[picard102]

If you are doing strenuous outdoor activity, it makes sense that things can get dangerous as it gets hotter, and maybe a humidex of 45 is too hot to do that type of work at all. When you're a lifeguard at a pool, you don't need to stop working because of a specific humidex reading. Your ordinary breaks are probably plenty, as long as you are properly hydrating.

Anyone having to work outdoors in 45 degree weather is inhumane. I would not vote for any politician who's promise is to endanger workers by making them work in such conditions.

 

[evandyk]

You would like every worker who works outdoors to stop working based on an arbitrary threshold? Why not 46? That would have solved the issue completely. I don't think any lifeguards were in danger.

 

[Northern Light]

Anyone having to work outdoors in 45 degree weather is inhumane. I would not vote for any politician who's promise is to endanger workers by making them work in such conditions.

Its important to point out that most people who seek an outdoor lifeguard job are sun lovers who enjoy the heat. It would seem odd to apply for such a job otherwise. They also tend to be young and fit.....

That said, no one should be out in that for hours on end, without water, or shade, or the ability to cool down.

But they have or should have all of those abilities.

Life guard chairs have shade structures which I've seen in use.

Life guards are supposed to rotated off the chair and/or deck with regularity, moreso in hot temperatures.

Access to cold water is standard.

When a lifeguard is relieved they are allowed to dip in the pool to cool off, showers are also provided at all swimming facilities and you can adjust the temperature as desired.

****

Given that pools are essential for people living without air conditioning to try and keep body temps within a healthy range, closing them is not acceptable.

I don't know if they have A/C in all Life Guard offices, but they should.

 

[evandyk]

The key point is that the city was taking one single temperature threshold and applying it to all outdoor tasks, whether that was sitting in a shaded lifeguard chair or working on intense outdoor tasks like construction or landscaping.

When someone thought about it for a second, it was obvious that was foolish and they got the pools reopened. Not sure why somebody didn't think about it for a second before closing the pools, but at least they got it right eventually.

 

[txlseries4]

The pool closures came up as the last item last night at council, and the answer from various staff was that there weren't enough staff (lifeguards). The city had moved to open more pools and extend the hours, but they didn't have enough staff, made worse by the need to provide extended breaks because of the extreme heat, and there wasn't a plan for both events at the same time.

On June 15 the city announced the early opening of 15 pools, but then the city quickly changed the plan and announced, on Friday June 20, all outdoor pools (about 50) would be open for the weekend.

Here's how Matt Elliott captured it,
"It is a commitment ... an action that's already been taken. It's beyond an apology in terms of the readiness for that," staff say in response to criticisms of Sunday's pool closures. They seem confident it won't happen again.
On further questioning, City Manager says the issue was that the city moved to open pools early and extend hours, but didn't also move to increase staffing levels. "We should have had more staff there," says park staffer.

The motion was actually about the need to provide residents and even 311 with up to date information when this stuff happens. She said on Sunday residents were looking up the hours on outdated city website pages, showing up at pools, and then faced with the closures. People were calling 311, who had zero info, and councillors too were struggling to find out what was happening.

Ball dropped, but hopefully early enough in the summer means it's a blip people forget about with other anticipated hot days ahead.

 

[picard102]

You would like every worker who works outdoors to stop working based on an arbitrary threshold? Why not 46? That would have solved the issue completely. I don't think any lifeguards were in danger.

I'd stop it at 35. The word arbitrary is used alot to stall worker protections.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

The "official" temperature is always the "shade" temperature, in an open field. So the temperature in the sun is always higher.

The night temperature is on the shady side of the earth.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I can forgive snow plows that cannot plow snow, and overlook closing our pools during a heat wave while exclaiming that Torontonians visit the pools to cool down, and I can accept a 17% property tax increase over Chow's first two years as an effort to reverse under investment in key areas. But if Olivia Chow cannot achieve city-wide distribution of homeless shelters, breaking the decades-long unofficial policy of placing the vast majority in the downtown, then I am done with her.

Toronto wants to put homeless shelters in its suburbs. Neighbours say not so fast

A new process of selecting shelters was supposed to ease tensions with residents, but as the city quickly moves to open 20 locations — many outside the core — some residents are pushing back.

www.thestar.com

Paywall free: https://archive.is/VSAkQ

Just look the city's shelter map. With the exception of Eva's Place (youth shelter), there isn't a single shelter between Allen Rd. the 401, DVP and Eglinton. Downtown must no longer be a dumping ground for the city, province's and nation's homeless, addicted, mentally ill, and asylum seekers. We sane, sober and stable downtown homeowners want nice things too; just the same as the likes of Forest Hill, Lawrence Park, and Bedford Park.

 

[Richard White]

I can forgive snow plows that cannot plow snow, and overlook closing our pools during a heat wave while exclaiming that Torontonians visit the pools to cool down, and I can accept a 17% property tax increase over Chow's first two years as an effort to reverse under investment in key areas. But if Olivia Chow cannot achieve city-wide distribution of homeless shelters, breaking the decades-long unofficial policy of placing the vast majority in the downtown, then I am done with her.

Toronto wants to put homeless shelters in its suburbs. Neighbours say not so fast

A new process of selecting shelters was supposed to ease tensions with residents, but as the city quickly moves to open 20 locations — many outside the core — some residents are pushing back.

www.thestar.com

Paywall free: https://archive.is/VSAkQ

Just look the city's shelter map. With the exception of Eva's Place (youth shelter), there isn't a single shelter between Allen Rd. the 401, DVP and Eglinton. Downtown must no longer be a dumping ground for the city, province's and nation's homeless, addicted, mentally ill, and asylum seekers. We sane, sober and stable downtown homeowners want nice things too; just the same as the likes of Forest Hill, Lawrence Park, and Bedford Park.

View attachment 662695

Here's the other issue with this..

Most of the services these people require such as rehab, food, etc are all downtown based.

You can put shelters pretty much anywhere but if they are not near services people need they won't use them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Here's the other issue with this.. Most of the services these people require such as rehab, food, etc are all downtown based. You can put shelters pretty much anywhere but if they are not near services people need they won't use them.

That's chicken and egg thinking. Like ducks to the pond seeking bread, the reason people in need go downtown is that's where the food, services and shelter is. If the shelters in the suburbs are going to work, the homeless industrial complex of non-profits, charities, city and health services must be included into the mix.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You can put shelters pretty much anywhere but if they are not near services people need they won't use them.

Considering the amount of homeless I see in the burbs these days, I doubt that. If anything there is an economic case to put them in the burbs. If you are worried about social impact - put the shelters in industrial areas.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

You can put shelters pretty much anywhere but if they are not near services people need they won't use them.

This is not accurate, There are already many suburban shelters, and they are full.

 

[zang]

Considering the amount of homeless I see in the burbs these days, I doubt that. If anything there is an economic case to put them in the burbs. If you are worried about social impact - put the shelters in industrial areas.

AoD

NIMBYs will worry about their property values going down, as always; ignoring that their outsized interest in “protecting” those values (ie; ensuring there’s regular annual accruement above the inflation rate). If they want to ignore that their protectionism is at least part of the reason people need housing, I say put shelters in NIMBY-rich areas and let’s force exorbitantly high housing prices down.

 

[DSCToronto]

I can forgive snow plows that cannot plow snow, and overlook closing our pools during a heat wave while exclaiming that Torontonians visit the pools to cool down, and I can accept a 17% property tax increase over Chow's first two years as an effort to reverse under investment in key areas. But if Olivia Chow cannot achieve city-wide distribution of homeless shelters, breaking the decades-long unofficial policy of placing the vast majority in the downtown, then I am done with her.

Toronto wants to put homeless shelters in its suburbs. Neighbours say not so fast

A new process of selecting shelters was supposed to ease tensions with residents, but as the city quickly moves to open 20 locations — many outside the core — some residents are pushing back.

www.thestar.com

Paywall free: https://archive.is/VSAkQ

Just look the city's shelter map. With the exception of Eva's Place (youth shelter), there isn't a single shelter between Allen Rd. the 401, DVP and Eglinton. Downtown must no longer be a dumping ground for the city, province's and nation's homeless, addicted, mentally ill, and asylum seekers. We sane, sober and stable downtown homeowners want nice things too; just the same as the likes of Forest Hill, Lawrence Park, and Bedford Park.

View attachment 662695

I also think homeless shelters need to be distributed but, even as a "Strong Mayor", Chow has one vote in Council and it was the suburban councillors who voted this down. It is called democracy - and sometimes we get results we do not like, eg.. Donald Trump (twice) and Rob Ford (once). Olivia can be blamed for several things, the shelter vote, not so much.

 

[Northern Light]

I can forgive snow plows that cannot plow snow, and overlook closing our pools during a heat wave while exclaiming that Torontonians visit the pools to cool down, and I can accept a 17% property tax increase over Chow's first two years as an effort to reverse under investment in key areas. But if Olivia Chow cannot achieve city-wide distribution of homeless shelters, breaking the decades-long unofficial policy of placing the vast majority in the downtown, then I am done with her.

Toronto wants to put homeless shelters in its suburbs. Neighbours say not so fast

A new process of selecting shelters was supposed to ease tensions with residents, but as the city quickly moves to open 20 locations — many outside the core — some residents are pushing back.

www.thestar.com

Paywall free: https://archive.is/VSAkQ

Just look the city's shelter map. With the exception of Eva's Place (youth shelter), there isn't a single shelter between Allen Rd. the 401, DVP and Eglinton. Downtown must no longer be a dumping ground for the city, province's and nation's homeless, addicted, mentally ill, and asylum seekers. We sane, sober and stable downtown homeowners want nice things too; just the same as the likes of Forest Hill, Lawrence Park, and Bedford Park.

View attachment 662695

Let me suggest, the bigger issue is that we really ought to be out of the business of building shelters (I'm not suggesting shuttering them all).

I am suggesting that permanent affordable housing (apartments are actually cheaper); better still, if you build them in line with the Vienna model, mixed income, internally self-sufficient (market units cover the cost of subsidized units) and you subject most to architectural design competitions, neighbourhoods actually contend to get the new housing rather than fighting it, particularly if it replaces eyesore strip plazas or the like.

In an ideal world (meaning one after 20 years of investing in the manner I just prescribed), you shut down ~85% of the Shelter beds, in favour of a model in which people in need are placed in permanent new housing within 7 calendars days of showing up at a reception facility.

This chart is from the 2024 Shelter budget:

The operating cost of a Shelter Bed in Toronto is between $40,000 to $50,000 per year.

That's ~$4,000 per month.

An entry level market-rent unit is just over 1/2 that. But is about $1,300 a month at-cost, and there is ~$200-400 recoverable, in theory, from Ontario Works, slightly more from ODSP.

So, net $1,100 max.

That's over 3 full apartments for every shelter bed.

That's w/o the Vienna model supporting it.

Diverting capital to building both net new and replacement housing that would see the City save enough on shelters to building considerably more proper housing is the most sensible thing in the world.

****

In the interim, closing the worst shelters (high instances of violence, lousiest living conditions, highest capacity) as we build newer shelters, that are capped at 60 beds, that fit more seamlessly into the community, would greatly reduce opposition.

While spreading out shelters does reduce some critical mass of services.........it also has some other effects like reducing the local supply of illicit narcotics when the market isn't as large, and making problematic behavior stand out more, allowing appropriate intervention.

I think we could replace the 5-10 worst shelters in the City.....maybe something like 1,200 beds, with 20 facilities of 60 beds each, Max 2 per neighbourhood, it would serve the homeless and the City well.

But the greater focus should be on swapping out hostels for homes.

If you look at the discrete numbers (unique shelter visits) we need ~23,000 people worth of accommodation. A portion of these are families (typically refugees).....so ~20,000 units should do the trick.

Its not as hard as government makes it look, if they prioritize dollars thoughtfully.