A good neighbour agreement and community advisory committee clause have been removed from the lease for Nanaimo's planned navigation centre and replaced with a neighbourhood integration plan, following concerns expressed by B.C. Housing.
Earlier this summer, B.C. Housing announced that a location was chosen on city-owned land at 1030 Old Victoria Rd for a 60-bed navigation centre operated by the Vancouver Island Mental Health Society. The facility will provide accommodations, meals, health services such as referrals to mental-health and substance-use programs, stabilization services and connections to housing.
During lease discussions earlier this summer, a good neighbour agreement and community advisory committee amendment were added to the arrangement by Nanaimo council through an 8-1 vote.
Heidi Hartman, associate vice-president of supportive housing and homelessness with B.C. Housing, presented to council on Monday, Sept. 9, proposing instead a neighbourhood integration plan to support the initial four months after the site opens.
The plan includes up to four neighbourhood meetings in collaboration with the city, the building operator and the local community association. There is also a commitment from B.C. Housing to meet with the community association executive annually, or as issues arise, and assign a B.C. Housing representative "point-person" to serve as a site liaison and provide operational supervision.
"We found formerly that our community advisory committees were a very small committee and didn't have the broad channels of communications that we all aspire to…" Hartman said. "We recognize that we would want to work with the specific community and its members to ensure that that response plan is responsive and honours the community."
Coun. Erin Hemmens called the potential removal of a community advisory committee clause "nerve-racking" for the neighbourhood, and asked how the integration plan would be more responsive or engage more broadly than a committee. Hartman responded that, through past experience, B.C. Housing found complaints directed through an advisory committee sometimes wouldn't be heard until weeks have passed.
"We want to be responsive, our non-profits want to be responsive in the moment so we would really be encouraging the use of the 'who to call sheet,' contacting the operator promptly, so it can be addressed promptly," she said.
Regarding the good neighbour agreement, correspondence from B.C. Housing indicated that the clause would risk stigmatizing the tenants and may pressure operators and B.C. Housing to create rules that are different and inequitable compared to other residential buildings in the area, as well as potentially expose the non-profit housing society and others to human rights concerns.
In the discussion that followed, Coun. Ian Thorpe said he couldn't support the revised conditions as he "quite frankly can't buy the rationale" provided and noted that the navigation centre's tenants "are in a different situation than tenants in other residential buildings in the area."
"I don't see [the neighbourhood integration plan] as more robust, I don't see it as more responsive, I see a bunch of assurances that I just cannot take at face value," he said.
Coun. Hilary Eastmure also opposed the change, expressing that she felt they were forced to agree to B.C. Housing's terms, regardless of their feedback.
"I really believe in B.C. Housing's commitment to providing housing, that's why I believe they would be willing to work with us to make this work," Eastmure said.
Coun. Tyler Brown told council he didn't think four months was long enough, while Coun. Sheryl Armstrong reiterated that she never supported the facility to begin with.
On the other side, Coun. Ben Geselbracht said he was initially surprised and "not impressed" by B.C. Housing's initial refusal of the clauses, as they were accountability measures, but was swayed by the neighbourhood integration plan, operator agreement and intentions to work with neighbouring businesses and residents.
"We have a serious homelessness crisis where there's people who don't have anywhere to live," Geselbracht said. "There's no good neighbour agreement with them, folks are camped along the back fences of my property and other people's property, and nobody is in agreement with them, they can do whatever they like. Plus they're open to the elements, they're cold, they're desperate."
Geselbracht pointed to the fact the city is being given the opportunity to partner on housing and support services for "folks already being triaged through the shelter system so they're more stabilized."
"There's money on the table and willingness to build it this year. We would have to shake our heads to not accept something like this," he said. "If we feel like a certain level of safety is not being maintained in our community, we have individuals with B.C. Housing to phone immediately."
Hemmens said that if the city did reject the lease, it should be prepared to reject all future housing of that type, as B.C. Housing isn't going to change its requirements. Coun. Janice Perrino agreed.
"If we say no to this one, and the longer we stall it, the harder the problem is to cure," Perrino said. "We've got to get people into homes, they do so much better, they're much healthier, we have a chance to give them a second chance at a life worth living."
Coun. Paul Manly also supported agreeing to the change, pointing out that the facility will be operated by a society that has a positive reputation in the community, and phone numbers will be readily available for community members to call if rules aren't being followed.
Mayor Leonard Krog spoke last, cautioning his fellow council members about potentially "turning down the good while we want to pursue the perfect." He stated that if council were to reject the navigation centre, any other B.C. city would be happy to phone B.C. Housing and accept that type of housing.
The change passed in a 5-4 vote, with councillors Thorpe, Armstrong, Eastmure and Brown opposed.
