MOOSE JAW — A proposed family addiction centre at the former Chez Nous Care Home is causing anxiety for people in the neighbourhood, as some believe there was no public consultation beforehand.
More than 50 people packed city council chambers on July 14 to hear resident Kirsten Downey express concerns about the supportive housing project that Ranch Ehrlo is pursuing at 1101 Grafton Avenue.
After her presentation, council had a lengthy — and sometimes heated — discussion. That conversation will be a separate story.
‘The process is broken’
Many residents and businesses believe the city’s zoning bylaw should classify supportive housing as a discretionary use approval instead of a permitted use, Downey said. These concerns were not about opposing this housing type but about how the project was presented.
“And right now, the process is broken,” she remarked.
Trinity Real Estate, a business from Vernon, British Columbia, purchased the former Chez Nous building for this project, while it has acquired four other properties here during the past year, Downey said.
“This is a for-profit business from outside the community buying up properties, driven by business interests and not local needs,” she stated, pointing out that while Trinity does not know the neighbourhoods, schools or community dynamics, it can still proceed “without public input or accountability.”
This is not the first time supportive housing has been an issue, as there were concerns with the Souls Harbour’s new Riverside Mission building, the Willow Lodge Emergency Shelter and Trinity House, Downey said.
In those situations, she noted that “the lack of engagement and foresight” created tension because council made those decisions without community input or consideration of how they would affect the area.
Past bylaw change
All these issues stem from “the same root cause,” which is a bylaw change in 2019 that “quietly broadened” the definition of supportive housing, Downey continued. The advertisement at that time mentioned changes to definitions, but did not say which ones or explain their effect.
There was no public response about that bylaw change, but based on the people filling council chambers, there “absolutely would have been a response” if people knew what was changing, she said.
Notably, administration said a the report that city hall would have approved Ranch Ehrlo’s project under the old bylaw, even though the previous definition said supportive housing was “exclusively for residential use,” she pointed out.
“Clearly, an addiction treatment centre goes beyond simple residential use,” Downey stated.
Incomplete facts
Continuing, she said this is a situation where the facts are incomplete, information is scattered and residents are relying on assumptions to fill the gaps. She noted that “that’s a recipe for confusion and division,” while it doesn’t serve residents, businesses or Ranch Ehrlo.
Furthermore, the information that area homeowners have doesn’t add up, since they initially heard the venue would be a family addiction treatment centre, then a supportive housing venue, then a family reunification centre, said Downey. Yet, the council report says there will be detoxification services.
Downey pointed out that Ranch Ehrlo’s website listed Moose Jaw as a base for its family addiction treatment program, but removed that reference recently. Moreover, the non-profit says it plans to create 23 multi-room suites but use only 16, which “doesn’t make sense.”
Furthermore, Ranch Ehrlo said in the flyer it distributed that the program would serve local families, but the provincial government’s website says the program will help families from across Canada, she continued. Therefore, these kinds of “inconsistencies create frustration, mistrust and a lack of transparency.”
Lack of consultation
Downey noted that some residents asked Ranch Ehrlo to hold a public information session, but that request has gone unanswered. She pointed out that supportive housing could increase traffic, parking and noise, and affect safety and public services.
Treating this project as a permitted use — which doesn’t require public consultation — removes the ability for council and the community to offer input about the project’s location and scale, she said.
Continuing, Downey said the school divisions had allegedly not been consulted, which is a problem since children will live in the building and add to area schools’ enrolment totals.
This means, she pointed out, that the two school divisions will be reacting instead of planning for extra supports, transportation, classroom complexity and capacity challenges.
“Even if done gradually, this will still be a significant impact,” she said. “When projects like this are proposed, (the) community … needs to be consulted and included as part of prior … approval.”
Furthermore, available information shows that Moose Jaw’s emergency services branches have allegedly not been consulted, while everyday public services will face an “unnecessary strain” because there were no prior conversations, Downey stated.
More scrutiny
This project is a permitted use in the R3 high-density residential district, but venues like daycares and medical offices are considered discretionary uses in the same district, she said. This means city hall issues public notices about the initiative, residents provide feedback and council reviews the application before approving it.
Downey pointed out that if those venues require a high level of review, then a building with the capacity to house 23 families, handle addiction issues, provide counselling services, offer detox support and provide early childhood education should face the same scrutiny.
“It also raises a broader question: is this truly supportive housing, or should it be more accurately classified as custodial care?” she said, noting that children will be in the building under legal care while the adults will be there voluntarily.
Downey said she reviewed the zoning bylaws of 10 cities across Western Canada and found a “clear pattern,” where municipalities do not automatically permit projects of this scale and nature. Her research showed that every city required, at minimum, public consultations, a council review and discretionary approval.
Continuing, she said supportive housing done well benefits everyone, but when cities push it through “without consultation, clarity or community readiness,” it creates “fear, division and mistrust.”
“Let’s ensure supportive housing is not a source of conflict in our community, but a shared success,” Downey added.
More transparency
Meanwhile, “The Avenues” are not just houses on a map, but are a historic part of Moose Jaw where neighbours know each other and where families live for life, and “is the fabric of our community,” she said.
Downey wanted council to pause this project, review it, and ensure residents were part of the decision. She also wanted council to ensure this supportive housing initiative was done “thoughtfully, transparently and with the trust and input” of the community.
Afterward, Coun. Chris Warren asked Downey whether she thought residents would support this project if it were a discretionary use application that included a public notice and stakeholder engagement.
Downey replied that that was “an unfair question” since they didn’t have enough information and were left guessing about the project through assumptions. She reiterated that residents wanted the bylaw changed so this initiative would be a discretionary use instead of a permitted use, while they wanted proper consultation, which didn’t happen in 2019.
Strategy needed
“I also think the city needs to come up with a comprehensive strategy on how to deal with supportive housing and supportive services that the City of Moose Jaw needs … ,” she said, adding there were “a lot of inconsistencies” with the information.
Coun. Patrick Boyle agreed that there was “a gap in the (zoning) bylaw,” while he said it was difficult to reconcile this permitted use project with a business owner who wanted to move a shed four feet and required a discretionary use approval.
Mayor James Murdock said that city hall’s initial communications were “just not there right from the beginning,” which council was now realizing. He thought council had to review this and arrive at a resolution, while everyone would benefit if the community were more involved.
“That is something I’d like to see us strive for,” he added.
The next regular council meeting is Monday, July 28.
