At their “Special Council meeting” today (31 July), Council had a long closed session with an undisclosed agenda (105 minutes) then approved six items including how to manage the relocated Transition House at 310 Division Street. The first five items were not controversial (details below) and even the subject of the “management of 310 Division Street” was quickly dealt with. There were no dissenting votes on any item although Councillor Adam Bureau was not at the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Mayor Lucas Cleveland and I think it’s fair to say that he showed leadership – and his final votes were the same as the rest of Council. I thought it interesting that at no time was there any discussion on Brookside.
A note re closed sessions: I understand that no money commitments can be made in closed session so one has to believe that they are “for information” – hopefully we will eventually be told in open session what is discussed.
First Five Agenda Items
- CN proclamation of Rail Safety Week 2024 – September 23-29, 2024 – Approved
- By-law to approve borrowing up to $8,214,169 for LUSI – as discussed and approved previously – Approved
- Approve the sale of land on Thompson Street in Lucas Point Industrial Park to Eupherbia Canada – Approved
- Approve dates for the presentation and community engagement for the 2025 budget so that it gets final approval in December 2024. The full schedule is available on this Cobourg Internet page here.
- Approve an extension for the project currently being reviewed in planning for the project at 36 Queen street (see a Cobourg Blog report on this project here.)
310 Division Street
Council had previously asked that Staff report and prepare options on what should be done by Council with respect to the planned relocation of Transition House from its current location on Chapel Street to the property purchased by the County at 310 Division Street. Staff therefore presented three options. Very briefly:
Option A: Agree to the Agreement in principle that was written by the County except that the Emergency Care Establishment by-law would not be repealed.
Option B: Staff would rewrite the agreement so as to include Council’s concerns
Option C: Do not sign any agreement since the by-Law covers all concerns. Lucas noted that the existing Transition House is now licensed per the By-Law – see also Cobourg Blog Post on this here.
Discussion
- CAO Tracey Vaughan said in response to a question by Lucas: “None of the options would delay 310 Division opening”
- Councillor Brian Darling said: “No agreement is needed since it’s a County responsibility”
- Mayor Lucas Cleveland said:
- “The town is not responsible for social services”;
- “An agreement should not be needed to do what’s required”;
- “We should trust the County and Transition house to do what they say they will do”;
- “We don’t need an agreement”.
Brian Darling moved that the motion be passed to approve option C.
Here is the full motion:
Report No. LS-2024-020 from Town Clerk/Director, Legislative Services regarding Northumberland County/ Town of Cobourg – 310 Division Street Agreement – Update and Recommendations
Action Recommended
THAT Council receive the staff report for information purposes; and
FURTHER THAT Council consider the options as outlined within the staff report, and direct staff to implement and proceed with the following option:
c) THAT Council direct Staff to conclude any further discussions on an agreement between the Town of Cobourg and the County of Northumberland, and not enter into any formal agreement to address the management of the 310 Division Street Shelter as the Town of Cobourg By-law No.018-2024 is reasonable and ensures that Emergency Care Establishments within its jurisdiction are healthy and safe for their residents, but also working with ECE providers within the by-law directly, the licensing program serves to enhance the well-being of Cobourg residents more broadly.
The motion passed unanimously.
Print Article:
https://www.northumberlandnews.com/news/they-like-it-here-imminent-sale-of-brookside-property-has-cobourg-encampment-occupants-on-edge/article_67504d63-8da6-57ba-bce3-0b64728eb01a.html
Yes, tents, and stolen carts too!
What happened to Paul Vandegraaf’s missive to arrest all of those stealing carts in the area of the Downtown Action Plan? Here we have clear evidential proof by a local journalist that they are still going on with the theft of shopping carts. Why haven’t the Cobourg cops done a full sweep of the encampment for STOLEN property? When I last checked, this was still considered a CRIME!
It really does make me wonder how all of this will end, especially with the crystal clear statement in this Northumberland News article that they are not wanting to vacate the premises of the former Brookside property. Will Vandegraaf have the guts and leadership to command his officers to crack down and go in if the squatters are not willing to capitulate to his soft-handed approach? He has already stated that Cobourg Police will NOT go in without other emergency services or agencies present. This sort of attitude by the appointed Chief does nothing but embolden their actions and flagrant disregard for the law.
Pete Fisher interviewed Mayor Lucas on Saturday (Aug 3) regarding 310D, Brookside and other NC vs Cobourg issues. Worth watching/reading
https://todaysnorthumberland.ca/2024/08/05/exclusive-cobourg-mayor-sets-record-straight-regarding-crazy-system-of-politics/
Thanks Bryan
Great interview with our Mayor. Too bad we have to catch it on a closed blog topic. The interview answers lots of important questions. The County doesn’t give a damn about Cobourg taxpayers other than colledcting our taxes..
Mayor Cleveland deserves a standing ovation.
I saw the interview and Pete asked if there are 30-40 spaces at 310 (he wasn’t sure how many were at the encampment. Mayor said 40 to 60 and then Pete threw the 100 number out there) What will they do with the rest.? Please don’t say they will let them stay there? Is Brookside sold?
Deb, Brookside has been sold, apparently. A local politician was going door to door on Cottsmore telling residents it has sold. However, until the deal actually closes it is still listed as being for sale on the IO website. Perhaps getting rid of the encampment is a condition of the sale and having 310 Division open is a condition of closing the encampment.
The number of people allowed to live at 310 Division will depend on several factors including how many will be allowed to share a room. One particularly infamous couple may want to share a room. However there was violence, charges and he was out of town. They have been seen together again. Will this be common at 310D?
Most likely some of the residents of the encampment will not move into 310D. I do not know, maybe nobody knows, where they will go once the Brookside encampment is cleared out. I expect it will be cleared but I am not going to guess when.
Here’s hoping
Thanks
The Mayor’s message is crystal clear: The system is broken for the residents of Cobourg! As we are paying taxes directly to the County (taxation) and have no one capable of addressing our concerns (without representation), this is fundamentally undemocratic.
The root of our problem is the decision of the County in 2018 to designate TH as a low barrier shelter (LBS) instead of addressing the issue of homelessness by segmenting the need by source:
If have confirmed at various times in the last year (just confirmed it in the last 10 days) that over 90% of the encampment residents are drug users. They need recovery, not a 90 day emergency shelter.
In my opinion, the Town of Cobourg should hold a referendum on the following question:
Do you believe that Low Barrier Shelters should be allowed to operate in the Town of Cobourg?
Should the results be “NO”, the Town Council will have the mandate to enforce the by-law politically as the people have spoken.
We need to show the County that we are NOT going to take this quietly anymore! I have confirmed that TH will require a resubmission of it’s application to get an ECE permit for 310 as the current permit applies to 10 Chappell only. The change to 310 is material so a full application with appropriate documentation will be required. Nothing has been submitted yet as they didn’t have plan for the program and have been making it up as they go. They can open 310, but NOT as an LBS! TH can continue to operate as an LBS with what they have now and triage those in need to 310 for transitional housing and support services. That should have been the plan from the beginning.
WEDNESDAY SEPT 4th at 9:30am is the next Social Services Committee meeting. I will submit for a delegation on the matters at hand and the results of my FOIs. We need a strong turnout for the County to get the message…they’re not dictators.
I strongly agree with your comments.
The Constituents have a right to have a say on major issues such as 310 D, especially when those who are not from Cobourg force their agenda on us.
The Mayor and council were elected to represent us and they have a responsibility to do just that. Seven people do have a mandate or the right to change the demographics this materially.
Decisions of this nature require Referendums.
Typo edit to above – Should read “do NOT have the mandate or the right to change the demographics this materially”.
When is 310 opening and when it does, will it mean the encampment goes. I saw someone with a tent walking up Brook North towards Elgin. I believe I saw the used to be king of the encampment biking around Division (Foodland) I am starting to have dreams that it is emptying.
Proposed opening is the first week in Sept……at least most of our tourists won’t be subjected to the wanderings on Division St…..that’s a special treat saved for the residents of our town
Cobourg should never trust anyone without a signed agreement. Where does council receive their legal advice?
Opal,
The proposed agreement had no teeth, so what would be the point. The “310D” provides the Town with the leverage it needs. much better than the proposed agreement.
I agree with you Bryan. I can understand the bitter disappointment with regard to the opening of 310 which was foisted on Cobourg by the County. Personally I experienced the same bitter disappointment as I sat at the negotiation table representing Metro at the supposed amalgamation of Toronto which in truth was a stengthening of splintering, not amalgamating due to being outvoted and outnumbered by people out for their own interest just as what has happened here. The County alone is responsible for social services and none of the other mayors want this in their jurisdiction. Same outcome – bullyism. The by-law as written covers the enforcement issues if the enforcement is enacted.
I hope to see the new police services act brought into the policies excersized by Cobourg Police. I feel concern with regard to the representatives from Council on the Police Services Board who have publicly stated they are not strong on enforcement, one desiring tiny homes for the addicted.
On other matters within Canadian society there is much that should be changed. History teaches successful societies reach their zenith and implode from within and that is what I see happening in Canada.
I agree. I don’t think the Town gains anything by signing on to the Agreement. Of more concern to me, will the bylaw be enforced when 310 opens. The bylaw is in effect now.
Do folks feel it has had a positive affect?
Do people notice a difference, especially those living near the “problem areas”?
I think the requirement for licencing in addition to the bylaw give the Town and Bylaw/CPS tools they need. Let’s hope they use them.
Please read the full report that was on the agenda for context and knowledge. You will find all the legal and operational concerns with the agreement. The by-law will be the most effective and appropriate way to ensure the safety and security for all Cobourg residents including our most vulnerable and an agreement could have caused issues or put Cobourg in a legal predicament. We at Council receive our legal advice from our hired litigators as well as our town solicitor. These litigators, instrumental in the crafting of the ECE by-law ensuring we are within our legal rights and jurisdiction, tasked with defending our bylaw, are who made the recommendations and pointed out potential issues with the agreement.
To those suggesting another location for the shelter, that would be a decision for Northumberland County. Perhaps that is where the readers of this blog need to start
focusing their attention and complaints about the state of Cobourg. It has always been the 7 mayors (6 from surround towns) at the County Council table who
have voted for 10+ years to locate a majority of social services in Cobourg. It is the County that is 100% responsible for affordable housing, shelter services, drug treatment options (there are few to none) and social services. If there is an issue with any of these deliverables it is not for Cobourg Council to address nor, are we legally permitted to do so. What Cobourg
Council has done with the ECE bylaw is exactly what we are allowed to do to protect
the safety and well being of all Cobourg residents. Anything more then that
needs to be taken up with Transition house or its funder Northumberland County.
It was not a decision of Cobourg Council to locate the shelter at 310 division. It is not a
decision of Cobourg Council to have downloaded much of the County’s social
service responsibilities for our most vulnerable across the entire county to a
single provider located in Cobourg. It is not Cobourg Council who believes
centralizing all vulnerable individuals into one community is a good idea. It is not
Cobourg Council who believed Transition house can or should be a one stop shop for all those with varying and complex needs. Cobourg Council has no control of how social services, the sole responsibility of the Northumberland County are administered. I look forward to chatting in person with anyone who wants to explore this further!
A shift of responsibility again. Blame someone else. How long have you been Mayor Lucas, about 2 years now. When did the homeless start coming in droves to the beach and then to Brookside. Where were you??? and Council and the Police. If the Town of Cobourg had stepped in/up in the first place we wouldn’t be in this predicament we find ourselves in. 310 Division will not work, the Bylaw won’t work. When a druggie is in the throws of “madness” no one can make him/her do anything. You’ve lost, the citizens of Cobourg have lost a beautiful town that tourists will be afraid to come to and homeowners will be afraid to leave their houses.
Tucker,
I fully agree with your comments.
The Mayor and Council are responsible for Cobourg and its residents welfare and enjoyment to a peaceful Town. This mess started in small steps in November 2022 after they were sworn in with Tiny Home discussions and advanced through various stages under there watch to where it is now.
If an election were today, would they be saying something much different than “it’s the County or it’s Infrastructure Ontario not us”? I am sure they would.
A disappointment.
Thank goodness Lucas turned down the tiny homes and stood up to loud mouthed activists who then turned around and directed criminal drug addicts to occupy private property at Brookside without any consideration for the surrounding neighbours. Many who were very senior people and children.
Town council had no control over this situation as everyone knows about the Waterloo decision.
Absolutely correct 👍 Something needs to happen with Jenni Missy and all enablers . There needs to be a law somewhere to take them down
I have witnessed myself Town Councillors from other towns in Northumberland County bring drug addicts to Cobourg for shelter at Transition House and actually pressure Transition House to accept people after they have been thrown out in the past.
Blame the County for all these Criminal Drug Addicts ending up in Cobourg. It’s the County that wants them here. Not in their towns obviously.
Isn’t Transition House the only shelter in Northumberland County? Where else would people needing shelter be sent???
Exactly. Yes, transition house is the only shelter in Northumberland county.
Your reply to Lucaa is unwarranted. You may want to read his post again. It is NOT the decision of Cobourg Council on where the County bought a building. But it IS Cobourg Council that made the bylaw to help residents and businesses after 310 is open. What part of that don’t you understand??
Don’t be blaming anyone other than the drug addicts here and their entitled enablers for the mess. Jenni Missy and the entire misfits are to blame.
Most Cobourg residents have been oblivious to the positions of our previous representatives and are only now starting to pay attention. Most residents, even those in support, are only now beginning to see the harm that comes with the short-sighted form of ‘caring’ that has been allowed to go unnoticed for so long. The course will not be corrected overnight, as these groups have had the backing of our local government for years. I believe the mayor has acted firmly and in a way that our previous mayor would not have had the stomach for. Not only do I appreciate the efforts of our current mayor in how he has handled himself through all the criticism, but I also appreciate the fact that he is here and standing behind his decisions.
I don’t think the blame should be put on the Mayor, he’s one person! He does not make the rules without his council and he sure doesn’t enforce law and order! This would have happened with any mayor! Blame our governments for this mess!!!
So true, Joy, also the shortsightedness of all levels of Government that a “shelter” has the tools to deal with the multifaceted problem of unattended mental health leading to drug addiction and homelessness. Also that with the documented rise in cases of people on the streets should indicate ,to at least the County of Northumberland , that satellite shelters with a hub of services would be as beneficial as this mess. In this day and age most services are remote if they are accessed.,……you may fix your Bell services on the phone or virtually..l did this recently. We are all well aware that the other communities around us see the horror and are content to let Cobourg bear the brunt.
I didn’t blame the Mayor alone, if you read what I said. I blame the Mayor, Council and Police. They should have gotten rid of the “beach people” before they went to Brookside. We have the right to make them “move on” from there, but not from Brookside. I watched Police a few days ago tear down a tent at the cemetery on Elgin St. So that’s what I’m saying, they should have put a stop to the tent city at the beach long ago. Then we wouldn’t be where we are today A worse mess.
Hello, no matter what is shared or the lengths that are taken to provide accurate information there appears a clear determination to blame Cobourg Council and I and you are well within your rights to do so. However for anyone else reading, lets be very clear. This term of Council and staff have worked to ensure all properties in our community are safe for our residents. Dealing with homes that have been an issue for various communities for over a decade may have started this. Tiny homes were rejected, the downtown is booming with businesses, we have successfully secured more in grants then any council I can research, we are holding the county to account for their impact in our town, we have enacted a zero encampment by-law, brought rideshare to town, built more homes then the Peterborough last year and have sold almost all of Lucas Point Park increasing business taxes for our community. Since last Aug this council and I have taken unprecedented steps to try and protect the safety and security of Cobourg residents so that is where we have been.
Further I am not in anyway shifting responsibility or blaming someone else. I wrote this response, I alone sit on Northumberland County Council, so I am shifting the responsibility back to me just at a different level of government.
I look forward to a learning opportunity. What exactly would you have suggested Cobourg Council do when you suggest we “should have stepped in/up in the first place?” What exactly would you suggest we do to go back the 20 years and change how most social services are now Cobourg? How would you suggest Cobourg Council change social service policy? How should Cobourg Council work on the necessary bail reform and lack of mental health services? Sorry perhaps I should more clearly state “What would you suggest we should have done that would have been legal, within our low tier jurisdiction and that wouldn’t have jeopardized Cobourg financially or legally that has not been already done?”
I did say that I would make mistakes when I ran so perhaps I am missing something. If you do not feel comfortable sharing your solution(s) here, then please book an appointment so I can learn from you and start passing them along to the hundreds of Canadian mayors I speak with who are all trying to fix this broken system too.
Thank you Mayor Cleveland, I understand the predicament. We can only hope that Brookside is cleared right after the sale and quick action taken if they try to set up elsewhere.
I hope they keep track of the squatters who refuse to accept shelter, those who refuse are on their own, but not on any of Cobourg property.
Lucas did you happen to read the statement that the Warden put out awhile ago?
Perfectly explained. Thank you Lucas.
Mayor Lucas,
Thank you for stating your position on this platform. I agree that the County is mandated in the areas concerned, but now the Town with it’s new by-law will be held accountable to ensuring it’s implemented and enforced. The recent granting of a permit to Transition House to operate at 10 Chappell will be transferable to 310 Division without TH meeting the requirements for application listed in the by-law. I assume the Town granted a Section 20 exemption for now. I trust that will not happen with 310 as the change is material enough to warrant a full application. If I’m wrong and they did fill out the application, then by all means make the documents public.
As for the County, I’ve requested several Freedom of Information requests and filed a complaint to the Integrity Commissioner regarding the conduct on County Council. Based on the results received so far, your decision to trust the County is unfortunately misplaced. The process regarding the use of 310 Division and having Transition House be the service provider was far from transparent I can assure you. I do appreciate your efforts in addressing our concerns at County, but with only 1 voice out of 7, from your own admission that avenue is closed to the residents of Cobourg.
We do agree one one very important point: The County needs to address the concerns of the people who live here on the impact of their decisions on our Community. We need answers to some very important items that impact us:
We need the people of Cobourg to stand up to the County imposing it’s authority without consideration for all those impacted. I don’t trust them to do that and neither should you.
They would have done so by now…..
I don’t trust the county.
Exactly, thank you. Time to stand up to these enablers and blinkered advocates who care nothing about the welfare of anyone else, including our vulnerable children and seniors.
Mayor Cleveland,
The obvious solution for Northumberland’s homeless is to not allocate all your resources to one area.
Are other towns not doing their share whilst booing Cobourg for its discontent with the current situation?
Mervin,
You wrote “Are other towns not doing their share… ?” Hopefully you meant it as a rhetorical question. Otherwise, with respect, it is naïve. The other NC municipalities want no part of this issue. NIMBYism at it’s best.
Wherever you allocate the resources, you will find the problems. The issue is that people won’t just come from NC; they will come from everywhere. Therefore, we need resources in every town, but not too much in any one place. It should reflect the percentage of the population.
This would be a decision for the county. The county is made up of 7 mayors across northumberland county. These mayors don’t want this mess in their towns.
Cobourg will continue to be the drop off spot for the homeless. Many being criminal drug addicts. The county will not fix this. True NIMBYism at a higher level.
Maybe the other mayors should be subjected to the same abuse that Cobourg residents face when they voice their concerns about public safety.
Agreed. I have no faith in the county or Transition House. Neither are accountable to anyone.
Now we have people forming ties to Cobourg who would not have come if it were not for the resources allocated or the support they receive from the advocates. The residents of the encampment are mostly not from here; most of the advocates are not from here, and the people allocating the resources to our community are for the most part not from here. This has been forced on us by people who prioritize short-term emotional comfort over long-term outcomes. People who optimize for appearing to do good rather than actually doing good. The majority of people making choices for Cobourg need to remember that it’s not principled unless it costs you something. They have borne no cost and don’t care for the cost of others
I think it should be noted that in Northumberland, Cobourg is not the only community here with people living unhoused. It is the only community here with a formal encampment. On the upside – what the encampment has at Brookside that other unhoused sites don’t, is a form of organization and a form of a peer support system., which is helpful to housed and unhoused alike. We have all talked ad nauseum about the downside and I am sure we will continue to do so.
RE NUMBERS — Let’s not forget that there were already 100 people KNOWN to be living unhoused as reported last fall. So ….310 division was never planned to take in all of the unhoused from all of our communities. LETS remember that too.
I think we should recognize too that there likely isn’t anyone who wants to see people living unhoused , in tents or not . It is a disgusting mess we are in. And yes, it is most definitely not just here in West Northumberland it is across the county, province and country. I saw in the news recently that there is a group of Ontario Mayors who have gotten together asking for more, secure and ongoing funding and other supports to begin to build solutions to fix these messes we are in today. Let’s hope something worthwhile actually gets done. The demand for a fix has to come from us, but the resources have to come from provincial and federal governments. I support the group of Mayors’ position that property taxes are not a suitable funding source, not at tier 1 or 2 levels, and the financial burden of fixing the affordable housing and opioid crises does not belong there. So federal and provincial governments, step up, cause more needs to be done and we all know it.
Linda, James Bisson has confirmed that the majority of people living at the encampment are drug users. Is any part of the organization at our encampment working to help people get off drugs?
You want the provincial and federal governments to do more. Usually that means more money which comes from taxes. Not local property taxes but taxes of some kind which we will have to pay. What do you think the higher levels of government should actually do? Build housing? Force people into rehab?
I was talking to a neighbour about factory work. She told me one of the problems is workers want continual access to their phones. This is not possible when working so employees don’t work. If the addiction is phones, drugs, alcohol, shopping it all has a negative impact on the individuals quality of life, ability to take care of themselves, pay rent or keep a job.
Is homelessness the problem or a symptom of a problem? Maybe the biggest problem is addiction. Get a landline. Stop buying stuff you don’t need. Stop using drugs. Get a job and support yourself to the best of your abilities. That is what people need help with.
The demand for a fix should come from people in our surrounding communities. They should demand more from their representatives, not from Cobourg’s. How many people in our surrounding communities have called Cobourg’s residents NIMBYs while having nobody in their own backyards? I do not believe a peer support system has benefitted these individuals in any way. The unhoused should not form a large community within a community; they should be a small part of the community in which they live, adapting to the environment and social norms of the population around them. Not the norms of those who are clearly not engaging in healthy life choices. Cobourg is not the only community with unhoused people, but it’s certainly doing more than its share. If we keep allocating resources to this area, when will it stop, and what will Cobourg look like when it does? We are currently hosting people from all over the province never mind NC. Like I’ve said, every town should have resources, but not too much in any one location.
Agree, Lucas, Cobourg basically has no iron in this fire. Any business, which is how we must view Transition House, may operate in Town once licences and standards are met and taxes paid Where Cobourg has concern is any harmful fallout that this creates for citizens. Thankfully , yourself and Council have given us a protective bylaw this year which has had a positive impact in our neighbourhood. Having said that, Transition House this far has had no positive inroad in the areas of drug crisis and unattended mental health and their devastating effects on our community and many others.Like you, l do not see see the value in packaging outreach for three separate issues into one address able to accommodate approximately 100 souls,most of those on a very part time basis and only accepting that which soothes immediate needs as food ,warmth/ cool, perhaps showers which is the 24 hr hub…..(a Horrible idea and most damaging to community in my opinion …that enables the continuation of the unaccountable, unappreciative, disrespectful, lawless, damaging lifestyle of the drug addicted persons) . The County vicariously extends the life of the encampment as the social services approach at this time is not to end but enable and support this lifestyle…….Time for change to committed care and devotion to efforts to healing and recovery . Meantime , l hope any unsheltered folk have an opportunity to gain shelter at 310, but it will not be the quiet , healthy life we all deserve. The majority of citizens are suffering , waiting for change and an end to the pain of enabling and true help for the addicted and those with unmanaged mental health.
Why are we continuing to call drug addicts “our most vulnerable”? Call them unhoused, or even vulnerable- but our most vulnerable? Surely our most vulnerable are children, senior citizens and the disabled?
Catherine the term our “most vulnerable” is used becasue I have learned that anyone who is facing a combination of mental health issues, addiction issues, poverty and homelessness would be more vulnerable due to multiplying factors. I agree that the term the ‘most vulnerable’ is an opinion and it is one you have every right to take issues with.
I beleive you are right, many seniors, children, and those facing accessibility issues can also be very vulnerable in our community. One persons level of vulnerability does not take away from anothers and if it souded like I was ranking people then that is a failure on my part. When refering to the groups you mention, I have found that tend to be ‘vulnerable’ for reasons including age, mobility, income, cognitive abilites or a combination of those factors. When I use the term Cobourgs “most vulnerable’ the reason I personally choose to use that term is becasuse I am often refering to the individuals at the encampment and those using our emergency shelters and I have been informed by professionals and I have expereinced with my own interactions that these individuals often have a multitude of factors that would make them more vulnerable then most. Often they face similar issues of age, mobility, income and cognitive fuction but then these vulnerabilites are magnifgied but years of trauma, and can be harder to address becasue of issues around addiction, homelessness and mental health.
To be very clear, I do not think that the only ‘vulnerable’ individuals in our community exist in shelters or at the encampment. You are right, there are many vulnerable individuals that need to be considered more when setting social service policies, and that is not happening at present.
I also want to be clear that I do not think describing a group of people as our ‘most vulnerable’ eliviates them of needing to take personal accountaibilty for the choices they make nor does it negate them of their own resposibility in doing whatever they can within their personal limits and situation to imporve their own lives.
I personally believe that we can use kind, compasonate, educated and approprate language when describing our fellow humans and ALSO have very strong opinions that run counter to the current social service ideology and approach. My job is not to condem those who need help or to rank them, it is to do what I can to try and fix the obviously broken system we have.
Lucas Cleveland:
Synonyms for word – MOST:
better, biggest, greater, highest, largest, lion’s share, max, maximum, ultimate, utmost, uttermost.
IIMO you are very clear in your thinking, which I respetively disagree with.
Rational, your point is noted and I thank you for sharing. I believe that in your respectful disagreement you are showing that while you and I may not agree on this particular point (I’m sure there are many other opinions I have espouse that you do not support) there are clearly some topics and issues where we may find common ground.
That is what is missing in our current political world from my perspective.
The all or nothing approach that has consumed modern dialogue, modern politics and modern advocacy helps no one and only serves to create division and prevent improvements for all of us. Why can two people, groups, non-profits not agree to work together on certain issues or positions, choosing to make real improvements in one specific area while also respectfully disagreeing on a myriad of other topics and positions? I find it heartbreaking that so many people across the spectrum dismiss the work, intention and value of other humans in our community just because that person has one particular policy issue or one personal value that is different then theirs.
Can someone not have a history of advocating for gay rights, while supporting multiple queer family members and fundamentally believing that all should be treated equal under the law, accept the reality that we still have a long way to go to reach true equality AND have the belief that any overtly sexualized drag shows are not really appropriate for young children? Not in todays world! In todays world to speak out against even a single issues that is being pushed by the most extreme advocates within a group apparently means you must be against everything that group has ever stood for? This mentality serves no one and I believe it explains why so many refuse to speak up for masses of centrist Canadians!
Can we acknowledge the complexity of issues we face in 2024, accept that we will all have our unique perspective, know that nobody agrees 100% let alone multiple individuals and instead focus on coming together to improve our communities on the issues we do agree on while ‘respectfully disagreeing” on others just like Rational?
I am continually asked if I am a liberal or a conservative, I’m neither and that is intentional. I’m a centrist Canadian who got frustrated at the state of his community, tired of a lack of transparency and accountability and who just wanted to see if I could make a difference.
Thank you to all of you who gave me this opportunity!
Mr. Cleveland – in response to your post I find no common ground with your ideals and the direction Leadership has taken Cobourg.
IMO Cobourg residents are being let down. What was an “ideal” Town is deteriorating as a result of strong and effective leadership lacking.
A good leader would want to be so balanced that both extremes hate him. I don’t share all your belief’s, but I respect anyone who, by me knowing one of your views, I don’t know all of them. Most people nowadays are so tribal that they fail to recognize the value in compromise for fear of letting down their team. Aligning with a political party has marked the end of many critical thinkers.
Drug abuse is a conscious choice. If they were serious about getting better they seek out suboxone(buprenorphine) treatment. Suboxone contains the very same medicine as naloxone and blocks the street drugs from taking effect. There is more than one place they can go to in the town of Cobourg to receive this treatment. The reality is that they just don’t want to give up that high, “chasing the dragon,” and they will do whatever it takes to continue on that destructive path. The AGN and Greenwood sponsored the “How Far Would You Go” graffiti “art” installation on the underside of the William St. bridge. There are many valid responses to that open ended question. How far would you go before hitting rock bottom? Or seeking help? How about, how far would you go before realizing the damage you have done to not only yourself and your immediate family, but those around you, your community at large?
Seniors and children are the most vulnerable and are who need to be protected. Continuing to take substances known to be poison is a conscious, selfish, stupid choice.
Exactly !!
I struggle to use such kind language when observing a man who sexually assaults women one day and then cries to anyone willing to listen about how poorly life has treated him the next. I would hardly call Chris Knielands one of our most vulnerable, especially when I see him walking, while I’m with my children, and he has a baseball bat attached to his hip.
Yes, there are people who are down on their luck, humbly trying to get by. The community complaints are not about them, and for the most part, those people have accepted services. Those in the encampment are rarely not engaging in harmful behaviour and are seldom deserving of the “most vulnerable” label. Sometimes, the language used devalues the experiences of those in the community who have experienced harm – harm often caused by those emboldened with excuses for their behaviour through pandering words.
Indeed, where is the concern for the realy vulnerable, our children?
The drug enablers care nothing for them or families impacted by this.
I have a few questions: Why didn’t the Town buy 310D? Why wasn’t the Town aware of property being available for purchase and why were they not involved? Why didn’t the Town buy Brookside? Why didn’t the Town buy the land off Westwood Drive – soon to be affordable housing? Why is the Town involving the County in the waterfront property development and considering affordable housing on Grade A prime real-estate? Considering affordable housing on that property, is ridiculous.
While the Town can not control or influence the County and the Town does not deliver social programs, having ownership of property and controlling the use of said property seems like a pretty powerful tool and something that is in the strategic interest of the Town and its taxpayers. What will happen to Sidbrook (across from Brookside)? What about the old Theater – imagine another low/no barrier shelter going in that location?
The Town could go through a process of identifying potential properties of concern and controlling those outcomes. Just a thought
The transition of downtown Cobourg is disheartening. It is time for Cobourg to hire a Harm Reduction nurse to walk with a team to help the strung out people passed out on rhe sidewalks midday as Cobourgians and tourists step on over them and not bat an eye. Who would ever want to live here or visit here if this is what we see on a daily basis? I know many walkers who will not leave the boardwalk so they don’t have to see these sights day after day. What can be done? Something must be done Mayor Cleveland asap. We cannot pin all our hopes on 310 and Transition house. No one will come downtown if these daily occurrences continue, I am sad to say.
I am afraid this will only bring the Homeless & Challenged closer to Down town Core , schools
and homes — As we speak we have 4 individuals sleeping just 15 feet from the front doors of residents surrounding the Fountain in Rotary park The Police have already cursed by several times this morning but have turned a blind eye . so far at 8:15 am.
And of course the wash rooms and sinks at the Bus shelter are locked .
so watch where you step .
What I do not understand is why Council did not take this position 8 months ago instead of
allowing this public unrest to continue and fester . Maybe the County would have stopped spending Tax $$
on this Location if a stronger position had been put forth Day 1 .
The Town already knew there was nothing but public Objection to this 310 location by that time if not sooner .
Better Late than Never I guess .
The CPSs and By Law non action with the 4 sleepers is disappointing, sad and extremely concerning.
Their non action provides a glimpse into how they will deal will 310 Division residents when law enforcement is required.
This unacceptable. The Mayor and Council need to step up if they truly support Cobourg.
My second thought on the 310 Transition House opening, l dream to have the confidence in the strength of the protective Bylaw now in action for 10 Chapel st. Transition House. With well established drug supply still available at James/ John the foot traffic continues 24 /7 in this area with occasional stops for drug use on perceived available public green space. If the camp encampment is moved on and with the 24 hr. respite Hub opening in Sept at 310 Division, the foot traffic and pause for exchanges and open drug use will pick up in the neighbourhood . The “DYNAMIC PATROLS” will have to become super heros to keep things moving along and bylaw agents may need 24 hr. attention to attend to the increase of folks collecting downtown again. Time will tell how his may unfold……and hopefully not to the further harm to our community.
I noticed the infamous house on John street has a for sale sign on it recently, fingers crossed they are in the way out!
Sign came down as quickly as it went up. Can you just imagine the realtor has in showing one or both of these dwellings in their present state and occupancy.,…or often over occupancy.
Ten
Ten is a typo
One night last week there were at least 15 people in that house on J and J.
Yes, first there was a sign, then there was no sign. I spoke to a couple of people in the area to determine if I was crazy or if others also saw the sign. Other people saw it, which is good news for my sanity. Then I decided to do an investigation as to what was going on. First step was to call a guy. He was the one who removed the sign. As far as I know it is for sale. Likely both halves of the building. It is not a typical home sale as the buyer will likely want to do extensive renovation work. This requires money and time. The tenants can be forced out using LTB rules which could also take time.
If it sells or not people will still find a place to deal drugs. Downtowner is concerned about the foot traffic. There will be foot traffic to this house or some other place. A couple of days ago there was a woman on her knees with her head close to the sidewalk. It was a hot day, I thought she might need help. It appeared she was having difficulty breathing. She stood up and told me she was OK. It is not good there are people in this type of condition walking around. Hopefully the by-law will help to deal with the foot traffic and help people like the woman I saw.
I would agree that 10 Chapel and it’s spill over has not been the horror show of previous summers since the barriers were lowered so far this summer. My question is, is this change due to the existence of the encampment taking in those not willing to enter Transition House to seek true and positive change or new procedures as to services offered by the new director. As the sale of Brookside proceeds, and the campers are evicted we may well hope for the best and that these folks will enter careful redirection. Failing that, may police and socials services be given more tools to identify those requiring intense care and a program to accept them whether it is rehabilitation or mental health care . This needs to be accompanied by a rejection of damaging illegal drug use as a way of life by society and Government assistance to rebuild accomodations for the numbers of folks,everywhere, that have proven themselves unable to function and live a healthy existence without dedicated intervention and monitored care.
Today (Wednesday), 3:15pm, Council voted for option C: Keep the “310D” BL and dump the proposed agreement with NC.
LC provided a well thought out summary of the issue, the working parts and the decision ramifications. It’s worth watching.
Clr Darling also made a good comment.
Well done Council.
I so agree. We need to give credit to Council & Lucas Cleveland