Saturday, May 26, 2012Mostly Cloudy 21°C
City

Morning Brew: Entertainment District Homeless Shelter Costs, TTC Union Election, Queen's Park Disruptions, Food Bank Demand Way Up, Billboard Tax Debate, Canadian Tire Coin

Posted by Jerrold Litwinenko / December 2, 2009

toronto homelessPhoto: "My Place in the City 2" by PDPhotography, member of the blogTO Flickr pool.

What's happening in the GTA (and sometimes beyond):

Remember the controversial homeless shelter that the city decided to build in the heart of the Entertainment District? It's set to open in March of 2010, but initial costs are ballooning (numbers are up to $250,000 per bed already) and operating costs have not even been determined or included. It seemed like a ridiculous endeavour in the first place, given the questionable location and insanely high development costs.

Is there enough non-confidence in TTC union boss Bob Kinnear to see him unseated by his sole challenger for re-election by the union's members? Cosimo Lacaria says that if elected, he'll issue an apology to both the union and the public - for the decision to strand them when the TTC went on strike late at night, without advanced notice last year.

Progressive Conservative MPPs Bill Murdoch and Randy Hillier continue to cause a ruckus at the provincial legislature at Queen's Park, in protest of the Liberals handling of the proposed Harmonized Sales Tax (HST). On Monday night they staged an all-night sit-in (how was the pizza, boys?), and yesterday they prompted a stall to Question Period. It may seem disruptive, but it could be far worse (see embedded video below):

Food bank use in Ontario is reaching staggering numbers. They're seeing an overall increase in demand of 19% over last year, one third of people using the food bank have jobs but can't afford living costs, and one on four food banks have had to reduce the amount of food going into each package delivered to the needy. Times are tough, so if you're doing well or can do with a little less, please give.

City Council is thick in debate over proposed bylaws related to taxation and governance of legal and illegal advertising billboards across Toronto. Some think we should increase taxes and crack down on offenders, while others believe that we're too strict already and should allow more "cutting edge" electronic signs. The vote was supposed to go down yesterday but has been postponed to today.

And Canadian Tire is reportedly set to introduce a $1 coin and announce a revamping of their long-standing customer loyalty program. Hopefully they do away with the silly $0.05 and $0.10 bills (or paper bills altogether) and adopt something more 21st century (like an electronically swiped rewards card). It'd be interesting to see how they'd implement the transition, because it's perhaps a model for how the TTC might do the same.

Discussion

32 Comments

Cassi / December 2, 2009 at 09:52 am
user-pic
I already collect Canadian Tire points through my credit card when I buy gas. It always saves me a couple of bucks when I go in to the store to buy something. They just ask if I want to use it and I'll say yes.

Though filled with nostalgia, it's not practical for me to have the wad of 10 cent bills I keep in my wallet.
Woah / December 2, 2009 at 09:57 am
user-pic
$250,000 a bed?!

Good lord I hope that's a typo.
Peter K / December 2, 2009 at 10:08 am
user-pic
At $250,000 per bed why the heck didn't we just buy condos for all the homeless?
mr hate / December 2, 2009 at 10:09 am
user-pic
" "So how do we go from $1.8-million to $10.4-million?" she asked. She said the proposed tax and new rules would ‘‘decimate" an industry that she said makes just $8.6-million in profit a year in Toronto, a number some councillors considered suspect since staff peg the gross revenue at somewhere between $141-million to $220-million."

Just 8.6 million? Right. She's so full of shit.

That media companies have dozens/hundreds of billboards and signs in illegal locations ain't anybody's fault but the media companies.

She should probably be more concerned about replacing the imminent lost revenue when the incompetent city finally enforces its own bylaws and forces the industry to remove these illegal signs. Increase your rates, dumbass.
mr hate / December 2, 2009 at 10:28 am
user-pic
"One costly decision was a $500,000 elevator, added after the original purchase order."

TEN MILLION to build a shelter? TEN MILLION? Let's have a look at the contracts and who the contractors were and I'm sure we'll see everything is on the up and up.

What a f*cking joke.

thatguy / December 2, 2009 at 10:41 am
user-pic
Whose brilliant idea was it to build a shelter right in the middle of the area with the highest concentration of booze and drug consumption ?

I bet they are a proposing a sex offender rehab centre attached to a kindergarden right now.
OMFG / December 2, 2009 at 10:47 am
user-pic
$250,000.00 a bed. That's one bed.

If you take an average of, say $1000.00 a month, that's 250 rental units across the city that could be filled for the price of one bed at this shelter.

Meanwhile, our taxes go up and up to pay for this insanity.
thatguy replying to a comment from OMFG / December 2, 2009 at 10:51 am
user-pic
Or you could buy every one a condo instead.
OMFG replying to a comment from thatguy / December 2, 2009 at 11:11 am
user-pic
Shhh! Don't give them more stupid ideas, thatguy.
Mike W replying to a comment from mr hate / December 2, 2009 at 11:15 am
user-pic
Amen. I don't understand how ad companies expect us to sympathize with them, they're not a food bank. Most billboards are a blight on this city and offer nothing in return.

Even more critical I think though is to fine illegal ads and posters, either the company promoted or the firm postering (or both).
Gloria / December 2, 2009 at 11:15 am
user-pic
I've shopped at Canadian Tire at least a dozen times by now and never got ANY Canadian Tire money. I feel less than fully Canadian now.
Adam Vaughan replying to a comment from thatguy / December 2, 2009 at 11:15 am
user-pic
Hey, that's an even BETTER idea! Thanks!
Crappy Tire / December 2, 2009 at 11:19 am
user-pic
I should point out that $250,000 per bed is for 40 beds.

Couldn't they have at least doubled their order? Maybe get a 10% discount?

Could they have applied some Canadian Tire money to offset the cost?
OMFG / December 2, 2009 at 11:21 am
user-pic
Does this shelter have valet parking for their shopping carts full of empty bottles?

'Cause it should, for that price.
Serb / December 2, 2009 at 11:27 am
user-pic
Wow... $10 million to build that shelter?

Seriously, you guys are right - why not buy 40 condos instead of 40 beds and throw in some food money for each one and voila, problem solved.

But no, them contractors have to get their "fair" share of that pie first... I seriously wanna know who got that contract and how.
Crappy Tire replying to a comment from Serb / December 2, 2009 at 11:31 am
user-pic
Also, remember that the city paid close to 5 million for a property valued at about half that.

Face it: it's their city. We just pay taxes here.
Dawn / December 2, 2009 at 12:32 pm
user-pic
Ridiculous!

Bring back Fez Batik! ...on second thoughts maybe not.
Jer / December 2, 2009 at 01:00 pm
user-pic
You probably didn't get Canadian Tire money because you used yoru credit card. You only get CT money if you use a CT branded credit card (i.e. to your CC account) or if you use cash or debit.
90's drunk fog replying to a comment from Dawn / December 2, 2009 at 02:21 pm
user-pic
Dawn on December 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Ridiculous!
Bring back Fez Batik! ...on second thoughts maybe not.
-----

No! Bring back Sante Fe!

With the electric toy train that ran on the track above the bar!

I am old.
conscious / December 2, 2009 at 02:21 pm
user-pic
Cosimo Lacaria: how about instead of glad-handing the public with apologies for past events you can't change, you make some noise about getting some real funding from the federal government? They seem to hate the way the TTC is handled about as much as the people who actually ride it, so improving the Commissions's image in their eyes might be a good way to start your campaign... instead of promising to kiss hands and shake babies.
Brien / December 2, 2009 at 03:56 pm
user-pic
I think measuring the worth of a build by the number of beds in it are a little silly. Yes, $10 million is a huge chunk of change, but $5 million of that was for prime downtown property - not exactly "lost" money. As for the other $5 million, older neglected buildings need extensive repair and aesbestos remove is very expensive. Not every construction job with a high price tag is the result of shady contacts.
cocoa / December 2, 2009 at 04:53 pm
user-pic
Anyone know why the city chose a fixer upper (to put it generously) in that particular neighbourhood to build a shelter?

I assume there was a compelling reason, why else would they now be throwing this much money into it just to make it inhabitable? Why don't they flip it after the improvements and open a larger shelter in in a better area?
Chris replying to a comment from Brien / December 2, 2009 at 05:22 pm
user-pic
I think the point is that $10 million for 40 bed shelter seems excessive for a City that is always crying poor and seeking new ways to either (i) beg the province or Feds for money or (ii) tax the hell out of the citizens to make up for their revenue shortfalls. It's hard to swallow when that kind of money is being spent for something that apparently has such little return - 40 additional beds is nothing in the grand scheme of homeless shelters, so we are more than entitled to ask why the City is spending $10 million for this. As many people here have noted, you could purchase 40 condos in the downtown core for $10 million.

Could they not have found a more cost-effective way to create new beds?

I'm so surprised you're so quick to defend the city on this - if the building was so old and neglected, to fix-up in a cost-effective manner, look elsewhere. If $5 million seems like a lot to purchase a plot of land for a homeless shelter, buy it in a less expensive part of town. This is what responsible people do, but apparently not our city council who think they live in a world with no budgetary restrictions and an unlimited money tap (i.e property taxpayers) to turn to when they consistently blow their budgets.

Elle Driver replying to a comment from Gloria / December 2, 2009 at 05:44 pm
user-pic
You get Canadian Tire money back when you pay by cash. :)
Adam replying to a comment from Brien / December 2, 2009 at 06:17 pm
user-pic
$5 million for property valued at half that, Brien. And a proper inspection of the site before it was purchased should have revealed those problems and they could have found a better site for it.

Brien replying to a comment from Chris / December 2, 2009 at 10:57 pm
user-pic
I am perhaps a little too trusting; I don't know what the site selection process was or even the value of the property (@Adam though I would think that a commercial property large enough to house a 40 bed shelter in prime downtown real estate would be worth more than$2.5 million), but I can only assume they have a decent future plan for the building. Usually the opposition councilors raise quite the ruckus over this kind of spending (throwing another $1 million at the project) especially with an imminent election and the article seemed to suggest there was minimal objections.

My entirely baseless speculation would be that they bought the property as a "long term" investment and since it was empty they might as well use it as a homeless shelter (makes sense to have the shelter where there's a high concentration of homeless people). From what I understand (I could be way off), Toronto's capital spending budget is relatively well funded since they can borrow and that it is the operating budget that they are running into a problematic deficit. I seem to remember that they aren't allowed to just shuffle funds around to cover the shortfall (hence raising taxes), but a TorStar article about how Mississauga was looking to sell their Hydro to raise funds has me wondering if cities might be allowed to sell assets (like this in a few years) to raise operating funds.

I'm not a fan of wasteful spending, but as anyone who's managed large scale projects know, things always go wrong; I'm sure they never intended to spend and addition $5 million in renovations costs. Given that the city bought a good that generally increases in value over time and that the site is now a good conditioned residential building, I can believe that the possibility of recouping the money in a future sale is there.
sine-general replying to a comment from conscious / December 2, 2009 at 11:02 pm
user-pic
i don' think thats the union's job,
thats more management, they run the TTC!
Shawn / December 2, 2009 at 11:13 pm
user-pic
Holy shit, 250,000/bed?
I see Toronto is trying to catch up to Vancouver's $600,000 waterfront public housing units....



And I hope Kinnear gets ousted. Honestly, unless Sid Ryan or Bin Laden are running against him, we're guaranteed to have a better person in that position.
Adam replying to a comment from Brien / December 3, 2009 at 08:31 am
user-pic
No harm no foul, Brien, your points are all valid, and that property will appreciate in time, unless the entire neighborhood goes down the drain.

But for the city to recoup or profit from it, they have to sell it. Selling a homeless shelter would seem to negate the point of building it in the first place, unless some starry-eyed optimists think the problem of homelessness (which IS a problem) will be eradicated in this lifetime.
jeff / December 3, 2009 at 08:36 am
user-pic
I'm sorry but building any form of 'subsidized' housing in downtown is a ridiculous waste of money.

Why choose the most expensive property for these purposes? Would it not make more sense to do this on less costly property where you could actually help more people for the same investment?

Just a dumb waste by even dumber more wasteful decision makers.
Sam / December 4, 2009 at 03:03 am
user-pic
I think the point of putting subsidized housing in downtown is to avoid pushing the homeless to the outskirts of the city and making the problem invisible to most people.
jeff replying to a comment from Sam / December 4, 2009 at 03:30 pm
user-pic
Sam that is the most feeble rationalization I've ever heard.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal