There’s a movie I like called Zero Effect. It’s about an erratic and elusive private investigator played by Bill Pullman and while there’s never really such a thing as a “normal” private investigator in the movies, I found one line of dialogue in Zero Effect personally insightful. It’s about the art of finding things.
“When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them,” Pullman says as Daryl Zero in the ubiquitous voiceover. “When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them.”
Finding housing solutions in the midst of a crisis is a lot like that; doing anything is a relatively simple proposition because of all the things in the world we can do anything. But when it comes to doing something, it becomes so much harder because doing something comes with a unique set of challenges and benchmarks.
It’s the difference between saying, “Hey, is there any city land that we can quickly make available for housing?” and getting the answer, “Yes there is, how about these two chucks of ‘underutilized’ parkland?”
It’s tough to say what people thought would become of Mayoral Direction B3, the directive where Cam Guthrie asked staff to find “Strategic Real Estate Partnerships on Underutilized City-Owned Assets”, but I’d wager that no one believed that council would be asked to pull a King Solomon with our parkland. The original intent of the directive, I believe, was to use something like a municipal parking lot.
Again, things are easier said than done, because sometimes a parking lot is not just a parking lot. Google what the lot across the street from police headquarters used to be and quickly come to the conclusion that you wouldn’t want to live in a house built there.
At issue is that many on council seemed to think that they were painted into a no-win scenario by Wednesday’s report: Yes, we need housing, but then there’s that much discussed parkland deficit that’s not getting fixed in the near future. What kind of choice is that, more affordable housing, or more park space, which is always affordable?
Along with that is the predicament created by the mayor, he wants to use Strong Mayor Powers so that he can be seen taking decisive action, but he doesn’t want the stink of their authoritarianism either. Guthrie again made council an unwitting accomplice by insisting that they ratify directions he’s given, even if they’ve once more ended up somewhere he didn’t intend.
As we approach the summer break and consider the year so far when it comes to action on housing and homelessness, we see the limitations of good intentions. There’s no doubt that our council means well and is keen to create solutions, but what have they been able to really accomplish?
The outcome of the Health and Housing Symposium remains frustratingly unknowable. What directions came out of it, and what work is ongoing to accomplish those goals is something known only to staff. Nearly three months after the third and final day, no formal report has been presented at either Guelph city council or the Joint Social Services and Land Ambulance Committee.
The one structured encampment project still in the offing will face its next test at a special meeting on July 16, but what we know from a report in the agenda published Thursday is that county staff are not behind the idea. They add “yet”, but it’s been clear all along that the county feels like tiny homes are out of their scope, not to mention their imaginations.
The Royal City Mission continues to struggle being the one fixed point for people in need downtown, the Downtown Friends are trying to crowd source to fill the gaps, temporary shelter space is on the move again from a hotel in the north end to the old Norfolk Manor, people all across the city are feeling fatigued by these crises, and we talked a few weeks ago about how the University of Guelph just helped make matters worse.
The big problem is that we’re now less than half of a year until winter comes again. Every year in September, October and November we say that we can’t go through this again, and then we do.
This time was supposed to be different. We did the hard work of finding out where the gaps are, understanding what types of service and housing that we need, and getting all our social service ducks in a row from governments to agencies and non-profits. Are we really this bad at solving a problem, or are we really just that in over our skis?
I see my own confusion as a reflection of the one experienced by council, many of whom noted that a lack of land isn’t a problem when it comes to housing.
In talking about costs this week, the Guelph and District Home Builders’ Association prominently mentioned the cost of construction as the main factor driving housing prices, not the cost of land. And what about all that work to cut fees and red tape? At no point in the last two years has anyone ever said the cost and availability of land is the problem.
Perhaps it’s okay to admit the truth: The City of Guelph cannot solve homelessness or create affordable housing on its own. But then what happens? What happens when we admit the truth and then confront other levels of government that are either too cold or too distant to create solutions, and are also unwilling to give cities the resources they need to enact the ideas they’ve already had?
We’re caught between duelling gravitational forces; one is the desire to act, and the other is the limitations of funding and legislation prescribed by upper levels of government. It’s a deadlock, and at some point, it needs to be broken. When or what that will look like are interesting questions, but right now it adds up to our own “Zero Effect”. We’re trying do something, but it seems like we can’t even do anything.
