Coming To A Neighourhood Near You … More Shelters
“The conversation we have with residents is an honest one.”
Planning chairman Jeff Leiper on why he is ramming through
legislation to put shelters anywhere and everywhere.
What conversation? There is no conversation. What public input is there in this? This is definitely not democracy. We have a city hall that is petrified (not an exaggeration) of the New England town hall meeting on which participatory democracy has its foundation.
No. Just ram it through. Like the e-buses that require polluting gas generators to be charged. Who saw that coming? In their haste, not our betters on city council.
That was just rammed through because it could be. It was rammed through because the left on council knew better with its woke ideology and public discussion might derail the effort. Democracy be rammed.
So we will just ram this shelter bylaw through, says His Majesty Leiper. Because democracy will just slow down the building of shelters for the wave of refugees who haven’t shown up yet. An inconvenient truth.
What could go wrong? This from the councillor whose noversight helped produce the world-class and world-renowned botch that is light rail. Again one asks, what could go wrong? A challenged (a polite term) council that approved a botched contract bid that resulted in the Trillium Line being two years late? How many botches must council create before its members realize they don’t know what they are doing? Now they’re taking charge of shelters with the world-renowned administrator Jeff Leiper as the helm.
Hey councillor. What’s the root cause of the Confederation Line botch? Nice administration. You know, council oversight. How many years has that botch been studied? You’ve been part of a council that hasn’t demanded that critical and fundamental answer. Now you’re going to handle shelters without public participation?
Memo to Leiper. Another botch is coming.
Yes, the legislation that is fast shelters anywhere and everywhere is a multi-headed beast.
And for this Leiper has three main points in his presentation to planning committee and note that misfortune, it is said, tends to go in threes. The multiheaded beast of shelter justification is below:
One. Applications for shelters be moved forward … either by staff or another body. How has that worked out so far?
Two. Shelters don’t need to go through a expensive, time-consuming rezoning processes. Or in other words, democracy. With democracy and debate you get better legislation and this tends to mitigate the rough edges (a polite term) of council.
Third. It will make life easier for staff which is working on comprehensive zoning legislation in December.
Interesting in these three points is that they are one point said three times. You wonder why things go wrong? Leiper can’t even get his three basic points right. One, move fast. Two, move fast. Three, move fast. Where did you say the onslaught of refugees to Ottawa is again?
Fast and no public participation until the completed plan was finished is how shelters (not a bad thing at all) got into this mess in the first place.
This is basic. The reason people obey stop signs (for the most part) is because there is a consensus among the citizenry that without stop signs, cars would smash into each other. The law works because it is logical, thought out and has the support of the community.
If you don’t have consensus on shelters, or anything else for that matter, they don’t work. But council and staff have botched the shelter issue badly because they dictated shelters rather than got a consensus. That’s basic to good legislation.
It would be easy to get consensus on the fact that refugees in Ottawa should not be exposed to bad weather. The interesting debate would be, how do we do it? That’s where the consensus needed to take place and it didn’t.
Mayor Mark Sutcliffe could have said to the reasonable people of Ottawa, we’ve got a problem and the city needs your help. Most people would say: “How can we help?”
Instead, the city said we have a problem and this is how we’ve decided to solve it. The solution was dictated. And that’s how the city got in trouble with a basically good thing like shelters.
Now Leiper is dictating again. He didn’t learn anything and he’s causing more anger with this Medusa of legislation.
This guy should not be in a responsible position. Leiper is not up to the task.
He doesn’t understand democracy, consensus and oversight.
Ken Gray
Below is a transcript of the planning committee meeting on shelters of Feb. 4. The Leiper motion was approved.
The good people of Your Applewood Acres (& Beyond) Neighbours community newsletter put together this transcript and have made it very accessible … amazingly. It’s definitely worth the read.
Planning and Housing Committee
For You:
Where’s The Night Mayor? STUNTMAN STU
Transit Memo Makes City Hall Blood Run Cold
Will AG Probe LRT Seat Colours? THE VOTER
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
“The conversation we have with residents is an honest one.”
Sorry Ken, but that is not a whopper. It is the truth.
What Leiper has stated is that he, along with the rest of city hall don’t care about what the residents think. That the city can no longer be bothered with going through the charade that was public consultations. That the city does not respect the residents.
Finally, Kitchissippi Councillor Jeff Leiper has spoken the truth.
I’m not sure if DumbOld Trumpf and his friend fElon Musk are providing the guidelines for Jeff Leiper or if they’re following his lead. Americans are now learning to deal with the lunacy the city of Ottawa has had to put up with since the election of Jim Watson as mayor and its aftermath.
Why do we need shelters? Too many immigrants, too little public housing.
A small correction to the transcript on page 20.
“Plante: OK. Is there any willingness among staff, either planning or CCSD
(Canadian Council on Social Development) to get a definition of shelter into this
motion so we can have a little more clarity on that issue?”
I believe Councillor Plante was referring to the City’s Social Service Department, not the Canadian Council on Social Development which has been inactive for several years. The Department would be the appropriate body to bring forward the information she was seeking.
Council has already given planners the authority to approve group homes. A Councillor has 1 week to veto the planners authority and have the site plan sent to Planning and Housing Committee – which very rarely turns down staff recommendations. No guardrails, no City investment in making it work.
The City has already sold a residential building on a crescent for $1 to establish a transition house for indigenous women and their families, The residents found out from a leaflet distributed by their Councillor the day before it was passed by Committee! So the women in the shelter are sure to be resented instead of welcomed.
Now it is hard for the City to find places for shelters and transitions homes so you can understand their frustration. But they have not even considered that there is a responsibility of the City to make sure there are no negative impacts on the residents. Other Canadian cities have “good neighbourhood agreements” that they offer the mediate so that communuty concerns are met e.g. noise, safety, garbage and parking. Also organizations in Ottawa like the John Howard association works hard to get neigbourhood comfort level.
Forcing group homes and shelters on communities makes it worse for the residents of the group homes and the neighbourhood,
Ken Gray is correct that this ham-fisted approach is wrong from a democractic point of view. But it is also wrong not to provide guidelines to the planners and their social development colleagues on how to introduce shelters and groups homes to ensure the best possible integration. It shows a total lack of compassion or empathy. So disheartening.
The Official Plan is not being followed by the Planning Department for the new Zoning By Law and Leiper knows it.