Supportive Housing Part II

Oct 7

7 min read

The issues of homelessness, addiction, and their public impacts are front and center as election day approaches. There is no simple answer, and no single solution that will satisfy everyone. These challenges are complex, and cities across Canada are grappling with them. Many explanations have been offered for why these problems have intensified, from the erosion of mental‑health resources once available, to the rise of opioids, to limited opportunity and a shortage of affordable housing. All of these factors play a role.

Throughout my 32‑year police career, I dealt with these issues regularly. They certainly existed then, but they have become far more visible and prevalent in everyday life today. As a candidate for council, I see it as my responsibility to approach these challenges with a present‑day lens. My role is no longer that of a police officer responding to individual incidents; it is that of an aspiring councillor seeking long‑term, constructive solutions. That shift in vantage point matters.

With that in mind, I have taken several steps to better understand the situation from multiple perspectives:

Canvasses of downtown businesses. Many conversations were longer and more detailed than expected, which extended the process, a positive sign of engagement. I will be continuing this work soon.
Tours of Indwell supportive‑housing facilities in both St. Thomas and London.
Attendance at a Q&A luncheon hosted by Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone (H.O.M.E.).
A visit to the Inn of the Good Shepherd.
Meetings with residents in the George and Mitton area, including walking the neighbourhood and the proposed Indwell site.

These experiences have reinforced that meaningful progress requires listening, learning, and acknowledging the realities faced by residents, service providers, and businesses alike. My commitment is to continue engaging with all sides and to work toward solutions that are compassionate, practical, and grounded in the needs of our community.

Downtown Canvass

Business owners consistently expressed concern about the presence and actions of individuals who appear to be unhoused and struggling with addiction. Public drug use, inappropriate acts in public, entering businesses and causing disruptions, criminal activity, and congregations that impede pedestrian movement were all cited as ongoing issues.

Tour of Indwell Facilities

We met with staff at both St. Thomas locations and three London sites on Dundas Street. In St. Thomas, we spoke with several residents living near “The Station,” the 45‑unit Indwell building. Although a small sample size, none expressed concerns about the facility.

What stood out most was the staff. Their commitment to helping the less fortunate is unmistakable. All facilities practise harm reduction: residents may bring street drugs into the building and consume them in their rooms using facility‑supplied needles or pipes. Naloxone kits are mounted in hallways for immediate access.

At the 15‑bed Rail City Lofts at 614 Talbot Street, staff were adjusting to minor exterior damage caused by a major fire at the neighbouring building. A 44‑year‑old unhoused man was convicted of arson in that case and received a five‑year sentence.

H.O.M.E. Q&A Luncheon

Along with several candidates, I attended this event. The passion of those involved with H.O.M.E. is extraordinary. Their consensus is that Indwell and its practices are necessary, and they view supportive housing as essential to addressing homelessness in our community.

Inn of the Good Shepherd

With other candidates, I toured the facility and spoke with staff. Again, I was struck by the dedication of those who work in this field. Unlike Indwell, drug possession is prohibited on site; staff indicated that residents are searched for drugs upon returning to the home.

George and Mitton Residents

During my visit, I spent considerable time walking the neighbourhood and discussing the proposed Indwell site with residents. Their insights were valuable and grounded in lived experience.

The prevailing sentiment is that the Indwell facility should not be in their neighbourhood. Many residents point to their long history with River City Vineyard as evidence that they have already “done their part.”

They reject the suggestion of “NIMBYism,” arguing that their concerns relate to neighbourhood suitability, not unwillingness to support vulnerable individuals.

My Take

In an earlier piece, I presented data showing that supportive housing is the least expensive of all alternatives for assisting unhoused individuals who require help with addiction, mental‑health challenges, or both. Studies also show that supportive housing reduces ER visits and other hospital usage substantially.

Public discussion, especially during this campaign, shows a wide spectrum of opinions. Common ground exists in the belief that these issues must be addressed. The differences relate to how we address them.

One end of the spectrum proponents assert that the homeless are beyond redemption and deserve little or no community support. If that position were adopted, the result would be repeated incarceration for many, with no meaningful effort to address underlying issues.

As I demonstrated previously, incarceration can cost more than supportive housing. Given that supportive housing reduces strain on emergency departments and is far less expensive than incarceration, it deserves serious consideration from those who hold this view.

At the opposite end of the debate are those who argue that supportive‑housing projects should face minimal restrictions. They often accuse neighbourhoods that raise concerns of engaging in “NIMBYism.” This group generally supports harm‑reduction practices, including providing clean needles, allowing residents to bring street drugs into their units, and permitting on‑site consumption under staff monitoring, as an acceptable model of care. (Indwell staff stated they routinely 'check in' on residents when they are using drugs in their rooms.) Many I have met are well‑intentioned and genuinely committed to improving the community.

As with most complex issues, a compassionate, effective, and pragmatic solution lies between these extremes.

Location Matters

The two Indwell facilities in St. Thomas appear to be well received. The St. Thomas Police Chief has publicly praised them, citing a positive effect on police‑related calls in the downtown core.

Evaluating where the Indwell sites in St. Thomas are located compared to the proposed George Street location in Sarnia is important. There is a meaningful difference: both St. Thomas sites are not situated within neighbourhoods dominated by single‑detached homes, a big difference in the case on George Street, Sarnia.

The proposed Indwell site on George Street sits in the middle of longstanding neighbourhoods of single‑detached residences, including a row of new homes on Essex Street built after the demolition of Sarnia General Hospital.

According to city zoning maps, the proposed site is zoned GC1‑11 (General Commercial) and is surrounded by Urban Residential zones. GC1‑11 permits commercial uses, but the surrounding context is overwhelmingly residential. (Refer to the appendix at the end of this article.)

My view is that the proposed site is too small, even with the downsized proposal currently before the Ontario Land Tribunal. If built there, the structure would dominate the streetscape and have minimal buffering or spacing from other properties and significantly alter the character of the neighbourhood, particularly for the established homes on Bright Street.

A cardiac physician’s office sits at the southeast corner of George and Mitton, with its parking lot abutting the proposed site. Residents expressed concern that the parking lot, with minimal buffering, may become a gathering point during non‑business hours. Concerns of increased foot traffic and trespassing were raised.

Residents also noted that the new Aura apartment complex across the street has ground‑level units with direct exterior access, raising concerns about safety and compatibility.

They also shared with me the history of the neighbourhood relationship with the long-standing River City Vineyard shelter in their neighbourhood. They view the existence of River City shows that as a neighbourhood, they are doing their part, and reject the ‘NIMBY’ argument as a result.

Further, they applaud the fact the Vineyard has evolved to meet neighbourhood concerns by strictly prohibiting drug use and possession on site. This has led a vast improvement in the impact the facility has on the neighbourhood. They have concerns about allowing the new Indwell facility, where ‘harm reduction’ policy would be practised allowing for on-site drug use, and the supplying of clean needles. They view that as a step backwards.

Supervised consumption sites and harm‑reduction practices are often discussed together, but they are not governed by the same laws. Under Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, supervised consumption sites require a Section 56.1 exemption from the federal Minister of Health. These exemptions allow staff to monitor drug use directly and require evidence of local need, public‑health benefits, operational capacity, and community consultation.

Indwell’s supportive‑housing sites do not fall under this category. Residents may use drugs privately in their rooms, and staff do not supervise consumption (but do 'check up' on them). Because supervision is the legal trigger for a Section 56.1 exemption, Indwell’s harm‑reduction practices are lawful without federal approval, based on court rulings.

This difference raises an important question: if supervised consumption sites must undergo formal community consultation, should municipalities also consider neighbourhood input when supportive‑housing facilities adopt harm‑reduction models that may affect surrounding areas?

Sarnia’s zoning by‑laws do not currently address supportive housing that uses harm‑reduction. Although funding is a county responsibility, the City still determines where such facilities may be located.

Council should begin identifying appropriate zones for supportive housing and consider factors similar to those required for Section 56.1 exemptions, especially meaningful community consultation and adequate buffering from residential neighbourhoods.

Unanimous agreement is unlikely, but council must weigh all factors and determine where supportive housing can be integrated responsibly and sustainably within the city.

This proactive approach will not eliminate community controversy but should reduce it.

We face a simple reality: supportive housing is not a panacea for homelessness, addiction, or drug‑related challenges. It is one part of a broader response, and while it cannot solve every aspect of the problem, it does provide meaningful help for many individuals.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, supportive housing cannot be dismissed or prohibited outright. Sarnia already has several long‑standing supportive‑housing facilities that operate effectively and quietly within the community.

The distinction in this case is that we are discussing a supportive‑housing model that permits on‑site drug use as part of its harm‑reduction approach. If facilities of this type are going to exist within the city, then their location must be addressed through municipal zoning by‑laws. That may be the only meaningful tool the City has to ensure these sites are placed where they are most appropriate and least disruptive.

Chris Oram

APPENDIX

GC 1-11 Permitted Uses