Skip to main content

In support for supportive housing rezoning with reservations

Just move that little blue box off the park and onto the yawningly large and empty parking lot. Everyone is happy! :)

A letter to CoW councillors, riffing off a Right to Housing Coalition letter campaign:

https://actionnetwork.org/letters/in-support-of-supportive-housing-rezoning

on this proposal:

https://www.winnipeg.ca/building-development/housing/housing-accelerator-fund/city-sites-supportive-housing 

Why do we make parks fight with housing while parking lots get a free pass?

There's a lot of horrific “not in my backyard” rhetoric about the proposed supportive housing sites, so I am writing to support supportive housing. Yes, I support rezoning of City-owned properties to support the construction of supportive housing.

I also strongly support the sale or long-term lease of these properties to non-profit housing providers at nominal rates. The City has a key role to play in addressing the housing needs of Winnipeg residents and this is an important way to support to our neighbours who face barriers in accessing housing they can afford.

Housing **with on-site support for residents** helps people maintain their housing, increasing the health, safety, and wellbeing of our community as whole.

Generally, I urge you to support the Rezoning for Supportive Housing.

However, I’ve got one caveat about the Sherburn site. It’s a great neighbourhood to choose: close to Downtown; easy access to bus routes to travel around the city, a nice neighbourhood feel where real humans walk around and greet each other. This is perfect for one one-lot sized supportive housing location.

Except you’re trying to put it on an existing park. A park that is part of what makes this such a great location. A park that is good for humans, just like housing is good for humans.

Why would we pit housing against a park when literally across the back alley is almost a block-worth of parking lot that is never ever full? Wasted space in the heart of the city. Space taken away from human flourishing so that a few privileged individuals can have the convenience of storing their excessively large, most-wasteful-form-of-transportation machines for hours at a time between usages of mere minutes.

Instead of fighting the public with their variety of reasons why they don't want this project built on this spot on Sherburn (some reasonable, some exaggerated fears, some downright discriminatory and unkind), why not put your “fight” energy into negotiating appropriation of parking lot space on which to place to crucially needed supportive housing (so it doesn't take away also much needed park space)?

There’s two parking lots in question, one belonging to Kingdom Hall and one belonging to a First Nation. At peak times, each of these lots may be full. But those peak times are limited and – importantly – they don’t overlap with each other. It would likely only require removing 4-6 spaces to place the housing project on this vacant land on Garfield/Wolever instead of the highly valued park land on Sherburn.

Why not help the church and the nation broker a sharing agreement where the church can demarcate specific hours when they have priority use of their lot (during the church services, regular church meetings, etc.), and the rest of the week, overflow from the other lot is allowed. And vice versa: should the church lot fill up, they can park in the other lot. And while all this negotiation is going on, the parking for the supportive housing unit can also work out an agreement with the two lots to ensure the spaces needed are available without encroaching on the neighbours’ needs. 

With this strategy, everyone wins: 
--> the neighbourhood keeps its park
--> supportive housing is built in a core city neighbourhood
--> neighbouring property owners with overlapping usage learn to collaborate and share resources.

Please don't make Winnipeggers choose between two goods (housing, green space) when a wasteful drain-on-resources utilitarian land use (parking lot) gets more space than is warranted.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whose death matters?

In June of 2024, a man was just riding his bike to work. Early in the morning when traffic should be low to nonexistent. Wearing a helmet and a reflective vest.  A racing driver lost control and plowed him over.  Anyone who bikes in this city was grieved and outraged.  This stretch of roadway is designated as a bike route. There's a little green sign with a bicycle icon to tell you that. The wide road that invites speeding certainly doesn't. How does a person even drive 159 km/hr on a sleepy residential street within city limits? (Because the street is too damn wide.) For about as long as it has existed, the cycling advocacy organization has identified this stretch of roadway as a route in critical need of remediation to make it safer.  So, within a week, temporary safety measures had been rolled out. Reduced speed limit signs were erected, poly posts narrowed the roadway and speed cameras made sure folks took it seriously.  Ha ha ha ha ha ha. No. 20, 40,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bike 19

It's Earth Day today. It's a day, not to worship creation, but to pay mind to it, and in so doing, to worship the creator. So, says Sarah Pulliam Bailey , was the intention of Earth Day's originator. I confess I'm not doing anything special for the day. I take pride -- perhaps too much -- in the "eco-morality" of the normal things I do. That morality, sense of self-righteousness, is not the reason for my choices. Instead, it's a conviction that it is, in fact, worship when I climb on my bike; dig paper out of the recycling bin or stock used envelopes for reuse; dissect a teabag so the paper tab goes in recycling, the bag into compost, and only the string into the garbage; use my thrift store dishes; even when I carpool with someone else. The little bits of inconvenience that I subject myself to in order to reduce waste are intended for the sake of the Creator. The attitude is not always worshipful; on my way home today, I was once again muttering i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bike 7

Steady falling snow against grey skies did not encourage bike riding. But when the sun broke through late afternoon, I got up my gumption to leave the house for a short jaunt to the Forks. Leaving behind the gloves was a mistake but otherwise, it wasn't too bad. Underneath the Norwood Bridge, the bike path was covered with rivulets of ice from meltage dripping down from the bridge, and for the width of the two bridge spans, the river was flowing water right up at the surface, whereas the rest of the way appeared to be completely snowed over yet. That small view of open water was a reminder of the pending flood we'll see this spring, and of the great vulnerability we have to the elements: all it would take is the combination of above zero temperatures and an enormous ice jam, and we'll have some seriously rising water.
Post a Comment
Read more