Road Show Final Report

The Dream Team Goes on the Road A report to the Law Foundation of Ontario

1

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

hŠ’•–ž“Œ‹ŽŒ”Œ•›šG

The Dream Team is extremely grateful to the many people and organizations who worked with us to make the Road Show a reality. They supported our dreams, shared our struggles, trusted our instincts and helped us to celebrate our success. In Particular we would like to thanks members of the “Road Show” steering commitǦ tee who through many meetings and discussions shared their knowledge and inǦ sights to ensure the success of this project: Steering Committee: x x x x x x x x x x x

Jennifer Ramsay Yutaka Dirks Paul Dowling Jackie Rankine Mark Shapiro Esther Mwangi Linda Chamberlain Phillip Dufresne Linda Chamberlain Eliana Roman Brain Harper Pedro Cabezas

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario HomeComing Community Choice Coalition Houselink Community Homes The Dream Team The Dream Team The Dream Team The Dream Team The Dream Team The Dream Team The Dream Team The Dream Team

2

j–•›Œ•›šG x x x x x x x x x

Executive Summary………………………………….…. Background………………………………………………… The Research……………………………………………… Education and Networks………………………………. Review of Road Show Communities……………….. Impacts of the Road Show…………………………….. Other Opportunities…………………………………….. Human Rights……………………………………………… Conclusion ………………………………………………….

4 8 9 11 12 17 19 20 22

Appendix A

Discussion about whether to focus on group home byǦlaws

Appendix B

Outline “script” of the Road Show workshop

Appendix C

Media account of Council proceedings on Toronto supportive housing project

Appendix D

Report of evaluations of the Road Show

Appendix E

Summary Report “We Are Neighbours”

Appendix F

Research report on discriminatory zoning – GHK International

Appendix G

Selected publicity materials from Road Show communities

Appendix H

Tool Kit (Draft)

3

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

lŸŒŠœ›ŒGzœ””ˆ™ G The Dream Team is a group of about 20 psychiatric consumer/survivors, and family members who advocate for more supportive housing in Ontario for people with mental health issues. In 2007 the Dream Team received a grant from the Law Foundation of Ontario to fund research, education and outreach about the impact of restrictive proviǦ sions in municipal policies and zoning byǦlaws on people living with mental health isǦ sues. The Dream Team’s partners in the project are the Advocacy Centre for Tenants OnǦ tario (ACTO) and HomeComing Community Choice Coalition. With the support of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO), the Dream Team hired land use planning consultants, GHK International, to research the land use planning policies and practices of Ontario municipalities to find examples of discrimiǦ nation against people with disabilities. GHK found wide spread discrimination in planǦ ning policy and practice based on the characteristics of the people who will live in proǦ posed housing. Based on the research, the Dream Team set out to visit a number of municipalities where the zoning byǦlaws can be seen to be discriminatory. The Dream Team Road Show was designed to share information with people in these communities about disǦ criminatory planning practices and to build networks that will support ongoing inforǦ mation sharing and collaboration. The communities visited by the Road Show were: KitchenerǦWaterloo, Thunder BayǦ Ottawa , Smiths Falls, and Toronto The Dream Team Goes on the Road

4

The table on the following pages sets out the Road Show process compared to the benchmarks identified in the original proposal to the Law Foundation. The Road Show was very successful, a lot has been learned along the way and new opǦ portunities for learning lie ahead. This report describes the process to develop the Road Show and the results of the presentations in various communities and suggests some next steps for the Dream Team to build on that success and to continue to share the message of the Road Show. Probably the most profound impact of the Road Show was to change the way in which people think about community resistance. What might have been perceived in the past as a conflict between the interests of one group, neighbours and another, developers of housing is now better understood as an issue of fundamental human rights. The Dream Team is confident that their work has encouraged consumers, developers and supporters of supportive housing in communities across Ontario to continue to pursue the right of people to live in communities of their choice without discrimination. For the members of the Dream Team, it has strengthened their resolve to speak out. They recognize that they, and all people that live with mental illness, have the same rights as others to live where they choose. The Dream Team has embraced the human rights message as an organizational priority. They will continue to use the Road Show and other tools to share this message with others.

5

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

Benchmark Activity

Target Date

Comments and changes

Establish formal steering committee

early August, 2007

Completed

Submission to Ontario Human Rights Commission

August 31, 2007

Meeting with partners and planners to review research todate Finalize municipalities to be visited

September 2007

Completed; as well, individual Dream Team members had confidential discussions with OHRC staff about discrimination they faced with respect to a proposed supportive housing development in Toronto Completed

Sept/Oct 2007

Completed

Communication to existing networks (HomeComing, ONPHA, legal clinics, consumer networks) outlining plans for “Road Show” & requesting contacts & assistance Meeting with partners to flesh out road trip

October 2007

Completed

October 2007

Meeting with OHRC to report on Dream Team plans and review possible joint strategies

October 2007

Road Show begins with publicity

late October

Completed spring 2008, timelines shifted as a result of challenges detailed below Both HomeComing and Dream Team members participated actively in consultation on Human Rights and Rental Housing Road Show began in Waterloo on May 23, 2008

Road Show continues

fall 2007Spring 2008

Follow-up with communities

after 1st session

Ongoing information sharing with expanding network of contacts

Ongoing

Establish province-wide network of Dream Team affiliates

January 2008 Spring 2008

Ongoing review of evaluations distributed at local sessions

Ongoing

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

Thunder Bay May 28, 2008 Ottawa June 12, 2008 Smiths Falls June 13, 2008 Ongoing communication with partners in the above cities List serv created of participants in Road Show sessions who completed evaluation forms; Dream Team communicating with an expanded list of organizations & networks No longer considered appropriate objective – individual community choice of strategy Evaluation completed using forms completed at sessions and through follow up survey

6

Expansion of current Dream Team web site to include reports on local sessions

February 2008

Will take place in summer of 2009 as final report is posted in Dream Team’s website and distributed to our network

Interim report to funders

Spring 2008

Submitted August 2008

Formalizing new network of psychiatric survivors and advocates

Late spring/early summer 2008

Ongoing contacts with other communities agreed upon in Strategic Planning process

Creation of newsletter reporting on Road Show

Summer 2008

Wider distribution of newsletter through new network and existing networks

Summer 2008

Follow-up with communities visited to provide support

Summer 2008 Fall 2008

Ongoing.

Drafting of motions to municipal councils and/or provincial government as needed

Fall 2008

The Dream Team actively intervened in an application for a supportive housing development in the City of Toronto, with enormous success. The Dream Team presented a brief orally & in writing to the City of Toronto in the context of the City’s Affordable Housing Consultations

Final report is being prepared in a form fit for publication on the Dream Team web site and in other media (subject to funding) Summer 2009

The Dream Team and others are pursuing the potential to file human rights complaints related to discriminatory by-laws.

7

Search for further funds for continued Road Show and discuss other possible activities such as video

Fall 2008

Final report of activities

Dec. 2008

The Dream Team has refined the Road Show for continued presentations in other communities; has developed a workshop, highlighting discriminatory planning, has designed a tool kit for use by local communities faced with issues of discriminatory planning practices (see Appendix H) and is currently pursuing funding for publication and printing of the tool kit. Final report completed June 2009

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

iˆŠ’Ž™–œ•‹GG For more than 10 years the Dream Team have been telling their stories, stories of their personal struggles with homelessness and the stigma of living with mental illness. And stories as well about the lifeǦaltering benefits of supportive housing and how their lives have been changed by living in supportive communities and by becoming members of the Dream Team. The Dream Team is a group of about 20 psychiatric consumer/survivors, and family members who advocate for more supportive housing in Ontario for people with mental health issues. Through presentations and workshops and by telling their own life stoǦ ries to politicians, community groups and institutions, Dream Team members have been transformed from being homeless to become committed advocates for supporǦ tive housing and fighting NIMBYǦism (Not In My BackYard); from psychiatric consumer survivors to educators demythologizing “mental illness”. As Dream Team members told their stories about the life altering benefits of supporǦ tive housing, they became aware of the discriminatory attitudes of some people in the community toward this form of affordable housing. They also experienced the way in which the local land use planning process is used to create barriers to the development of needed housing. They became convinced that something needed to be done to reǦ spond to this discriminatory practice. In 2007 the Dream Team received a grant from the Law Foundation of Ontario to fund research, education and outreach about the impact of restrictive provisions in municiǦ pal policies and zoning byǦlaws on people living with mental health issues. Their plan was to take their stories to a next level, to share their personal stories and commitment with other communities across Ontario informed by inǦdepth research. The Dream Team’s partners in the project are the Advocacy Centre for Tenants OnǦ tario (ACTO) and HomeComing Community Choice Coalition. The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) is a provinceǦwide community legal clinic that works to better the housing situation of Ontario residents who have low incomes including tenants, coǦ op members and people who are homeless. Homecoming promotes the rights of peoǦ ple with mental illness to live where they choose. Homecoming ensures city planning practices do not become a platform for discrimination, prejudices and fears, identifies potential human rights abuses and takes legal action against them, as well as helping supportive housing providers create new housing. The funding provided under the Law Foundation’s Law and Innovation Fund is inǦ tended to “advance the understanding of law and justice through education, research, libraries and legal aid.” The Dream Team’s project was designed with three distinct The Dream Team Goes on the Road

8

phases: x To conduct research on planning policies and practices which restrict the location of supportive housing x To conduct education sessions in selected Ontario communities to share infor mation about the impact of these policies and practices x To build networks with like minded people and organizations in communities across the province in order to inform a human rights response to discriminatory planning policies and practices. Over the next two years the Dream Team’s Road Show unfolded, with changes in diǦ rection, changes in personnel and, occasionally, changes in priority. The changes all contributed to the value of the project. This report describes the process to date. The Road Show has been wildly successful, a lot has been learned along the way and new opportunities for learning lie ahead.

yŒšŒˆ™ŠG With the support of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO), the Dream Team hired highly respected land use planning consultants, GHK International, to reǦ search the land use planning policies and practices of Ontario municipalities in order to find examples of discrimination against people with disabilities. A copy of the research report is attached as Appendix F. GHK looked at a large number of municipal byǦlaws and found that discrimination in planning policy and practice is wide spread. They found byǦlaws, policies and practices which discriminate not based on the physical form of the housing but on the characterǦ istics of the people who live there. They describe this “people zoning” as an affront to the principles in the Ontario Human Rights Code1 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms2. The research by GHK found that land use planning can support discrimination either through discriminatory municipal laws and policies or through discriminatory planning practices. They found that affordable housing and supportive housing are not even defined in municipal zoning byǦlaws, making it difficult to argue that these forms of housing are subject to discrimination in byǦlaws. On the other hand, organizations that try to develop these forms of housing report that they are often required to submit to more intensive community consultation and more rigorous review than other forms of housing. Even if the byǦlaws are not discriminatory, clearly the practice often is. The clearest case of discrimination in zoning byǦlaws is in the treatment of shelters, group homes and residential care facilities. Group homes, defined by the characterisǦ 9

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

tics of their residents, are subject to a number of provisions including caps on resiǦ dents, limits on types of dwellings, distancing requirements, and other policies that narrow the range of opportunities for group home providers and their residents. GHK chose to focus the research on group home byǦlaws in order to produce a strong case against people zoning, to challenge the most blatant discrimination and, hopefully, to establish a legal precedent. This decision to focus on group home byǦlaws resulted in intensive soul searching for the Dream Team and its partners. Most supportive housing providers no longer see the group home model as the ideal way to meet the housing and support needs of psyǦ chiatric consumer/survivors. Concerns were raised that focusing on group homes might be seen as an endorsement of that housing model and that it might lead to a diǦ version from the real issues of affordable and supportive housing. For a more detailed review of the discussion see Appendix A. After a lengthy debate, the Dream Team and their partners agreed to continue the focus on group home byǦlaws as the vehicle to challenge the legitimacy of “people zoning”, while at the same time recognizing that discrimination is also achieved through planning practices. The second phase of research looked more deeply at the byǦlaws and policies of six OnǦ tario municipalities: Toronto, Ottawa, Kitchener, Cambridge, Sarnia and Smiths Falls. In all six communities the byǦlaws and policies related to group homes were found to be discriminatory. While these were not the only examples of such discrimination, they provide a good cross section of municipalities of different sizes and locations. A deǦ tailed discussion of the zoning byǦlaws in each of these communities can be found in the GHK Report Ǧ Appendix F.

End notes: 1- Section 2. (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code states: Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance

2- Section 15. (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms States: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

10

l‹œŠˆ›–•Gˆ•‹GuŒ›ž–™’šG Based on the GHK research, the Dream Team set out to visit a number of municipaliǦ ties where the zoning byǦlaws can be seen to be discriminatory. The Dream Team was ready to go on the road! The Dream Team Road Show, as it came to be called, had two clear purposes: x

x

To share information with people in diverse communities about the discrimina tory nature of planning byǦlaws, policies and practices and the impact of these planning provisions on the ability of people living with disabilities to access af fordable and supportive housing To build networks with like minded people and organizations in communities across the province that will support ongoing information sharing and collabora tion.

The communities finally selected for the Road Show reflect a cross section of Ontario municipalities. Some of them were included in the inǦdepth analysis carried out by GHK, while others were added because the Dream Team had established relationships in those communities. All had byǦlaws that discriminated against people based on perǦ sonal characteristics. The municipalities selected for the Road Show were: x KitchenerǦWaterloo x Thunder Bay x Ottawa x Smiths Falls x Halton x Toronto In each municipality the strategy was to identify local contacts who would be asked to host the Dream Team’s visit to the community. The hosts could include consumer surǦ vivors, agencies or housing providers, all of them local people with an interest in reǦ moving barriers to the development of supportive housing. The Dream Team would meet with the host to describe the Road Show and to negotiate the role of the local community in providing the location, publicizing the event and following up afterǦ wards. Through this process the Dream Team learned that no two communities are the same, that each community requires a different game plan and that the Dream Team needs to be flexible to respond to the different circumstances. A brief description of the experience in each community is provided here, along with some of the evaluative feedback received from local participants. Publicity materials from various communities are attached as Appendix G. 11

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

yŒŒžG–Gy–ˆ‹Gz–žGj–””œ•›ŒšG KitchenerǦWaterloo was the first stop on the Road Show tour. In late February of 2008 members of the Dream Team and their partner organizations met with representatives of the Homelessness and Housing Umbrella Group (HHUG), a broad based group made up of representatives of a number of key local agencies, as well as representatives of the Regional government. The process of negotiating the role of the host was very labour intensive, with detailed exchanges about the fit between the goals of the Dream Team and HHUG’s sensitivity to the local political situation. Among other things, HHUG worried about the potential perception that Kitchener was being criticized by people coming from Toronto with the message that local byǦlaws are discriminatory. They specifically requested that the Dream Team presentation focus on the positive impact that supportive housing has had for members of the Dream Team and the challenges that zoning can present in terms of getting new supportive housing built, without making specific references to local byǦlaws. While this approach seems, on the face of it, to be at odds with the fundamental apǦ proach of the Road Show project, it reflects the reality of the local situation, compliǦ cated by the fact that a City of Kitchener ByǦLaw is currently being challenged before the Ontario Municipal Board by HomeComing and ACTO, two of the Dream Team’s partners, on the basis that it is discriminatory. There were also concerns raised that the interactive parts of the presentation might be too challenging for the community members. HHUG representatives said that they thought most people would be coming in order to learn more about the issue, that it hadn’t been advertised as a workshop to develop a tool kit on how to respond to these issues. This was ironic for the members of the Road Show planning group, who had enlisted the help of a professional workshop designer and facilitator specifically for her assistance to make the workshops more interactive. As it turned out, the Dream Team's workshop presentation in KitchenerǦWaterloo was timely. Two days before the Road Show’s visit a supportive housing project that had received financial support from the municipality was the target of community opposiǦ tion. A group of residents approached Kitchener City Council to demand that funding for the supportive housing project be revoked. Council stood firm and voted unaniǦ mously to go ahead with the housing development. Articles in the local media were very supportive of the project, and aghast at the level of negative reaction from the community. On the day of the Road Show meeting, HHUG also presented a homelessness report The Dream Team Goes on the Road

12

card to two area MPPs, two MPs and the local Mayor. All of the politicians responded positively, despite the fact that the highest grade received by the municipality on any of the five parameters measured was a C+! The process was very instructive for Dream Team members and the intense negotiaǦ tions ultimately created a strong union between the Dream Team and local partners. The workshop as presented was highly interactive and received very positive feedback from the people that attended. For the outline “script” of the workshop see Appendix B. In the evaluation completed at the end of the workshop in Kitchener, almost all of the people that responded (15 out of 18) said that the meeting as a whole was “great” and provided them with helpful information. Several said that the group discussion was the most useful. All five community contacts that responded to a survey several months later said that the opportunity to discuss issues with other people in their community was one of the most useful parts of the presentation – one even called for more group interaction. While not all participants learned a great deal, some were already quite knowledgeable, they all felt that the Dream Team should continue to take their mesǦ sage to other communities. Thunder Bay was the next stop for the Road Show. The Dream Team and their partǦ ners wanted to include a northern community in the Road Show to ensure that people were aware that discriminatory planning was not only a southern issue and that the commitment to responding is province wide. Initial contacts were made with the local legal clinics and, through them, the Housing and Homelessness Coalition. Local contacts related difficulties that the emergency shelter had encountered trying to get a parcel of industrial land rezoned to permit a new shelter, where the opposition was targeted to poor people in general rather than specifically to people with mental illness. The City had introduced a group home byǦlaw which restricts the number of group homes within a particular area. The local Association for Community Living threatǦ ened to challenge the byǦlaw if it was enforced, but did not have a specific project that was at risk. There was interest in the Dream Team Road Show from a number of local mental health agencies who were prepared to help organize and carry on the educaǦ tion work locally. The Thunder Bay Housing and Homelessness Coalition coordinated the Road Show event in late May 2008. Local organizers were disappointed with the turnǦout, yet those who attended were pleased with the results, most evaluations said that the meeting as a whole was “good” or “great”. Similar to Kitchener, survey respondents may not have learned a lot about the specific issues that they did not already know but found all parts of the presentation useful (the role play, the Dream Team members stoǦ 13

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

ries and the opportunity for discussion with members of the Dream Team and with people from their own community. Ottawa presented a challenge in finding a local group to sponsor the Road Show. IniǦ tial contact was made by ACTO with Psychiatric Consumers of Ottawa, who considǦ ered sponsorship of the Dream Team’s visit but decided not to proceed. Contact was also made with Ottawa Salus, a supportive housing provider. They reǦ sponded with some willingness to support the initiative but unable to take a lead role due to other pressures. They identified that, in terms of discriminatory zoning issues, Ottawa was not particularly bad. There is a “special needs housing” definition in the zoning by law from the old City which is problematic in terms of distance separation requirements. The byǦlaws from the suburban municipalities that are now part of OtǦ tawa were expected to be more difficult in that they may lack a definition but have other constraints that would make it difficult to locate supportive housing. All of these things are seen in the context of the City’s consolidation of the byǦlaws for the new amalgamated City. Finally Options Bytown agreed to invite the Dream Team to attend their Annual GenǦ eral Meeting and to present a shortened version of the Road Show. Options Bytown is a nonǦprofit organization that provides supportive housing services in Ottawa, combinǦ ing affordable housing with onǦsite counselling, training and other services for people who have very low incomes and a history of homelessness or special needs that may relate to mental illness, HIV/AIDS or substance use and need help to live independǦ ently. The logistics of the Ottawa Road Show event were disappointing for the members of the Dream Team as well as for some local organizers. The last minute nature of the arrangements meant that the presentation had to be shortened and was still rushed. The fact that the Dream Team stories came right after presentations by consumers from the local community took away from their impact. It was suggested that the Dream Team come back to Ottawa another time to present to the Ottawa Supportive Housing Network. The Network collaborates in coordinated access and research. Their Housing Plus web site features the stories of tenants and staff of supportive housing. http://www.housingplus.ca/Ourstories.html Smiths Falls was an unqualified success. The ingredients which made it so were: x Total commitment from local organizers x A committed lawyer from the local legal clinic who worked very hard to make sure organizations and advocates in the community understood what the session was about and were prepared to come on board x Sensitivity of the Dream Team Coordinator to take things slowly with local orǦ ganizers The Dream Team Goes on the Road

14

x x x

Small but focussed community support Direct involvement of people affected by discriminatory byǦlaws Great planning and thought by local organizers in terms of venue and food

In an eǦmail dated June 16, 2008, the local facilitator wrote:

“We had a dream day with the Dream Team here in Smiths Falls on June 13th! What a transformative experience! For a town close to the epicentre of the 'underǦexamined' rural housing crisis, the Dream Team was an awakening for this community. What exemplary work you're doing, among other things, to raise our collective morale (all 42 of us on Friday!). Consumers have a long and proud history of organizing and putting forth forwardǦleaning strategic initiatives Ǧ The Dream Team is a brave example of our collective capacity. Some participants who previously could barely leave their homes, found their voices again during this event, and the three breakǦout groups produced a wealth of information for our followǦup actions.” Lisa Levesque, Manager, Mental Health Support Project Ǧ The Link, Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Ǧ a part of Lanark Health & Community Services Halton Region was identified as a good location for the Road Show to visit due to its proximity to Toronto and the sense that homelessness and supportive housing are emerging issues in that community. Steering Committee members reached out to loǦ cal contacts in an unsuccessful attempt to identify local consumer organizations that would be interested to participate. Contacts at the Regional government who were familiar with the Dream Team and their rightsǦbased approach indicated that their exǦ perience is that a softer approach has been more successful in their community. In fact, Halton Region has actively supported the development of a consumer group, Voices for Housing Choices, which tells their stories in a similar way to the Dream Team. The Dream Team is exploring possibilities to connect with this group and other supportive people locally at a later date. The experience in Halton taught the Dream Team that it is important to be flexible to respond to the unique needs of each community. The extent of local commitment to affordable housing and the presence of well organized consumer voices suggest that it may be more appropriate for the contact in this community to be with these local supǦ porters than to convene a public forum to hear the Dream Team. The City of Toronto is a different case altogether: there are lots of active people and organizations; the Dream Team is well known and the issues of discriminatory zoning are well known. A different approach is needed. The Steering Committee investigated various forums in and around Toronto where the Dream Team might make Road Show presentations. These discussions resulted in a number of workshop opportunities, which, while they were significant, did not end up being in Toronto. For a description of 15

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

these related workshops see the section on “Other Opportunities” below. While the Dream Team was preparing the Road Show, two incidents occurred in the City of Toronto, which illustrated the phenomenon of discriminatory planning pracǦ tices. In both cases the Dream Team played a role in highlighting these discriminatory practices and successfully overcoming them. In the first incident, neighbours had demanded that their local councillor convene a public meeting so that they could speak against a proposed supportive housing develǦ opment, even though the project required no planning approvals and, consequently, no community consultation. The proponent agreed to hold an “open house” where people could come to hear information about the development but not to speak against it. Dream Team members were present at the open house, as neighbours of the proposed development angrily confronted the councillor for failing to inform them in advance and for not stopping the development. It was difficult and disturbing for Dream Team members to experience such hostility directed against people living with mental illness and those who support their right to live in communities of their choice. At the City’s Affordable Housing Committee, chair Giorgio Mammoliti steadfastly reǦ fused to allow deputants to raise concerns about who will live in the proposed housing development: "I won't accept not in my back yard, I will not accept it. In fact, I don't want to talk to anybody if they're going to bring that approach. I'm going to move forǦ ward with our agenda and I'll only listen to, and the committee will only listen to, valid planning arguments." In December 2007, Toronto City Council approved funding for the development. SevǦ eral councillors made specific references to the human right of people to live in comǦ munities of their choice without discrimination on the basis of disability. One councilǦ lor affirmed that neighbours do not have a veto; another pointed out that people with mental illness are more often the victim than the perpetrator of violence or crime. SevǦ eral councillors spoke of their own experiences where neighbours were initially conǦ cerned and yet, after the housing was complete, there have been no issues. At the end the Councillor representing the area of the proposed development stood up at Council and expressed her disappointment with her neighbours, and affirmed her support for the project in the face of the anger of her constituents. Her courage and leadership was affirmed by Mayor David Miller and her colleagues on Council. She stands as a role model for all municipal councillors. For one media account of the CounǦ cil proceedings, see Appendix C. The second incident that occurred in the City of Toronto during the period of time that the Road Show was being developed involved a long serving Member of Provincial ParǦ The Dream Team Goes on the Road

16

liament (MPP) who wrote a letter to the Committee of Adjustment in reference to an application for a minor planning variance to allow conversion of an existing building to supportive housing for people living with mental illness. In addition to raising quite leǦ gitimate planning issues related to building standards and parking, the MPP wrote at length that the neighbourhood already has enough group homes, boarding homes, shelters, mental health facilities and homes for homeless men and psychiatric surviǦ vors. He went on to associate such developments with a variety of problems, includǦ ing: pimping, drug use, drug dealing and “crazed individuals ... stealing items outright and urinating in front of their shops.” The letter was distributed widely by the MPP, seeking to demonstrate his support of the neighbourhood in opposing the development. On January 31, 2008 nine members of the Dream Team issued a press release as they filed a formal complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to the legislator’s written remarks. In response to widespread media coverage, the MPP apologized “if his remarks offended anyone and said that he supports communityǦ based housing for the mentally ill.” Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty publicly “chided” the MPP for his “overzealous” remarks but said that the apology was enough for him. After investigation, the Ontario Human Rights Commission mediated a meeting beǦ tween the Dream Team members and the MPP, which resulted in a conclusion which was satisfactory to the Dream Team members.

p”—ˆŠ›šG–G›ŒGy–ˆ‹Gz–žG A number of mechanisms were used to assess the effectiveness of the Road Show, to determine the impact on those who participated and to seek advice for future presenǦ tations of this nature: x Evaluations were distributed at each of the workshop presentations (53 reǦ sponses) x A survey was sent to every participant for whom contact information was available (14 replies) x Interviews were conducted by members of the Dream Team with six key conǦ tacts in the communities visited x Interviews were conducted with 3 people that assisted with the preparation and presentation of the Road Show x A survey was completed by 7 members of the Dream Team who participated in the Road Show Detailed reports of these surveys are attached in Appendix D. 17

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

Respondents were asked how useful they felt different parts of the Dream Team presǦ entation were: x Dream Team members stories x Role play about racism and other types of discrimination x Opportunity to discuss issues with Dream Team members x Opportunity for participants to discuss issues with other people from their community Almost all respondents felt that the first three of these aspects of the presentation were very useful, with the first two being the most frequently noted. The discussions with other people in the community were seen as useful by a few fewer people because they were already familiar with the issues in their community. While most of the participants were familiar with the issues presented in the workshop, either from personal experience or by having read or heard about them, almost all said they learned a little (26) or a great deal (37). Only a small number (6) said they did not learn anything, usually because they were already very familiar with the issues. Several respondents suggested that the Dream Team seek out broader audiences as well as speaking to the converted. Potential audiences include local politicians, business leadǦ ers, churches, social service providers, service clubs and more potential consumers. Many of the survey respondents report that they were “strongly committed before the workshop” (18), the remainder (5) all said that they are strongly committed after hearǦ ing the Dream Team. When asked how they have reacted or would react or act if faced with issues of discrimination related to supportive or affordable housing in their comǦ munity, almost all reported that they would take action in support of the development, including: x Speak up in support of the development (8) x Write a letter in support of the development (3) x Attend a meeting (2). Of the 53 people that completed evaluations at the workshops, 45 said they will be takǦ ing action in their communities on the issue of discrimination against people with menǦ tal health issues. The actions will include: continued local action, starting new initiaǦ tives locally, speaking up and forming partnerships with other groups locally. The Road Show was a very positive experience for the Dream Team members that parǦ ticipated. They said that it had a number of benefits, including: x Increased my capacity to deliver public education x I am more selfǦconfident about public presentations x I have a deeper understanding of the relationship between land use planning and human rights The Dream Team Goes on the Road

18

x

I have a closer working relationship with other Dream Team members

Almost everyone agreed that the Dream Team should continue to take the message to other communities (one said “not sure”). Many respondents said that the presentation was excellent and that the Dream Team should not change a thing; there were a few suggestions for things to do differently in the future, including: x More group interaction x Improve communication, the Dream Team should create its own poster, letǦ ting people in the local community know that all people, especially consumǦ ers, are welcome; that food and bus tickets will be provided x Broaden the audience to include local politicians and family members x Involve local people more and hear their stories. It shouldn’t just be about ToǦ ronto x Identify key contacts in each community and work with them to make sure

v›Œ™Gv——–™›œ•›ŒšG At the same time as the Dream Team and its partners were developing the Road Show, opportunities arose to continue the public education aspect of the project by delivering workshops on discriminatory planning in other forums. Some of these related opporǦ tunities are described here. In early 2008, the Affordable Housing Committee began a community consultation called Housing Opportunities Toronto on the future ten year housing strategy for the City of Toronto, Dream Team members attended a number of community meetings and spoke at the Affordable Housing Committee about the need to enǦ sure that discriminatory planning practices do not stand in the way of affordable and supportive housing development. An invitation has been extended to the Dream Team to make a focused presentation to the Affordable Housing CommitǦ tee in early 2009 as the proposed strategy comes forward for Committee and Council approval. Human Rights Conference – the Ontario Human Rights Commission hosted the naǦ tional conference of the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA) in June 2008 in St Catharines. They approached both the Dream Team and HomeComing independently about participation in a workshop entitled “Changing Neighbourhoods and Issues Arising: Mental Health and Disability”, which deals with stigma and NIMBY. The Dream Team prepared a presentation related to discriminatory bylaws. The presentation built on the role play approach used in the Road Show, comparing the kind of discrimination experienced by peoǦ ple living with mental health issues to racist and anti semitic bigotry. 19

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

The Ontario Non Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) held its annual conference in Ottawa in October. Members of the Dream Team presented a workshop describǦ ing the Road Show and another research project of the Dream Team called We are

Neighbours: The Impact of Supportive Housing on Community, Social, Economic and Attitude Changes. (For a summary of the We Are Neighbours study see AppenǦ dix E.) Participants called the session “an excellent awareness making session” and 96% of those who attended said the presentation was “great”. The Dream Team has continued to share the road show with other communities across the province, including Sarnia and Aurora where it was very well received.

oœ”ˆ•GyŽ›šG While the Road Show project, funded by the Law Foundation, has a research and pubǦ lic education focus, members of the Steering Committee understand that the issue is also one of fundamental human rights. Education is a crucial tool in the struggle to overcome discrimination and achieve human rights and can be highly successful. As was demonstrated in the City of Toronto scenarios described above, it is possible to reframe the discussion in such a way that what might have appeared to be a matter of community empowerment can be understood as a rights issue. Steering Committee members are also aware of the potential to use the human rights complaints process or the courts as a tool to achieve recognition of human rights. A successful test case can not only establish a legal precedent but can also be a valuable public education vehicle. As the planning research by GHK showed, there are examǦ ples across the province of discrimination in land use planning both in byǦlaws and in practice. The Steering Committee members continue to explore opportunities for a legal challenge of these byǦlaws and practices. The Cedar Hill byǦlaw referred to above will be adjudicated at the Ontario Municipal Board in May 2009. ACTO and HomeComing have appealed the byǦlaw on the basis that it violates the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter. The City of Toronto is expected to introduce it’s amalgamated zoning byǦlaw in 2009, including the definition of “group home” based on the disability of the occupants. If the byǦlaw contains restrictions on group homes, the members of the Steering ComǦ mittee will use the community consultations on the byǦlaw as an opportunity to point out the contravention of the Human Rights Code and the Charter and to educate planǦ ners, politicians and the general public about the need to respect human rights in planǦ ning law and practice. The Dream Team Goes on the Road

20

In 2008 the Ontario Human Rights Commission carried out a broad consultation on HuǦ man Rights and Rental Housing. Members of the Dream Team and other Steering Committee members attended the hearings in Toronto and the Dream Team made a written submission informed by the research conducted by GHK. The Commission’s report on the consultation process identified discrimination in municipal zoning and planning practice as a concern, citing such issues as discriminatory byǦlaws and planǦ ning practices, distancing requirements, extraordinary requirements for public consulǦ tation and design compromises,3 The Commission’s recommendations included the following: “The barriers created by NIMBY opposition cannot be overcome by any one stakeǦ holder in isolation. The committed involvement of housing providers and developǦ ers, municipalities, municipal affordable housing committees and committees of adjustment, and other levels of government is necessary to eliminate these kinds of barriers to the creation of new and affordable housing. Neighbourhood groups, loǦ cal business associations and homeowners in communities across Ontario need also be aware that it is not acceptable to oppose affordable housing developments, just because of who will live in them, when the intended residents are people proǦ tected under the Code. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 24. THAT all organizations, institutions and individuals developing, planning, apǦ proving or giving input with regard to affordable housing for Code protected groups take steps to monitor for discriminatory NIMBY opposition and modify their policies, practices and actions to prevent and address it. For example, a municipalǦ ity might decide not to hold a community forum to discuss a particular housing proǦ ject if requests for further information about the project appear to be based on disǦ criminatory stereotypes. Alternatively, it may use such a forum as an opportunity to address such stereotypes. 25. THAT organizations across the province, including community groups, the Government of Ontario and municipalities/municipal associations, work in partnerǦ ship to develop a provinceǦwide strategy to address and prevent discriminatory NIMBY opposition to affordable housing development, in consultation with the Commission.

End Notes 3. Right at Home: Report on the consultation on human rights and rental housing in Ontario, pages 77 to 84.

21

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

Further to this, the Commission made the following commitment: 44. If the Commission identifies municipal byǦlaws or other practices that contribǦ ute to NIMBYism relating to prohibited grounds of discrimination, it will consider the strategic use of its powers to have these addressed. This may include public inǦ quiries, education, and supporting or initiating a human rights application or CharǦ ter case to challenge those byǦlaws or practices. The Dream Team will continue to seek opportunities to influence the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) as it moves toward a policy statement and advocacy with respect to discrimination and affordable and supportive housing and will work with the Commission to ensure that the policy that comes out of the process addresses the huǦ man rights implications of planning laws and practices. The Dream Team is working with a network of other organizations to examine the poǦ tential to file human rights complaints related to discriminatory byǦlaws in selected communities across Ontario.

j–•Š“œš–•G The Dream Team Road Show was an unqualified success. It raised up the issues of disǦ crimination in planning in several communities across Ontario and solidified the comǦ mitment of the Dream Team to share this message. It established contacts for the Dream Team to work with like minded groups in other communities to promote huǦ man rights and supportive housing and to work to empower consumers of the mental health system to speak out for those things that are important to them. The most profound impact of the Road Show was to change the way in which people think about community resistance. What might have been perceived in the past as a conflict between the interests of one group, neighbours and another, developers of housing is now better understood as an issue of fundamental human rights. The Dream Team is confident that their work has encouraged consumers, developers and supporters of supportive housing in communities across Ontario to continue to pursue the right of people to live in communities of their choice without discrimination. For the members of the Dream Team, it has strengthened their resolve to speak out. They recognize that they, and all people that live with mental illness, have the same rights as others to live where they choose. The Dream Team has embraced the human rights message as an organizational priority. They will continue to use the Road Show and other tools to share this message with others. The Dream Team has developed a list of individuals, organizations and networks in communities across the province with whom they will maintain connections. They The Dream Team Goes on the Road

22

have refined the Road Show for continued presentations in other communities; they have developed a workshop highlighting discriminatory planning and have designed a tool kit for use by local communities faced with issues of discriminatory planning pracǦ tices (see Appendix H). They are currently pursuing funding for publication and printǦ ing of the tool kit.

23

The Dream Team Goes on the Road

Appendix A

Appendix A Discussion: A Challenge of Group Home By-laws? The Dream Team, in partnership with HomeComing and the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, has undertaken a project of research, education and outreach on the impact of restrictive provisions in municipal policies and zoning by-laws on people living with mental health challenges. Funding for the project has been given to the Dream Team by the Law Foundation. The project will consist of the following steps: x

Research: look into the range of planning policies and practices (restrictive zoning provisions) in up to 6 communities, examine the impact of these provisions on the development of supportive housing

x

Consider the human rights implications of restrictive policies and zoning by-laws and their possible violation of the Charter and the Ontario Human Rights Code

x

Dream Team will do public legal education with local consumer groups, municipal councils, and other public forums

In addition to the tasks identified above, the Steering Committee has talked about filing a human rights complaint against municipalities that have discriminatory by-laws. The report of the research into planning policies and practices has been completed by GHK. They found that the most obviously discriminatory by-laws address group homes. While there are many examples of planning practices that can be seen to be discriminatory, they are often not written policy. The question with which the Steering Committee is struggling is whether the Dream Team should participate in a challenge of such by-laws. There are three important aspects to this question: 1. Will participating in a challenge of group home by-laws have a negative impact on the Dream Team? Will they be seen to be championing a housing form thought of by some as institutional and custodial? Many supportive housing providers and consumers do not favour the group home model, preferring a more independent form of housing. On the other hand, some see group homes as an appropriate and needed housing form in the spectrum of options for supportive housing. 2. Will a successful challenge of group home by-laws have a useful impact on policies and practices of municipalities related to other forms of supportive housing forms that we prefer or will the impacts be restricted to group homes? ACTO believes that it will establish the principle in law that people zoning is discriminatory. 3. Will a successful challenge of group home by-laws have any unintended consequences? For example, might it make it more difficult for those organizations that use the group home model extensively (e.g. providers of housing for people with developmental disabilities) to develop such housing. In order to avoid any negative impacts for the Dream Team and to ensure that the impacts of a successful challenge apply to all forms of supportive housing, it is imperative that any challenge focus on the principle of people zoning that underlies the group home by-laws. A large part of the benefit of a human rights challenge is in the publicity and public education that surrounds it. The Dream Team and its partners, HomeComing and ACTO, need to ensure that the messages that surround the challenge are about the principles of inclusion and elimination of people zoning. The Dream Team does not need to champion group homes per se, if their message is focused on the underlying principle.

1

We can focus on urging the Tribunal to issue a statement that the rights of protected groups are violated when provincial or municipal by-laws, policies or practices impose restrictions on housing based on the characteristics of the people that will live in that housing. We can strive to get a ruling that goes beyond the specific bylaw to the underlying principle. We can introduce the policies and practices which, although not enshrined in by-laws, have a similar discriminatory impact. It may be necessary to do additional research to document these policies and practices. HomeComing can assist in the research. As well, the discussions with supportive housing advocates at the local municipal level can focus on identifying the local practices which have a discriminatory effect. Our experience shows that these practices include: o

Zoning definitions that disadvantage any group protected by the Code. For example, municipal bylaws sometimes identify supportive housing – housing that serves people with disabilities – to confer a benefit such as fast-tracked approvals or exemptions from parking requirements.

o

Caps or quotas for housing for protected groups.

o

By-laws that keep housing for protected groups out of residential neighbourhoods. While by-laws that prevent all residential development in specific zones are acceptable, by-laws that do not allow rooming house, group home or subsidized housing development, but allow other residential development of similar scale, would be discriminatory.

o

Development moratoria designed to limit development of housing for protected groups, or for housing that predominantly serves disadvantaged groups.

o

Public consultation protocols that give municipal councillors or staff discretion to hold public consultations beyond those required by the Planning Act or municipal by-laws for “controversial” developments when the controversy is based on the characteristics of the future residents.

o

Any public notification or consultation requirements for as-of-right housing developments for protected groups.

o

Design requirements that segregate protected groups from their neighbours. These requirements could be embedded in a municipal by-law; requested by Council, a Council Committee, or the Committee of Adjustment as a condition of planning approvals or funding; or requested by an individual councillor as a condition for supporting the project. Examples include: o Requirements for visual buffering so that “we don’t have to look at them” or frosted windows so that “they can’t look at us.” o Fences, walls, gates, driveway detours or other barriers that prevent protected groups from accessing natural routes to and from their homes.

Prior to proceeding with a challenge, some effort is needed to assess the potential negative impact of a successful challenge for providers of housing for people with developmental disabilities.

2

Appendix B

WORSHOP OUTLINE

DREAM TEAM ROAD SHOW Notes for presenters: In the following text you will see some notes in italics (like this). These notes are to provide directions to the people that are presenting and are not to be read aloud. Notes that are not in italics will be said aloud. Where you feel comfortable to do so, feel free to use your own words, adding or changing as necessary. The “script” is intended as a guideline. The only exception to this is in the “play acting” part in Section 4, where the actual words to be spoken are very important.

1

WORSHOP OUTLINE

DREAM TEAM ROAD SHOW 1.

Welcome and Introduction: (local host - _________) 5 minutes This may vary between presentations depending on the local circumstances. A local host will be identified and provided with a list of requests and suggestions.

Host (____________): ¾ Welcome ¾ Identify Dream Team as consumers of supportive housing ¾ Housekeeping Now I would like to introduce ________________ of the Dream Team, who will share with you how the day will unfold. Facilitator(_________________ ): Thank you for coming here today. As ___________ said, my name is ________________and I am a member of the Dream Team. The Dream Team are people that have experienced mental illness and homelessness and members of their families. Our work is to share with others the positive and life changing benefits of supportive housing. We do that by telling our own stories. Our presentation here today will take a little over two hours, including a very brief break. Our plan is to use that time to share some information with you, to give you an opportunity to ask questions for clarification and to provide some time for you to discuss among yourselves how the things that we have talked about from our experience relates to your experience here in this community. These are the Outcomes that we hope to achieve today (Copies of the outcomes are in the agenda package that we handed out, as well): Quickly walk through the outcomes on the flip chart What we hope to achieve in the time available is to provide information and stimulate discussion that will enhance our understanding in four key areas: x The benefits of supportive housing x Barriers to the development of supportive housing x What the Dream team is doing to address some of these barriers x How these issues affect your community So now let’s take a look at our Agenda (You also have a copy of the agenda in your package). 2

WORSHOP OUTLINE

Turn the page on the flip chart to reveal the Agenda. Quickly walk through the agenda pointing out the steps in the meeting: So we have looked at our expected outcomes. Next we want to find out who is here, so we will give you a couple of minutes to talk to each other and find out some basic information about each other Then we will tell you a bit more about us, the three organizations that have partnered in the development of the presentation for today. Members of the Dream Team will share with you some of their experiences in supportive housing and how it has had a positive impact on their lives. Then we will share some of our experiences with how other members of the community have reacted to supportive housing. After a very short break we will come back to small groups for an opportunity for you to share with each other some of your experiences with supportive housing in your community. Finally we will tell you where we are going from here and how you can join us in our work.

2.

Warm-up: Who’s Here?

10 minutes

Facilitator (________________) ¾ We would like to start with a brief exercise to get warmed up and to get to know each other a little bit before we launch into the work of the meeting ¾ I’m going to ask you to talk to each other in a couple of minutes by turning to your neighbours and form yourselves up into small groups of 3 (or so). Try to find people that you don’t already know. Take about 5 minutes to talk to your neighbours and get to know them a little, by asking each other three questions – the three questions are here on the flip chart, they are also in the printed copy of the agenda that you were given (can you find them there under item 2 - Who’s Here?) ¾ The Questions are:

3

WORSHOP OUTLINE -

How long have you lived in this community? Do you rent or own your home? Do you have a friend or a family member who has experienced mental health issues?

¾ One person in each group should take on the role of “listener” and be prepared to report back to the larger group about what you heard. ¾ Does everyone understand what we are going to do? Look around the room, see whether people are nodding that they understand. If you see puzzled looks, probe for what they don’t understand: Do you have the group you are going to talk to? Do you understand the questions that you are to ask each other? Have you selected a listener?

When it seems that people are ok and ready to go, look at your watch or a clock and say: OK , you have 5 minutes. Walk around to the different groups checking in with people who seem confused. After four minutes tell them they have one minute left. So, Who’s Here? - in large group, use same questions and encourage group to call out and/or raise hands in response. “Listeners” will say what they heard. So who is here? How long have people lived in this community? Point to a group and ask: Who was the listener in this group? How about the people you were listening to? How long have they been living here? Take a few answers this way and then move to the next question: How many people said they were renters? How many are owners? What about mental illness? Does anyone know anybody that lives with mental health issues? Comment on what you have heard. For example: So we have a range of people, some are new to the community while others have been here a fairly long time. There are some people who own their homes, and there are lots of us that are renters. And one thing that many of us have in common is that we know someone, a friend or a family member that lives with mental illness.

4

WORSHOP OUTLINE

Pause here for a minute -

3.

Who Are We?

15 minutes

Facilitator (_________________): Now that we know who you are, we want to tell you a little bit more about who we are, to introduce to you the 3 partners involved in putting on this presentation and to give you a chance to get to know some members of the Dream Team. First let me introduce _________________ who is with the Advocacy Centre for Tenants, Ontario ACTO – (___________________) Hi, I’m _________________ and ……. (2 minutes max!) HomeComing – ( ___________________ ) Another partner in the development of todays presentation is HomeComing Community Choice Coalition a group of Supportive Housing Providers and Consumers, Planners and Architects and other people concerned about the barriers that exist to the development of affordable and supportive housing. HomeComing came together about four years ago in response to experiences of supportive housing providers with community resistance to proposed developments. HomeComing works to respond to community resistance that is based on discrimination against the people that will live in the housing. They do this through organizing people to speak out in support of these developments and trying to changes the systems that permit such discrimination to occur. You have the HomeComing brochure and tool kit in your packages. Dream Team –( _____________________ ) The Dream Team is a group of psychiatric consumer/survivors and their family members who advocate for more supportive housing in Ontario for people with mental health issues. We demonstrate through presentations and workshops the life-altering benefits of supportive housing by telling our stories to politicians, community groups and institutions. The Dream Team members have been transformed from being homeless to become committed advocates for supportive housing; from psychiatric consumer survivors to educators dispelling the myths of mental illness. 5

WORSHOP OUTLINE

Let me introduce to you some members of the Dream Team, who will each tell you their own story. Today we are going to hear from_______, _________ and ________. Dream Team member # 1tells his/her story in 2 to 3 minutes Dream Team member # 2 tells his/her story in 2 to 3 minutes Dream Team member # 3 tells his/her story in 2 to 3 minutes Facilitator (_________________) Are there any questions for ___________ or me or any of the Dream Team members? Take a couple of questions and then say: In the interests of time we need to move on, but if you still have questions please feel free to approach any of the Dream Team members during the break. You can also use the evaluation form that was distributed with the agenda OR jot down your questions and comments and give to any Dream Team member and the Dream Team will try to follow-up with you. Now I’m going to introduce Pedro who will tell you a little about what we have heard in some of the community meetings that we have attended to talk about proposed supportive housing developments.

4.

Overheard in Community Meetings: A Mini-Presentation

15 minutes

Move 2 chairs to the front – the two speakers will sit in the chairs, while the narrator stand off to the side. The idea is to make it clear that we are going to be doing some play acting. “Narrator” (__________________) says: Through our involvement in supportive housing we have attended community meetings related to new developments. The things you will hear in the next few minutes are real comments that we heard at a public meeting in Toronto. My two friends will play the role of some of the people that live in the neighbourhoods where supportive housing is being developed to meet the needs of people living with mental illness. Speaker Number 1 – As a young family, we are very concerned for the safety of our daughter if residents with severe mental health issues live in this building in our neighbourhood.

6

WORSHOP OUTLINE

Speaker Number 2 – I don’t have a problem with people with mental illness, but this community already has its fair share of difficulties. They should be spread out over the city and integrated into the community. Speaker Number 1 – This neighbourhood has been improving lately with new businesses opening up; this plan just doesn’t fit. There has to be a better place to house these people. Speaker Number 2 – I am all for people who are homeless being able to find a place to live, what I don’t agree with is the sneaky way that City Council tried to dump this in our neighbourhood. We have a right to be consulted. Speaker Number 1 – We are supportive in principle of integrating disadvantaged people into our community; however, we are concerned that we were not consulted or given an opportunity to find out more about the proposal. Narrator ( ______________ ) says: What if it we changed the words about people with mental health issues and inserted other words, so that it sounded like this? Speakers should put extra emphasis on the words that are in bold print. Speaker Number 1 – As a young family, we are very concerned for the safety of our daughter if black people live in this building in our neighbourhood. Speaker Number 2 – I don’t have a problem with Jews, but this community already has its fair share of difficulties. They should be spread out over the city and integrated into the community. Speaker Number 1 – This neighbourhood has been improving lately with new businesses opening up; this plan just doesn’t fit. There has to be a better place to house Italians.

7

WORSHOP OUTLINE Speaker Number 2 – I am all for new immigrants being able to find a place to live, what I don’t agree with is the sneaky way that City Council tried to dump this in our neighbourhood. We have a right to be consulted. Speaker Number 1 – We are supportive in principle of integrating Asian people into our community; however, we are concerned that we were not consulted or given an opportunity to find out more about the proposal. Narrator (____________) says: This time we hear the same words, except that instead of referring to people living with mental illness the speakers are talking about black people, Jews, Italians, new immigrants and Asian people. When we hear this we know we are hearing discrimination. And we know that the Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour and ethnic origin. But we also know that the Human Rights Code specifically prohibits discrimination in accommodation because of handicap and that handicap includes a “mental disorder”. So we know that when we heard the things that we heard in the first part of this presentation, we were hearing illegal discrimination. Some of the people talked about the right to be consulted. Let’s listen to the following speaker offering a consultative process, let’s say, in a school setting: Speaker Number 3 - : Hi. I’m Jim Smith and I’m the principal of John Street School where your child is a student. I wanted to talk with you about a change that is happening in the school. A physically disabled child is starting at the school in the fall and we wanted to give you and other parents a chance to talk about the impact that it might have on your child and to raise any concerns that you might have. If you like I can tell you about the type of disabilities that the child has and the supports that will be provided to ensure that his needs are met. Do you have any questions? Narrator (______________) - says: This is an absurd example! Of course a school principal would never say such a thing! She knows that a child with a handicap has as much right as any other child to get an education. She knows that consulting with other parents about how they feel about it or discussing the needs of the child

8

WORSHOP OUTLINE with others is unnecessary and inappropriate - as inappropriate as consultation about supportive housing. Facilitator (_______________ ): Thank you! I think it’s time for us to take a very short break. Can we keep it really short though, use the washroom if you need to, grab a cup of coffee and try to be back in our seats in about 5 minutes? Ok.

5.

Supportive Housing in Your Community

Facilitator ( _____________________ ): Thank you for being brief. Now we are going to give you some time to talk among yourselves about the community in which you live and your experience with homelessness, mental illness and supportive housing. I want to stress that knowing a lot about these issues is not required. If you have questions about how it works, ask others in your group, but for the most part the questions will be ones that you can answer based on your own life experience. I’m going to divide you into 3 small groups. Each group will have a series of questions to discuss and to report back to the larger group. Each group should begin by selecting a reporter. So let’s start here (pointing to the person closest to the front of the room on the left) and let’s go around the room with everyone saying a number from “one” to “three” – remember your number. (say the number with the person) 1, 2, 3 , 1, 2, 3, 1, 2 …..) Now those who said “one” will all get together and form a group; those who said “two” will all get together and form a group and those who said “three” will all get together and form a group. Group one will be up here, group two will be … Your questions are attached to the agenda – on page 2. Please read the overview which includes a definition of supportive housing, then answer the questions that are directed to your group. We have 15 minutes for the discussion and then we will hear back from the groups. Any questions? O.K. Let’s move.

9

WORSHOP OUTLINE

Small Group Discussion

15 Minutes

Feedback from discussion groups

20 Minutes

Facilitator (_____________ ) Ask reporter from each group to report, beginning with group 1, then 2 .. read out the first question for the group and have the reporter go through the answers from there. If there were more than 3 groups group the feedback according to the questions that were asked. Try to write down some for the key points on the flip charts, particularly in response to the question on barriers.

6.

Join In Our Success

20 minutes

Facilitator (________________ ) What are some of the barriers that get in the way of the development of more supportive housing? Some of the barriers that you identified were: Review what was said by the people in the discussion groups. A) What are some other barriers that get in the way of developing more supportive housing. Review the barriers by asking audience participants to raise their hands and list barriers: they could include: development costs, fees, charges, construction delays, fear of the unknown, stereotypes, adequate and appropriate physical space, political opposition, funding program confusion and/or lack of funds, the ones we want to probe for are bylaws, meeting requirements, neighbourhood opposition, ... B) What are some things that communities can do to support the development of supportive housing? Review the potential actions by asking audience participants to raise their hands and list things that can be done. They could include: - public education via community meetings, presentations to service clubs and Business Improvement Associations; ; workplace "lunch and learns"… - media work through opinion editorial pieces, public events, work with individual reporters, letters to the editor; deputation's to municipal, provincial and federal committees and special meetings; - legal actions such as human rights applications, OMB hearings, court proceedings; - networking by outreach to new groups, faith groups, service clubs, interventions at meetings and conferences on similar themes;

10

WORSHOP OUTLINE C)

meetings with local/provincial/federal politicians Review goals of Dream Team Road Show

Facilitator – The Dream Team, working with ACTO and HomeComing, are traveling across the province making presentations like this one in several communities. The goals of these meetings are set out in your agenda package as follows: -

education and support for psychiatric survivors to assert their rights to be free from discrimination in housing.

-

education of institutions, communities and governments on the nature and impact of discriminatory zoning and planning practices

-

creation of a network of psychiatric survivors and advocates

-

strengthen local groups to provide ongoing education locally

-

forming and building partnerships in each community to achieve more strategic cooperation across the province to eliminate discrimination against people with mental health challenges in the context of provision of affordable and supportive housing.

Now let me introduce another member of the Dream Team – ____________ who will tell you how you can support the Dream Team Dream Team member (_____________ ) On the last page of your agenda package, there is a list of things you can do now to help support the Dream Team as we work to spread the positive news about Supportive Housing and how it can help people in your community: x

Complete the evaluation form to let us know what you thought about our presentation; we value your feedback.

x

Keep in touch with the Dream Team by filling in the contact information on the evaluation form.

x

Let others in the community know about the Dream Team and our project. Our website is www.thedreamteam.ca. (put on flip chart and include in agenda)

11

WORSHOP OUTLINE x

Communicate with your local, provincial and federal politicians about the need for more affordable and supportive housing for people who have experienced mental health issues.

x

Let us know if there is an affordable or supportive housing project in your area that is facing council or community opposition.

x

Write letters to your local paper about the need for more affordable and supportive housing.

We hope that our presentation and your discussions here today have gone some way toward achieving the goals that we set out. We look forward to talking further with you and to continuing to work together to enhance housing opportunities so that everyone has access to decent and affordable housing.

7.

Wrap-up, Next Steps, Thanks etc.

5 minutes

Community host (______________) ¾ Thank you to the Dream Team. ¾ Any local community follow-up?

Total time:

115 minutes

12

Appendix C

City will not halt Gerrard Street complex for mentally ill - Posted Toronto

1 of 5

file:///H:/LF%20final/city-will-not-halt-gerrard-street-complex-for-menta...

Home | Financial Post | News | Opinion | Arts | Life | Sports | Homes | Cars | Blogs | Multimedia | Classifieds Home | Financial Post | News | Opinion | Arts | Life | Sports | Homes | Cars | Blogs | Multimedia | Classifieds Main | About | Contact Editor | Subscribe RSS City will not halt Gerrard Street complex for mentally ill Posted: December 13, 2007, 10:31 PM by Barry Hertz The Hall Monitor, Real estate

POPULAR Stephen Harper, wedding crasher Toronto Sinhalese ‘really worried’ after second apparent arson attack Naked woman marches on CBC headquarters Lottery win led to mugging and murder, trial told Toronto Pride organizers ban anti-Zionist group Tamil City council will not halt a complex for mentally ill protesters homeless people from moving to the Upper Beach. skeptical of rebel After an impassioned debate yesterday, councillors leader's voted 31-2 to support the project, which will see an demise abandoned three-storey banquet hall in the Gerrard Store Street East and Woodbine Avenue area transformed employees into 29 units of supportive housing. charged with assaulting Local Councillor Sandra Bussin said the angry reception the project suspected received in her ward has left her heartbroken. “I, as the local council, shoplifter cannot and will not stand in the way of this development,” Ms. Bussin Girl, 5, hit in said. shooting No ‘war on At the centre of yesterday’s debate was the question of whether the city the car,’ should consult residents when a home for the mentally ill moves into a Toronto’s neighbourhood. mayor insists Because the 1908 Gerrard St. E. proposal did not require any changes to Swine flu zoning or a trip to the committee of adjustment, the city did not have to kills Toronto publicize the plan. Instead, residents were blindsided when someone man dropped anonymous flyers in mailboxes near the site. After concerned residents bombarded Ms. Bussin’s office with questions, she hosted an information meeting last month to try to answer them. Councillor Doug Holyday, a member of Toronto city council’s right-wing minority, tried to move an amendment that would have postponed the project until formal public consultations could be held.

Weather Region:

Loading...

Weather

16°

City:

TORONTO Li ht i h

Follow us on Twitter: postedtoronto Recent Posts On the Town with Found Magazine's Davy Rothbart Downtown traffic chaos predicted for afternoon rush hour tomorrow Bending Elbows: Reposado and Lusso Street Level: Yard Sale for the Cure born in the Beaches Cyclist badly injured after hitting van in west-end bike lane Teenager charged in Sheridan Mall security-guard stabbing Teenager guilty in Mississauga rugby-field death Yonge Street pub needs a new name; no profanity please

6/5/2009 8:52 AM

City will not halt Gerrard Street complex for mentally ill - Posted Toronto

2 of 5

file:///H:/LF%20final/city-will-not-halt-gerrard-street-complex-for-menta...

Some of his colleagues assailed him for suggesting the community be consulted about an identifiable group moving in. Councillor Gord Perks repeatedly asked Mr. Holyday on what basis he wanted to consult, considering no planning approvals were required. “They are not happy with what we’ve done so far. What is wrong with a democratic process that allows them to get information?” Mr. Holyday said. “Perhaps if I ask the question this way, you can answer better,” Mr. Perks replied. “If a member of your community presented you with a petition about some other identifiable group of human beings moving into your ward, would you feel compelled to have a community consultation on that simply because you had received a petition?” In the end, Mr. Holyday’s effort to force more consultation failed. Only he and fellow Etobicoke Councillor Rob Ford voted against the project. “The outcome, I think, was pre-determined. I wasn’t surprised at all,” said Robert Johnston, an opponent of the project who lives near the site. “I think because of the complexion, policy-wise, of this council, we knew where it was going from the outset. They’ve got an agenda that they’re pressing and they’re pressing it on all of us to pay the taxes to support these kinds of things.” Mr. Johnston and other neighbours have retained a lawyer to try to halt the project. The 1908 Gerrard St. E. proposal came about as a result of a tender issued Peter Kuitenbrouwer's Walk Across Toronto this year by the city’s Affordable Housing Office. The office had some federal money to distribute, and this proposal, along with two others at 1355 King St. W. and 650 Queen St. E. was endorsed by staff as the winning projects. Council endorsed all three projects yesterday. Photo of 1908 Gerrard St. E. by Peter Redman for National Post Comments (2) Send to a friend Permalink 2 Comments You must be logged in to post a comment Click here to post a comment by swaney The only thing "heartbreaking" is Councillor Bussin's Dec 14 2007 hypocrisy as she did not even bother to educate herself 6:27 PM about whether this would be a good housing development for the residents or the community, created un-necessary anymosity between the community and the potential residents by pitting them against one another when she had simply dropped the ball in terms of trying to get any form of constructive public dialogue going. Of course, she never has taken any interest in the northern upper beach section of her ward anyway as all of the big money and the power is in the southern Queen St corridor of it. Here she has spent all of her time and energy lobbying to stop higher density housing near Neville Park which is a must in order to truly address the housing problems in this city and has suggested that a drop in soup kitchen needs to be "talked through" with local residents which effectively means that it will be delayed indefinitely leaving the needy out in the cold. The resistance of residents in these two cases was not "heartbreaking" to her. Oh I am sorry, I almost forgot, she also got an old bridge restored in that area for hundreds of thousands

Join National Post columnist Peter Kuitenbrouwer as he walks across Toronto Their Toronto

Leah Miller, Steven Page, Ivan Reitman and other notables talk about their city.

6/5/2009 8:52 AM

Appendix D

Road Show Evaluation

1.

Summary of Evaluations at Dream Team Road Show Sessions

A: How would you rate this meeting as a whole? Response Ottawa Smith’s Falls Thunder Bay Waterloo Total 53

5 great 3 12 2 15 32

4 good 3 6 7 2 18

3 okay 1 0 1

2 not so good 1 not useful 1

2

1

B: I learned things at this meeting that I didn't know before: Response

5 lots 3 4

Ottawa Smith’s Falls Thunder Bay Waterloo Total 53

4 11

4 quite a bit 1 11 2 7 21

3 a little 3 2 8 6 19

2 not really

1 not at all

2 2

C: The meeting provided me with helpful information. Response Ottawa Smith’s Falls Thunder Bay Waterloo Total 52

5 lots 1 6 1 4 12

4 quite a bit 3 a little 2 3 10 2 6 3 11 2 29 10

2 not really

1 not at all

1 1

D: What topic did you find most useful? Personal stories (14) • “Compassionate” Group discussions (10) • Questions and people's input, a lot of good understanding • Self-generating discussions re: topic from various perspectives • I really enjoyed the group discussions with dream team involvement • Meeting other like-minded people More knowledge (7) • By-laws • How bad the need is • Housing opportunity 1

Road Show Evaluation

• Validation • Ideas on supportive housing Discussion of possible solutions (6) • Seeing the benefits of group action and their successes • How to deal with discrimination • Overcoming the obstacles to public opposition • Barriers/support • Moving forward All (6) Role play (4) • mental health discrimination compared to racism

• • • •

Diversity Possible partnerships for clients Community not wanting (supportive housing) in their neighbourhood Integration of people into community

E: What topic was not discussed and would be useful to you to know more about? None (5) • You covered it all! • Necessity to have bachelor's & 1-bdrm. Apartments • Group home - lack of standards • The actual end product, building • Needs assessments, promoting awareness? • The entire issue on a Federal level • If we will get housing here • Like to see it in practice in my town • Looking at specific supportive housing success stories from across the province. • Alternatives • Other forms of diversity • Mobilizing psychiatric survivors to self-advocate • Government's commitment to supportive housing • Transitional housing • Accessibility for 10% accessible units • Coverage of costs of meds • What supports are most effective in supportive housing

2

Road Show Evaluation F: Do you have a better understanding of discrimination against people with mental health issues? Yes 46

No 5 (including one said “because I am one” and one said “I understand this already”)

G: Will you be taking action in your community on the issue of discrimination against people with mental health issues? Yes 45

No 3 (including one said “because I am one” and one said “I understand this already”)

What would help you take action? Local action • A local committee devoted to reducing barriers to supported housing • Address matter as part of our social justice initiative • Personal discussion with friends, colleagues • Contacting local politicians, helping to organize a consumer coalition • Join others in my local area - take action Continue with current action • Continue in the Social Action Committee using some suggestions to move forward • CCOC is against the new by-law • Already in leadership role in many networks, coalitions, etc. • Continue to do as part of my work • I'm acting • Continued advocacy and project/program development. • Continued postering of collaboration • Ongoing issue • As an HHUG member, we do a lot of public speaking to large (?) groups on issues of housing and homelessness - we will continue • Continuing to work on HHUG (2) • I was quite familiar with this topic already, but it's always helpful to hear other people. Speak up • Will voice opinion about treatment • Talk to more people about this problem • Bring a positive, supportive voice • Advocate ++ • Keep abreast on local situation and see how I can be a supportive voice • Advocating at regional level; telling friends and family

3

Road Show Evaluation Partnerships • Knowledge of how to motivate the members of PACE. I was very disappointed by the lack of turnout by PACE members. I know this would have been a great forum for teaching the value of self-advocacy • Letters to the editor; participate in community meetings;

• • • • • •

As opportunity allows It's a fight that needs to be fought together! More publicity re: integration into the various communities. Requires patience There are more private homes in the downtown core, more property taxes for the city coffers as against low-income - that's a form of discrimination Emotional support only, not able to speak up

H: Is there anything you suggest we do differently for next time? Response Ottawa Smith’s Falls Thunder Bay Waterloo

1 more group involvement 3 3

2 less group involvement

3 more 4 more 5 more detailed general handouts information information 2 1 4 2 2 1

1

6 nothing

6 7

1

Other:

• • • • • • • •

Information in French Local information Other provincial examples for generation of new ideas I'd like the Dream Team to someday come to present at PACE. How much would this cost? Stats of local communities give a for front & eye openers More information - did not know consumers were invited until yesterday. Excellent! Good balance!

4

Road Show Evaluation Comments • Superb! • Wonderful - thank you • I think what you are doing is wonderful • You were wonderful and did a fantastic job. • Keep up the good work - don't give up • Don't give up; hold your dream • Keep up the good work • Well covered topic, all angles covered • This was a wonderful experience - hopefully Step 1 of many more to come • Great - thank you for sharing your stories and lives so honestly - I am honoured • I thought this was great. Don't change a thing - I liked the style, the speed and organization. Good luck - you did a wonderful job! • I found it a good mix of presentation and conversation. • Excellent! My congratulations and encouragement to the whole Dream Team. (PS: I love the song!?) • Keep speaking out. Keep going to other communities to speak. • Great job! Dream team members speaking publicly is very powerful. • More of everything Facilities • Provide food (4) • Provide bus fare (5 ) • Make sure the gathering space is able to have air circulation (chapel was quite stuffy)

• Ensure all segments of community are in attendance (e.g. council, business, churches, • • •

social services, service clubs and of course more potential consumers and other citizens). I would have liked to have seen more family members and community members, i.e. Church, as well as reps from some of the houses Follow up - with more action A poster that groups can put up in (sp?)/apt etc.

• My worker was here so later she can help me understand. • Lanark Mental Health and Lanark Social Services jointly championing this cause through partnerships.

• Need a similar organization for families with learning disabilities and intellectually •

disabled people Options to get rid of tenants who deal in drugs, their guests are a bad influence.

• Will you email results from the group Q&A? • Could I get a copy of the "We are neighbours" study? 5

Road Show Evaluation 2. Interviews with Key Community Contacts 1. Name of contact: • Vickie S – Thunder Bay • Linda T – Smith’s Falls • Dave H – Smith’s Falls • Alice B - Thunder Bay • Lorraine B – Ottawa • Lynn M – Kitchener/Waterloo 2. How useful do you think the following parts of the Dream Team presentation were to participants in your community? Dream Team members stories Role play about racism and other types of discrimination Opportunity to discuss issues with Dream Team members Opportunity to discuss issues with other people from my community

Very Useful

A little useful

4 Biggest impact 2 - Very helpful for people’s comprehension

1 1

- Vaguely remember

2 Added a new dimension

1

Little opportunity

2

Not very useful

3 They were already familiar with the issues in their community Little opportunity

Were there other parts that were useful? (specify) • It was good to hear other groups in other jurisdictions and apply the knowledge to their situations. (2) • All parts of the Dream Team presentation were very useful (2) • Most impressed with Dream Team stories; good role model to follow 3. Looking at the issues presented in the workshop, how would you describe the impact of the workshop on the level of awareness of people in your community? • They learned a great deal and are more aware now (1) • There was no real change, they were aware before; • There was no change, they didn’t learn much about this issue. The issues are: • Homelessness 6

Road Show Evaluation

• Mental illness • Community resistance to affordable and supportive housing • The first three issues, (Homelessness, Mental illness, Community resistance to

• • • • • •

affordable and supportive housing) the participants were already aware of because they work with people who have experienced homelessness and mental illness. (2) The last two issues (Discrimination in the municipal planning process, Ways to respond to discrimination against supportive housing) the participants learned a great deal and are now more aware. There was some change of awareness with mental illness issues. Linda was aware of discrimination in the municipal planning process because she is a lawyer but the other participants learned a lot from this issue. Participants didn’t learn much about ways to respond to discrimination against supportive housing. Participants were already aware of these issues and the Dream Team reinforced what they already believed. (2) The Dream Team validated what they already knew. The media article was good but Alice is not sure what impact it will have. There weren’t really any new ideas for responding to discrimination.

4. How committed would you say participants are now to supporting the development of affordable and supportive housing in your community?

• The participants were strongly committed to the development of supportive and

affordable housing before hearing the Dream Team (5) Dream Team reinforced their commitment.

5. Since the workshop has your community been faced with issues of discrimination related to supportive or affordable housing in your community? Yes 2 No 2 6. If yes: How did people react or act when faced with these issues?

• A shelter was developed that involved public consultation and John Howard •

Society developed housing that required rezoning and the process was very quiet. Both projects followed the correct protocol and were successful. The Housing and Homelessness Coalition has been trying to create more supportive housing for years but nothing new has been created since 1993 and people are frustrated. The Dream Team spoke about issues the participants were already familiar with.

7

Road Show Evaluation 7. If no: How would they act or react when faced with these issues?

• There have been discriminatory bylaws against affordable and supportive • • •

housing in Smiths Falls for quite a while but Linda is not aware of any new issues of discrimination since our workshop. In Perth, which is in the same county as Smith Falls, the community recently found the local zoning bylaw to be discriminatory and decided to open up a new group home that will hold 6 to 8 people. In nearby Perth, a building was approved which involved distancing requirements. Lawyer, Linda Tranter represented the provider. Smiths Falls and Perth are part of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville County along with Carleton Place, Mississippi Mills and four rural communities.

8. Should the Dream Team continue to take this message to other communities? Yes 5 It wouldn’t hurt. - should come back to Ottawa and work with Housing Plus Services 9. Are there things that the Dream Team should do differently in the future?

• The Dream Team presentation was fine the way it was (2) • The Dream Team should have developed their own posters and sent them to •

• • • • • • •

Thunder Bay in advance. The posters also should indicate that the Dream Team workshop is for both staff and consumers and that bus tickets and refreshments would be available. Many consumers didn’t go because they thought that the workshop was only for staff and many also said that they would have attended if they knew bus tickets and refreshments were going to be provided. We need to clarify in advance who should be responsible for the posters. Our audience may not always be able to provide them The Dream Team workshop was generally very helpful. It was hard to answer some of the questions because the Dream Team workshop happened back in June. We should have tried to follow up earlier. (2) Key contacts in the communities we visited would like a list of the email contacts. The Dream Team has a list of the contacts but did not share them with our key contacts. The Dream Team should involve the local people more and hear their stories. It shouldn’t just be about Toronto. There should be more politicians present because decision makers need to hear what people are saying Logistics were not the best (Ottawa); last minute; second choice; shared the stage with local consumers – diluted the message A collection of different stories "really inspired, re-energized, the work involved & strengthened their understanding".

8

Road Show Evaluation

• There’s personal angst for people to share their stories, that is impactful, & this helps for people to open up & are more willing to share".

10. Do you have suggestions for the Dream Team about how to approach local communities in order to deliver our messages?

• The family member point of view is important. It often gets left out. • It is important to identify key contacts in each community and work with • •

•

them to make sure that the workshop is relevant. The Dream Team should involve the local people more and hear their stories. It shouldn’t just be about Toronto. There should be more notice and more promotion. We should have sent out a flyer in advance indicating who the meeting was for and that food and bus tickets would be available. Some consumers didn’t show up because they thought that the meeting was only for staff and that there wouldn’t be any food or bus tickets Should have been done in conjunction with Housing Plus Services

11. Is there other information in this area that your community needs that the Dream Team could provide?

• The Dream Team needs to speak to a wider audience. It should try to speak • • • •

to the general public instead of speaking to the converted. The Dream Team needs to get more attention in the media. No. The Dream Team validated what the participants already knew. It would be good to have an email list of the people involved in the successful and unsuccessful bylaw challenge cases in each community. It is important to hear what is going on in other communities and learn about successful by-law challenges.

12. Is there knowledge related to issues of discrimination and community resistance that your community can share with the Dream Team?

• Every group is different. Every community has different bylaws that • • • •

discriminate and has to be approached differently. It is beneficial for the Dream Team and the communities that they visit to share knowledge with each other on issues of discrimination and community resistance. Most communities are dealing with the same issues. An issue is before city council to decide on not allowing of additional services in a particular downtown sector, the 'fair share ' argument They are more connected with " the sector", family members, "improving their advocacy, making it much more collective & cohesive".

9

Road Show Evaluation 14. Would you be prepared to help the Dream Team to connect with other people in your community that attended the workshop to find out how the workshop impacted on them? This will help the Dream Team to improve their presentation. Yes 3 15. Do you have any other comments or advice for the Dream Team?

• • • • •

Keep on going and expand your target audience. The Dream Team workshop was excellent. The participants appreciated our openness. It is important to follow up and identify key contacts. It's very good that the Dream Team as a resource exists.

Key contacts 7 persons listed

10

Road Show Evaluation 3.

Survey of Dream Team Supporters (Carmen Carrasco, Susan Wayne, Jennifer Ramsay)

As someone who played a supportive role to the Dream Team for this process, you are being asked for your thoughts about the presentation and your experience with the workshop. 1 Which parts of the Dream Team presentation do you think were useful to the participants in the local communities? Role play about racism and other types of discrimination (3) Opportunity for participants to discuss issues with other people from their community (3) Dream Team members stories (3) Opportunity to discuss issues with Dream Team members (3) 2 What do you think were the positive impacts of the Road Show for the members of the Dream Team? x They show that the need for housing is diverse and real x Confidence and team building 3 Should the Dream Team continue to take this message to other communities? Yes x 3 x Because their message is powerful and will encourage other people to understand the need for supportive housing x The experience in Smiths Falls in particular demonstrated that bringing these issues into the community provides courage and motivation to local members 4 Are there things that the Dream Team should do differently in the future?



More Dream Team stories X SAME NUMBER of Dream Team stories



Longer presentation overall



Less group interaction

Shorter presentation overall X More group interaction

•

Other Probably add a little humour in their stories

5 If the Dream Team were to take this kind of show on the road in the future would you want to support them in some way? Yes x 3

11

Road Show Evaluation 6 Do you have any other comments or advice for the Dream Team?

• I admire the group and the dynamics; they promote awareness, very •

important for people to understand an issue Great work!

12

Road Show Evaluation 4.

Survey of Dream Team Members About the “Road Show”

Members of the Dream Team were asked for their thoughts about the Road Show presentation and their experience with the issues of human rights and rental housing before and after the Road Show.

1. Were you present for any of the Dream Team presentations (the Road Show) in the summer of 2008? • Yes - 7 • No - 1 2. If yes: In which community (or communities) did you participate in the presentation? (check all that apply) Smiths Falls 2 Thunder Bay 2 Kitchener/Waterloo 7 Ottawa 2 3. If no: Are you familiar with the presentations which were made in the Road Show? If no, thank you for your feedback, the survey is complete. If yes, continue the survey. No 1 4. If yes: How did the experience affect you? (check all that apply) Increased my capacity to deliver public education 6 I am more self-confident about public presentations 6 I have a closer working relationship with other Dream Team members 5 I have a deeper understanding of the relationship between land use planning and human rights 6 5. Which parts of the Dream Team presentation do you think were useful to participants in local communities? (check all that apply) not very useful Dream Team members stories Role play about racism and other types of discrimination Opportunity to discuss issues with Dream Team members Opportunity to discuss issues with other people from their community

a little useful

1 3

7

very useful

Changed perspective completely

6

1

4 5

2

3

2

13

Road Show Evaluation 6. Which of the issues presented in the workshop were familiar to you before the workshop? no read or heard awareness about it Community resistance to affordable and supportive housing Discrimination in municipal planning process Ways to respond to discrimination against supportive housing

1

Personal involvement

2

4

3

2

1

5

7. How would you describe the impact of the workshop on your level of awareness of these issues? no change Community resistance to affordable and supportive housing Discrimination in municipal planning process Ways to respond to discrimination against supportive housing

learned a little

learned a great deal

3

4

4

3

4

3

8. How committed would you say you are to supporting the development of affordable and supportive housing in your community? Not committed Strongly committed before the workshop 6 Strongly committed after the workshop 3 9. Since the workshop have you been faced with issues of discrimination related to supportive or affordable housing in your community? Yes 3 No 4 10. If you have been faced with issues of discrimination: How did you react or act when faced with these issues? Did nothing 1 Attended a meeting 2 Spoke up in support of the development 3 Spoke against the development Wrote a letter in support of the development 1 Wrote a letter against the development Other • 2 speeches noted in national media • became upset 14

Road Show Evaluation 11. If you have not been faced with issues of discrimination: How would you act or react when faced with these issues? Do nothing Attend a meeting 1 Speak up in support of the development 4 Speak against the development Write a letter in support of the development 1 Write a letter against the development Other: • Try to help organize a campaign 12. Should the Dream Team continue to take this message to other communities? Yes 7 13. Are there things that the Dream Team should do differently in the future? (check all that apply) More Dream Team stories 1 Fewer Dream Team stories 2 Longer presentation overall 2 Shorter presentation overall More group interaction 5 Less group interaction Other: • not sure, I was so impressed with the whole thing • Depends on who we present to • We should continue our work because we do a pretty good job at what we are doing • More promotion; send out a flyer indicting workshop will provide food, bus tickets and is open to staff and tenants • Get back in touch sooner 14. If the Dream Team were to take this kind of show on the road in the future would you want to participate? Yes 7 15. If yes, please provide your name: • Five names provided

15

Appendix F

The Legal Basis of NIMBY Final Report November 2007 Prepared for: Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario by:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Research Process........................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Findings by Municipality.............................................................................................. 5 3.1 Toronto...................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Ottawa ....................................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Cambridge................................................................................................................. 8 3.4 Sarnia ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.5 Kitchener................................................................................................................... 9 3.6 Smiths Falls............................................................................................................... 9 4.0 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................. 10 4.1 Provincial Definition............................................................................................... 10 4.2 Definitions............................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Distancing requirements and other locational requirements................................... 12 4.4 Other requirements.................................................................................................. 13 4.5 Approach to permitted use ...................................................................................... 13 4.6 Provincial treatment and precedent......................................................................... 14 4.7 Local perspectives................................................................................................... 15 5.0 Conclusion and Next Steps ......................................................................................... 15 Appendix A:...................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix B:...................................................................................................................... 42

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Ontario Human Rights Code enshrines the right of Ontarians to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation. Yet, examples of NIMBYism can be found across the province, often in opposition to the creation of housing forms that provide accommodation for those hardest pressed to find it, such as rooming houses, shelters, group homes and supportive housing. In these cases, the NIMBY sentiment is founded not in opposition to the actual housing form, but in discrimination against the characteristics of the people who live there, be it economic status, or mental or physical state. Whether supported by local by-laws and policies or by unofficial but accepted practices, discriminatory NIMBY, when it is accepted into official planning processes, is zoning for people, not uses. As such it is an affront to the principles laid out in the Ontario Human Rights Code and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People zoning effectively limits the ability of an already vulnerable population to meet a basic human need: shelter. The point of departure for this research paper is that people zoning has no place in Ontario. It must be challenged and brought to an end, both as official policy and as a result of planning processes abused to discriminatory ends. The approach of this paper recognizes that there are two dimensions to the issue of discrimination in housing. The first is discrimination in law: laws and policies at the municipal level grounded in NIMBY sentiments and that further enable their expression in public decision-making. The second is discrimination in practice: unofficial discrimination in planning processes and decisions that range from the blatant to the subtle. Acknowledging these two dimensions of the issue, this paper focuses on the first and aims to examine the legal basis of discriminatory NIMBYism with regards to housing in Ontario municipalities. It does so, however, with an ultimate goal in mind: ending discrimination in the occupancy of accommodation, in law and in practice. The goal of the research supporting this paper was not to do a comprehensive audit of bylaws and policies across Ontario. Rather, the purpose was to highlight the worst cases of NIMBY discrimination in law at the municipal level. After a preliminary analysis of the treatment of housing forms often the subject of negative public attention, the focus of research was directed toward group homes. The treatment of group homes emerged as the most transparent example of zoning for people, in a disturbingly uniform way in municipalities across the province. Group homes are defined by the characteristics of their residents and are subject to a number of provisions including caps on residents, limits on types of dwellings, distancing requirements, and other policies that narrow the range of opportunities for group home providers and their residents. This paper examines six Ontario municipalities to determine how NIMBY discrimination is supported in law.

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

2.0 RESEARCH PROCESS Research proceeded in to two phases. The purpose of the first phase was to conduct a preliminary scan of by-laws and policies at the municipal level to determine the kind of discriminatory provisions that existed, the areas most fruitful to research in greater detail, and which municipalities should be selected as case studies. Guiding the direction of the initial stage of research was ample anecdotal evidence that certain forms of housing are often the target of NIMBY discrimination. These include rooming houses, supportive housing, affordable housing, shelters, group homes and residential care facilities. After examining zoning by-laws, it became apparent that Ontario municipalities, for the most part, share a common approach to the treatment of these uses. Zoning by-laws share a structure which includes definitions of uses, general provisions affecting those uses and the uses permitted in any given zone. Affordable and supportive housing are often not even defined in zoning by-laws and therefore it is difficult to support a case that there is discrimination in law since they do not appear directly in the by-law. Rooming houses are often defined as a use and are limited in the zones in which they are a permitted use. However, the clearest case of discrimination was the treatment of shelters, group homes and residential care facilities in the zoning bylaws. They are defined as uses, general provisions lay out requirements and restrictions governing their location, and they are a permitted use in a limited number of zones. This is especially true of group homes. In housing form they are largely indistinguishable from widely permitted residential uses such as single detached dwellings, yet they are in part defined by the characteristics of their residents and the supports they require. At the end of the first phase of research, it was decided to concentrate further research on group homes. The desire was to produce a strong focused case against people zoning, that challenged the most blatant discrimination first to establish a precedent and signal an end to the use of planning powers in this manner. Group homes provided this focus because by definition they serve the needs of groups, such as those with mental and physical disabilities, explicitly protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code.1 The second phase of research provided a deeper examination of the by-laws and policies of six Ontario municipalities. Based on the finding of the first phase, Toronto, Ottawa, Kitchener, Cambridge, Sarnia and Smiths Falls were selected. An in-depth examination of the selected municipalities focused on planning documents such as Official Plans and zoning by-laws. Conversations with staff at local legal clinics and housing providers were intended to uncover any other discriminatory municipal policies and understand the degree to which discriminatory laws and policies presented challenges in practice.

1

Section 2. (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code states: Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

4

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

3.0 FINDINGS BY MUNICIPALITY A description of discriminatory by-laws and policies discovered in the six case municipalities is included below by municipality. Full excerpts of provisions in zoning by-laws and municipal policies are included in the Appendix. A following section provides a summary of findings which outlines trends across the municipalities studied. 3.1 TORONTO

The City of Toronto is currently in the process of consolidating the by-laws of the preamalgamation cities through its Zoning By-law Project. In the interim, the old by-laws of the pre-amalgamation cities are still in force. 3.1.1 City of Toronto Zoning By-law Project The Zoning By-law Project has established considerations and proposed definitions for both Group Homes and Residential Care Facilities. The proposed definition of group home is supervised living accommodation: (i) licensed or funded under Province of Ontario or Government of Canada legislation, (ii) for persons requiring a group living arrangement by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, and (iii) is for three to ten persons, exclusive of staff, living together as a single housekeeping unit. Residential Care Facilities are defined in a similar way but are intended to house more than ten people and are not considered a single housekeeping unit. As yet, no general provisions have been detailed for these uses. However, one of the considerations states that group homes are defined so that specific zoning rules might be made to determine where they are permitted. As the Zoning By-law Project proceeds, any requirements will be the subject of a public consultation process. 3.1.2 Pre-amalgamation by-laws The by-laws of the pre-amalgamation cities define uses differently and set out the rules governing them in diverse ways. In some cases referred to as group homes, in others residential care facilities, all preamalgamation municipalities defined a use for supportive group living arrangements. The common components of this definition include either a regulatory or funding relationship with other levels of government, residents defined by their characteristics (as above, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status),

5

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

and supervision in a single housekeeping unit. In some cases, residential care facilities are distinguished from group homes by being defined as forms of housing for more than ten people, while generally group homes are defined to house three to ten residents. Minimum separation distances between group homes are established in all of the by-laws although they vary in exact distance required (245 metres in the Former City of Toronto, 460 metres in Etobicoke, 457 metres in East York, 300 metres in North York, 800 metres in York). The City of Toronto demands that residential care facilities (in this case, defined to accommodate 6-10 people) distance themselves not only from other residential care facilities but also from crisis care facilities. Rather vaguely, North York requires that there may not be two group homes in the same “neighbourhood.” Most municipalities require that the group home be housed in a fully detached building. East York sets out a standard of minimum floor space per resident. Etobicoke does this as well as setting a minimum lot area. A scan of other provisions in the former City of Toronto by-law, found that although there are parking requirements for alternative housing, these would not seem to present a barrier to group home provision 3.1.3 Other policies and practices A policy scan was completed to evaluate the presence of discrimination in other current City of Toronto policies. None was found. A Community Engagement Protocol recently developed by the City’s Affordable Housing Office does not present any extra obligations on developers of supportive or affordable housing. Conversations with those familiar with the development of alternative forms of housing in Toronto indicated that although there are no more official requirements to have public meetings for group homes and supportive housing than for any other kind of development, often local councilors put pressure on providers to have public meetings and undergo much greater scrutiny than would normally be required. Housing providers often submit to these pressures as they are vulnerable from a financial perspective because these same municipal politicians can affect funding decisions. 3.2 OTTAWA

The City of Ottawa is also currently undergoing a process to harmonize the preamalgamation by-laws of the 36 municipalities (both rural and urban) incorporated into the City of Ottawa. The City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Project produced a Draft Zoning By-law which was released for public review in May 2006. Based on comments from the public, a revised version was prepared for May 2007. It is expected the by-law will be enacted in early 2008. During the public process there has been some debate over the substance of definitions and provisions, including those for group homes. At public consultations, representatives of group home providers made presentations protesting distancing requirements for group 6

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

homes as a violation of the basic human rights and therefore a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A summary of these comments, along with the discussion they stimulated at the consultation and the staff recommendation, are available at the City of Ottawa web site (see Appendix for full excerpts). Staff defended the City’s practice of imposing distancing requirements by stating that the Province had accepted municipalities’ rights to impose separation requirements for group homes because the use is otherwise permitted in all residential zones. They also made reference to a number of Ontario Municipal Board cases in the 1980s that upheld distancing requirements as “a reasonable planning tool to limit overall density” and “prevent “ghettoization” of the use.” Based on these justifications, the staff made a recommendation that no change be made to the draft zoning by-law regarding eliminating distancing requirements. However, separation distance requirements were revised to simplify and standardize regulation. Excerpts from the edited Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law are included in the Appendix. Group Homes are distinguished from Residential Care Facilities. A group home is defined as a supervised residential use building in which three to ten persons, exclusive of staff, live as a group in a single household living arrangement, and where the residents require support or supervision on a daily basis. Residential care facilities also provide supervised or supportive care for those who need assistance with daily living, but with no limit on number of residents. Group homes are also mentioned in the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan, which states that group homes are permitted wherever residential uses are generally permitted, but allows “area-specific provisions to regulate the type, size and location of this use.” In the Draft Zoning By-law these provisions include a distancing requirement of 300 metres between group homes in Residential and Village Mixed-Use zones. In Rural Countryside and Agricultural Zones the distancing requirement ranges from 500 to 1000 metres. A proviso has been added that the minimum separation distance does not need to extend past waterways, highways and other major barriers to pedestrian or vehicular movement. In a section regarding conversions, the by-law states that if a building is being converted into a group home, the use must occupy the entire structure. Residential Care Facilities are a permitted use in only one Residential zone and in almost all Institutional and Mixed Use zones. In the Residential zone, there is a 30-person maximum; in the other zones, no maximum is set. Overall, the City of Ottawa’s approach to group homes and residential care facilities falls into the same pattern as the other municipalities examined. Group homes are allowed in most zones with residential uses, but with distancing restrictions and a cap on number of residents. Residential Care Facilities are much more restricted in their location and are generally kept out of residential zones. Interestingly and in contrast to other

7

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

municipalities, the definitions of group home and residential care facilities do not refer to the characteristics of the residents (the part of the definition that appears in most other by-laws: “by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status”). Rather they define the use by the kind of supports and supervision that the residents require. In this manner, the discriminatory nature of the restriction on the use appears less blatant. 3.3 CAMBRIDGE

Generally, the City of Cambridge Zoning By-Law defines group homes as residential accommodation for people with special needs. It further defines four classes of group homes. Class 1 Group Homes are for the physically and mentally handicapped or a satellite residence for the aged. Class 2 group homes are for foster care of children under 16. Class 3 group homes are for provincial psychiatric patients, ex-offenders and any other needs not otherwise listed. Class 4 group homes serve the same purposes as the other classes but have more than ten residents. In addition to definitions for group homes, amendments to the Zoning By-law made in October 2006, define two further uses that include group homes. Special Care Facilities include a group home, a family crisis shelter, and a crisis intervention home. A Residential Special Care Facility means a dwelling unit or part thereof occupied by three to ten persons (exclusive of staff) with special needs and includes class 1 group home, a family crisis shelter, a crisis intervention home, but does not include foster care homes or other classes of group homes. Residential Special Care Facilities, including only class 1 group homes, are a permitted use in all residential zones. They are limited to 8 residents and have set minimum frontages and lot areas. There is a distancing requirement of 200 metres between all residential special care facilities. As for the other classes of group homes, it does not appear that Class 2 and Class 3 group homes are a permitted use as-of-right in any zone. Class 4 group homes are a permitted use in only one zone, an institutional one. Group homes and sub-types of group homes are defined by the characteristics of their residents. Obviously some kinds or residents are considered more benign than others as the level of restrictions vary depending on class. Worthy of emphasis, the by-law puts group homes for ex-patients of psychiatric hospitals in the same category of group home as those for ex-offenders. 3.4 SARNIA

Sarnia also shares much in common with the approaches toward group homes in other municipalities. The definition of group home and residential care facility is similar. There are distancing requirements for group homes, 200 metres in a Residential Zone and 4 kilometres in a Rural Zone. Group homes are capped at 10 residents. 8

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

However, Sarnia differs from the other municipalities in the manner in which it adds further locational requirements. Group homes are not a permitted use in all zones otherwise permitting residential uses. Notable exceptions include Suburban Residential (SR1) and Rural Residential (RR1). In the zones where they are permitted, a provision requires that any group home with more than 5 residents be located on an arterial or collector road. Exceptions in location and group home size may be allowed through sitespecific regulations. Residential care facilities are defined rather broadly, but not mentioned as a permitted use in any zones. A further interesting case uncovered during the research was the existence of restrictive covenants in place in private developments. One development is covered by a restrictive covenant that limits residency to single families, a paradigm in planning struck down in Bell v. R. Even though this restrictive covenant is a relic of a previous era, it prevented one group home provider interviewed from pursuing the development of a project due to possible legal complications which would increase project costs. 3.5 KITCHENER

The definition of group home as it appears in Zoning By-law 85-1 is much in keeping with the by-laws of most other municipalities. Group homes are defined by the characteristics of their residents, licensing or funding relationships as defined by provincial or federal statute and as being a single housekeeping unit. Group homes are limited to 3 to 10 residents. Residential Care Facility is also a defined use, with no upper limit on residents, that includes group homes, crisis care facilities, residences for socially disadvantaged people and nursing homes. Again residents are defined by their characteristics and the use defined by a level of care in a supervised group setting. There is a distancing requirement of 400 metres between group homes. A further provision stipulates that they may not be a group home within 100 metres of the municipal limit of the City of Kitchener. Group homes are not a permitted use, but Residential Care Facilities are, often with restrictions on number of residents. They are a permitted use in most zones that otherwise permit residential uses. However, in many zones they are capped at 8 residents. Residential Care Facilities are not permitted in the Residential One Zone, the Agricultural Zone or the Market Village Zone. 3.6 SMITHS FALLS

Smiths Falls far exceeds other jurisdictions studied in terms of discriminatory provisions. Restrictions on group homes are laid out in both the Official Plan and zoning by-law. In some ways their approach is standard: residents of group homes are defined by their characteristics, group homes are licensed under Provincial Statute, the number of residents is limited from 3 to 10, the home is considered a single housekeeping unit, the residents are perceived to benefit from a group living arrangement under “responsible 9

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

supervision”, and there is a 300-metre distancing requirement between group homes. These are not unlike provisions discovered in other municipalities. However, several provisions are exceptional in the challenges they present to group home providers. The first and most blatant is a cap of 36 residents with mentally handicaps living in all group homes combined in the municipality as a whole. The second is that although group homes are a permitted use in residential and core zones, any new group home operation must be treated as a New Land Use Development. The definition of a New Land Use Development is a development that would introduce a land use, “different from those uses described in the Official Plan in terms of scale, purpose or nature, and neither envisioned nor contemplated [before] by Council.” As such, the Plan requires such developments to undergo strict site plan controls and be subject to impact studies and any other studies required by Council. The purpose of the provision is to shift the onus to the developer to prove that development would not have a negative impact and would not require additional municipal or community services. In particular for group homes, special attention would need to be paid to ensure that the site design is “in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and that sufficient space is available to accommodate the needs of the residents.” Further, the Town would encourage the developer to consult with the public to familiarize them with the project and its likely impact. Due to this provision, in effect, no new group home development is considered as-of-right. The project approval would seem to be subject to the whims of Council in an arbitrary way. These barriers to group home creation were confirmed in conversations with local providers. Providers stated that the financial viability of their projects is often very slim. They simply do not have the resources to pursue a project unless the Town is interested in seeing it move forward.

4.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS As can be seen by the descriptions of approaches to group homes and residential care facilities detailed above, for the most part Ontario municipalities share a common approach to these uses. Definitions are similar and distancing requirements are standard. Individual municipalities have additional provisions that range from the benign to extreme. Overall trends are detailed below. 4.1 PROVINCIAL DEFINITION

In many ways, the approach taken by municipalities to group homes has been shaped by the Province. Several pieces of Provincial legislation lay out the groundwork for the treatment of group homes. The Developmental Services Act (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 272) lays out the rules governing group homes serving people with developmental disabilities. The Municipal Act (S.O. 2001, c.25, Consolidated) gives municipalities the powers to

10

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

register and license group homes and includes the power of inspection. For the purposes of the Municipal Act, group homes are defined as: a residence licensed or funded under a federal or provincial statute for the accommodation of three to ten persons, exclusive of staff, living under supervision in a single housekeeping unit and who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their well being. 2001, c. 25, s. 166 (1). The Municipal Act also states that group homes may be licensed and regulated under its authority only if the municipality passes a by-law under section 34 of the Planning Act that permits the establishment and use of group homes in the municipality. 4.2 DEFINITIONS

The municipalities studied have drawn heavily from the Municipal Act definition in defining group homes in their by-laws and policies. Commonly the following elements are included: ƒThe characteristics of the residents (“their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status”) ƒThe nature of the relationship of residents and staff (“supervision in a single housekeeping unit”) ƒThe number of residents (usually 3 to 10) ƒThe nature of the licensing and regulatory relationship (“under a federal or provincial statute”) Some exceptions exist amongst the municipalities studied. The definition in the draft Ottawa zoning by-law makes no reference to the characteristics of group home residents except that they require “support or supervision on a daily basis.” Cambridge give a general definition of group home, but then further defines four classes of group homes that describe the characteristics of residents. The question that emerges is whether defining a use by the characteristics of its residents is discriminatory in and of itself. Group homes occupy housing forms such as single detached dwellings that are widely permitted. However, they are deemed to require special treatment in zoning by-laws due to the characteristics of their residents and the nature of the group living situation, one which includes some level of supervision. It is clear by comparing the municipal definitions of group home to the Municipal Act definition that treating group homes as a distinct use has its roots in Provincial legislation. The purpose of this and other legislation concerning group homes is to set a standard for the quality of care and living conditions in group homes in Ontario through licensing and regulation. The definition serves some positive purpose and makes the connection between the characteristics of residents and the benefits of a group living

11

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

arrangement supported by staff. But, through its definition, the creation of negative restrictions based on NIMBY sentiments becomes a possibility. 4.3 DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The definition of group homes, in and of itself, might not be considered discriminatory. However, once defined, to place restrictions on that use that are in many ways exceptional in the context of the zoning by-law cannot be considered otherwise. Distancing requirements are the most blatant of those restrictions. All municipalities examined had distancing requirements, although they varied in distance and how they should be calculated. The discussion during the consultations on the City of Ottawa’s Draft Zoning By-law illustrates the point clearly. In response to protests over distancing requirements for group homes, the justification was that Ontario Municipal Board decisions had upheld distancing requirements as a means to avoid the “ghettoization of the use.” But if the use is defined by the characteristics of the people who live there and the support they require, in housing forms that are otherwise identical to others in the zone, distancing requirements can only be viewed as zoning for people. These requirements would seem to draw on the very essence of NIMBY sentiments, not wanting too many of “those kind of people” in the neighbourhood. “Those kind of people” can be defined quite broadly, making distancing requirements even more nonsensical. Should people with mental disabilities not live too closely to people with physical disabilities? Should foster children not be allowed in the same neighbourhood as ex-patients of psychiatric hospitals? In the former City of Toronto group homes must also be distanced from crisis care facilities and residential care facilities. In discussions with local group home providers, distancing requirements emerged again and again as a major impediment. These requirements are seen as an arbitrary rule that prevents group home providers and residents from making there own decisions about what location might suit their needs best. Other requirements setting out rules on the location of group homes are less frequent. Sarnia’s by-law states that group homes with more than five residents must be located on arterial or collector streets. Other uses such as shelters and rooming houses often face similar restrictions. In these cases the “ghettoization” defence does not apply. The purpose of these provisions can only be to keep these uses, and more importantly the kinds of residents that inhabit them, at the periphery of residential neighbourhoods.

12

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

4.4 OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Municipalities have other requirements for group homes. Most require that the use be housed in a single detached dwelling or both parts of a semi-detached dwelling. Some by-laws set out the minimum lot sizes and requirements for front and side setbacks. These provisions would seem to be about ensuring there is some form of distance between group homes and other uses. Others requirements, such as the minimum floor space per resident would seem aimed at avoiding overcrowding. Although they are requirements particular to group homes, most do not present major barriers to the creation of new group homes. However, there are more egregious examples of discriminatory requirements discovered over the course of this research. One of the more blatantly discriminatory provisions is found in the Official Plan and zoning by-law of Smiths Falls. The Official Plan states in section 4.7.2.4: Notwithstanding the generality of subsection 4.7.2.2, group homes for the mentally handicapped shall be restricted to a total of 36 residents. Once this number has been reached, no further such group homes shall be permitted until Council has completed an assessment of the impacts of such homes on the Town, particularly on the provision of municipal services, and has amended this Plan to permit further such group homes to be located within the Town. This by-law places a cap on the number of mentally handicapped people living in group homes solely on the basis of their disability. Here, there is no room for misinterpretation. The Official Plan and zoning by-law of Smiths Falls have entrenched NIMBY-based discrimination in law and policy. Group homes provide supportive living arrangements for their residents in a manner which facilitates integration into the community. All the discriminatory provisions outlined above have the effect of generally limiting the availability of group home spaces. This provision takes a step beyond by adding a level of specificity that clearly establishes a cut off point for the number of mentally handicapped people permitted to live in group homes. It is obviously discriminatory in principle. In practice, it could prohibit people who require a form of supportive housing from living in the community of their choice. 4.5 APPROACH TO PERMITTED USE

Distancing and other requirements are a transparent form of discrimination. Generally, group homes are allowed as-of-right in a wide number of zones if they meet the provisions clearly stated in the by-law. Subtler forms of discrimination have the potential for a much larger exclusionary impact. These have the effect of shifting the source of discrimination from the by-law, where discriminatory provisions can be clearly seen, to a vagueness in the law which allows for greater discrimination in practice. An example of 13

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

this kind of discrimination would be to define a use in the by-law, but not list it as a permitted use in any zone. In this manner, the use would not be as-of-right anywhere and therefore subject to negotiations with the municipality and consultation with the public on a case by case basis. Without clearly established rules about where and how a use is to be allowed, a greater place is created for NIMBY sentiments to be expressed and have an impact on the process. In the case of group homes, an example can be found in Sarnia, where class 2 and class 3 group homes are defined but not listed as a permitted use. Other uses such as shelters and residential care facilities are often treated in this manner, making it more difficult to establish a case that there is discrimination in law against the residents of this form of housing. Not allowing the development of these uses as-of-right adds an incredible amount of uncertainty to any project. Group home providers, as well as the developers of other kinds of housing for vulnerable populations, often work on very thin budgets. Uncertainty makes the development of these kinds of housing less likely, as delays and resources spent lobbying the municipality and the public increase the costs of the project with no guarantee that it will move forward. The by-laws and policies in Smiths Falls are unique in that they have it both ways. Their Official Plan and zoning by-law define group homes and permit them as a use in most zones with general provisions that require minimum separation distances. However a provision in the Official Plan states that any new group home must be considered a New Land Use Development and is therefore not considered as-of-right. In this manner the group home provider is at the mercy of Council to demand any other requirements it sees fit. As mentioned in the Smith Falls section above, group home providers are reluctant to develop new group homes unless Council is strongly in their favour. Group home developers are also encouraged to hold public consultations and therefore provide a venue for NIMBY-driven opposition.2 4.6 PROVINCIAL TREATMENT AND PRECEDENT

The origin of municipal treatment of group homes was not found in Provincial legislation, which makes no reference to distancing requirements or other provisions specifically for group homes. Comments made by City planners during the public consultation on the City of Ottawa’s Comprehensive Zoning by-law suggest that the Province has accepted the right of municipalities to enforce distancing requirements as a means to prevent the “ghettoization” of the use if group homes are otherwise permitted in all residential zones. These planners also pointed to several Ontario Municipal Board cases in the 1980s that upheld distancing requirements for group homes.

2

Although not one of the municipalities selected for further research, Mississippi Mills has a public meeting requirement for new group homes.

14

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

No directly relevant jurisprudence was found in Ontario concerning group homes, although Mueller v. Tiny and Bell v. R. also address issues of people zoning. However, a decision in Manitoba has direct relevance. In The Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba v. Winnipeg (City), the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that a zoning by-law in the City of Winnipeg restricting the location of group homes for the aged, disabled, persons recovering from addictions and discharged penal inmates was a breach of s.15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The by-law in question restricted group homes with certain types of residents to a limited number of zones. Minimum separation distances between group homes were also required. The inclusion of group home as a conditional use meant that group home providers had to convince a Community Council that the use would “not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity" and "not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property.” The ruling stated that people living in group homes constituted a disadvantaged group under s.15 of the Charter and struck down the provisions in the zoning by-law. The case established that the Province cannot give municipalities the power to limit uses based on the types of tenants who will occupy them. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.3 4.7 LOCAL PERSPECTIVES

Interviews with group home providers indicated that they are in a weak position to challenge the discrimination they and their clients face both in law and in practice. Organizations involved in the creation of new group homes often have limited financial resources. If the development is not as-of-right and it seems that they will not be given the variances they require to go ahead with the project, the group has recourse to the Ontario Municipal Board. However, any chance of a protracted and costly legal battle can quickly render a project financially infeasible. As well, many group home providers are resistant to aggressively confronting the discriminatory policies of municipalities. Group home providers are often dependent on the good will of municipalities for financial support and gaining approvals for new projects. They therefore tolerate the discriminatory policies and unfair demands of municipalities, especially municipal politicians, so that they might continue to serve their clientele.

5.0 CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS The treatment of group homes is only the most transparent example of discriminatory NIMBY sentiment given expression in zoning by-laws and municipal policies. Group 3

http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/muns/plan/plandev/news.asp?cmd=view&articleid=26, accessed on November 6, 2007.

15

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

homes are defined by the characteristics of their residents and kind of living environment they provide. They are allowed in most municipalities as-of-right, but only if certain conditions are met. These conditions, such as distancing requirements, are clearly detailed in zoning by-laws and municipal policies. Combine the definition of group home with the requirements demanded of this use and the discriminatory intent becomes clear: these provisions are zoning for people. Some municipalities, such as Smiths Falls, go further in making this connection even more unequivocal. The driving force behind the treatment of group homes is at best, paternalism (the “ghettoization” justification offered by Ottawa planners), and at worst, raw discriminatory NIMBYism. Either way people zoning has no place in Ontario communities. It limits the range of choices available to group home providers and therefore to the people who might choose to live in this kind of accommodation, a violation of their basic human right to shelter and to equality. Because the discrimination in law is so blatant against group homes, the case can be readily documented. The same cannot be said of other forms of housing, such as affordable housing, supportive housing, residential care facilities and shelters, where there is a less easily documented relationship between discrimination in law and discrimination in practice. In these cases, discriminatory provisions are not so explicitly outlined. Often, these uses are not defined by the characteristics of their residents, although it is well established in practice that they come from vulnerable groups that are protected in human rights legislation. Uses such as residential care facilities and shelters are defined but permitted as-of-right in a very limited number of zones. Certain classes of group home face similar treatment. In order for these uses to be “zoned in”, the onus shifts to the housing providers to prove their case, often a difficult one to make in a process that gives full expression to local NIMBY sentiments. Affordable and supportive housing are often not mentioned in zoning by-laws at all, given they are indistinguishable in form from other housing types. However, in practice, they face the same financial and political pressures as group home providers to submit themselves to a costly and prolonged process that will put them in a defensive position against NIMBY-based opposition. Rather than direct discrimination in law, housing providers must deal with processes that leave them vulnerable to discrimination in practice. This paper aims to document a representative sample of the by-laws and policies at the municipal level that provide the legal basis for discriminatory NIMBY. Eliminating discrimination in law is an important first step. Equally important is understanding how the legal framework facilitates discrimination in practice even in the absence of explicit discriminatory provisions. Documenting the relationship between the legal framework and discrimination in practice requires a different kind of research. Case studies provide the most promising approach and would detail in a more subtle way the impact of NIMBYism and people zoning in law and in practice.

16

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

APPENDIX A: By Municipality - Excerpts from by-laws and policies

17

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

City of Cambridge – Discriminatory Zoning Summary ƒFour different classes of Group Home, defined by their residents ƒClass 1 Group Homes (physically and/or mentally handicapped) are a permitted use in a residential zones, with distancing requirements ƒClass 4 Group Homes (those over ten residents) are permitted only in one zone – Institutional N3 ƒUnclear where Class 2 and 3 group homes are permitted ƒPuts ex-patients of psychiatric hospitals in the same category of group home as those for ex-offenders ƒAmendments to zoning by-law create new definitions for special care facilities and residential special care facilities, into which the different classes of group homes are categorized. These definitions further limit class 1 group homes to 8 residents and minimum separation distances, lot area and frontage

City of Cambridge Zoning By-Law – No. 150-81 (Consolidated December 2006) http://www.city.cambridge.on.ca/article.php?ssid=21 accessed on May 8, 2007 1. Interpretation and Administration 1.1.1 Definitions group home means residential special care accommodation for up to ten people (exclusive of staff ) with special needs group home, class 1 means: 1. accommodation services for the physically and/or mentally handicapped; 2. a satellite residence to accommodate aging individuals who are no longer able to be cared for at home without supervision or assistance; group home, class 2 means a children’s residence to accommodate children usually under the age of 16 who, because of their special needs, cannot live with their parents or other relatives but would benefit form an alternative living arrangement; group home, class 3 means: 1. a home for patients of provincial physciatric [sic] hospitals who can benefit from a household-oriented living arrangement in the community; 2. a community resource centre for criminally sentenced individuals who can benefit more from rehabilitation in a community residential program than in a correctional institution; 3. a halfway house for ex-offenders (people on probation or parole from a provincial correctional institution or Federal penitentiary); and 4. a group home for other special purpose needs not described in class 1, class 2 and class 3 group home in this by-law, such as victims of accidents who require long term rehabilitation;

18

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 group home, class 4 means an institution used for any of the same purposes as a class 1, class 2 or class 3 group home but providing accommodation for more than ten residents exclusive of supervisory staff or the receiving family;

1.1.2 Classification of Zones 1. Use Classes, Zone Classes and Zone Symbols Primary (but not necessarily only) Purpose for Which the Zone is Established: N3 – class 4 group homes and unlicensed domiciliary hostels [In 3.2.1 Regulations Applicable in N-Class Zones, 1. Permitted Uses, group homes class 4 are a permitted use in N3 Zone - Institutional)

3. Zoning Regulations 3.1 Residential Use Class Zones 3.1.1 Regulations Applicable in All Residential Zones 3. Group Homes Any dwelling unit in a residential use class zone may be used for the purposes of a class 1 group home if such dwelling unit is not located within 200 m of an existing class 1, class 2, class 3 or class 4 group home.

City of Cambridge By-Law – No. 232-06 (amendments to the City of Cambridge Zoning By-law 150-85) Section 1.1.1 New definitions special care facility means a building or part thereof occupied by three or more persons (exclusive of staff) with special needs and shall include, but not be limited to, a group home, a family crisis shelter, a crisis intervention home, but does not include a day care, a domiciliary hostel, a nursing home, a boarding lodging or rooming house or a foster care home. special care facility, residential means a dwelling unit or part thereof occupied by three to ten persons (exclusive of staff) with special needs. A residential special care facility shall include, but not be limited to, a class 1 group home, a family crisis shelter, a crisis intervention home, but does not include a day care, a domiciliary hostel, a nursing home, a boarding lodging or rooming house or a foster care home, a class 2 or a class 3 group home.

Replace 3.1.1.3 with Residential Special Care Facility A residential special care facility shall be provided, in a detached one family dwelling, a semidetached one family dwelling or a detached duplex dwelling only in accordance with the following regulations: a) A residential special care facility shall have a maximum of 8 residents, exclusive of staff. b) A minimum frontage of 12m and a minimum lot area of 360 square metres.

19

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 c) The minimum separation distance between all residential special car facilities shall be 200m. d) All residential care facilities shall be approved and licensed where required by the Province (or other appropriate approval authorities) and shall be registered with the registrar of group homes designated by Council, and such registration shall be renewed annually. e) All residential special care facilities shall provide parking in accordance with section 2.2.1 of this by-law

Section 3.1.2.1 – Regulations Applicable in Residential Use Zones – Permitted Uses A residential special care facility is a permitted use in all residential zones as indicated in a table in Section 3.1.2.1.

20

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

City of Kitchener – Discriminatory Zoning Zoning By Law 85-1 http://www.kitchener.ca/zonebylaw/zonemain.aspx accessed on February 7, 2007 Summary ƒBoth Group Home and Residential Care Facility are defined in the by-law. ƒThe definition of Residential Care Facility includes Group Homes, Crisis Care Facilities and Residence of Socially Disadvantaged Persons. ƒGroup Homes are not included in permitted use, but Residential Care Facilities are, often with maximum or minimum number of residents. ƒResidential Care Facilities are not allowed in all zones that otherwise include some form of residential use. ƒDistancing requirements for all group homes. Section 4 – Definitions 4.2.110.1 "Group Home" means a residence licensed or funded under a federal or provincial statute for the accommodation of three to ten persons, exclusive of staff, living under supervision in a single housekeeping unit and who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their well being.(By-law 2005-106, S.2) (Housekeeping Amendment) 4.2.198 "Residential Care Facility" means a dwelling or part thereof occupied by three (3) or more persons, exclusive of staff, who by reason of their emotional, mental, physical or social condition or legal status, are cared for on a temporary or permanent basis in a supervised group setting. This shall include, for example, a group home, crisis care facility, residence for socially disadvantaged persons or nursing home, but shall not include a lodging house, foster care home or hospital.(By-law 2003-163, S.12)

Section 5 – General Provisions 5.17 Location of Group Homes

Notwithstanding anything else in this By-law, only one group home shall be permitted on a lot. No building or part thereof shall be used for a group home on a lot that is situated within 400 metres of another lot on which a group home is located, such minimum distance to be measured from the closest point of the lot lines associated with each lot. No building or part thereof shall be used for a group home on a lot that is situated within 100 metres of the municipal limit of the City of Kitchener, such minimum distance to be measured from the closest point of the lot line associated with such lot and the municipal limit.(By-law 92-58, S.4)

21

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

Sections 14 to 47 – Zones Residential care facilities are a permitted use in the following zones: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Retail Core Zone (D-1) – (Section 14.1) Office District Zone (D-4) – (Section 16.1)(16.2 Minimum size – 9 residents) Commercial Residential Zone (D-5) – (Section 16A.1) Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I-1) – (Section 31.1)(31.2.3 Maximum size – 8 residents) Community Institutional Zone (I-2) – (Section 32.1)(32.2.4 Maximum size – 8 residents) Major Institutional Zone (I-3) – (Section 33.1) Residential Two Zone (R-2) – (Section 36.1)(36.2.1 Maximum size – 8 residents) Residential Three Zone (R-3) – (Section 37.1)(37.2.1 Maximum size – 8 residents) Residential Four Zone (R-4) – (Section 38.1)(38.2.4 Maximum size – 8 residents) Residential Five Zone (R-5) – (Section 39.1)(39.2.6 Maximum size – 8 residents) Residential Six Zone (R-6) – (Section 40.1)(40.2.8 Maximum size – 8 residents) Residential Seven Zone (R-7) – (Section 41.1) Residential Eight Zone (R-8) – (Section 42.1) Residential Nine Zone (R-9) – (Section 43.1) Commercial Residential One Zone (CR-1) – (Section 44.1) Commercial Residential Two Zone (CR-2) – (Section 45.1) Commercial Residential One Zone (CR-3) – (Section 46.1)* Commercial Residential One Zone (CR-1) – (Section 47.1)**

*(46.3 – Location of a Residential Care Facility having less than nine residents Only within a multiple dwelling)(46.3 – Lodging House having less than 9 residents Only within a building existing on the date that the CR-3 Zone was applied to the land) **(47.2.3 – Residential Care Facility having less than 9 residents Only within a multiple dwelling) Residential care facilities are not a permitted use in the following zones (where dwelling units or other types or residential use otherwise are): ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Convenience Commercial Zone (C-1) – (Section 7) Community Commercial Core Zone (C-4) – (Section 10) Regional Shopping Centre Zone (C-5) Market Village Zone (D-3) – (Section 15) Industrial Residential Zone (M-1) – (Section 19) General Industrial Zone (M-2) – (Section 20) Service Industrial Zone (M-3) – (Section 21) Heavy Industrial Zone (M-4) – (Section 22) Business Park Zone (B-1) – (Section 23) Commercial Business Park Zone (B-4) – (Section 26) Agricultural Zone (A-1) – (Section 34) Residential One Zone (R-1) – (Section 35)

22

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

City of Ottawa – Discriminatory Zoning Summary ƒOfficial plan policies ensure that group homes and other forms of affordable housing are allowed in all zones where residential uses are generally permitted, although provisions regulating type, size and location of group home are allowed ƒDistancing requirements exist for group homes. ƒResidential Care Facilities are not a permitted use in most residential zones. ƒIn discussions at recent public consultations for the Draft Zoning By-law, City staff defended the use of distancing requirements as a means to avoid the “ghettoization” of the use.

City of Ottawa Official Plan http://ottawa.ca/city_hall/ottawa2020/official_plan/index_en.html accessed November 4, 2007 Section 2.5.2 – Affordable Housing Policies in this Plan ensure that all forms of housing are permitted wherever residential uses are generally permitted, subject to regulations contained in the zoning by-law. These land uses are outlined in Section 3.1. They include secondary dwelling units, rooming houses, group homes, shelter accommodation, retirement homes and garden suites.

Section 3.1 – Generally Permitted Uses Group Homes 2. Where the zoning by-law permits a dwelling, the by-law will also permit a group home. The zoning by-law may include area-specific provisions to regulate the type, size and location of this use.

City of Ottawa Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/zoning/index_en.html accessed November 4, 2007 Researcher’s Note: The City of Ottawa’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Project has produced a Draft Zoning By-law that harmonizes the pre-amalgamation by-laws of the 36 municipalities incorporated into the City of Ottawa. The By-law is currently moving its way through public consultations and revisions and should be enacted in early 2008. Overlapping processes are being carried out for by-laws covering Urban Areas and Rural Areas and the Greenbelt. A version available on the City of Ottawa web site shows edits made as recently as September 2007. A conversation with City of Ottawa staff indicated that both processes are still in progress but that the rural version was the most up to date in terms of definitions and provisions. For that reason they are excerpted here. The Project web site also includes a summary of public responses to the draft by-law, the discussion that occurred on the issues raised and any staff recommendations that emerged. They are also excerpted below.

23

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

Part 1 – Administration, Interpretation and Definitions Section 54 – Definitions Group home means a supervised residential use building in which three to ten persons, exclusive of staff, live as a group in a single household living arrangement, and where the residents require support or supervision on a daily basis, but excludes correctional facilities and shelters. Residential care facility means an establishment providing supervised or supportive in-house care for those who need assistance with daily living, that may also provide on-going medical or nursing care or counselling and social support services and which may include services such as medical, counselling, and personal services.

Part 5 – Residential Provisions Section 125 – Group Home Provisions 1) Where it is a permitted use in a zone, in addition to the provisions of the zone in which it is located, a group home, (a) must be within a dwelling type which is a permitted use in the zone in which it is located; (b) Section 122 applies; (c) where located within or abutting Residential or Village Mixed-use Zones, must be separated from any other lot containing a group home, a distance of 300 metres from each property line of the lot on which the group home is located; (d) where located within an RU - Rural Countryside or AG - Agricultural Zone: (i) must be separated from any other lot zoned RU or AG containing another group home, a distance of 1000 metres from each property line of the lot on which the group home is located, and (ii) must be separated from any lot zoned in a Residential zone or VM – Village Mixed-Use Zone containing another group home, a distance of 500 metres from each property line of the lot on which the group home is located. 2) Despite subsection 1, the minimum required separation distance need not extend across a waterway, Highway or any other major barrier to pedestrian or vehicular movement, and in such cases is deemed to be fulfilled by the distance between that barrier and the affected property line or lines of the lot containing the group home. 3) Where the minimum required separation distance of one group home intersects the minimum required separation distance of another group home, both group homes are considered to comply with the minimum separation distance requirements, provided that the limits of the two separation areas do not touch a lot line of a lot containing another group home.

Section 122 - Conversions 3) Any conversion that results in the creation of a group home; retirement home; converted rooming house, converted; converted dwelling; or shelter must be serviced with public sewer and water, except in the RU-Rural Countryside, VM –Village Mixed Use, V3 – Village Residential Third Density, and AG-Agricultural Zones where such uses may be permitted, if listed as permitted uses, on private services approved by the City of Ottawa where public services are not available.

24

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 6) Where a residential use building, located in a residential zone, is converted to a retirement home, converted rooming house; converted group home; or shelter, such uses must occupy the whole of the building.

Part 6 – Residential Zones Part 7 – Institutional Zones Part 10 – Mixed Use/Commercial Zones Part 13 – Rural Zones Zone

R1 – Residential First Density Zone (Sec. 155-156) R2 – Residential Second Density Zone (Sec. 157-158) R3 – Residential Third Density Zone (Sec. 159-160) R4 – Residential Fourth Density Zone (Sec. 161-162) R5 – Residential First Density Zone (Sec. 163-164) RM – Mobile Home Zone (Sec. 167-168) I1 – Minor Institutional Zone (Sec. 169-170) I2 – Major Institutional Zone (Sec. 171-172) AM – Arterial Mainstreet Zone (Sec. 185-186) GM – General Mixed Use Zone (Sec. 187-188) LC – Local Commercial Zone (Sec. 189-190) MC – Mixed-Use Centre Zone (Sec. 191-192) MD – Mixed-Use Downtown Zone (Sec. 193-194) TM – Traditional Mainstreet Zone (Sec. 197-198) AG – Agricultural Zone (Sec. 211-212) RC – Rural Commercial Zone (Sec. 217-218) RI – Rural Institutional Zone (Sec. 223-224) RR – Rural Residential Zone (Sec. 225-226) RU – Rural Countryside Zone (Sec. 227-228) VM – Village Mixed-Use Zone (Sec. 229-230) V1 – Village Residential First Density Zone (Sec. 231-232) V2 – Village Residential Second Density Zone (Sec. 233-234) V3 – Village Residential Third Density Zone (Sec. 235-236)

Permitted Use Group Residential Homes Care Facilities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

* a maximum of 30 residents is permitted (Sec. 163, 1(d)) ** a maximum of 8 persons is permitted (Sec. 211, 1(c))

25

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

May 2006 and May 2007 Consultations and Revisions – Rural – Summary of Public Responses http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/zoning/bylaw/consult_revision/rural/public_r esponses/part_05_en.html accessed November 4, 2007 Section 125: Group Home Provisions Comment Needs to recognize barriers such as rivers and major roads as definitive barriers or limits to the separation area calculation for group homes; rectangular separation area of 800 m seems too high [Health and Social Services Advisory Committee]

Discussion A clause has been added recognizing barriers or limits to the required separation area calculation.

It is basic human right to choose where to live, and creating zoning that places 300m buffer between group homes does not support citizen’s rights. May also violate the Canadian Charter of Rights.[Donna Rietschlin]

The Province has accepted municipalities’ right to impose separation distances between group homes, because the use is permitted in all zones, unlike most uses that are restricted to certain zoning categories only. Numerous Ontario Municipal Board hearings were held in the 1980’s, and the decisions always upheld the separation distances as being a reasonable zoning tool to limit overall density, and avoid “ghettoization” of the use. The separation distances are not particularly large, and would encompass separation by between roughly 15 and thirty lots (each side), and are intended to ensure that group homes locate throughout the municipality and not be encouraged to locate only in certain areas, as per the Official Plan. The separation areas are small enough that they do not result in the prohibition of this use in any area of the city and thus there is ample room for group home development throughout the whole of the city.

There are no longer different types of separation areas; the rectangular separation area has been removed, and a standard separation area, measured from each of the group home’s lot lines, is proposed to be 300 m between group homes.

Staff Recommendation Revise Section to include regulation that recognizes barriers to enforcement of full required separation area Revise separation distance requirements and simplify, standardize regulation

No change required

26

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

City of Sarnia – Discriminatory Zoning Summary ƒDistancing requirements for all group homes ƒLocational requirements for group homes with more than 5 residents in certain zones (must be located on an arterial or collector road) ƒGroup homes are capped at 10 residents, although site specific regulations can increase that number ƒGroup homes are not a permitted use in every zone otherwise allowing residential – notable exceptions include Suburban Residential (SR1) and Rural Residential (RR1) ƒResidential Care Facility is defined loosely but only referred to in one other place in the zoning by-law (in this case, residents are defined as “medically fragile”)

Zoning By-law No. 85 of 2002 (July 15, 2002) (Office Consolidation as amended October 2005) http://www.sarnia.ca/visit.asp?sectionid=348 Accessed March 15, 2007 Part I, Section 2 – Definitions "GROUP HOME" shall mean a dwelling unit operated as a single housekeeping unit accommodating, or having the facilities to accommodate, 5 to 10 residents (exclusive of staff) who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social, or physical condition require a group living arrangement under 24 hour responsible supervision consistent with the requirements of its residents, and the group home is either licensed or funded under Provincial or Federal statute. Any counseling or support services provided in the group home shall be limited to those required by the residents. "RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY" means a family home, group care facility, or similar facility for 24 hour non-medical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual.

Part I, Section 3 – General Regulations 3.16 Group Homes

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law to the contrary, a Group Home may be permitted in any dwelling unit provided that: (1) there is no other Group Home within 200m radius, in the case of a Residential Zone, or 4km radius, in the case of a Rural Zone, of the proposed facility; (2) the group home shall occupy the whole of the dwelling unit; (3) the group home shall be registered with the municipality as per Section 240 of the Municipal Act (R.S.O. 1990), c.M.45; (4) parking is supplied at the rate specified in Section 3.37 of this By-law; and

27

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

(5) any building erected or altered after the passing of the By-law for use as a group home for more than 5 residents in a UR1, UR2, UR3 and SR1 Zone, shall have a front yard or a side yard that abuts an arterial or collector street as shown on Schedule “D”.

Part II – Zones and Zone Regulations – Sections 7 to 23 Zones Permitting Group Homes Group Homes are a permitted use in the following zones: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Urban Residential 1 Zone (UR1) – (Section 7, 7.1 Permitted Uses) Urban Residential 2 Zone (UR2) – (Section 8, 8.1 Permitted Uses) Urban Residential 3 Zone (UR3) – (Section 9, 9.1 Permitted Uses) Urban Residential 4 Zone (UR4) – (Section 10, 10.1 Permitted Uses) Urban Residential 5 Zone (UR5) – (Section 11, 11.1 Permitted Uses) Office Commercial 1 Zone (OC1) – (Section 21, 21.1 Permitted Uses)

In these zones the following restrictions apply: Section 7 - Urban Residential 1 Zone (UR1) 7.2 Zone Regulations 7.2.1(9) Special Provisions for Group Homes and Women's Shelters: (a) a group home or women's shelter in the UR1 zone shall comprise a single detached dwelling; (b) a single detached dwelling erected or altered after the passing of this By-law, for use as a group home or women's shelter for more than 5 residents shall have a front yard or a side yard that abuts an arterial or collector street as shown on Schedule D; and (c) a group home or a women's shelter lot shall be separated a minimum distance of 200m from any other group home or women's shelter lot located within a Residential Zone. Sections 8.2.3, 9.2.3,10.2.4, 11.2.4 and 21.2.2 state that the regulations laid out in 7.2.1 shall apply. Site and Area Specific Regulations concerning group homes and residential care facilities 7.3 Site and Area Specific Regulation 7.3.17 UR1-17 (See Zoning Map Part 12) 7.3.17.1 Permitted Uses (1) Uses permitted in Section 7.1. 7.3.17.2 Site Zone Regulations - Group Home (1) Occupants: the group home is occupied by not more than 12 persons over the age of 16 years, other than supervisory personnel (2) Fencing and Landscaping: the existing fencing and landscaped open space shall be maintained (3) Setbacks: the existing front, side and rear yard setbacks shall be maintained (4) Supervisors: no more than 2 supervisory personnel shall reside on a continuing basis in the group home (5) Signs: no sign identifying the use of the group home shall be displayed on the said lands

28

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 (6) Parking: there shall be available for use in conjunction with the group home a minimum of 5 parking spaces to be located on the property immediately adjoining to the south 10.3.4 UR4-4 (See Zoning Map Part 56) 10.3.4.1 Permitted Uses (1) Group homes for mentally challenged adults. 10.3.4.2 Site Zone Regulations - Group Home (1) Number of Residents: (maximum) 15 residents over the age of 16 excluding supervisory staff (2) Fencing: (minimum) 1m high hedge or opaque privacy fence along the east property line (3) Landscaped Open Space: (minimum) the existing landscaped open space shall be maintained (4) Signs: (minimum) no signs identifying the use are permitted

Zones Not Permitting Group Homes Group Homes are not a listed permitted use in the following zones: ƒ Rural 1 Zone (RU1) – (Section 5) ƒ Rural Residential 1 Zone (RR1) – (Section 6) ƒ Suburban Residential 1 Zone (SR1) – (Section 12)(but then in 12.2.1 provides zoning regulations for group homes) ƒ Private Residential Community 1 Zone (PRC1) – (Section 13) ƒ Downtown 1 Zone (D1) – (Section 14) ƒ Commercial Centre 1 Zone (CC1) – (Section 15) ƒ General Commercial 1 Zone (GC1) – (Section 16) ƒ General Commercial 2 Zone (GC2) – (Section 17) ƒ General Commercial 3 Zone (GC3) – (Section 18) ƒ Community Commercial 1 Zone (COC1) – (Section 19) ƒ Highway Commercial 1 Zone (HC1) – (Section 20) ƒ Local Commercial 1 Zone (LC1) ƒ Institutional 1 Zone (I1) – (Section 23) Although not a permitted use a site-specific exception has been made in Section 23. 23.3.3 I1-3 (See Zoning Map Part 19) 23.3.3.1 Permitted Uses (1) Accessory uses and buildings. (2) A group home (a boys' residential home). 23.3.3.2 Site Zone Regulations (1) The regulations set out in Section 5.25 shall apply.

29

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

Concerning Residential Care Facilities There is only one reference to a Residential Care Facility, as defined in the Definitions section. 23.3.6 I1-6 (See Zoning Map Part 14) 23.3.6.1 Permitted Uses (1) Residential care facility for the medically fragile. 23.3.6.2 Site Zone Regulations (1) Lot Area: (minimum) 4,800 square metres (2) Setbacks: (minimum) - north yard 21m - east yard 15m - south yard 7.5m - west yard 3m (3) Lot Coverage: (maximum) 50% (4) Landscaped Open Space: (minimum) 35% (5) Height: (maximum) 1 storey for a main building and 5m for an accessory building (6) Special Regulation: (minimum) the lands within the north and east yard setbacks shall be maintained as landscaped open space

30

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

Town of Smiths Falls – Discriminatory Zoning Summary ƒGroup homes are a permitted use in all residential zones ƒDistancing requirements exist for all group homes ƒGroup homes for the mentally handicapped are limited to a maximum of 36 residents for the entire municipality. ƒIn the Official Plan, new group homes are classified as a New Land Use Development, a classification that shifts the onus to developers to prove that their development will not adversely impact municipal or community services

Official Plan of the Town of Smiths Falls (Office Consolidation August 2005) Section 3 Planning Policies and Processes 3.8 New Land Use Developments It shall be a policy of this Plan that any proposed new development or redevelopment which would introduce a land use, different from those uses described in this Plan in terms of scale, purpose or nature, and neither envisioned nor contemplated heretofore by Council, shall be subject to detailed land use, marketing and/or impact studies, and any other studies deemed necessary by Council. The intent of this policy is to place the onus on the developer to demonstrate that the introduction of a new use into the community would not be to the detriment of the municipality's economic, social, cultural, natural, and financial base; would not adversely impact on municipal services; and would not require additional municipal or community services. In addition, Council will encourage the developer of such a use to consult with the public to ensure that the public is made familiar with the purpose and effect of the proposed development or redevelopment. New Land Use Developments shall only be approved by an amendment to this Plan.

Section 4 Development Policies 4.7 Group Homes

4.7.1 General Policies 1. For the purposes of this Plan, there shall be two types of group homes, as defined in Sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3. 2. No person shall operate, or permit to operate, a group home without registering the group home with the Town Clerk in accordance with the Town of Smiths Falls Group Home Registration By-law.

31

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 3. In order to prevent an undue concentration of group homes in neighbourhoods, standards requiring a minimum distance separation between these facilities may be incorporated in the implementing Zoning By-law, but shall generally be limited to a minimum of 300 m between any two group homes, such distance to be measured from the closest points of the two properties at the property line. 4. Group homes existing on the date the Zoning By-law comes into effect but which do not comply with the requirements of the By-law will be allowed to continue their operations but will not be permitted to expand unless such expansion complies with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. 5. New group home operations shall be considered part of the Town of Smiths Falls Site Plan Control Area pursuant to Section 3.8. For the purpose of this Plan, a new group home operation means the establishment of a group home, or the replacement of one group home serving a specific needs group with another one serving a different needs group. The general objective of Council shall be to ensure that the site design is in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and that sufficient space is available to accommodate the needs of the residents. Parking, outside storage, vehicle access, pedestrian access and buffering shall be of primary concern when considering a site plan. 6. Notwithstanding the policies of Section 4.7.3, group homes may be located in semidetached dwellings and duplex dwellings, provided that both units are occupied by one group home operation and that the total number of residents (excluding staff or receiving family) in both units does not exceed 10 residents.

4.7.2

Type A Group Homes 1. A Type A group home is defined as a single housekeeping unit in a residential dwelling, in which three to ten residents (excluding staff or receiving family) live together under responsible supervision consistent with the requirements of its residents, who by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition require a group living arrangement. The home is licensed or approved under Provincial Statute and is in compliance with Municipal by-laws. This definition does not include residences for young offenders, adult offenders, boarding or lodging houses. 2. Type A group homes shall be considered to be a residential use which shall be permitted in all areas designated Residential and Core Area. 3. Type A group homes shall be permitted in single-detached dwellings, buildings converted to single-detached dwellings, and in both units of semi-detached dwellings and duplex dwellings, pursuant to Section 4.7.1.6. 4. Notwithstanding the generality of subsection 4.7.2.2, group homes for the mentally handicapped shall be restricted to a total of 36 residents. Once this number has been reached, no further such group homes shall be permitted until Council has completed an assessment of the impacts of such homes on the Town, particularly on the provision of municipal services, and has amended this Plan to permit further such group homes to be located within the Town.

32

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

Zoning By-law No. 6080-94 (Office Consolidation January 2004) Section 3 Definitions GROUP HOME, TYPE A: Means a single household unit in a dwelling, in which 3 to 10 residents (excluding staff or receiving family) live together under responsible supervision consistent with the requirements of its residents, and which is licensed or approved under Provincial Statue [sic] and is in compliance with Municipal by-laws. The definition does not include residences for young offenders, adult offenders or boarding/rooming dwelling houses.

Section 4 General Provisions 4.12 Group Homes Type A Group Homes shall be a permitted use in all zones in which a single detached dwelling is permitted as a principle use in accordance with the following provisions. 1. A Type A Group Home shall be located a minimum of 300 metres from another Type A Group Home, such distance to be measured from the closest point of the two properties at the property line. 2. Type A Group Homes shall not be permitted in accessory single detached dwelling houses not in accessory dwelling units. 3. Type A Group Homes may be permitted in single-detached dwellings and in both units of semi-detached and duplex dwellings, provided that both units are occupied by one group home operation and that the total number of residents (excluding staff or receiving family) in both units does not exceed ten. 4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Type A Group Homes for the mentally handicapped shall be restricted to a maximum total of 36 residents in all such Homes.

33

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

City of Toronto – Discriminatory Zoning Summary ƒThe City of Toronto is currently in the process of consolidating the by-laws of the pre-amalgamation cities. ƒNew proposed definitions exist for Group Homes and Residential Care Facilities. ƒDistancing requirements exist in the zoning by-laws of all the pre-amalgamation cities. ƒIn the former City of Toronto, residential care facilities (basically a group home for 6-10 people) were a permitted use in all residential and mixed use zones. There was no defined use for similar facilities housing over ten people. ƒIn the former City of Toronto, parking requirements for alternative housing would not seem to present a barrier to group home provision ƒThe Community Engagement Protocol developed for the City’s Affordable Housing Office does not present extra obligations for the development of group of group homes and residential care facilities.

City of Toronto - Zoning By-law Project http://www.toronto.ca/zoning/index.htm The City of Toronto is currently consolidating the by-laws of the pre-amalgamation cities through its Zoning By-law Project. The consolidation process has proposed definitions but not yet addressed general provisions. Proposed definitions exist for Group Home and Residential Care Facility.

Proposed Definitions http://www.toronto.ca/zoning/definitions.htm Residence – Group Home Considerations: ƒ Group homes are a use to be accommodated within the city. ƒ By defining group homes, specific zoning rules may be made which may include determining where they are permitted. Proposed Definition: means supervised living accommodation: (i) licensed or funded under Province of Ontario or Government of Canada legislation, (ii) for persons requiring a group living arrangement by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, and (iii) is for three to ten persons, exclusive of staff, living together as a single housekeeping unit.

34

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

Residence – Residential Care Home Considerations: ƒ This is a building with living space for more than 10 people with identified needs. ƒ The building operation is licensed or paid for in part by the provincial or federal government. ƒ Support services may also be provided for the residents of the building. ƒ This is like a Group Home but with more people. Proposed definition: means supervised living accommodation: (i) licensed or funded under Province of Ontario or Government of Canada legislation, (ii) for persons requiring semi-independent or group living arrangements by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status, and (iii) is for more than ten persons, exclusive of staff, and (iv) it may include associated support services.

Pre-Amalgamation By-laws Toronto City of Toronto Zoning By-law #: 438-86 Section 2 – Definitions and Interpretation – Amended December 2003 2(1).54 “residential care facility” means a residence for the accommodation of six to ten persons, exclusive of staff, who by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status require a group living arrangement for their well-being where: (i) (ii) (iii)

the facility is supervised, or the members of the group are referred, by a hospital, court or government agency; or the facility is funded wholly or in part by a government, other than funding provided solely for capital purposes; or the facility is regulated or supervised under a general or special Act;

but does not include a use other wise classified or defined in this by-law 2(2).2 (k) For the purpose of i) section 4(4) ii) section 4(5), and iii) the definition of parking space as set out in section 2(1) alternative housing means dwelling units or dwelling rooms which are operated by a government agency, a charitable institution, or a non-profit institution as social housing for the residential accommodation of persons who by reason of their financial , emotion, mental, social or physical condition or legal status have and require ongoing support services of a counseling or medical nature associated with their residential accommodation; and provided, that where any use is defined within this by-law so as to not include a use otherwise classified or defined, alternative housing shall be deemed to not be a use otherwise classified or defined

35

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 and the owner or occupant of alternative housing may provide the parking facilities prescribed by section 4(4) or by the section 4(5) for alternative housing in lieu of any other parking facilities prescribed by those sections for the dwelling units or dwelling rooms which are operated as alternative housing. Section 4 – Regulations Applying to All Use Districts 4(4) Parking Spaces: When Required, Number, Location and Type

Purpose of Building or Structure A building or structure or that portion thereof used as alternative housing

Minimum Required Parking Spaces One parking space for the first five dwelling units or dwelling rooms, or fraction thereof; plus

One parking space for the first fifteen dwelling units or dwelling rooms, or fraction thereof, in excess of the first five; plus One parking space for each ten dwelling units or dwelling rooms, in excess of the first twenty;

Section 6 – Residential Districts (R1, R1S, R2, R3, R4, and R4A) 6(2).6 A residential care facility is a permitted use provided: (425-93) i) it occupies the whole of a fully detached building; and ii) it is at least 245 metres from another residential care facility or a crisis care facility. (159-89) (909-88) Section 8 – Mixed-Use Districts (CR, MCR and Q) 8(2).1 A crisis care facility and residential care facility is a permitted use provided: (i) The use occupies the whole of a fully detached building; (ii) The use is at least 245 metres from another crisis care facility or residential care facility. (425-93) (iii) In the case of a mixed-use building, a crisis care facility occupies the whole of the residential portion of the building.

Etobicoke Etobicoke Zoning Code The Etobicoke Zoning Code is broken down into Chapters for the City of Etobicoke, Township of Etobicoke, Village of Long Branch, and Town of Mimico, Town of New Toronto. Generally, group homes are a permitted use wherever fully detached residential dwellings, duplex and triplex dwellings are allowed. The Chapters for the City of Etobicoke are examined here as an example. Section 304-3 GROUP HOME: A single supervised housekeeping unit in a dwelling used to accommodate three to 10 persons, exclusive of staff, who require a group living arrangement for their well-being due to their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or status and are referred by a hospital, court or government agency or recognized social services agency or health professional. The

36

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 operation of such facility shall be at least partly publicly funded or licensed or approved in accordance with provincial statute. Section 304-24.1 Supplementary Regulations for group homes [Added 1986-0113 by By-Law No. 1986-12] No building or structure or land shall be used and no building or structure shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, enlarged or maintained for the purpose of a group home, except in accordance with the following regulations, notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter to the contrary: A. Dwelling type. A group home may locate in any fully detached residential dwelling, duplex and triplex dwellings and in any two (2) semi-detached dwellings which are joined to one another, provided that the building is occupied wholly by that use. B. Distance between group homes. There shall be a minimum radius of eight hundred (800) metres measured from property line to property line between any two (2) group homes, as defined in Section 320-3B herein, and any form of residential care facility. C. Registration. No owner or operator of a group home shall commence operation without having registered the proposed group home with the City of Etobicoke. D. Parking. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 320-18B, at least two (2) one site automobile parking spaces shall be provided. These spaces may be tandem and one (1) may be in a garage. E. Minimum floor space. A minimum floor space of twenty-three (23) square metres (exclusive of the basement area) shall be provided for each resident, exclusive of staff. F. Minimum lot area. There shall be a minimum lot area of four hundred sixty (460) square metres for any group home. G. Minimum rear yard. There shall be a minimum rear yard of fourteen (14) square metres for each group home resident, but not less than one hundred sixteen (116) square metres in total. H. General zoning requirement. The building shall comply with the requirements for residential development within the zoning category in which the group home is located. I. General health requirement. A group home shall be constructed and used so that it complies with the laws affecting the health and the inhabitants and any rule, regulation, direction or order of the Local Board of Health and /or any direction or order of the Local Medical Officer of Health. J. All licensed group homes in existence prior to passage of this section shall continue to be deemed permitted uses. K. Correctional group homes shall only be located on a public road designated as an arterial road by the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

37

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

East York By-law #: 1916 Section: 2.50.a GROUP HOME: “Group Home” shall mean the use of a dwelling unit for a residential care facility accommodating persons who by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status require specialized residential care in a group living arrangement in a residential neighbourhood. By-law #: 6752 Part II, Section 4.15.A GROUP HOME: Means the use of a dwelling unit for a residential care facility accommodating persons who by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition or legal status require specialized residential care in a group living arrangement in a residential neighbourhood. Part III, Section 5.23 A Group Home is a permitted use in a one family detached dwelling in all residential R Zones, provided the group home: a) accommodates three to ten persons exclusive of staff; b) accommodates only persons referred to it by a hospital, court, government agency or recognized social service agency or health professional; c) provides a minimum gross floor area of 23 square metres for each resident, exclusive of staff; d) complies fully with the restrictions, requirements and regulations for residential uses and structures within the relevant zoning category; e) provides and maintains at least one (1) off-street parking space on site; f) is located a minimum of 457 metres distant from any other Group Home, and any other residential care facility set out in Schedule “A” annexed hereto; such distance to be measured in a straight line fro nearest property line to nearest property line; g) complies fully with all relevant by-laws of The Corporation of the Borough of East York; h) is registered annually with The Corporation of the Borough of East York i) is funded wholly or in part by any government, other than funding provided for capital purposes or such facility is licensed or approved under Provincial statute.

Not withstanding the foregoing, the location of Correctional Group Homes shall be restricted to lots fronting arterial roads under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto as indicated on Schedule “B” annexed hereto. North York By-law #: 7625 Section: 2.42.3 GROUP HOME: means a building in which not less than three, nor more than ten persons requiring residential, sheltered, specialized or group care reside, and which is licensed, approved or supervised by the Province of Ontario under any general or special Act. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Group Home includes a home for elderly persons, a home for mentally retarded or physically disabled persons, and a home for persons who are convalescing after hospital treatment and are under medical supervision, but does not include the following: (a) a group foster home; (b) an institution maintained and operated primarily for persons; (i) who have been placed on probation under The Probation Act, the Criminal Code (Canada) or The Juvenile Delinquents Act (Canada); or (ii) who have been released on parole under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act or

38

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 the Parole Act (Canada); or (iii) who are admitted to the institution for correctional purposes; (c) an institution for the temporary care of transient or homeless persons; (d) an institution maintained and operated primarily for the treatment and rehabilitation of persons who are addicted to substances other than alcohol; (e) a Receiving Centre. (renumbered by By-law 32696)" By-law #: 7625 Section: 2.42.2 GROUP FOSTER HOME: means a building in which not less than three, nor more than six foster children, under the age of twenty-one years, requiring sheltered, specialized, or group care are lodged, boarded or cared for, and which is maintained and operated by or under the supervision of a corporation approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under either The Children's Institutions Act 1962-63, or The Child Welfare Act, 1965, but does not include a Receiving Centre. (renumbered by By-law 32696)" Section 6 – General Provisions for All Zones 6.i Group Homes Group Homes shall be permitted in all residential One-Family Detached Dwelling zones in accordance with the following provisions: (i) The number of persons residing in the group home shall not exceed ten; (ii) The building shall comply with the requirements for one-family detached dwellings in the zone and district in which the Group Home is located; (iii) Not more than two persons shall occupy one bedroom; (iv) There shall be no other group home in the same neighbourhood; and (v) No other group home shall be located within 300 m of any other group home.

York By-law #: 1-83 Section 2(50) FOSTER HOME: Means a building in which not more than six (6) foster children reside primarily for the purpose of receiving residential care and that is supervised or operated by a Children's Aid Society under The Child Welfare Act, 1978, and that is licensed and operated in accordance with The Children's Residential Services Act, 1978.

Section 2(57) GROUP HOME: Means a supervised single housekeeping unit in a residential dwelling for the accommodation of three (3) to ten (10) persons, exclusive of staff, who by reason of their emotional, social or physical condition or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their well being; and (a) the members of the group are referred by a hospital, court or government agency or recognized social services agency or health professional; and (b) such facility is funded wholly or in part by any government, other than funding provided solely for capital purposes, or such facility is licensed or approved under Provincial statute.

39

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 Section 7 – R1 Residential Districts 7(2) Permissable Uses No person shall within any R1 District use any land or erect or use any building or structure except for the following purposes: 7(2).l a foster home occupying the whole of a one-family dwelling house, provided it is located at least 800 metres radius measured from property line to property line from any other foster home.

7(2).m a group home or correctional group home occupying the whole of a one-family dwelling house, provide it is located at least 800 metres radius measured from property line to property line from any other group home or correctional group home. [go to other zones to get similar restrictions]

Scarborough By-law #: 10076, 12797, 8786, 9350, 9174, 9396, 12077, 8978, 9508, 10048, 9676, 10827, 9089, 9276, 12466, 14402, 12181, 17677, 11883, 9366, 9812, 15907, 10010 , 16762, 10717, 12360, 25278, 9511, 10327, 9510 Section: V,(e),(f), II GROUP HOME: means a supervised single housekeeping unit in a dwelling for the accommodation of 3 to 10 persons, exclusive of staff who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition, or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their wellbeing, and where: - The members of the group are referred by a hospital, court or government agency, or recognized social services agency or health professional; and - Such facility is funded wholly or in part by any government, other than funding provided for capital purposes only, or such a facility is licensed or approved under Provincial statute." By-law #: 24982 Section: CLAUSE IV GROUP HOME: shall mean a supervised single housekeeping unit in a dwelling for the accommodation of 3 to 10 persons, exclusive of staff, who by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition, or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their wellbeing, and where: - The members of the group are referred by a hospital, court or government agency, or recognized social services agency or health professional; and - Such facility is funded wholly or in part by any government, other than funding provided for capital purposes only, or such a facility is licensed or approved under Provincial statute;" By-law #: 10076, 12797, 8786, 9350, 9174, 9396, 12077, 8978, 9508, 10048, 9676, 10827, 9089, 9276, 12466, 14402, 12181, 17677, 11883, 9366, 9812, 15907, 10010, 16762, 10717, 12360, 9511, 10327, 9510 Section: V,(e),(f), II RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY: means a supervised facility for the accommodation of more than 10 persons, exclusive of staff who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition, or legal status, require a group living arrangement for their well-being, and where: - The members of the group are referred by a hospital, court or government agency, or

40

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007 recognized social services agency or health professional; and - Such facility is funded wholly or in part by any government, other than funding provided for capital purposes only, or such a facility is licensed or approved under Provincial statute. Such facility is not a hospital, nursing home, retirement home or convalescent home."

By-law #: 24982 Section: CLAUSE IV RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY: shall mean a supervised facility for the accommodation of more than 10 persons, exclusive of staff who, by reason of their emotional, mental, social or physical condition, or legal status, require a group living arrangement for the well-being, and where: - The members of the group are referred by a hospital, court or government agency, or recognized social services agency or health professional; and - Such facility is funded wholly or in part by any government, other than funding provided for capital purposes only, or such a facility is licensed or approved under Provincial statute. Such facility is not a hospital, nursing home, retirement home or convalescent home."

Further Notes Based on conversations with Simon Liston and Joy Connelly, the Community Engagement Protocol developed by the City of Toronto’s Affordable Housing Office has not yet been officially adopted. It is intended for internal policy use and will not be made public. According to Connelly, there is nothing in the document that could be considered discriminatory. The overall approach was that there should be no increase in obligations beyond normal planning policy. According to Connelly, although there are no more official requirements to have public meetings for group homes than for any other kind of development, often local councilors put pressure on providers to have public meetings and undergo much greater scrutiny than would normally be required. Group home providers are vulnerable from a financial perspective because these same municipal politicians can affect funding decisions. An example is the Good Sheppard supportive housing at 793 Gerrard St. East.

41

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

APPENDIX B: Contacts

42

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

Contacts

General Gordon Kyle Director of Social Policy and Government Relations Community Living Ontario Tel: (416) 447-4348 ext. 230 Email: [email protected] Orville Endicott Legal Counsel Community Living Ontario Tel: (416) 447-4348, Ext. 238 Email: [email protected]

Ottawa Karen Anderson Chair Developmental Services Ottawa Email: [email protected] Jocelyne Paul Vice-Chair Developmental Services Ottawa Email: [email protected] Janet Nolan District Executive Director East District Christian Horizons Tel: (613) 225-5900 Email: [email protected]

Kitchener Brian Hunsberger Development Director House of Friendship Tel: (519) 742-8327 Email: [email protected]

43

The Legal Basis of NIMBY November 2007

Cambridge Eva Vlasov Executive Director Argus Residence for Young People Tel: (519) 623-7991

Sarnia John Hagens Executive Director Community Living Sarnia Tel: (519) 332-0560

Smiths Falls Linda Tranter Lanark, Leeds, and Grenville Legal Clinic Tel: (613) 264-8888 Email: Rick Tutts Executive Director Community Living Lanark County Tel: (613) 257-8040 ext. 31 Ted Shuh Executive Director Community Living North Grenville Tel: (613) 256-1031 ext. 26

44

Appendix G

The Dream Team Road Show A community dialogue about the benefits of supportive housing

The Dream Team is a group of psychiatric consumer/survivors, and family members who advocate for more supportive housing in Ontario for people with mental health issues. We demonstrate through presentations and workshops the life-altering benefits of supportive housing by telling our stories to politicians, community groups and institutions. Through a grant from the Law Foundation we are conducting a tour through the province to share our experiences and learn more about supportive housing in different communities. We invite you to join us for a presentation in Smith Falls.

10:00AM - Friday, June 13

Link Activity/Resource Centre 88 Cornelia Street West Unit A4 (door at rear left side of building)

Mental Health Support Project of Lanark Leeds & Grenville

Zoning that sets limits on the types of dwellings that can be built based on who will be occupying the buildings, not the form of the building. Examples of discriminatory zoning are by-laws that would set out rules for minimum distances between housing for certain types of people.

What is discriminatory zoning?

The Dream Team members have been transformed from being homeless to committed advocates for supportive housing and fighting NIMBY-ism (Not In My BackYard); from psychiatric consumer survivors to educators demythologizing “mental illness”.

We demonstrate through presentations and workshops the life-altering benefits of supportive housing by telling our stories to politicians, community groups and institutions.

The Dream Team is a group of psychiatric consumer/survivors, and family members who advocate for more supportive housing in Ontario for people with mental health issues.

Who is the Dream?

x

x

x

x

x

x

survi-

Forming and building partnerships at each session, the result being more strategic cooperation across the province to eliminate discrimination against people with mental health challenges in the context of provision of affordable housing projects designed to benefit psychiatric survivors.

Close cooperation with OHRC to influence their policy statement and advocacy with respect to discrimination and supportive housing

Strengthen local groups who will provide ongoing education locally

Creation of solid network of psychiatric vors and advocates

Education of institutions, communities and government of nature and impact of discriminatory zoning

Education and support for psychiatric survivors who are being discriminated against to assert their rights

Our goals:

x

x

x

x

x

Write letters to your local paper about the need for affordable and supportive housing when there are articles in the paper.

Let us know if there’s an affordable housing project in your area that is facing council or community opposition.

Communicate with your local, provincial and federal politicians about the need for affordable and supportive housing.

Let others in your community know about the Dream Team and goals of the project. See www.thedreamteam.ca

Keep in touch with the Dream Team by giving us your contact information. Please sign the contact sheet and make sure to give it to a Dream Team member.

How you can support our goals/this project

Our partners in this project are the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and HomeComing Community Choice Coalition. We will be holding community meetings across Ontario.

The Dream Team received a grant from the Law Foundation of Ontario to fund research, education and outreach on the subject of the impact of restrictive provisions in municipal policies and zoning bylaws on people living with mental health issues.

The Dream Team Road Show

DREAM TEAM ROAD SHOW AGENDA Outcomes To enhance understanding of: x The benefits of supportive housing x Barriers to the development of supportive housing x What the Dream team is doing to address some of these barriers x How these issues effect your community

1.

Welcome and Introduction

2.

Who is Here? ¾ Talk to your neighbours. Questions: How long have you lived in this community? Do you rent own your home? Do you know anyone (a friend or family member?) who has experienced mental health issues or other health issues that affect their housing needs?

3.

Who Are We? 3 partners in project - Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario - HomeComing Community Choice Coalition - the Dream Team ¾ Dream Team Stories ¾ Questions and comments?

4.

Overheard in Community Meetings: A Mini-Presentation

5.

Supportive Housing in Your Community (small groups) Questions attached

6.

Local experiences (feedback from small groups)

7.

Next Steps

8.

Wrap-up (Evaluation attached)

Supportive Housing in Your Community - Small group Questions Overview for all groups Supportive Housing is housing in which people live independently with support available as needed to help them to address life issues which may effect their ability to maintain their housing. Think of any person that you know who lives with mental illness or other disability. Where do they live? Would they be better off living in supportive housing? What direct or indirect experience do you have with supportive housing? In your small groups discuss the following questions: Group 1.

Benefits and drawbacks to Supportive Housing

What are the benefits of having people live together who may have very different requirements, but all need some form of support? (e.g. counseling, life skills support) What drawbacks might there be to this form of housing for the people who live there? Are there any benefits for the larger community from supportive housing? What might be the drawbacks for the community? Group 2.

Physical space

If supportive housing is to be provided for people that live with mental illness or other disability, what factors should be considered in selecting the best location for that housing? What is in the best interests of the people that will live in the housing? What is in the best interests of the community at large? In your experience is the supportive housing in your community located in the best location for that housing? Why do you think that it is where it is? Group 3.

Barriers to Supportive Housing

What are the reasons that there is not more supportive housing in your community? What are the barriers to the creation of more supportive housing? How might those barriers be overcome?

Housing and Homelessness Umbrella Group (HHUG) is pleased to announce the launch of the 1st Annual - Housing Stability Report Card Theme: “When Bricks and Mortar Aren’t Enough: Understanding Supports to Maintain Housing” At First United Church - Chapel 16 William Street, Waterloo (Corner of William & King) Friday, May 23, 2008 Meet and Greet: 8:30-9:00 -- Launch Activities: 9:00-10:00

You are cordially invited to remain for the HHUG quarterly meeting from 10:00-12:00 Featuring a presentation from Toronto Dream Team: “ The Importance of Supported Housing and the Impact of Zoning“ The Dream Team is comprised of mental health consumers and family members who share their experiences of living in supported housing. Please RSVP: Lynn Macaulay, HHUG Initiatives Coordinator, 519-743-2246 ext. 264 or [email protected]

Appendix H

DRAFT

Discrimination in Planning You Can Make a Difference All people have a right to live where they choose without discrimination on the basis of disabilities, including mental health issues. Housing opportunities for people living with disabilities, including those with mental health issues, are often reduced by restrictive provisions in municipal planning practices and policies and zoning by-laws. This Tool Kit has been developed by the Dream Team to show how local communities can take action to bring about real change.

Who is the Tool Kit for? People in communities across Ontario that share an interest in the provision of supportive and affordable housing, including: • People with lived experience of mental health issues • Low income tenants • Housing providers • Mental health service providers • Faith communities • Housing advocates • Social planning professionals • Local politicians • Local business people

The Dream Team For more than 10 years the Dream Team have been telling their stories, stories of their personal struggles with homelessness and the stigma of living with mental health issues. And stories as well about the life-altering benefits of supportive housing and how their lives have been changed by living in supportive communities and by becoming members of the Dream Team. Who is the Dream Team? The Dream Team is a group of about 20 psychiatric consumer/survivors, and family members who advocate for more supportive housing in Ontario for people with mental health issues. Through presentations and workshops and by telling their own life stories to politicians, community groups and institutions, Dream Team members have been transformed from being homeless to become committed advocates for supportive housing and fighting discriminatory NIMBY (Not In My BackYard); from psychiatric consumer survivors to educators demythologizing “mental illness”. What is Supportive Housing? • Permanent, affordable housing with supports to enable people to live independentlyG

DRAFT • •

Rental housing, not a facility or institution. Supportive housing tenants pay rent and have the same legal rights as all other tenants in Ontario. For people who already live in the community, but need extra supports because they experience mental health issues, a physical or developmental disability, an addiction, have been homeless, or are victims of abuse.

Why is the Dream Team involved in planning issues? As Dream Team members told their stories about the life altering benefits of supportive housing, they became aware of the discriminatory attitudes of some people in the community toward this form of affordable housing. They also experienced the way in which the local land use planning process is used to create barriers to the development of needed housing. They became convinced that something needed to be done to respond to this discriminatory practice. In 2007 the Dream Team received a grant from the Law Foundation of Ontario to fund research, education and outreach about the impact of restrictive provisions in municipal policies and zoning by-laws on people living with mental health issues. Their plan was to take their stories to a next level, to share their personal stories and commitment with other communities across Ontario informed by in-depth research.

DRAFT How Does Planning Work? The Official Plan describes a municipality’s vision, sets out its planning policies and sketches its plans for each neighbourhood, defining it, for example, as “low density residential” or “commercial.” It will also set out the scale and density of buildings and the types of uses allowed. The zoning by-law puts the Official Plan into action. Each site is given a particular zoning designation, defining the use of the site, the density of development permitted, maximum building heights, set-backs, parking requirements, open space requirements and so on. IF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW This is “as of right” housing. No public consultations are required. Some developments may need site plan approval or a building permit. These are technical approvals that are not normally subject to public consultation. However, sometimes citizens will demand public discussions anyway. IF A DEVELOPMENT NEEDS ONLY MINOR CHANGES TO THE ZONING BY-LAW Developments that conform to the general intent of the zoning by-law may need minor variances. A planning committee will make a decision based on the merits of the development. When the Planning Department receives an application for a minor variance, it sends a notice to all neighbours within 60 metres. Interested people can speak at the meeting or write to the committee. IF A DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT MATCH THE OFFICIAL PLAN OR ZONING BY-LAW Developments usually need a rezoning or Official Plan Amendment if they change the use of a site (say from industrial to residential) or build a taller or more dense building than the zoning permits. When the municipality receives a development application, they send a notice to neighbours within 60 metres, and put a large sign on the site. The City usually holds at least one public meeting. Planning Department staff then make a report to the Planning Committee. An opportunity will be provided to hear public deputations before a decision is made.

Discrimination in Planning With support from the Law Foundation of Ontario, the Dream Team commissioned a study to uncover zoning by-laws and planning practices in municipalities across Ontario which discriminate against people on the basis of disabilities. The study found that discrimination in planning policy and practice is wide spread: • By-laws, policies and practices frequently discriminate not based on the physical form of the housing but on the characteristics of the people who live there • This “people zoning” is an affront to the principles in the Ontario Human Rights Code and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms • Land use planning can support discrimination either through discriminatory municipal laws and policies or through discriminatory planning practices • Even when the by-laws do not discriminate, providers of affordable housing and supportive housing are often required to submit to more intensive community consultation and more rigorous review than other providers of housing. Even if the by-laws are not discriminatory, the practice often is. • The clearest case of discrimination in zoning by-laws is in the treatment of shelters, group homes and residential care facilities. Group homes are defined by the disabilities of their residents and are subject to a number of provisions including caps on residents, limits on

DRAFT types of dwellings, distancing requirements and other policies that narrow the range of opportunities for group home providers and their residents. Some examples of discriminatory zoning by-laws: • Separation distances between group homes • Limit on the number of residents • Licensing requirements Some examples of discriminatory planning practice: • Requirements for consultation beyond that which is required under the Planning Act • Requirements for community liaison committees • Design changes required

What Does the Law Say?

Section 2. (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code states: Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance Section 15. (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms States: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

DRAFT How Can You Help?

When you first hear about a proposal for affordable or supportive housing: Contact the proponent. • Say you are a supporter. Ask how you can help. • Consider “who you are” in relation to the proposal, and why you support it. • Contact people who might also support the proposal. Keep them informed, or link them directly to your information source. Goals

• •

To create a network of supporters To plan the “message” that will inform your actions

Email, phone or write a letter to your municipal councillor • Let them know you support the development • Caution them against using a “double standard” – requiring public consultations just because the people who will move in are disabled or on social assistance. Urge them to uphold the City’s responsibilities under the law to treat all its residents equally. • Send copies of letters or emails to the housing proponent. Goals:

• •

To show beleaguered councillors a “rational majority” support the development, To ensure councillors understand the human rights implications of their actions.

If there is a public meeting (hosted by the councillor, city planning department or proponent)

• • •

Encourage as many supporters as possible to attend Write a letter to the planning department before or after the meeting (contact information is on the notice), and send a copy to the local councillor and the proponent Speak at the meeting, as early in the meeting as possible. Speak “from the heart.

Goals:

• • • •

To give the city planner material for a positive report To give the local councillor courage to support the proposal To show opponents they do not speak for the entire community To discourage anyone from making discriminatory or offensive remarks.

DRAFT Share the message with other supporters in your community Speak up at a public meeting It’s not easy to speak in public; but, your supportive voice can have a huge impact. When you speak up you:

• • • • •

welcome disadvantaged people into your neighbourhood enable city planning staff to put forward a balanced report give your councillor the courage to “do the right thing” give opponents of supportive housing something to think about, and encourage others to speak up in support.

Some ideas for public meetings:

•

Invite your friends and colleagues. Numbers count and you will welcome the company of others at these sometimes difficult meetings.

•

Speak from the heart, based on your own experience. You don’t need to be an expert on housing or city planning issues. Just speak about what you know.

•

Try to speak early in the meeting. Your positive voice can encourage other supporters and temper the more extreme opponents.

• •

Don’t get into arguments, if others try to argue or heckle After the meeting, send a letter, summing up the points you made at the meeting, to your councillor and the municipal staff responsible for the meeting

For more tips on speaking at public meetings, visit the HomeComing web site at: www.homecomingcoalition.com/pdfs/IShowtospeakup.pdf

Talk to neighbours and others in the community For many years, supportive housing has provided decent, long-term homes for people who need supports to live independently – at a fraction of the cost of shelters or hospitals. Yet despite this track record, some people worry when new supportive housing comes to their neighbourhood, even though they know that many still lack a decent home or proper support. If you are talking to people who are concerned about supportive housing, you can assure them that supportive housing is not only a good home, but a good neighbour as well. Here are some of the most common concerns about supportive housing, and the reasons they have nothing to fear. Some may worry that supportive housing will hurt property values: Dozens of studies in the US and Canada show that social housing – including supportive housing — does not lower property values. For example, a study of non-profit family and supportive housing in seven British Columbia communities in 1995, and revisited in 2000, showed no loss of property values. The same was found in a 1992 study in Peel Region, a 1986 study of Toronto group homes and a 1986 study of correctional group homes in Ottawa, Toronto and London. Indeed, some studies show that property values near social housing actually increase slightly when compared to areas without social housing. A 2008 study by the Dream Team found that, not only did supportive housing not have a negative impact on the community, it was seen to have a positive impact. The Dream Team used public data to show that supportive housing does not hurt property values or increase crime. And interviews with neighbours show that supportive housing tenants make important contributions to

DRAFT the strength of their neighbourhoods. Tenants contribute a modest amount to local businesses (most residents are not particularly wealthy, so their economic footprint is not large); they add to the vibrancy of an area through their street presence; they participate in the friendliness amongst neighbours; and they contribute to the collective efficacy of their neighbourhoods through actions around noise and speed, tidiness and crime. In short, supportive housing residents are just the kind of great neighbours that every community needs. (see the Dream Team report “We are Neighbours at www.thedreamteam.ca/uploads/File/WeAreNeighboursReport-DreamTeam.pdf ) Some may fear that supportive housing causes crime: At several public meetings Toronto Police inspectors reported that the supportive housing in their division rarely generates complaints from neighbours. No known study has suggested that supportive housing increases local crime. Studies have shown, however, that people with mental health issues – a group some citizens fear will increase crime – commit only 3% of violent criminal acts, while the remaining 97% are committed by people with no psychiatric diagnosis whatsoever. Some may believe that their neighbourhood already has too much supportive housing: The fact is that there is simply not enough supportive housing in Ontario to saturate any neighbourhood. There are only 12,000 units of supportive housing in all of Ontario. In the five Toronto wards that have the highest concentrations of supportive housing, supportive housing residents make up only 4.3% of the total population. Compare this percentage to the estimated one in five Canadians who will experience mental health issues at some time in their lives. Of course, not all of these households will need or choose to live in supportive housing. But the figures do suggest that there is not enough supportive housing in any ward to meet the needs of the people who already live there. Some people believe they should be consulted before supportive housing comes to their neighbourhood:. Most of us did not consult our neighbours before we bought our home or rented our apartment. We knew we had the right to live where we chose, and our neighbours couldn’t stop us – even if they might have preferred a different sort of neighbour or thought we would be better off somewhere else. People with disabilities – the people who live in supportive housing – have the same rights we all enjoy. Like the rest of us, they don’t need their neighbours’ approval to move next door, or need to answer their neighbours’ questions. Sometimes a new supportive housing development does not conform to the Official Plan or Zoning By-law. In that case, neighbours do have the right to discuss any concerns they have about the change. However, these consultations are about land use, not about the people who will live there. Write a letter to the editor When the media writes about a proposed supportive housing development, they will sometimes get the story wrong or present the story in a way which may lead to misconceptions about the proposal. Or others may write letters to the editor expressing opinions intended to exclude people from the community due to poverty or a disability. Letters to the editor expressing support for the proposed supportive housing can help to demonstrate that not everyone is opposed. Letters can also correct misconceptions or present the facts in a way that is more positive for the development. When writing a letter to the editor, look to the hints provided about Speaking at a Public Meeting and the information in How to Speak to Neighbours. Above all, speak with your own voice, say

DRAFT who you are and what you believe. Respond to really hateful stuff In public meetings or letters to the editor, people may say things that are very hurtful about the people who will live in the proposed supportive housing. Sometimes the best response is to say nothing, trusting that the hateful words will be perceived as inappropriate by most reasonable people. If you choose to respond, avoid attacking the speaker. Instead, correct any misinformation or state your support, saying what you believe about fairness and equality of access. Develop a report card Show how well your municipality is doing in addressing needs for affordable and supportive housing. While this can take significant work, it is very powerful. (see Waterloo Region Report Card at www.hhug.ca/docs/2008%20Report%20Card%20Final.pdf)

DRAFT Resources Available The Dream Team - www.thedreamteam.ca/home HomeComing Community Choice Coalition - www.homecomingcoalition.com/ The Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre - www.hrlsc.on.ca/en/index.htm Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario - www.acto.ca/english/home.php Local Legal Clinics - www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/clinic.asp Ontario Human Rights Commission - www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/housing ARCH Disability Law Centre - www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/