Hubley Caught Flat-Footed On Sprung Structures





 

Kanata South Councillor Allan Hubley was caught off-guard on the locations for sprung structures just as his Barrhaven colleagues Wilson Lo and David Hill were.

It is ridiculous that even the affected councillors … let alone the public … were not given notice of the sprung structures location in or near their wards.

This is a Facebook post by Kanata South Councillor Allan Hubley from Nov. 8:




Statement on 40 Hearst Way as a Potential Location for a Sprung Structure

Thank you for this opportunity to update you on the news released yesterday that a Sprung Structure would be coming to the Eagleson Park n Ride at 40 Hearst Way in Kanata South.

Like many of you, I was only made aware of the decision to use part of the Park n Ride at 40 Hearst Way, yesterday.

Since then, I have been meeting with senior staff, trying to gather as much information as possible on this issue to provide residents with factual information.



At this time, what I can tell you is this:

  • 40 Hearst Way is the 2nd location on the list for a Welcoming Center.
  • Currently, the federal government has not committed to funding a second structure.
  • Installing these Sprung structures is tied to the much-needed housing money promised to the city by the federal govt. No Sprung Structures= No more money for housing
  • The Woodroffe Structure is not scheduled to open until the end of 2025.

Be assured that I share your frustration about this issue. While staff are now assuring me that public consultation will happen, residents (and Councillors) should have been included in this discussion much earlier in the planning processes. I understand that the Mayor has said in his remarks today that these are staff decisions and not political choices. However, I have shared my concern with how can staff make informed decisions regarding locations without consulting the residents from the area. We know the most about the neighbourhoods that we live in and as many of you have pointed out in your emails to me, the Hearst Way site does not have the necessary services nearby.

The Welcoming Centers are not permanent housing. Clients are expected to remain there for up to 3 months. These centers are meant to create intentional dedicated and sustainable service systems to support migrants/asylum seekers to settle and transition to permanent housing.

In closing, in my view, the city has been boxed into a decision to create these Sprung Structures in order to get the money to build affordable housing by the feds. Otherwise, it is all on the back of the municipal taxpayer to solve this issue – which is something I would never support.

I will be posting updates on my website http://www.councillorallanhubley.ca/newcomer-reception… and social media accounts as information becomes available.

 

For You:

Schools Should Not Be Divisive: MULVIHILL

This Just In: Sun Will Rise Later In Winter

Honesty On Refugees Is The Best Policy

 

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here





2 Responses

  1. sisco farraro says:

    Mr. Hubley’s comments relate primarily to delegation of duties. There is nothing wrong with delegating tasks in order to avoid becoming a bottleneck. However, the person to whom the task has been delegated has to be trusted, experienced in the field, and his/her proposed solution must be vetted by a wide audience. Hubley’s memo states “the Mayor has said in his remarks today that these are staff decisions and not political choices”. The issue surrounding sprung housing is very much a political issue. Maybe Mark Sutcliffe is incapable of seeing beyond the municipal level to the world stage, a sad situation for the mayor of the capital city of a G7 nation. Hopefully Mark Sutcliffe’s expiry date will not last beyond October 2026.

  2. The Voter says:

    Well, at least he knows where Hearst Way is unlike his confusion over Moodie Drive being in Kanata when the LRT route was announced. Perhaps he’s not as close to the current mayor as he was to the previous one. Since we know that he was in Watson’s pocket, I suppose it would have been hard to be any closer.

    I wonder if Sutcliffe was also kept in the dark about these “non-political” decisions that staff were making. It would be hard to run a city without knowing what was going on but then, of course, if you do have the inside track, it’s hard to deflect blame or responsibility onto others as Sutcliffe has done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *