News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.3K     0 

Municipal Politics

Greenspace said:
Did not Rutherford vote to approve the new zoning bylaw?

Council chose to include Shelters under Community Services as a Permitted Use in almost all zones now. Just wait until people figure out it's also permitted in residential areas.
Click to expand...
This is news to me - do you know where I can find a direct reference to this change?

Per the LUB - Supportive Housing means a residential Use with on-site or off-site supports to ensure the residents’ day-to-day needs are met. This does not include Extended Medical Treatment Services.

Is there a separate classification for shelters or are they lumped in with Supportive Housing? RF1 zones allow for Limited Supportive Housing, which is basically the same but limited to 6 units.
 
All good questions.

Community Service Uses included Seasonal and Year-Round Shelters. Community Services is a Permitted Use in most (not all) zones. Council made this change in approving Zoning Bylaw 20001.

8.10 Use Definitions | City of Edmonton Zoning Bylaw

zoningbylaw.edmonton.ca zoningbylaw.edmonton.ca

The reason for the change from BE to CB was on density. BE would have limited the amount of bed allowed but the shelter itself is still a permitted use.
 
policyenthusiast said:
Hope Mission is opening a new 120-bed homeless shelter this October near Yellowhead Trail and 149 Street in west Edmonton. The agency is able to open the shelter in the area because of recent zoning changes, but community members have expressed concerns about the site because of its industrial surroundings and proximity to schools and businesses.

For reference, this is across the street from the Costco in the northwest.
Click to expand...
It seems a bit isolated to be a good location for this, but maybe that is the idea because more opposition may be anticipated in other areas. Is there good (or any) bus service here, any other services for these people nearby?
 
David A said:
It seems a bit isolated to be a good location for this, but maybe that is the idea because more opposition may be anticipated in other areas. Is there good (or any) bus service here, any other services for these people nearby?
Click to expand...
According to the article the public transit availability around there is sparse - so Hope Mission is using dedicated transit services (vans owned by the shelter, in all likelihood)
 
I don't think the transit issue is as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. One shelter cannot meet all the diverse needs of everyone experiencing homelessness. For some, being away from the usual concentration of services, influences, and people will be really healthy. Being able to disconnect from the cycles you are experiencing downtown may be just what some people need to take the next step (should one be available) towards rebuilding. Obviously, for others that won't be the case, which is why many different options are needed. This shelter is 120 beds, with our current need at 4000+ its a drop in the bucket but may still be a valuable one.
 
Greenspace said:
All good questions.

Community Service Uses included Seasonal and Year-Round Shelters. Community Services is a Permitted Use in most (not all) zones. Council made this change in approving Zoning Bylaw 20001.

8.10 Use Definitions | City of Edmonton Zoning Bylaw

zoningbylaw.edmonton.ca zoningbylaw.edmonton.ca

The reason for the change from BE to CB was on density. BE would have limited the amount of bed allowed but the shelter itself is still a permitted use.
Click to expand...
I spent the better part of an hour reading the consolidated Bylaw 12800 (Section 100-200) and in each zone detailed (RF1, RF2, RPL, RLD, RF3, RF4, RMD, RF5, UCRH, RF6, RA7, RA8, RA9, RR, RMH, ), Limited Supportive Housing is typically a permitted use and for some Supportive Housing is a discretionary use, but there's no mention of Shelters or of "Community Services" as a general term.

Took me that long to notice I was reading the wrong LUB. Greenspace is right, with a permit a homeless shelter can open even in small-scale residential zones.

1724874336337.png

1724874353846.png
 
This is why Rutherford's comments ring a bit hollow. Unless she made an amendment that was defeated during the zoning renewal process, she's not really telling the whole truth, concerned about location only after her constituents complained.

Sohi and Knack has said publicly interim shelter locations isn't the issue, the issue it lack of affordable and supportive housing from the province. I do not agree since the number of units they're talking about from the province is unlikely as it is in the billions of dollars, and citizens have an expectation that they deal with the issues before us. Which is that shelters will continue to develop if they have funding and they're allowed almost anywhere.
 
Greenspace said:
This is why Rutherford's comments ring a bit hollow. Unless she made an amendment that was defeated during the zoning renewal process, she's not really telling the whole truth, concerned about location only after her constituents complained.

Sohi and Knack has said publicly interim shelter locations isn't the issue, the issue it lack of affordable and supportive housing from the province. I do not agree since the number of units they're talking about from the province is unlikely as it is in the billions of dollars, and citizens have an expectation that they deal with the issues before us. Which is that shelters will continue to develop if they have funding and they're allowed almost anywhere.
Click to expand...
The provincially owned supportive housing is a major issue as well. The housing providers are on contract with the GoA but their costs are too high to continue operation, and rather than the GoA provide additional funding to these provincially owned units, municipal governments are having to pick up the slack. Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) has an interesting policy called Provincial Downloading of Operating Costs for Deteriorating Provincially Owned Housing on this issue:

https://rmalberta.com/resolutions/4-23f-provincial-downloading-of-operating-costs-for-deteriorating-provincially-owned-housing/
 
TAS said:
New conservative municipal party formed.

edmontonjournal.com

David Staples: Anger at Edmonton city hall, and Trudeau, gives birth to a new right-wing party

The timing appears to be ripe for PACE given a recent opinion poll blasting city hall's approach.
edmontonjournal.com edmontonjournal.com
Click to expand...
Between the general sentiment of the pendulum seemingly swinging to the other side, compounded with the exhausting incompetence demonstrated by some councilors like Sohi, Rice, Janz, etc. I am not shocked to see this.
 
The provincial government allowing political parties at the municipal level is the single biggest flare of incompetence I've seen. Boggles my mind that they would interfere with the only level of government that actually works.
 
policyenthusiast said:
The provincial government allowing political parties at the municipal level is the single biggest flare of incompetence I've seen. Boggles my mind that they would interfere with the only level of government that actually works.
Click to expand...
It's actually quite logical. When your whole binding belief as a party is that "Government is bad" then a functional level of government is unacceptable and must be destroyed. This is what happens when we elect people who hate the very idea of governing to govern.
 
I fell most voters now would disagree that the municipal government is the only level of government that works, but I don't think having political parties will make it any better. Probably just even more dysfunctional.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top