Temporary Tents Likely Permanent: THE VOTER
And who among us believes that these structures, having been constructed and in use for five years, will not be an integral and “essential” part of the city’s shelter provisions when the review date rolls around?
Saying they will be reviewed in five years is a nice way to assuage some of the concerns people have about them in the present. It conveniently boots that part of the discussion down the road.
There is little chance that the National Capital Commission will want the Woodroffe land back for another use in five years given that a) it’s been an under-used football field for some time and b) it will feed into the feds’ statistics on providing land for housing purposes. The feds are highly unlikely to be able to identify a higher-priority need for the property. It also allows them to say that, since it’s a “temporary” structure, they aren’t taking Greenbelt land and putting permanent buildings on it, whether for housing or other purposes. So it will remain as a part of the shelter spectrum of services indefinitely.
Speaking of “temporary” structures, does anyone remember the wartime federal temporary buildings that occupied the land that now houses city hall as well as the space around the Supreme Court building on Wellington? How long were they “temporarily” around? Can we expect that the same definition of “temporary” time lines will be in play with the Sprung structures?
The Voter is a respected community activist and long-time Bulldog commenter who prefers to keep her identity private.
For You:
Woodroffe, Hearst Way To Get Sprung Structures
Dudas Condemns Vacant Unit Tax
Is New Garbage Law Just Garbage? PATTON
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
– The Bulldog – News Feed Enter 
The yin, the yang. Housing prices in the area will not be impacted because the area has been inundated with high rises with tenants looking into neighbouring back yards on nights when there’s nothing to watch on TV because these will not be multi-level structures, BUT housing prices will be impacted because potential buyers will be reluctant to move to an area in which residents of these “temporary” structures don’t have any skin in the game. This new community opens up a new issue whereby the city will have to figure out how to manage it and police will have to determine how to monitor it. My guess is the city will walk away saying “Well, we did our job”.
sisco, a common theme with staff and councillors is the willingness to impose solutions based on incomplete thought. All unfavourable outcomes that result will be described as unintended. Those who point out the unfavourable outcomes will be labeled as fear mongerers.
At no point will anyone associated with the decision and the consequences thereof acknowledge that the outcomes were entirely predictable, had they spent more time than it takes to order a coffee thinking about it.
Ron,
I found it interesting how much detail they gave about each step in the process and what outside bodies were involved at each point along the way. Could it be that they were setting out in advance just who the scapegoats will be when things go off the rails down the road?
We don’t usually get this much information about the contractors working for the City and which particular pieces of advice/opinion came from them. It looks like some preparatory backside-covering so they have their fingers at the ready to point out who’s at fault should anything go wrong. And, this being the City of Ottawa,about the only thing that you can truly bank on is that something will go wrong.
Ron/Voter. As a project manager I have complained on The Bulldog ad nauseam that the city never seems to provide an impact analysis to accompany their decisions. Smile, nod their heads, take a bow, rub their hands together, then move onto the next mess – a 5-step process.
So who is responsible when one of these catches fire when someone brings in a space heater?