Document 1
Executive
Summary
Supporting
Strategies for Gaining Community Acceptance
The purpose of the session was to provide an opportunity for participants to learn new tools and best practices on engaging communities, supporting participants to anticipate and address community opposition to housing and homelessness projects and facilities and to share lessons learned.
Sharon Chisholm, Co-Chair, Health and Social Services
Advisory Committee, City (HSSAC) of Ottawa
In situating the event, Sharon Chisholm pointed to significant housing and homelessness challenges facing the community, emphasizing the need to engage, and work with, the community to resolve these problems. Recent consultation processes (i.e. in creating the Official Plan) indicate the community’s and the City’s desire to work together, collectively meeting needs and ensuring community acceptance of all persons—a vision of social inclusion. This brought HSSAC to sponsor this event, recognizing that housing is key in building an inclusive city, is foundational for quality of life, and is central to ensuring numerous other outcomes (i.e. individual health, education). But, the presence of fear and misinformation often challenge the community’s efforts to meet the needs of the homeless or under-housed.
The Honourable Claudette Bradshaw, Minister of Labour and Federal Coordinator on Homelessness, Government of Canada.
Minister Bradshaw spoke of the National Homelessness Initiative’s (NHI) success as arising from people in communities working together. Together, we need to understand that the homeless are members of our community, with a wide variety of backgrounds and a variety of stories; “we” could be “them” tomorrow. The private sector and local government are key partners; each can courageously step out to help. Courage is key; Bradshaw spoke of finding Head Start in New Brunswick, enabling low-income families to move to residential neighbourhoods. The program initially faced strong negative reactions from neighbours. But, over time, a sense of community and mutual help--of love, care and support--developed between the households.
Russell Mawby, Director,
Housing Branch, City of Ottawa and Stephen Loyd, Director, National
Homelessness Initiative
City of Ottawa Housing Branch Director Russell Mawby further emphasized that housing builds strong communities; stable, quality and affordable housing results in stronger individual outcomes and improves quality of life for whole communities. Mr. Mawby commented that “persons” in social housing are often lost through misperceptions and fear; their inclusion as neighbours, however, results in stronger communities. We need to make social housing not just “permitted,” but required, and part of our strategy to build strong communities. Stephen Loyd, Director with the NHI confirmed the federal government’s commitment to community engagement, seeking to build partnerships and understandings on homelessness. Much collective thinking on community engagement (involving HRDC and CMHC) is underway, and much more can be learned together.
Jeannie Wynne-Edwards, Policy Analyst, National Homelessness Initiative
NHI Analyst Jeannie Wynne-Edwards presented on research underway to better facilitate understanding of the root causes of opposition to projects, and to help in addressing such situations. Analysis focused on the types of objection raises in each instance by opponents. These objections were characterised into three typologies, understood through the metaphor of a multi-layered iceberg, each typology with typical objections and potential practices to manage them.
Concerns “above the surface” are those NIMBY concerns which are frequently presented through formal mechanisms (forums, etc.), often focused on land use, planning, extent of public consultation, the physical characteristics of the proposal and proposed operations. Appropriate zoning, linkages to a neighbourhood plan or broader Official Plan and community involvement are possible steps to prevent these oppositions.
Deeper, however, are those concerns “under the surface,” pertaining to the potential and perceived impact of the housing proposal, such as safety, property values, traffic or a fear of neighbourhood decline. These frequently arise outside of formal consultation mechanisms (i.e. media). Many can be addressed through studies demonstrating neighbourhood safety or a maintenance of property values.
Finally, in her analysis, concerns at the bottom of the iceberg represent those NIMBY concerns pertaining to the intended occupants of the housing/shelter development, arising from fear, stereotypes and/or lack of awareness. Education and awareness-raising are key, but can not be addressed in the timeline of a development (due to heightened emotions and limited timeframes, for instance). Rather, education and awareness-raising must be constant, with the positive attributes of these developments noted continuously, always supporting the development of healthy communities.
Case Studies: Carol McMurdo-Paton, West Ottawa Community Resource Centre
A number of community representatives proceeded to discuss a number of local “case studies.” Carol McMurdo-Paton spoke of community engagement prior to the development of a shelter for women and children fleeing abuse. Ms. McMurdo-Paton noted that when local homeowners were first engaged in September, 2002, strong opposition was expressed; however, over time, opposition was minimized, primarily arising from the accessibility of resource persons on the project (i.e. project manager, police official, shelter worker, local Councilor, etc.), engagement through written media, door-to-door outreach, the production of written material responding to original concerns and the accessibility and availability of project proponents.
Don Waddell, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Ottawa
Don Waddell, John Howard Society, spoke of his experiences in establishing two transitional housing projects in Ottawa, one for homeless youth offenders leaving custody and one for homeless ex-offenders leaving prison. Mr. Waddell identified a number of success factors, including a range of partnerships within the community (i.e. with the Police), early City support in the identification of locations (mindful of zoning, applications and budget parameters), information on likely community safety improvements that would result from the project, the contributions of a professional project manager and written and personal responses to particular concerns raised by the community—acknowledging that the community was indeed being heard.
Catherine Boucher, Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation
Catherine Boucher, of the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC), spoke to her experience on four different projects, each with very different engagement processes and community responses. For instance, while support from a local Councilor and neighbourhood association was joined with strong neighbourhood opposition in one case, a historically oppositional neighbourhood association in another neighbourhood became supportive of a project there—even without broad public engagement. Similarly, Ms. Boucher pointed to two project developments in which stacked townhomes were constructed; community opposition was absent in one project, and vehement in another. Being ready for the unexpected, and not only relying on previous experience, were key lessons for her.
Perspectives from City
Councillors: Elisabeth Arnold, Former Councillor, Somerset Ward; Alex Cullen, Councillor,
Bay Ward; Clive Doucet, Councillor, Capital Ward
A number of current and past Councillors spoke to their experiences in supporting projects within their Wards. Former Somerset Ward Councillor Elisabeth Arnold spoke of ways in which negative public attitudes towards social or affordable housing are frequently captured by media, and of the ways in which sentiments contrary towards public investments in social spending can unfortunately legitimize NIMBY sentiments. She spoke of “pragmatic” approaches (what “can” be done rather than what “should” be done), not losing cite of visions, but acting strategically in the short-term for long-term results, always working to create the conditions for success (i.e. through attention to policy frameworks, bylaws, planning Acts, etc.). Local politicians need to be informed with as much factual information as possible, ensuring against surprises. And, project proponents must anticipate community concerns (while also identifying advocates).
Bay Ward Councillor Alex Cullen re-iterated the importance of “no surprises,” arguing that communities cannot hope to act under the radar. Bending the process only proves that the process can be bent! Ensuring community engagement, and the availability of information to truly respond to a community’s concerns, is crucial to chip away at the “NIMBY monster.” Public education, and the presence of advocates is crucial in responding to opposition, particularly when support is found within the community. The councillor also reiterated the importance of solid planning to reduce the space for NIMBY responses, as “where there is NIMBY, there is OMB (Ontario Municipal Board). Capital Ward Councillor Clive Doucet echoed the perspectives of Councillors Arnold and Cullen, reiterating the importance community support of project proposals when opportunities arise.
In a closing discussion, all participants were reminded to speak to local projects. NIMBY goes beyond housing and homelessness, pertaining as well to new schools, shopping centres and other community infrastructure. No single community voice owns the agenda; rather, we all play a part in the development of our community.
Document 2
Community
Engagement Strategies
For the development
of local housing and shelter projects
A public workshop sponsored by:
The National Homelessness Initiative (Canada)
The City of Ottawa
and with the support of the
Canadian Housing and Renewal
Association
Thursday, December 11
Ottawa City Hall – Council Chambers
Speakers:
The Honourable Claudette Bradshaw
Federal Coordinator on Homelessness
with
·
Carol McMurdo-Paton, West Ottawa
Community Resource Centre
·
Don Waddell, John Howard
Society of Ottawa
·
Catherine Boucher, Centretown
Citizens Ottawa Corporation
·
Bill Cameron, Director General, National Homelessness Initiative (HRDC)
·
Russell Mawby, Director,
Housing Branch, City of Ottawa
·
Elisabeth Arnold, Former Councillor, City of
Ottawa
·
Alex Cullen, Councillor, City of Ottawa
·
Clive Doucet, Councillor, City of Ottawa
City
of Ottawa’s Health and Social Services Advisory Committee and
The
National Homelessness Initiative, with the
Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA)
Supporting Strategies for Gaining Community Acceptance
Thursday, December 11 – 1:15 pm to 4:30 pm
City Hall – Council Chambers
Overall Objective: To provide participants with tools and best practices to engage communities and anticipate and address community opposition to housing and homelessness projects and facilities, and to share lessons learned.
Introductory
Remarks: Kym Harley, Manager,
Capacity Development Unit, National Homelessness Initiative.
The
afternoon’s objectives were stated as: providing a forum for exchange of ideas,
learning from experiences, gaining tools and learning best practices and
lessons learned in gaining community acceptance in the face of community
opposition. Experiences and perspectives shared were to aid in the creation and
development of new tools.
Welcome
Remarks:
Alex
Cullen, Councillor, Bay Ward, City of Ottawa
Cullen
welcomed participants on behalf of the Mayor to City Hall, and in particular
welcomed the Labour Minister and Federal Co-ordinator on Homelessness, the
Honourable Claudette Bradshaw.
Cullen
referred to the challenge facing the City of Ottawa in dealing with the crisis
of homelessness, emphasizing the need to work with the community in order to
resolve the problem, to build housing in communities, and to satisfy the City’s
agenda/role in housing and ensuring community acceptance of all persons.
Sharon Chisholm,
Co-Chair, Health and Social Services Advisory Committee, City (HSSAC) of Ottawa
After welcoming
participants and special guests, Chisholm noted HSSAC’s interest in a new city
that is inclusive of all, a new culture for a new city, a city welcoming of all
and the presence of democratic spaces with recreation, daycare, housing, etc.
Chisholm noted the ways in which housing underlines health, inclusion, early
childhood development, etc. As such, housing became a main focus for HSSAC:
without housing we can’t address other issues we want to address.
In
meeting with community groups and participating in public Forums, HSSAC is
hearing that many groups are having a difficult time building certain types of
housing (affordable and special needs). Too much energy is spent in
proposals/approvals, and on dealing with NIMBY. With the right tools and the right stories, we can overcome fear
and lack of information and build an inclusive community without segregation.
We can build a community where everyone participates together for the
well-being of each. Chisholm noted that
HSSAC will continue to engage Councilors on these issues.
Following
her opening comments, Chisholm introduced Minister Bradshaw, referred to as a
fighter for children, and now a fighter for many others. The Minister was
described as one who:
·
has a sense of concern
for everyone across the country;
·
is modest, yet does
that which is enormous, with skill and experience;
·
successfully developed
the National Homelessness Initiative and its Supporting Communities Partnership
Initiative, during a time when grants and contributions programs were less than
favourable;
·
founded a collaborative
and exciting program;
·
overcame jurisdictional
issues to move an issue forward;
·
named homelessness a
national shame, and claimed it as an issue for us all to deal with, and as an
issue on which the federal government would play;
·
identified the
community sector as the most important to work with, choosing not to see
community members as only advocates or lobbyists, but seeing herself as part of
that community;
Minister’s
Address: The Honourable Claudette
Bradshaw, Minister of Labour and Federal Coordinator on Homelessness,
Government of Canada.
Bradshaw
thanked Chisholm for her retrospective look, reaffirming the incredible
progress that communities have made. Rather than being a federal intervention,
the National Homelessness Initiative is about the community organizations,
local Councils and people working in the systems. People came together to
partner, and showed all levels of government that working in partnership
works. Community members, like the
participants gathered, have contributed to success, and Bradshaw expressed her
sincere appreciation to all for giving persons a room over their head this
Christmas.
Bradshaw
expressed thanks to Councillor Cullen for his presence and participation,
acknowledging his commitment to his community.
Bradshaw
spoke of her desire for workshops like this to take place across the country. Having traveled extensively in June, meeting
with business representatives and with provincial Ministers, Mayors and local
Councils, the Minister heard many members of the business community express
surprise when hearing of “who the homeless” are, often due to misconceptions
furthered by NIMBY sentiments. As Bradshaw pointed out, the homeless are the
working poor, and those who serve us in our communities. The homeless are those
who were released from psychiatric hospitals, including the mentally ill. The homeless are previous businessmen,
family, members of our school communities. The homeless are young kids, moving
from foster home to foster home, without parents, brothers or sisters. The
homeless are kids struggling with addictions, and thrown on the street. The
homeless are kids who are gay and lesbian, scared of home and scared to be on
the street. The homeless tell numerous
stories. We could be them tomorrow.
Bradshaw
had recently met with the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, a community sector she
noted as very important to the fight for inclusive communities. Local
government is another key sector. Recently, in St. John’s, at the official
opening to the Native Friendship Centre, Bradshaw learned of strong opposition
to the facility, despite the arrival of so many Aboriginals in St. John’s.
Despite strong opposition, the Mayor and Council voted narrowly, but
courageously, to accept the facility. Bradshaw reminisced of the Executive
Director, crying through the opening. And the facility was packed, even with
neighbourhood residents standing in the hallways! Situated in a healthy
neighbourhood, even the building is beautiful and colourful, filled with a
sense of love that was “out of this world.” This was due to the success of the
Mayor and Councillors!
Bradshaw
spoke of her time prior to entering politics, when she and her husband, Doug,
ran a group home in Moncton, New Brunswick, offering treatment for youth, and
offering a home for young offenders. There was a desire to ensure programs were
co-ed, despite external criticism. There was a desire to maintain a central and
residential location. Now, the entire community is supportive!
The
Bradshaws founded Head Start, wanting to help move moms and dads and kids into
a residential neighbourhood. However, that the neighbourhood was
well-established, with many seniors always watching new developments, brought
challenges for the new house. Residents of the neighbourhood were less than
inviting, often criticizing the young families, asking whether they had
“received their rabies shot,” and challenging their place in the neighbourhood.
However, when Bradshaw received approval from the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC) to move the house, the young families said no. The young
parents told Bradshaw, “you’ve taught us to do the right thing. Right now, the
right thing is to stay in the neighbourhood.” Within five years, the families
were offered single homes, and were regularly helping the senior neighbours
with lawn-mowing, grocery shopping and other household errands. Communities
need everyone. The love and caring offered at Head Start is the love and
caring that is needed in communities everywhere.
Bradshaw
again thanked participants for being here to discuss NIMBY; in particular, she
thanked Jeannie Wynne-Edwards for her thesis work on understanding NIMBY, Bill
Cameron and the National Secretariat on Homelessness, and the community for
being here, and “for doing it all.”
Context: Overview of federal and municipal
perspectives
Russell Mawby, Director, Housing Branch, City of Ottawa
Mawby
emphasized the need to continue the struggle for adequate housing for all;
housing is about people—families and communities. And, good stable, supportive
and affordable housing can build healthy communities. The City of Ottawa has
committed to these principles through the 20/20 Official Plan, and through the
Human Services Plan, understanding, for instance, that housing helps kids stay
in school, parents in jobs and the vulnerable as members of communities. The costs
of not meeting housing needs are confronting us all through a lower quality of
life for whole communities.
While
housing is about people, for many who do not depend on assisted housing, social
housing only represents strangers and fear.
We need to dispel the myths about persons in social housing, knowing
that these persons are our friends, neighbours, and even potentially ourselves.
A number of good resources, including ONPHA’s YIMBY publication are available.
These publications, and Forums like this, are important to ensure that citizens
do not reject particular housing in their neighbourhoods, but that they want it
in order to build stronger communities. This Forum is a valuable opportunity to
refine the City of Ottawa’s messages, which include the core principle that
zoning is not intended to zone people. The City is pursuing inclusion and
therefore healthy communities.
We
need to learn from good practices. For instance, what can the development
system learn from Vancouver, where mixed neighbourhoods arise from a
requirement that affordable housing be included in any approval for luxury
condos? What about ideas around trading density, where developers could build
more units in exchange for land and other amenities to allow the city to
proceed with affordable housing? How can we make social housing not just
“permitted,” but actually required on specific development sites, ensuring that
persons can not be excluded from particular developments.
Some
thought may be needed on the role and process of community engagement. We need
to communicate the right for all kinds of housing for all citizens, and to send
a message of little tolerance for disciminatory policies in our communities.
Stephen Loyd, Director, National Homelessness Initiative
Loyd
noted the value of these exchanges, and assured participants that the National
Homelessness Initiative (NHI) will document these lessons and share them with
others across the country. Loyd summarized the two key objectives of the NHI:
(1) to deepen partnerships with governments, communities and the private
sector, and (2) to share understandings across the country related to
homelessness.
This
Forum, with the City of Ottawa, CMHC and Human Resources Development Canada is
a great opportunity to further our work together, providing opportunity
to:
·
Work to build on and
enhance partnerships that already exist,
·
Share perspectives and
approaches towards a shared goal,
·
Further inform the
development of resources and strengthen knowledge capacity and understanding on
how to anticipate and address issues of community opposition.
Loyd
extended a special welcome to colleagues from the HRDC Ontario Regional Office
and from CMHC, who have been integral in developing our collective thinking on
community engagement, and in collecting best practices and lessons learned
across the Ontario Region. Jeanne Wynne-Edwards’ presentation, to follow, is
largely a reflection of the collaborative work undertaken between these two
departments in the Ontario Region.
Overcoming
Community Opposition: Jeannie
Wynne-Edwards, Policy Analyst, National Homelessness Initiative.
Wynne-Edwards
presented on her research, completed in collaboration with regional colleagues
in Ontario and from across CMHC, pertaining to the development of a workshop
for strategies to gain community acceptance for the development of affordable
housing and homeless sheltering projects. Twenty-five case studies from across
Ontario have informed the research, and a workshop has since been piloted in
Halton Region, attracting local government officials, service providers and a
municipal partner. This tool will be shared across the province. The research
was intended to better facilitate understanding of the root causes of
opposition to projects and to help in addressing such situations. Analysis focused on the types of objection
raised by opponents in case studies.
It
is apparent that similar types of objection were voiced case after case, and
can be categorized into three typologies. The three categories can be understood
through the metaphor of an iceberg with three levels, or tiers – each level
with typical objections and particular practices to manage them.
Objections
found at the tip, or above the surface, are those presented through formal
mechanisms and forums, based on a number of rationales:
·
poor land use or
planning principles (i.e. perceived over-saturation of services or poor site
selection);
·
public consultation
process (i.e. perceived or real lack of input into decision-making process);
·
physical characteristics
of the proposal (i.e. height, exterior style) or the proposed operations of the
facility (i.e. services to be provided or level of supervision to be provided
to clients).
These
concerns are those welcomed in a formal planning process, taken into consideration
during planning and approval processes. And, communities have developed a
number of best practices to support projects through these processes,
including:
·
ensuring that a project
is based on sound planning process (i.e. appropriate zoning or approval);
·
demonstrating that a
project is linked to a city’s housing and homelessness plan and has the
approval of a Councilor;
·
ensuring the
community’s involvement in the process in a meaningful way.
However,
addressing surface issues alone will not guarantee success. The cases studies
showed that even when tangible oppositions were addressed, some community
members remained opposed. These concerns are reflected on the iceberg as those
below the surface -- concerns about the potential and perceived impact of the
housing proposal, or concerns related to previous conditions in the
neighbourhood. Concerns at this level
included neighbours’ concerns on safety, property value, increased traffic and
a fear of overall neighbourhood decline.
Wynne-Edwards
noted that several resources are available to counter these concerns, including
studies demonstrating that property values do not decrease, or police studies
demonstrating that safety often increased when supports are introduced in a
neighbourhood. Addressing these
concerns is critical, yet can be more challenging as they are often raised
through forums outside of formal consultations, including through petitions or
letters to the editor. Failure to address these concerns, however, could result
in costly and timely delays in approval processes.
Even
after these first two levels of concern are addressed, some opposition may
still exist. These concerns are those at the bottom of the iceberg, and are
clearly or implicitly aimed at the occupants of the housing proposal,
frequently based on fear, lack of awareness and/or stereotypes of the homeless
or persons in need of supports. In 40% of the case studies, these concerns were
observed in informal venues. Education
and awareness of the facts are important in addressing stereotypes;
unfortunately these can not be addressed on the timeline of a development, when
emotions are high, but demand ongoing discussion and awareness exercises in
communities. Stereotypes need to be challenged and the positive impacts of projects
highlighted.
Wynne-Edwards
concluded that an intervention strategy to counter NIMBY sentiments must
respond to all three levels. Planning
must be sound, people must be engaged, and the public must be made aware of
facts to dispel myths and stereotypes.
A
full copy of Jeannie Wynne-Edwards’ paper is available at:
http://www.homelessness.gc.ca/publications/nimby/workingpapernimby_e.pdf
Case Studies: Strategies, Best Practices and Lessons
Learned
Carol McMurdo-Paton,
West Ottawa Community Resource Centre.
McMurdo-Paton
spoke as coordinator of a process through which a 25-bed shelter was being
built for women and children fleeing abuse. With an anticipated completion date
of June, 2004, McMurdo-Paton outlined the key steps in the history
to-date.
In
September 2002, with land for the shelter, the Executive Director and
McMurdo-Paton, along with project personnel, approached the local homeowners
and community association to introduce the project. Significant opposition was
registered, pertaining to issues of green space, clientele of the shelter,
community safety, the building’s appearance, increased traffic, and so forth.
Of approximately thirty homeowners, there was only one statement of support.
The homeowners association had previous experience in blocking a project, and
many assumed they would be equally able to do the same this time. Opposition
continued for several months, with hostile phone calls, letters and a 200 name
petition to the local Councilor, Alex Munter.
In
March, 2003, coinciding with an application for rezoning, project personnel
went back to homeowners with a presentation and key resource persons,
including: the architect, project manager, police official, shelter worker,
abuse Counselor, survivor, the local Councilor and a couple from a
neighbourhood where a shelter existed. Approximately fifty homeowners were in
attendance. Six or seven persons walked out immediately after the presentation,
arguing that as outnumbered they were not being listened to. Many of those in
attendance took significant time to pose questions to the resource persons in
one-on-one conversations.
Two
weeks following the March consultation, a Letter to the Editor re-iterated the
concerns of those opposed. McMurdo-Paton took this opportunity to respond,
through another Letter to the Editor, in a point by point outline of what was
addressed at the meeting of homeowners.
Knowing
that concerns still existed within the community, McMurdo-Paton planned a
subsequent information session, informing persons in the neighbourhood through
a door-to-door outreach strategy. Through the personal interactions involved in
going door-to-door, McMurdo-Paton was able to acknowledge each petition
signatory, and provide each an opportunity to own their opposition and
articulate their concerns.
In
April and May a local community paper printed two articles on the shelter and
the issue of rezoning, including an invitation for feedback, directly to
McMurdo-Paton. Contact information was provided. In April and May, 2004, local Councilors and a number of
neighbours expressed support for the facility to Committee and Council, and
with only a few letters of opposition, the rezoning passed, and no appeal
through the OMB followed. A local school organized fundraisers, and community
members began to phone with offers of help and support.
McMurdo-Paton
argued to Forum participants that the door-to-door engagement of neighbours was
the turning point. It was largely through this process that McMurdo-Paton
addressed each household’s concerns, also ensuring information and contact
information was available. Particular flyers were prepared, with statistics, to
respond to particular concerns, and conversations provided opportunities to
address issues of prejudice and fear. For neighbours who had previously fled
situations of abuse, concerns were soothed and courage celebrated.
McMurdo-Paton became a familiar face, and invited everyone to become a part of the
shelter in various volunteer capacities. At the end of the process, three
households remained in opposition, with two supporting a woman still
experiencing much hardship arising from abuse.
Between
June and December, numerous additional offers of help had been received,
including by about fifty individuals who came to a meeting pertaining to
volunteering at the shelter—including twelve from the immediate neighbourhood.
Numerous professionals offered pro bono services, and others began supporting
the shelter with home-knit socks, slippers, quilts and childrens’ gifts.
So
what worked? McMurdo-Paton referred to:
·
the culture of the
Community Resource Centre (CRC) as vital to understanding the community’s
response to the project. The CRC,
developed from a community development model, is well respected for its work in
helping women and kids experiencing abuse. The Centre is supported by over 400
active volunteers and 35 full-time staff;
·
the support of
Councilors Munter, Stavinga and Eastman, demonstrating that the community was
behind the project;
·
the support of the
community paper, presenting information in an interesting way (interviews) that
was readable and accessible;
·
the value of statistics
in speaking to concerns;
·
a petition, with the
names and numbers of persons who were opposed;
·
a Letter to the Editor,
creating a public forum through which to address myths and realities;
·
the presence of
resource persons and the ongoing visibility of the Executive Director and
McMurdo-Paton ensured that faces and names were associated with the project.
Neighbours could relate the project to them, while they, in turn, sought to
respect and acknowledge the opinions and fears of all households. Project
proponents were able to refer to support within the community, and use this
support to enable others with the courage to support the project, as well.
In
hindsight, McMurdo-Paton argued that while information meetings were a good
opportunity for neighbours to meet, the one-on-one communication through
door-to-door outreach was less intimidating, providing for real opportunities
for issues and fears to be voiced and understood.
Don Waddell, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Ottawa
Waddell
spoke of his experiences in establishing two transitional housing projects in
Ottawa through the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI), one
for homeless youth offenders leaving custody and one for homeless ex-offenders
leaving prison. Waddell situated his comments within the iceberg metaphor,
referring to community sentiments at the top, middle and bottom of the iceberg.
Waddell
was compelled to advance these projects arising from his experience with
individuals entering shelters/rooming houses unsupervised; these individuals
continued to struggle. Waddell was challenged by the Royal Ottawa Hospital and
Ottawa Police to come up with better alternatives for these individuals. There
was reluctance at first, partially arising from fears of potential community
opposition to facilities for these target populations.
Waddell
began, in collaboration with the National Secretariat on Homelessness, and with
Councilor Elizabeth Arnold, by developing information on a number of options,
including attention to zoning, applications and budget parameters. As a first
step, the identification of a site was challenging. Adult offenders, frequently
sex offenders, were regarded by communities with suspicion, and Waddell and his
partners needed to find something away from residential homes and families, and
away from elementary schools. This left few locations within the city,
particularly as there was no interest in displacing individuals. The City,
however, stepped forward as a valuable partner.
The
City led Waddell’s group to a location on Bank Street, and to several houses on
Cambridge. In both, the zoning was appropriate, meaning that no variance or
change would be required. With proper zoning, the individuals for whom these
facilities would be developed had a right to be there. This could be used to
counter voices of opposition which sought to argue that some persons did not
belong.
Waddell
confirmed that through these projects, the John Howard Society would not be
introducing new people to the community; rather, with many of these individuals
already here, the facilities would ensure better support, monitoring, linkages
to treatment programs—as such, an improvement upon the current situation.
It
was clear that John Howard Society (JHS) was making progress through unique
partnerships. The JHS had commitments from the Government of Canada
(Correctional Services, Department of Justice), the Government of Ontario
(Ontario Works), the City of Ottawa (capital support) and from the United Way,
Trillium Foundation and Community Foundation. These institutions and
organizations all know that there would be effective monitoring and supports;
that community safety was being addressed. The JHS also benefited from a long
history with the community—nearly 50 years of experience in service delivery
meant familiarity to the community.
The
identification of a professional project manager was another key step early on;
this individual had expertise in areas outside of the JHS’ specialty (i.e. city
applications, permits, construction activities, etc.), and helped to
communicate clear accountability for every dollar in the capital investment.
Excellent project managers for both projects helped reduce community concerns.
A
number of businesses on Bank Street expressed concern upfront, worried that
pedestrians and customers would be harassed or panhandled. JHS responded to concerns in a quick
fashion, mostly in writing and through individual meetings, addressing very
specific concerns and enhancing community comfort. A number of changes were
made in response to concerns, as well; for instance, a live-in superintendent,
with constant monitoring, was introduced to the Bank Street project. Ottawa
Police were also involved along the way, offering credibility to JHS’
activities.
The
JHS held information sessions and public meetings for each project, with about
20-30 participants at each. JHS’ early engagement of, and responsiveness to,
the community prepared them adequately for all concerns. Further, a local
Advisory Committee engaged more significant concerns, such as those arising
from a local school. JHS responded by ensuring that ex-offenders previously
charged with offences (sexual assaults) against children, would not be housed.
This furthered community acceptance.
A
video was completed, and clearly demonstrates the ways in which public attitudes
were addressed, such that support was attained. In the end, the Bank Street
location has become more attractive for the community, and residents are
feeling integrated into the neighbourhood. After 18 months, no issues at the
adult project have arisen; after 6 months minor issues at the youth facility
(i.e. graffiti and sidewalk vandalism) have been addressed.
Catherine Boucher, Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation
Boucher
spoke to her experience with the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC),
a private, non-profit housing corporation owning and managing nearly 1300 units
in 47 properties across downtown Ottawa. CCOC was founded by the Centretown
Community Association (CCA) in 1974.
The
Association had as its goal the preservation of affordable housing for families
in the downtown core, and CCOC has worked towards this goal through acquisition
of existing properties and new construction. After 30 years, CCOC has accrued
much experience in the development of affordable and social housing. Boucher
argued that it is very difficult to take learnings from one project to another,
as each experience is very different.
Boucher
shared experiences of four different projects. The first two were conversions.
The first conversion was a church on Lyon Street, converted in 1989 into 40
units, with a supportive component for low-income (homeless) women. The units
were 100% rent-geared-to-income. The CCA supported the project, as did the
local Councilor. As the church was a heritage building, some variances were
required. Extensive consultation was completed with the community, through
door-knocking and information sessions. CCOC partnered with the Anglican
Diocese (on the supportive housing component).
While the project’s immediate neighbours challenged the project at the
Ontario Municipal Board, CCOC was successful at completing the project.
The
second conversion occurred several years ago in the community of Hintonburg, a
neighbourhood slightly west of CCOC’s traditional catchment. The building was a
tavern that had been abandoned for several years, after which the City
reclaimed the property for unpaid taxes. The building was converted into 10
units, primarily bachelor apartments, with some one and two bedrooms. The units
were 60% RGI, with the remaining 40% market rent.
CCOC
received splendid support from the Hintonburg Community Association, an
association that historically opposed a number of projects. Despite the need
for rezoning, and hence opportunity for opposition, and despite an absence of outreach,
door knocking or public meetings, there was no opposition to the project from
neighbours. After only one meeting with the HCA, members wrote letters of
support to funding programs and the local Councilor.
Boucher
posed the question: why the difference? While clientele differed from one
project to the other, it is impossible to specifically identify the rationale
for different responses. The learning, Boucher argued, is that you can not
count on everything from a previous experience.
The
second set of projects discussed by Boucher were both in neighbourhoods where
CCOC is less familiar, west of the downtown core. Both were new constructions,
family oriented stacked townhomes, with two, three and four bedroom mixes, and
with a 60/40 market/RGI mix. Both needed specific interventions from the City,
the first a minor variance, and the second a decision for cash-in-lieu.
The
first project, on Merivale Road, received no political support. While there was
no community association in the area, there was also no community consultation,
and no involvement from the local Councilor. Yet, the project went forward
without any difficulties. The second project, in Bay Ward received significant
support from the local Councilor, Councilor Cullen. However, there was complete
community opposition.
Boucher
again posed the question: why the difference? In the second project, the
community mobilized against the project, even forming the basis of a local
individual’s municipal election campaign.
Boucher noted that the community association had historically opposed
another development on the site, and that there were perceived management
issues at a nearby affordable housing site. The location of facility for
at-risk youth also troubled the community. While the local Councilor was
supportive, the priority for transparency, resulting in three community
meetings, provided the community significant opportunity to mobilize and
protest. To alleviate community concerns, the project was reduced by two units.
Boucher
reflected on the four stories discussed, and suggested that a “learning” is
that each experience is different. We can not count on what we encountered
previously. And, while political support is absolutely important, a commitment
to consultation may provide additional space for opposition to be vocalized.
Boucher suggested that a balance needs to be found: between communicating too
much and too little information to the community. Communities, for instance, do
not need to know where tenants will come from, how they will be picked or how
they will be monitored. Referring to work from the Ontario Non-Profit Housing
Corporation, we must respect the human rights of those who live in our
communities.
Responding
to community concerns is important, but will impact on the size and scope of
any project. While the private sector can alter its proposed developments
without significantly impacting the financial feasibility of a project, the
non-profit sector is less capable of measures that will reduce revenue or
increase costs. As such, changes could likely take away from the project, while
only marginally improving the project for neighbours in opposition. There needs
to be caution in determining where compromise will occur.
Discussion
One
participant reminded all of the importance of ensuring sufficient resources to
prepare for NIMBY; too frequently, groups underestimate the resources (time and
financial) required to tackle NIMBY.
Another
participant noted that NIMBY-ism can be a broad brush; where do we draw a line
regarding a legitimate and critical comment on development? Boucher noted that
a line is clearly crossed when an objector labels the intended clients or
residents of a proposed facility. However, the iceberg metaphor suggests that
comments on the planning process or building design may disguise deeper issues.
Each individual may bring their own fears, supported by their own stories.
A
number of participants and panelists spoke to the need for leadership on these
issues. Is this the role of the City’s Planning Department? Does the City have
knowledge from previous experiences and on the benefits of different projects?
It is perceived by some that different branches within the City are saying
different things. Boucher noted that the City may be beginning to realize their
role in public education—on the need for affordable housing. However, the
sensitivities have to permeate into all City branches. Waddell spoke of the
City as proactive, understanding what the JHS needed, and providing excellent
support.
Councillors’ Perspectives:
Experiences, Strategies, Best Practices and Lessons Learned
Elisabeth Arnold, Former Councillor, Somerset Ward
Arnold
outlined her decision to first run for Council as having arisen from a
frustration with seemingly little progress at the City level to deal with the
housing crisis facing Ottawa. She recounted that in 1987, the International
Year of Shelter for the Homeless, when she was working with Housing Help, 3000
Ottawa households found themselves on the waiting list for affordable housing.
Today, 13,000 households sit on this list. The reasons are many, but the
cancellation of affordable housing programs in Ontario in 1993, and the absence
of the federal government acting as delivery agent, are particularly troubling
(though recent federal homelessness and housing efforts are promising).
NIMBY,
too, has played a part in this problem. Beyond specific projects and individual
attitudes, there are implications of a NIMBY climate at the political level. It
is difficult when media contributes towards negative perceptions of affordable,
social and supportive housing. Each time a politician refers to a “boondoggle,”
we set the cause back decades. Such political talk can legitimize a NIMBY
attitude and even allow individuals to bring issues from the bottom of the
iceberg to the top. Conversations may follow, and sentiments be spoken, that
would otherwise not be articulated.
Negative
reports and comments in the media and public forums need to be challenged—not
just on an emotional level, but also on a factual level. We need to work at
creating the best possible climate for support for affordable housing in our
community.
Arnold
then spoke from her perspective having just left elected office. Has her
approach changed over the last decade? Given her political role, what has
worked to better enable her as an advocate for affordable housing, and what has
been difficult or could have been done differently to support her in being
successful in supporting the community?
First,
Arnold spoke of the need to argue not from the perspective of what “should” be,
but rather from the perspective of what “can” be. Her experience suggested that
what “should” be frequently brings very little in results. Rather, it is
crucial to push what “can” be to its absolute limits and to push for what is
ultimately possible. And, Arnold suggested a number of strategies in this
regard.
Expanding
on her learnings, Arnold suggested that while claiming a moral high ground can
be important, we still frequently face a situation where people are not being
housed! In so doing, we defeat our objectives and sometimes do political damage
and set the cause back. And, while every action creates an equal and opposite
reaction, detractors only fight back with equal energy and effort. A “should”
be attitude often gets us in a stalemate, whereas a “can” be attitude allows us
to try to find solutions to confront the real and perceived issues, to build
allies, and to politically allow decision makers (political or staff level) to
find a way to come on side even if there is significant community opposition.
So
what does this entail? Arnold was clear that this does not mean giving up or
watering down our beliefs/principles. However, we do need to think more
strategically – politically – and be active in the short-term to reach a
long-term goal. When proposals are brought forward, she suggested that we need
to ask: what should the ultimate outcome be, and what will we be willing to
live with? We will have to adapt to and respond to legitimate community
concerns; but how can we work at a broader level to create the conditions for
success? Can we address these issues through policy frameworks, the Planning
Act, the Official Plan process or the municipal zoning bylaw, to have
conditions in place to permit affordable housing to be built in all parts of
the community? When permission is there, our jobs become easier.
Arnold
reinforced the importance of nurturing City Councilors, the Mayor and decision
makers. These leaders need to be on side, as allies.
Further,
it is important that time is invested in understanding the neighbourhoods where
building could occur, such that supporters and adversaries are known. Why are
adversaries adversaries? What strategies could engage them? Appropriate strategies
can be planned if reactions are expected. Knowing the community is key. Are
there supporters that could speak, with credibility, to your adversaries? Are
there individuals important to your adversaries that are supportive?
Success
stories, and data pertaining to safety enhancement and implications for
property values, needs to be known and communicated. At the same time, there
needs to be honesty in pointing out where things could have been done better;
strategies to deal with these issues are crucial.
We
all need to think politically, to be able to understand and respond to
pressures that Councilors face. Re-election is a priority! If support for a
project will negatively affect the possibility of re-election, it may be
irrational for him or her to support the project. Therefore, Councilors that
are supportive need to be continuously informed, involved and part of the
strategic and political planning processes in order to bring projects to a
successful conclusion. Arnold noted,
for instance, that because of her perceived support for affordable housing, she
was often less nurtured than other members on Council. The assumption of
automatic support sometimes resulted in her not having the information that was
needed to defend a project to a particular neighbourhood or to the media. While
for a Councilor it can be embarrassing to face another Councilor with earlier
or additional information, it is also damaging for the project proponent, as
the local Councilor is clearly a less effective ally. All politicians need to
be nurtured to become affordable housing advocates.
Essentially,
it is crucial that proponents are strategic in getting political leadership
involved from the beginning of the project. It is never too early to tell the
Councilor. For Councilors, “no surprises” is key; otherwise, it will become
increasingly difficult for the politician to become a supporter. However, it is
also crucial that proponents be honest with the neighbourhood, about plans and
intentions, and about what is already negotiated, permitted and required.
Clarity from a proponent will enable a politician to be clear about what is
being proposed.
In
conclusion, Arnold summarized that while it is important to fight for every
project, it is particularly important to keep sight of a longer-term vision,
remaining mindful of the wider climate and means to influence that climate.
Secondly, with each successful project, advocates can build additional support
for affordable housing more generally, and build allies. Third, it is important
to be political, as most often, these projects will result from political
decisions. If the community is to witness a reduced waiting list, the community
will have to be political.
Alex Cullen, Councillor, Bay Ward
In
order that Councilors not experience a baptism by fire, preparation is key. The
NSH and ONPHA publications are valuable tools.
Cullen further established that key to the success of projects is “no
surprises.” Preparation is crucial if
the community is to defeat a NIMBY attitude. Cullen argued that communities can
not hope to go under the radar; bending the process only proves that the
process can be bent. Rather, the proper processes must be adhered to.
Cullen
referred to a number of successful projects within his ward, Bay Ward. For example,
when developing the Ron Kolbus Youth Housing Program, at 96 McEwen, proponents
contacted the local condominium association and met with their Board. Staff
from the youth program explained their project, direction and context
(including that the property was already zoned for development). It was already
clear that the only opportunity for the community to object was through the
Site Plan. And, in the end, there were no surprises. The youth program staff
made the project familiar and non-threatening.
The
project at 1142 Richmond Road, while “a little bumpier,” was ultimately
successful. Part of the initial
challenge arose from a surprise element; Cullen was not present for the first
announcement. However, after 200
participants at the first community meeting, 100 attended the next, and then
40. This was a process that proponents had to engage with step by step,
ensuring that the appropriate information was available. In time, they
collectively reduced the “NIMBY monster” to the “NIMBY midget.”
The
project was being developed at a time when homelessness figured prominently
within public discussion (through the media, for instance). Council had
developed an action plan. And yet, Cullen noted, while many members of the
community understood that there was a problem, few were prepared to take
ownership of the problem. Indeed, the message was competing with other
meta-messages, including fear of crime negative impacts on the community, and
so forth.
Facts
are crucial. While there are 1300 units of social housing in the ward, in
several developments with over a hundred units each, this project was small in
comparison, with only about 25 units. And yet, as Cullen noted, a process was
put in place, and in so doing, proponents needed to allow the community to
adjust, to go through the process, and to raise questions. “We did our work,”
Cullen noted, and through the process the numbers of those in opposition
decreased—a necessary pattern for community acceptance. By the time the
approvals process faced Council, few spoke in opposition.
Public
education was crucial. Some opposition perspectives were rooted in issues like
parking or traffic, which could be addressed through best practice information.
Opportunities for discussion were helpful to knock away at the “NIMBY monster.”
It
was important to ensure that advocates were present at community meetings.
There were persons in the community that were proponents, including those on
the waiting list in need of housing. This raised awareness of our neighbours’ needs,
and clarified to many that this is to benefit our community. A number of
faith-based groups and other organizations spoke to the value of the project,
to boost a positive message. At a time when politicians have little
credibility, Cullen emphasized the credibility of neighbours, and encouraged
space for their stories to be told—a valuable piece in securing community
acceptance.
It
is important to incorporate solid planning in the process, and to avoid
pitfalls that one can not survive. For instance, a developer had already
indicated that 25 units was feasible. When no zoning applications or committee
of adjustment hearings are needed, the process is simpler. Similarly, ensure
that if there is any community opposition, there will be an appeal process with
the Ontario Municipal Board; this has to be incorporated into the planning.
“Where there is NIMBY, there is OMB.”
Clive Doucet, Councillor, Capital Ward
Councilor
Doucet spoke briefly to a number of experiences pertaining to concerns
expressed by community members around the height of several building projects
on Bank Street. After approvals had been granted on a project, information on
concessions that were achieved through another project provided a rationale for
the community members to mobilize on the initial project.
Doucet
reminded participants, when supportive of a particular project, to also speak
to Councilors and Committees with their voices of support.
Discussion
It
was discussed that community engagement strategies are fundamentally about
politics – about how to manage bureaucrats, politicians, community
perspectives, and so forth.
Participants were reminded to become involved in other local issues and
projects, and to speak to them. This is not just about housing and shelter
projects, but pertains to new schools, shopping centers, and other community
infrastructure. Information needs to be communicated.
Given
the Request for Proposals process that is frequently in place, it was noted
that within competitive processes, all proponents should be encouraged to
engage in consultation, including political representatives. Cullen noted that
we need to always acknowledge that these are learning processes, and that none
of us own the agenda—we all play a role.
A
participant noted that if we are to include affordable housing in our City, we
need to engage developers. The City of Vancouver requires that a proportion of
new housing development be affordable; the Ontario Planning Act currently makes
such a requirement in Ottawa unfeasible. However, Arnold suggested that we need
to do more work on a regulatory framework and incentives, ensuring as much
adherence with a 25% target as we can (as stated within the Official Plan).
Clearly, we need to get involved in the regulatory level, as well.
Closing
Remarks: Stephen Loyd
Loyd
thanked all participants for a rich discussion and exchange of information,
including frank comments from Councilors and strong insights from the
experience of numerous community members. He ensured that the National Secretariat
on Homelessness (NSH) would take the information and share with others across
the country as the Secretariat pilots its work on community engagement.
Special
thanks was offered to the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee
(HSSAC), the City of Ottawa (Brenda Emond), the Canadian Housing and Renewal
Association (Sharon Chisholm and Geoff Gillard), speakers, NSH staff (Jeannie
Wynne-Edwards, Mike Bulthuis, Kym Harley), partners at CMHC and in the Ontario
Region and many others in the background. Thanks was also offered on behalf of
Minister Bradshaw.
Closing
Remarks: Sharon Chisholm
Chisholm
reiterated Loyd’s appreciation for a rich discussion, and for inspirational
messages. In particular, Minister Bradshaw had reminded participants of why we
are engaged in this work, and of what we want to achieve.
Chisholm
repeated a number of valuable quotes from the day, including:
·
“what should be versus
what can be”
·
“just build the sucker”
·
“wear down the NIMBY
monster to a NIMBY midget”
·
“this is all about
politics”
While
a number of developers were invited, few were able to attend. However, HSSAC
will continue to ensure that developers are involved in the affordable housing
debate. From here, a number of
activities will be pursued. The National Secretariat on Homelessness and
Minister Bradshaw will ensure these conversations happen across the country.
HSSAC will continue to press the City to take a leadership role, ensuring a
City where everyone has a place, regardless of income, background, or other
characteristic. CHRA will soon host a national conference call on NIMBY.
Finally,
thanks was offered to all who helped put the day together.