[generalcanada]

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:

View attachment 662830

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.

Its an old chart but another read on it shows that all these extra dollars just arent needed.
doing the math is cool and all. but its come up numorous times. Canada and specifically Toronto and Vancouver just takes in so many refugees its just unsustainable.
Any other ideas other than a better way to spread refugees across the country or dare I say it cut off entirely is just not a serious solution.

 

[lead82]

Canada needs to severely cut how many immigrants and certainly the number kr refugees we take on. The economic pie isn’t growing to be able to absorb such numbers. Canada always had a reasonable balance before Trudeau opened the barn doors. We need to do major immigration reform in this country to restore stability and our financial ability to support new people coming in but also ensure the people already here have opportunities to improve their life.

 

[Mihairokov]

Its an old chart but another read on it shows that all these extra dollars just arent needed.
doing the math is cool and all. but its come up numorous times. Canada and specifically Toronto and Vancouver just takes in so many refugees its just unsustainable.
Any other ideas other than a better way to spread refugees across the country or dare I say it cut off entirely is just not a serious solution.

In the last ten years Ontario has only settled 140K refugees.

Resettled Refugees – Monthly IRCC Updates - Canada - Resettled Refugees by Province/Territory of Intended Destination, Gender, Age Group and Immigration Category - Open Government Portal

Resettled refugees who arrived in Canada as part of the Government of Canada's Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program. Datasets include resettled refugees who have received settlement...

open.canada.ca

That's not a number that would be overtly noticeable on the ground, and the vast majority of them are sponsored and taken care of to ensure that they don't end up in shelters or on the street.

Perhaps you're mistaken in the point you're trying to reach.

Are you able to spot a refugee on the street when you see one? How are you certain they are a refugee if so? How are you certain this is the issue you're making it out to be?

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Canada needs to severely cut how many immigrants and certainly the number kr refugees we take on. The economic pie isn’t growing to be able to absorb such numbers. Canada always had a reasonable balance before Trudeau opened the barn doors. We need to do major immigration reform in this country to restore stability and our financial ability to support new people coming in but also ensure the people already here have opportunities to improve their life.

What about the refugees from the United States of America escaping the tyranny currently there?

 

[generalcanada]

In the last ten years Ontario has only settled 140K refugees.

Resettled Refugees – Monthly IRCC Updates - Canada - Resettled Refugees by Province/Territory of Intended Destination, Gender, Age Group and Immigration Category - Open Government Portal

Resettled refugees who arrived in Canada as part of the Government of Canada's Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program. Datasets include resettled refugees who have received settlement...

open.canada.ca

That's not a number that would be overtly noticeable on the ground, and the vast majority of them are sponsored and taken care of to ensure that they don't end up in shelters or on the street.

Perhaps you're mistaken in the point you're trying to reach.

Are you able to spot a refugee on the street when you see one? How are you certain they are a refugee if so? How are you certain this is the issue you're making it out to be?

Bro thats quite egregious misinformation. The terms "settled" only applies to those the government or someone sponsors to come here. Not many people have issues with that program.
Its the asylum program where anyone can claim refugee status and we are forced to house them and feed them as per international law.
That 140k doesnt apply to the 500,000 refugees who have claimed asylum in the last 3 years alone.
Source for your viewing pleasure: https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/protection/Pages/index.aspx

 

[Northern Light]

On the point above, we have current year numbers through the end of April:

Asylum claimants by year – 2025 - Canada.ca

Asylum claimants by year – 2025

www.canada.ca

There's extensive detail at the link above, but this is the summary:

That's a notable spike in April.

The May and June numbers will bear watching.

***

Note that the above numbers do not include a variety of other persons being resettled.

From an article in The Star earlier this month:

Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...cle_5326ac19-e27c-434f-aa05-1dd7b72e689e.html

 

[Northern Light]

Coming to next week's Economic and Community Development Ctte is a report on the strategic plan for the City Childcare system, 2025-2030.

It is everything one could dislike about the Toronto civil service, its so bad, it could have been written by the Parks department.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/ec/bgrd/backgroundfile-256726.pdf

The report is filled with needless justification for childcare and backpatting for having delivered some the last few years. As if there were any discussion that it wasn't needed and to cut it.......

Then it shifts in to priorities, beginning with reconciliation....... hold it........the childcare system is meant to be supervision and play for little children............. the priorities are spaces, trained staff, safety and nutrition, and nice play spaces.

Only secondarily does it mention expansion.

But then..... it moves on to suggest even under this core area..............nothing specific or actionable........just endless miasma of pablum.

Let me re-write the above as it should have appeared:

Whereas the City continues to have significant wait lists for affordable childcare it is a priority to expand the number of spaces. Additionally, we need as a system to do better at meeting the special needs
of children with disabilities and shift workers.

Action Items:

The City will open 'x' additional childcare centres each year from 2026-2030, resulting in 'y' spaces.

At a Cost of ' $' Cost per space ''$'

The City will add 'x number of childcare centres and spaces offering weekend daytime care.

At a Cost of ' $' Cost per space ''$'

The City will add 'x' number of childcare centres and spaces offering evening care to 11pm.

At a Cost of ' $' Cost per space ''$'

The City will add 'x' number of childcare centres and spaces offering overnight care.

At a Cost of ' $' Cost per space ''$'

Should the City approve this plan, a budget submission for an increase of '$' will be made for the 2026 budget process, with subsequent budgets to be determined, but an approximate annual cost of 'y' in 2030.

There. Done.

 

[DSCToronto]

Coming to next week's Economic and Community Development Ctte is a report on the strategic plan for the City Childcare system, 2025-2030.

It is everything one could dislike about the Toronto civil service, its so bad, it could have been written by the Parks department.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/ec/bgrd/backgroundfile-256726.pdf

The report is filled with needless justification for childcare and backpatting ffor having delivered some the last few years. As if there were any discussion that it wasn't needed and to cut it.......

Then it shifts in to priorities, beginning with reconciliation....... hold it........the childcare system is meant to be supervision and play for little children............. the priorities are spaces, trained staff, safety and nutrition, and nice play spaces.

Only secondarily does it mention expansion.

But then..... it moves on to suggest even under this core area..............nothing specific or actionable........just endless miasma of pablum.

View attachment 663256

Let me re-write the above as it should have appeared:

Whereas the City continues to have significant wait lists for affordable childcare it is a priority to expand the number of spaces. Additionally, we need as a system to do better at meeting the special needs
of children with disabilities and shift workers.

Action Items:

The City will open 'x' additional childcare centres each year from 2026-2030, resulting in 'y' spaces.

At a Cost of ' $' Cost per space ''$'

The City will add 'x number of childcare centres and spaces offering weekend daytime care.

At a Cost of ' $' Cost per space ''$'

The City will add 'x' number of childcare centres and spaces offering evening care to 11pm.

At a Cost of ' $' Cost per space ''$'

The City will add 'x' number of childcare centres and spaces offering overnight care.

At a Cost of ' $' Cost per space ''$'

Should the City approve this plan, a budget submission for an increase of '$' will be made for the 2026 budget process, with subsequent budgets to be determined, but an approximate annual cost of 'y' in 2030.

There. Done.

I see you awarded the Report Writers the ultimate put-down. "...it's so bad, it could have been written by the Parks department."

 

[Dan416]

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:

View attachment 662830

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.

The way you have described it makes me believe the way we are treating the homeless situation is insane and not economically justifiable. So why the hell are we not doing what you suggest? It sounds like it makes perfect sense and would be cheaper than what we're currently doing!

 

[zang]

The way you have described it makes me believe the way we are treating the homeless situation is insane and not economically justifiable. So why the hell are we not doing what you suggest? It sounds like it makes perfect sense and would be cheaper than what we're currently doing!

Because there’s a large portion of the electorate who seem to believe the only way people get out of situations like drug abuse and homelessness is by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

They also seem to take on a classist view that those in such situations are somehow inferior, and that they aren’t worth spending any money on if that money will somehow improve someone’s situation because one person out of a thousand might just overtly take advantage of it.

The social contract died in the 1980s.

 

[Northern Light]

Because there’s a large portion of the electorate who seem to believe the only way people get out of situations like drug abuse and homelessness is by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

They also seem to take on a classist view that those in such situations are somehow inferior, and that they aren’t worth spending any money on if that money will somehow improve someone’s situation because one person out of a thousand might just overtly take advantage of it.

The social contract died in the 1980s.

While I get this take.........and can't disagree that what you say exists, in some measure...........

I don't think its the critical issue.

Why would any reactionary, low-information Nimby be ok with another shelter, but not another middle to upper-middle income apartment building?

This to me is more on the bureaucracy and the politicians.

 

[Northern Light]

The way you have described it makes me believe the way we are treating the homeless situation is insane and not economically justifiable. So why the hell are we not doing what you suggest? It sounds like it makes perfect sense and would be cheaper than what we're currently doing!

I can't give a certain answer, as even when I meet some of the players, I don't generally express my exasperation or disbelief the way I do here. I want to get another meeting, after all.

That said, my instinct is that while some portion of this is bad information. ie. pols and civil service who don't know what the best model is..........

More of it....is something else......preserving the status-quo. Poverty and homelessness is job security for many. They would be aghast and my suggestion that they actually want to maintain or grow the problem, but as their actions
are suggestive of this........its difficult to come up with a less problematic conclusion.

I will concede, in fairness, that the senior levels of government don't make this easy. But then I expect responsible municipal bureaucrats and pols to summon the media and lay blame where it belongs; regrettably, we're not seeing that.

 

[christiesplits]

We have a candidate list for Scaborough South-West.....

View attachment 661354

Two names jump out:

Former Councillor and perennial NDP candidate Neethan Shan

And Anu Sriskandarajah who is the wife of Scarborough South West Councillor Parthi Kandeval

There are now 14 candidates registered, with an additional trustee, Zakir Patel, throwing his hat in the ring. That makes three TDSB trustees running for the byelection.

Another candidate who could be competitive is Anita Anandarajan, a provincial candidate for the Liberals last election in neighbouring Scarborough North.

Nominations close August 15.

Ward 25, Scarborough-Rouge Park By-Election: List of Certified Candidates & Third Party Advertisers

The following list contains website and/or social media links provided by candidates and third party advertisers to the City Clerk. The City Clerk provides these links to the public strictly as a convenience to promote citizen involvement in the municipal election. The City Clerk does not...

www.toronto.ca

 

[picard102]

looking at all the websites listed so far, these are all a chop for me.

 

[DSCToronto]

looking at all the websites listed so far, these are all a chop for me.

Are you a potential voter?