YEG imagineer
Active Member
We have all seen the talk of the encampments being removed by the City at great expense only to pop up again a few days later. The mild support of the province to provide funding for up to 1700 shelter spaces. And the city is building various assisted living apartments throughout the city. But what we used to have was the old standby. Rooming houses. Small rooms that provided you with space to put your belongings, a dry and warm safe space with typically shared bathrooms and shared kitchen facilities. But in the last 20 or so years we have lost many of these transitional type properties which were almost exclusively private, not public ventures. I can think of 3 dive hotels in “The Quarters”, Mount Royal, Empire and York that were purchased by the city and then demolished. So in one fell swoop, we lose 100+ rooms as well as the taxes those private businesses were paying and at best end up with a parking lot generating a bit of money or worse, any empty lot growing weeds. Others I can think of are the Cecil Hotel, Patricia Motel, some of the old motels on Gateway Avenue and now the Klondike Hotel on Stony Plain Road that is boarded up. (could be the LRT construction causing it to close). As well, the city has been reasonably good at closing derelict residential properties providing cheaper accommodation. Although Abdullah Shah (RIP) was a slum landlord, he did provide a roof over peoples heads that many preferred to our shelter system. So we have the city that has actively removed affordable housing to “clean up” an area without an alternative or replacement.
What has the city accomplished with all these reactionary measures? The loss of 100s of affordable (some may not have been great) accommodations, less tax revenue (from those closed locations) and the moving to another neighbourhood of the affordability problem. For the owners referred to as slum landlords, could the city not give grants to improve the properties for a carrot instead of always the stick approach of fines for not meeting standards and eventual closure, seizure or demolition.
Why not build rooming houses again as an option. Instead we build medium to large apartments which are nice, but are expensive to build, maintain and run. How many rooming houses could you build for the same cost of one shiny new assisted living apartment. We know shelters are not a great place to be short, medium or long term. Yet rooming houses would provide a nice transition for many of the homeless. Of course, persons that have extraordinary issues that need the extra support would not be the market for this. But if the % that are just working poor or down on their luck could get this small, safe, lockable space for themselves we could see a huge change downward in the homeless population.
What has the city accomplished with all these reactionary measures? The loss of 100s of affordable (some may not have been great) accommodations, less tax revenue (from those closed locations) and the moving to another neighbourhood of the affordability problem. For the owners referred to as slum landlords, could the city not give grants to improve the properties for a carrot instead of always the stick approach of fines for not meeting standards and eventual closure, seizure or demolition.
Why not build rooming houses again as an option. Instead we build medium to large apartments which are nice, but are expensive to build, maintain and run. How many rooming houses could you build for the same cost of one shiny new assisted living apartment. We know shelters are not a great place to be short, medium or long term. Yet rooming houses would provide a nice transition for many of the homeless. Of course, persons that have extraordinary issues that need the extra support would not be the market for this. But if the % that are just working poor or down on their luck could get this small, safe, lockable space for themselves we could see a huge change downward in the homeless population.
