Public engagement recently conducted by the Edson and District Homelessness Task Force (EDHTF) suggests the majority of residents support the development of transitional and supportive housing.
The EDHTF is completing a study exploring the feasibility of developing transitional and supportive housing units in Edson, and a public engagement survey was a large part of that work.
From April 1-29, the 13-question survey was distributed in various formats and locations. A total of 253 residents from the town and Yellowhead County participated. The task force says respondents included residents (64.4 per cent), service providers (11.1 per cent), business owners and operators (9.5 per cent), government employees (7.1 per cent) and people with lived experience of homelessness or housing instability (5.1 per cent).
Of the 253 respondents, 59.7 per cent strongly or somewhat supported the idea of transitional housing, and 94.9 per cent agreed that homelessness strains local services. Those services include the RCMP, bylaw enforcement, EMS and fire services, all of which carry costs for taxpayers.
When asked specifically if transitional or supportive housing could reduce this service impact, 36.8 per cent of respondents agreed, 28.5 per cent said “maybe,” and 32 per cent disagreed. Less than three per cent of respondents were unsure.
With the majority of these responses at least open to this idea, the task force asserts that research from across Canada indicates stable housing reduces emergency service utilization.
The survey also asked if respondents were supportive overall of such a project, without the context of service impacts. The majority, 59.7 per cent, “strongly” or “somewhat” supported the idea, while 32 per cent were opposed and 8.3 per cent were neutral or unsure.
The task force says opposition was greatest among business owners and long-term residents who have direct experience with the visibility of homelessness in Edson. Four key concerns emerged from this opposition:
- Housing without mandatory addiction treatment may enable continued drug use.
- A housing facility could attract more homeless individuals from outside the region.
- Taxpayers should not bear the cost.
- The project location would determine whether surrounding homes and businesses are negatively affected.
Respondents with direct experience with addicted family members also opposed the project, stating that housing alone does not address the root cause. Without accountability or rules, these respondents are concerned that such a housing facility would become a drug house rather than a stepping stone to self-sufficiency.
According to the survey, if such a housing project were to occur, many respondents would expect to see fewer people sleeping outside, improved stability for vulnerable residents and improved business safety. On the other hand, respondents would also be concerned about drug or alcohol use at the property, crime and property damage in the area and overall neighbourhood safety.
The EDHTF says these concerns can be addressed through operational design, such as 24-7 staffing, clear house rules, security measures and regular accountability reporting. These elements, along with on-site support services, were also listed as must-have factors for community support by respondents.
“These are not extraordinary asks. They are the standard of a well-run housing program, and they are achievable,” the task force stated in the report.
On the other hand, 20.9 per cent of participants said they would not support the project under any conditions. The EDHTF reminds that a project of this nature is not likely to achieve unanimous support, and it is its obligation to implement safeguards and engagement processes that give the community greater confidence in its work.
The survey also included an open comment field where participants could provide a direct response to the proposition.
One Edson resident wrote in support, “Thrilled to see this issue getting the attention it deserves. Homelessness costs our community in human suffering, policing, emergency services, healthcare, public mischief. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to provide stable shelter and wraparound services that offer people their dignity and acknowledge humans sometimes need a hand up?”
A resident in opposition stated, “Another huge tax burden. These people would have to be monitored 24-7 and must accept rehabilitation, otherwise this is all for nothing. Not to mention, the neighbours and businesses of this property would most definitely see a negative impact as far as crime and their property values would plummet.”
The task force states that the 81 voices who provided comments opposing the idea of transitional or supportive housing include diverse perspectives, such as residents frustrated by years of this visible challenge with no resolution, business owners who have experienced crime and property damage, taxpayers who object to public funding and those who believe addiction treatment is the only feasible solution.
The EDHTF says it understands good intentions do not equate to good outcomes, and it intends to respond to these concerns.
—
Related: Edson and District Homelessness Task Force maintains momentum with transitional housing study
