asylum seekers and remove the requirement for that step? Would operation costs and maintenance costs across 30 properties not be higher then across one centralized location?
Thanks for asking. That is the way that Plan B has operated for many years. The City is proposing a more bureaucratic bloated process than how it is currently delivered by the community. We’ve had support agencies do this work very effectively, and on a shoe string budget. The difference in cost structures comes down to who is running the operation; the city or existing community-based service providers. One is fairly high cost; one is very low cost.
Thank you Neil for your story. Here’s a little excerpt from a letter that was sent to Mayor Sutcliffe recently.
“You are just completing 230 Queens at which is a converted downtown office tower turned into a temporary housing building for newcomers. The space will hold 143 beds with a 5 year lease for $4.38M (including $1.48M renovation) thereby costing $6,125.87 per bed/year. Normalizing the numbers from the proposed $15M Newcomers centre (sprung structure) will cost over $20,000 per bed/year. How is that value???
Good analysis. One thing to note. I believe those are capital costs you refer to (or the equivalent for the lease arrangement). There will be operational costs on top of them.
Here is the math:
1645 Woodroffe Sprung Structure
$15,000,000/5 years = $3M/year
$3M/year/150 beds = $20,000/year/bed
QUEEN ST
$4.38M(inclusive of $1.48M renovation)
$4.38M/5 years = $876K/year
$876K/year/143 beds = $6125/bed/year
I don't know the on-going O&M costs(utilities, maintenance, cleaning, food, security etc.) of each. So both are net of on-going O&M costs. This is just key in hand for 5 years.
This is a Federal and Ontario election issue.
The inability to have a permanent solution for asylum seekers almost entirely overlaps the lack of affordability by low/no income (job based vs social funded income). For example: market driven residential development in Kanata/Sittsville is su stzntial and is entirely (single, row, missing middle home, apts), geared to downsizing homeowners with $ from their home sale and those who have the upper income levels to afford high end Apts and new homes.
Any "affordability" of market built housing is merely a somewhat reduced prices that are still far out of reach for too many.
We need to reinstate housing policy and funding to the pre-Mulroney era.
You said this “ could be any other suitable building (and experts can point to a few different possibilities).” Before accepting your premise, I would want to know what these buildings are and where. To arrive from a traumatic environment in their home country, to be shuffled away from others sharing the same language and experience, to separated buildings and trying to find out the bus system to reach the services of the reception centre, maybe without local volunteers willing to shepherd them to integrate into life in Ottawa, seems harsh treatment. I think this might have been the reason for the Sprung structures. You point out that a reception centre could be any suitable facility including a tent structure. So why the harsh description of the Sprung shelters “no one wants a new shelter in their back yard”, yet communal houses ARE in our neighbourhoods? I agree that the cost is a definite factor. For this reason I agree with your Plan B. However the attitude of many citizens about even allowing refugees into Canada and where to put them and financially support them is a great disappointment to me.
The other half of this housing issue is our population of homeless, many ill, who are not being moved quickly into supportive housing within our communities. Personally I would like the federal government to give all municipalities enough money to purchase modest houses scattered around their communities to become permanent housing. Obviously the kinds of supports required by the differing populations of homeless requires different approaches but do not leave out the many people who want to volunteer to assist our new neighbours and show them the welcome we Canadians can give. We might not be able to belong to a sponsor group but we can still offer kindness and little assists.
The example I give is the former convent on St Joseph boulevard. Another potential site could be the Queen St office that the city has acquired. The tents are effectively open-concept living, with cubicle dividers. Adequate but hardly a first choice.
Good
I'm curious about why you think that the 9m transitional housing from Plan A wouldn't be required in Plan B? The purchase of 30 additional communal homes would be sufficient to house the asylum seekers and remove the requirement for that step? Would operation costs and maintenance costs across 30 properties not be higher then across one centralized location?
Thanks for asking. That is the way that Plan B has operated for many years. The City is proposing a more bureaucratic bloated process than how it is currently delivered by the community. We’ve had support agencies do this work very effectively, and on a shoe string budget. The difference in cost structures comes down to who is running the operation; the city or existing community-based service providers. One is fairly high cost; one is very low cost.