Sleeping Cabin Program Location

Surrounded by 5 schools, Rodden Park is the only significant community sized park in the Calvin Park neighborhood. With a high density of children, an adult encampment would significantly impact Rodden Parks intended use. Please protect Rodden Park as a natural park for all.

From what I see neither place seems appropriate.

Need to put the cabins in a high taxation area!

I feel that between the proximity to schools and the lack of proximity to services, Rodden park is not a suitable location.

It saddens me to see some of the comments posted on this forum. Many of the naysayers seem to be speaking from a place of ignorance, which is fueling their fears. To those saying "not in my backyard" i wonder if you have ever made an attempt to see the sleeping cabins at either POH or Centre 70? Have you ever spoken to some of the residents of these two neighbourhoods to hear what they have to say. To those of you saying these are not tiny homes but sleeping cabins, have you ever lived in a tent without electricity or water for months on end?

We live in a society that routinely keeps people impoverished to keep inflation in check for those that already have so much so they don't have to worry about paying more for gas, food and all the trappings of the middle class. It is not a choice they have made as much as it is a choice made by those who have never experienced need. No one chooses a tent as a viable housing option!

I agree with many comments more affordable housing would be ideal, but are you also saying that those currently without housing should just wait till that day happens? Seriously? I live in an area surrounded by student housing and watched 4 houses sit empty for 2 full years throughout the pandemic instead of alleviating some of the stress being placed not just on the unemployed but by those earning minimum wage, contract workers, seasonal workers and part time workers. It is shameful to read comments suggesting these people have made a lifetime of bad choices to end up homeless in a city that would allow houses to sit empty during a housing crisis. Not everyone fits your narrow vision of why people are homeless.

The people who live in these sleeping cabins are exactly that - people. This may not be ideal but for those living in the cabins the program provides safety, and a sense of community. It gives them a chance to try to find suitable accommodations, if they are available, while not having to deal with carting all of their belongings with them.

So, City of Kingston now it is your turn to finally do the right thing and find this program a suitable permanent home. This program is being replicated in many similar sized cities throughout Ontario. Representatives from many of these cities and towns came to the sleeping cabin community and have implemented or are implementing similar programs with community support. Man up, Kingston!

I am disappointed that I missed the opportunity to propose locations.
proposing locations that are not consistent with the desires of the community is unfair.
Rodden Park is a long walk from city centre where the occupants would normally congregate during the day.
Pt St-Mark is ridiculously distant from the rest of their community
Memorial Centre has space, is within the circle of the community and has access to the utilities

I've mentioned my idea before on a site I believe Whig standard comments.but got no response the tiny homes have more or less been adopted by portsmouth and having lived and grown up thier ..I think it's a great undertaking...my destination is on Francis Street at my old school now seniors sell centre's what better fit. It would be an asset for both ...and lots of room for cabins ....you know adopt a senior. Ok adopt a tiny home...close to providence continuing care close to Saint lawrence kingston center. Odsp..and I'm sure thier can be lots of interaction and support both ways. Thier could be extension of fencing along pkg lots for privacy for all..I think we need to get this decision right. And half the battle is acceptance and association and this is the right spot. Ty. STAN SMITH

According to the article "City to hear from Kingston residents about sleeping cabin site choice" Published Aug 10, 2022 - The Kingston Whig Standard: "Rideau Marina was identified as the leading candidate, largely because Homestead offered to contribute $750,000 over three years to set up 20 cabins on the site and $50,000 annually for three years to cover operational costs.

“The Marina would definitely be one that would be much cheaper from a city perspective in terms of investment that would be required. Other sites would obviously require a full city investment in terms of the capital and operating costs,” chief administrative officer Lanie Hurdle said."

The rational choice is to choose the Rideau Marina because the savings are immediate. The capital savings could be invested over the three years to earn interest income to cover all or partial expenses. In addition, a reasonable increase in property taxes, ~ 0.00015% on all of Kingston properties ($550,000x(~80,955 homes)-2021 census), and it's surrounding area could be introduced in year 4 to cover the maintenance costs and establish a reserve.

The basic premise of providing basic services/housing to all is admirable. The decision to locate these sleeping cabins in established, residential neighbourhood is not. It has a direct financial and physical effect on the local residents. No one can credibly argue this move isn’t going to substantially reduce the property values of those whose homes are located in the two areas chosen. These homes are often the most valuable asset of the residents, and yet the consensus of the decision makers seems to be “suck it up/eat the rich”. These aren’t rich people, these are middle class people who worked their entire lives to establish themselves.
If the goal is to provide safe housing for the less fortunate, there is ample land elsewhere in Kingston, closer to the social services utilized by the cabins potential residents.
Secondly the safety aspect has been downplayed into some Polly-Anna like dream; that if the local residents just opened their hearts and homes, all will be well. The reality is that one doesn’t reach the point of being unhoused as a result of one bad experience or choice in life. The prospective tenants of the cabins have a multitude of issues they are dealing with, and to expect the local residents to suddenly have to deal with their drug abuse, violence, and anti-social behaviour within the very neighbourhood the current residents are raising their families is unfair and unjust.
The sleeping cabins are a worthy experiment on their own, if they are considered that- an experiment that will be judged and measured in an objective manner.
To locate them in established, family focused neighbourhoods is just wrong and ill-thought out; it harms both the current residents as well as any prospect that this program will be a success.
To those who are whole hearted supporters of this program, I suggest the alternative of locating one of the sleeping cabins in their own back yards.

I agree neither location is perfect. I hope the marina location will not be too cold for the residents. I think the marina is a better location because of the walkability to the Hub, and to convenience store. I do agree with concerns about mobility access at the Marina site. The Rodden park location is a second choice for me. I would like to see the tiny home / sleeping cabin program proceed either way.

Last I checked Homestead already offered to basically pay operating costs for a few years at the Marina site and offered a 10 year, 1 dollar per year lease - unless they've reneged on that? Also the operators already preferred that location. I don't really know how this is even still being discussed - there doesn't seem to be any logical argument for the Rodden location

Removed by moderator.

Considering Homestead is offering to help financially with the maintenance for the first year at the marina location and they are offering to donate the site it would seem cost effective for this location as a taxpayer.
The Official Plan talks about mixing low income housing into various neighborhoods - Calvin Park has their fair share including on Cliff Crescent and Van Order and I am not aware of any in the Marina area.
Centennial public school is located in close proximity to Rodden Park and I enjoy using Rodden Park almost daily so i disagree strongly with Rodden Park location.
In a previous communication from the Municipality, Elliott Avenue (North of Princess) was mentioned as a possible location but was presumably dropped from consideration and no reason was given. Considering Social Services are in this general area, this seems like a reasonable location.

I believe Rideau Marine is very suitable, now with the new crossing excessibility is so much easier from people to get to there programs. Excellent spot.

I would not feel safe in my community if sleeping cabins were to be used at Rideau Marina.

Rodden Park is proximate to several elderly people -- e.g., on Cliff Crescent -- who live alone in their homes and some would be alarmed at the sudden increase in unhoused people in their neighbourhood. What considerations are being made for sanitation and other facilities? How would a firetruck access that space in the event of an emergency? Furthermore, that area is heavily used during winter by children who toboggan down the Rodden Park hill. Ultimately, we need to get past bandage solutions, redistribute wealth and provide humane shelter for all persons!

What is best for the community members living there, have their input been asked and considered? They are the best people to make these decisions. In addition, with the amount of people living in shelters and in the rough, surely both sites can be utilized; ensuring running water, toilets and showers as well as removing barriers for mobility and transportation to resources and immenities.

1. To provide better input into the locations, it would be helpful to understand what services the sleeping cabins require (Hydro, washrooms, showers, cooking/kitchen facilities?) and why these 2 sites are being considered.

2. Depending on requirements for washrooms, showers, kitchen facility, alternate locations could include City owned property adjacent to Kingston East Community Centre or Rideau Heights Community Centre. Both locations are located in proximity to high quality Kingston Transit service and within walking distance to many other support services.

3. Before a long term location is selected and additional costs are incurred to relocate and setup the cabins, Council should be presented with updated data about the number of sleeping cabin residents who have been successful in transitioning to and maintaining permanent accommodation to ensure the sleeping cabin program is meeting the intended objectives.

Is it possible to use both sites or are there only enough sleeping cabins for one site? Are there kitchen and washroom/showers at both sites? Do the users of the cabins believe that both sites are workable? They would be the best judge re concerns such as the nearness of water, cold, remoteness. I walk in or past Roden Park every day for the last year and have noticed how underused it is, but lovely to have all that open space. The site there seems perfect - near to buses, walking distance to stores and library, and city workers coming and going. The Portsmouth Harbour site has always looked clean so I imagine this new site(s) will also have sufficient services involved such that the people using the cabins can make a safe /clean space for themselves there. Also it seems that I've read about positive interactions between the cabin and the house/apt. residents so that bodes well for the new cabin location. Best of luck to all working on this project.

No to Rideau park site