THUNDER BAY – The Hillyard site land may not be the site for the temporary shelter village if two-thirds of city council votes to rescind their July 21 decision.
On Tuesday, Sept. 2, Red River Ward Coun. Michael Zussino will bring forward a notice of motion recommending a suspension of the rules that will allow council to debate rescinding their decision to build the village on the Hillyard lands.
Zussino told Newswatch in an interview, the reason he is bringing the notice of motion is that he believes “this site will not be successful.”
“The city has acknowledged the following concerns that present challenges in terms of isolation, a single emergency access point, proximity to wooded areas and limited passive surveillance," he said. "Businesses and residents of the area were not given an opportunity for public consultation or feedback."
"The people directly affected around this site are businesses, industrial yards, senior residences and student housing.”
He said the quick decision made on July 21 prevented the public from making deputations outlining their concerns.
“In regard to other sites we've considered, citizens were afforded the opportunity to publicly convey their opinions related to the site. This is a vital part of the process because it allows us to consider concerns about the site that we may not recognize, as we do not live or work in that area,” Zussino said.
Council decided to support the Hillyard site in a 9-4 vote on July 21; Zussino ultimately voted in favour of it.
The decision to build the village at the intercity-area location was highly contested in council and by nearby businesses due to a lack of public consultation about the Hillyard lands.
Zussino noted that since their decision, council members have received numerous emails and phone calls from the public outlining concerns about locating the shelter village on the Hillyard lands.
He said these concerns include “failure to address major safety risks addressing essential health integration into the project, underestimation of capital and operational costs, and some fiscal and economic considerations regarding displacing small businesses and investors due to unmanaged social disruption, introducing instability into a neighbourhood that includes some of our most vulnerable seniors and students, and may be impactful to a housing project that's been in the planning stages for the past two years.”
At-large Coun. Mark Bentz said in an interview that if council chooses to rescind the Hillyard site for the temporary shelter village, “it will likely kill the project.”
“We would lose the funding, at least that's what we're being told by the province,” Bentz said. “The final word we had from the province was that we had to have half of it built by December and the other half built by March."
"They were of the opinion that there were no further extensions — that's totally up to the province though, but that's the last word we had from the funding agency.”
Bentz said he does not know how his fellow council members are going to vote. He said he still supports the Hillyard site, but did not state which way he will vote on Tuesday.
“I saw Hillyard as a centrally-located site that had services around it that are needed daily by the citizens that will live there, and it provided some recreation nearby. I still support Hillyard, but we'll see what council comes up with,” Bentz said.
Zussino said this decision is complicated in terms of how council will vote, but that they have heard from members of the public, “after the fact,” they can make an informed decision on whether to keep the Hillyard site or have administration find an alternative site.
“It's been a very divisive issue. It's complicated. People in our community think that we are flip-flopping on sites and sending things back to administration, but it's a complicated issue," Zussino said. "If it was a simple issue, we would probably have made a decision and stuck with it.”
If Zussino's motion passes, it will be the second time council has chosen to rescind a decision for a shelter village site after approving and ratifying a location for the temporary shelter village.
The Kam River Heritage Park was taken back because it had become cost-prohibitive to "satisfy external partners."
