Supportive Housing Part III

The following is an excerpt from an email I sent in response about the Indwell issue in Sarnia, and a suggestion I might be chasing votes:

I want to clarify one point at the outset. More than three weeks ago, I travelled to St. Thomas and London on my own initiative to tour several Indwell sites. Another candidate joined me, and together we spent a full day at the facilities, speaking at length with staff, residents, and neighbourhood residents in St. Thomas.

We did not visit Coves Landing. Because our visits were unannounced and independent, we had far more direct and candid conversations than would have been possible in a larger group setting.

I also want to address your concern that I am “chasing votes” on the Indwell issue.

I take that phrase to mean prioritizing popularity over principle. I appreciate you raising it, because intentions matter.

What I have written is not about chasing votes; it is about respecting process and acknowledging the lived reality of the people in the George–Mitton neighbourhood.

They have carried a heavy load for many years. When a major, neighbourhood‑shaping project is introduced without meaningful consultation, people understandably feel blindsided.

If you look at the first article I posted on my website (Supportive Housing Part I), you’ll see that I began this discussion by focusing on the financial realities. Supportive housing is, by every measure, the least expensive option for taxpayers. That foundation matters.

My goal is to ensure every part of Sarnia is treated fairly, and that supportive housing is planned transparently, with proper engagement and clear expectations. I’m not shifting my views to win votes.

My initial skepticism about the Indwell situation has been tempered by listening to advocates, touring the facilities, and doing my own research.

I’m responding to legitimate concerns about how decisions are made and how neighbourhoods are included. A person can support supportive housing and still insist on a fair, respectful, and transparent process for site selection, just as we would for any significant development. That is the position I’ve taken, and it is consistent with who I am.

As I wrote in the article you referenced: “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.”

Safe consumption sites must meet several criteria before receiving a section 56.1 exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including a defined period of public consultation. They differ somewhat from Indwell's harm reduction because they supervise the consumption and provide the substance.

Indwell’s harm‑reduction model, although similar in practice and outcome, does not qualify for such an exemption because they do not supervise consumption or possess or supply drugs. As a result, there is no legislated requirement for pre‑approval measures, including community consultation, even though drug use and safe‑supply materials still occur on site.

That said, I am not suggesting that Indwell’s harm‑reduction policy carries any criminal liability. My comparison to safe consumption sites is simply meant to highlight the practical need for a proper pre‑site approval process, including meaningful community consultation.

I believe requiring a pre‑approval evaluation process for harm‑reduction supportive housing, similar to what exists for safe consumption sites, is reasonable and would help reduce the controversy surrounding the current proposal.

County Council’s decision to approve the George Street site without neighbourhood consultation is deeply concerning, particularly given that area residents have lived beside the River City Vineyard shelter for years. It was also troubling that City Council chose to hear community input only after County Council had already voted. I believe the City of Sarnia should address harm‑reduction supportive housing explicitly within its zoning by‑laws.

I have great respect for the altruism of those who advocate for supportive housing. But that same consideration must extend to the people who live in the neighbourhoods where these facilities are proposed. The George–Mitton residents have dealt with countless incidents related to the River City Vineyard shelter. Conditions have improved since River City prohibited drug use on site, but the long‑term impact on the neighbourhood is undeniable. Given their history of hosting a shelter, any accusation of NIMBYism is unfounded.

I’ve already explained in my article why the proposed site is unsuitable, and I stand firmly by that assessment.

What we have seen elsewhere is instructive: when multiple supportive‑housing and shelter facilities cluster together, as in the 730 Dundas area in London, they begin to define the dominant character of the neighbourhood.

Imposing that same concentration in an established residential area would have a profound and lasting impact. (ex.: Placing the Indwell facility only a block away from River City Vineyard.)

The scale, intensity of use, and cumulative pressures on surrounding streets are not theoretical; they are observable outcomes in cities that have already gone down this path. Good intentions do not eliminate the need for careful, thoughtful location decisions.

It is also important to note that the Indwell facilities in St. Thomas and London are situated in areas very different from what is proposed for Sarnia. They are not embedded in the centre of a residential neighbourhood in the way the George Street site would be, and the effects on surrounding residences are therefore not as pronounced.

You mentioned the importance of proximity to support services. I mapped the travel‑by‑street distances from the St. Thomas facilities to the St. Thomas–Elgin General Hospital:

• Railway City Lofts, 614 Talbot Street: 2.8 km

• The Station, 16 Queen Street: 3.5 km

  
  

And, of course, Indwell provides on‑site supports at each of its facilities.

There is a sizeable parcel of open land immediately north of the Lambton Health Unit, and it is considerably larger than the proposed George Street site. It does not impose on an established residential neighbourhood to anywhere near the degree the George Street location would. The key difference, of course, is that this land sits within the Village of Point Edward. However, supportive housing is ultimately a county responsibility.

A facility there would be adjacent to the Health Unit and closer to Bluewater Health (approximately 2.5 km.) giving it better proximity to services than the comparable Indwell sites in St. Thomas.

There may be limitations that make this particular parcel unsuitable, and I acknowledge that. I raise it simply as an example of how elected officials should be approaching this issue: by examining alternative sites, identifying appropriate locations for future developments, and addressing supportive housing directly within zoning by‑laws.

Quickly selecting a site without fully considering location impacts, service access, and meaningful public consultation is not good governance and is a disservice to everyone involved.

Sadly, municipal politics has become embroiled in this controversy due in no small part to over three decades of provincial cuts to essential services, and the irresponsibility of pharmaceutical companies in their overzealous marketing of opiates as less addictive.

In any event, after this rather long‑winded response, I can sum up my position on supportive housing as follows:

• Supportive housing is essential in addressing homelessness, addiction, and mental‑health challenges.

• Stronger coordination between County and City Councils is needed to ensure supportive housing is planned responsibly and sustainably.

• Proactive site selection, clear zoning by‑laws, and meaningful community consultation must be integral parts of the planning process.

• Serious consideration must be given to the full range of impacts that harm‑reduction supportive housing may have on each neighbourhood under review, including long‑term cumulative effects and proximity to services.

• Alternative sites must always be examined before final decisions are made, including locations that do not disproportionately burden established residential neighbourhoods.

  
  

This reflects my view that supportive housing can and should be implemented, but only through a transparent, thoughtful process that respects both the needs of vulnerable residents and the stability of the neighbourhoods asked to host these facilities.

To quote Nobel laureate Milton Friedman: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Chris Oram