Sometimes, not much happens at Council meetings – an example was last night’s. Arguably, the only item taxpayers would care about was an update on negotiations about the new Transition House location – 310 Division. As reported previously, the intent is to end up with a three way agreement between Transition House, the County and the Town and a draft agreement was provided that went a long way towards what was wanted. Written by County CAO Jennifer Moore, and reflecting her discussions with the Town’s CAO Tracey Vaughan, there were two contentious points beyond Tracey’s responsibility: 1) A request to repeal the recently passed licensing by-law and 2) the agreement would terminate “if the Town makes efforts to regulate shelters through any other bylaw or permitting process.” These would need to be addressed by Council.
The County asked that the bylaw be at least delayed until an agreement had been reached but Council declined to do that – so the licensing bylaw reported here is now in effect.
The draft agreement is long and can be downloaded here but as usual, I’ll list the highlights.
There are four parts:
Northumberland County commitments from Transition House management.
- Provide wrap-around services
- Pets allowed and governed per Town by-Law
- Transition House will be a Low Barrier Shelter with a code of conduct including complying with the Town’s Nuisance Bylaw. That includes a prohibition on “the unlawful use, sale, furnishing, or distribution of alcoholic beverages or controlled or illegal substances;”
- A safe injection site on premises will be prohibited.
- A Community Liaison Committee will be established with representation, at a minimum, from the Town of Cobourg, community, and County.
Direct Northumberland County commitments
- Review use of “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design”
- Expand existing security patrols of County facilities to include 310 Division St. Patrols are generally limited to overnight hours and risk-based scheduling and will periodically observe and report activities on the site.
- Commitment to 24/7 onsite security for the first year of operation.
Town of Cobourg commitments
These are the two items not agreed by the Town – at least not yet.
- Agrees to the repeal of the Emergency Sheltering bylaw before this agreement is in effect.
- Agrees that this agreement will terminate if the Town makes efforts to regulate shelters through any other bylaw or permitting process.
Commitments by both the County and Town
- The Town and County will discuss potential cost sharing where the Town can demonstrate increasing and excessive costs directly caused by operations at 310 Division St.
There was no discussion by Councillors or the Mayor other than the Mayor’s statement that there is no need to repeal the Licensing by-Law. This is obviously a sore point with the County. Negotiations will continue but it seems likely that some will be in closed sessions at both the town and the County.
Print Article:
The County/310TH assert that they will have strong procedures in place to ensure that the concerns that residents have won’t occur. Therefore, they argue, the Town’s “310” bylaw is not needed.
If the County/310TH are so confident that there won’t be any issues, the “310” bylaw becomes moot. If there are no issues, there is nothing to enforce and no penalties.
Why then the concern and the big fuss?
The reality is that the County/310TH know there will be issues. A shrug of the shoulders and we’re sorry…won’t happen again….doesn’t cut it.
No deal and the “310” bylaw stands.
New Bylaw Endangers Transition House Services – Today’s Northumberland – Your Source For What’s Happening Locally and Beyond (todaysnorthumberland.ca)
A delegation from Transition House presented at the NC Council Meeting, on April 27th.
Why did Cobourg Mayor send his regrets, but instead sent DM Beatty.?
One of the issues discussed in closed session was 310, and all councilors attend closed sessions.
What is going on here? Beatty is a director on Cornerstone, is this a conflict?
Is the next step, Transition House to sue Town of Cobourg?
The proposal to end the deadlock on 310 is a clear indication of the County’s mindset on this issue. Their only intention is for the Town to remove the roadblock so they can continue to force 310 down our throats. If we remove the by-law, they will implement their agenda without our concerns taken into consideration. On the day the by-lake went in effect, the Town received a letter from the Human Rights Commission indicating our by-law was against the rights of the homeless. The County was cc’d as well. The County is determined to bully Cobourg into submission on this without consideration of the impact on our community. Until our demands are met and the details finalized, NO DEAL!
Just as an add on. This is a copy of the letter from the HRC’s website.
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/emergency-care-establishment-law-000-2024
There is nothing wrong with what the new By-Law addresses. Law abiding citizens have human rights to peaceful and safe enjoyment of their town and property too!
Law abiding citizens also have the right to defend themselves .
Why aren’t more people talking about the lack of resources in Port Hope.
I don’t agree with adding any more resources to Cobourg other than affordable housing. Not until Port Hope, Campbellford and other surrounding communities have at least the same resources that Cobourg currently has per capita. Creating a hub for the whole of Northumberland is absurd.
Surrounding communities should not be deciding how things are done in Cobourg. How confident in their decisions will they be when it impacts the lives of their neighbours and their families?
One thing is for certain, Brian Ostrander does not represent the taxpayers of Cobourg, either does any other member of County Council, not named Cleveland. So if you think they are making decisions based on the best interests of the highly taxed Cobourg residents and businesses, you are mistaken. In my opinion, the County of Northumberland should be prohibited from purchasing any land, in any Town, without prior public consultation and consent from the Town and full disclosure of the purpose, agreements and plans for the land in advance; utilizing a referendum where necessary. I completely disagree with the County purchasing 310D without any degree of transparency as well as the land located near Westwood Drive. Those residents will likely see the impact on their future property sale value (get out while you can). Further, the County should be excluded from the tendering process for Durham Street, much to the chagrin of the DM Beatty and Councilors Burchat and Adam Bureau, who would love to see affordable waterfront housing.
I still have not heard an acceptable response as to why the GPL can not be utilized…simply saying the decision was made years ago and can not be changed isn’t acceptable or accurate and should be challenged vigorously and an answer made public. NC is notorious for in camera sessions. If our Mayor knows why, it would be nice to hear from him.
They admit it!
The less than ideal consultation regarding 310 Division is because information was leaked to the public. The county’s plan was for the shelter to be a fait accompli prior to Cobourg residents learning anything about what had been done to them.
For the full admission, go to the 7:40 mark in the interview with Ostrander at https://consider-this.ca/county-warden-addresses-concerns-over-cobourg-emergency-shelter-bylaw/
Despicable and definitely not how a democracy is supposed to work!
This is typical of the county. There would never of been proper consultation with the public.
In reading this, I again strongly believe it provides solid ground for the Mayor and Council to reject “310 Division” totally, and bring in legal counsel to appeal to the court the County’s arbitrary decision to locate a low barrier facility as proposed in Cobourg.
This is the first mention of trying to use the courts to decide a problem. Well i do not think current court support for the homeless will negate a low limit drug house
surly Cobourg will accept a high level entry for genuine homeless drug free seniors as an alternative to the NC proposal
if NC is determined to inflict drug problems into Cobourg there must be a way to stop them
i am less than impressed with the management of the new TH proposals and feel NC are passing the buck to a non profit over which none of us have any control. Mayor Lucas started this ball rolling in his Action Man role of cleaning up drug dens .now superman is needed to remove the ever growing population tent city and the enlarged TH problem. When you disturb a bees nest wait to be stung!
The County got away with low barrier once at 10 Chapel…with No public consultation…shame on them! five years on.. they’ve tried the same process again,with no consideration of the damage our Town and neighbourhoods continue to endure. If this goes forward without protection of Cobourg citizens….shame on us.
Another thought, as Lucas Cleveland sits on NC Council you would think He would have advance knowledge. If Cleveland knew, then is it logical Cobourg Council members knew? And then you have to question is it possible they and NC were working together on this? So like Mr Strauss says – democracy doesn’t work that way.
My thoughts, exactly! Correct me if I am wrong, but, wasn’t Cleveland totally in agreement with the acquisition of 310 Division Steet to replace the current Transition House and to continue operation of the facility under current deplorable conditions? Did he have a change of heart due to public flack?
Perhaps it’s because as an elected official in this system I have a legal duty to represent the organization that I am sitting at and I am unable to declare a conflict.
When I am sitting in the position of a county councillor I have to put the corporation of Northumberland county as my main concern. Decisions made at this level have to take into account all of Northumberland and what is best for the corporation of Northumberland
When I am sitting in the position of mayor of Cobourg I have to make decisions that are the best for Cobourg. In that role I am only responsible for the residents of Cobourg and must make decisions that are in the best interest of the Corporation of Cobourg.
Often these two corporations have competing interests and what is good for one might not be good for the other. There are many legal examples of how this has played out over the years to provide precedence and guidance.
It’s not a “flip flop” it’s a legally defined and clearly laid out conflict of interest that this style of governance forces and allows. I have a 20 page legal brief should anyone want to come in a read it to better understand. I know I had to go to several training courses and consult with legal professionals to review previous court decisions to fully comprehend and understand where the one role ends and the other starts. Needless to say it’s often difficult and misinterpreted.
So at the county ….. 310 makes a great deal of sense financially, it makes sense in terms of improving services, it makes sense for a variety of reason to that corporation. At that level yes it’s a major improvement and I wouldn’t be making a good decision or a moral decision when considering it in terms of the entire county. Remember I voted to PURCHASE the property ….. that was 100% a good idea and a valuable asset for the corporation.
As the mayor of Cobourg I am ONLY concerned with the residents of Cobourg so I am able to have a different opinion. This bylaw allows us to protect all residents of Cobourg, those inside the shelter and those outside. I am allowed to stand up for Cobourg independently of my obligations to the County but that does not mean I am “bending”!
The reality is that if you want to really change the future of Cobourg we need to look towards the abolition of a two tier system, or to have regional representation on the County instead of the Mayors. This style of governance will continue to ensure history repeats itself.
Why did you not simply elect to abstain from the County vote on 310 Division? You were entitled to, and it would have shown support for the residents of Cobourg.
It is clear how the residents of Cobourg feel about the drug situation and it’s negative impact it has had in Cobourg over the past 17 months
Lucas, if your statement is correct, how will replacing the mayors on county Council with “regional representation” improve things? Wouldn’t the same necessity to work in the best interests of the Corporation of Northumberland County override any effort for them to represent those who elected them?
Complying with your legal advice is antithetical to the interests of those who elected you and an abrogation of your oath of office as Mayor of Cobourg. You must fight the county and work for Cobourg. Ignore the lawyers!
“Lucas, if your statement is correct, how will replacing the mayors on county Council with “regional representation” improve things?”
Again Ken you take a veery simple question and confuse the issue. Replacing the Mayors with Regional Councillors would allow the Mayor Cobourg to say and do what he likes in Cobourg’s interests. He would not be there to make decisions and has the freedom to rail against any decisions made by the County.
“You must fight the county and work for Cobourg.” … Asked and answered in the legal opinion.
And as you decry unnecessary spending by the Politicians of any stripe you should be the first to be in distress by a specious lawsuit.
Again, Ben, you confuse the very simple issue of democratic representation. Being able “to say and do what he likes in Cobourg’s interests” is meaningless without having a vote on what is done.
If one accepts that members of county Council cannot represent the interests of their constituents, then everyone in the county is effectively disenfranchised. Why even bother with the farce of a county Council? Simply let the overpaid county bureaucrats make all of the decisions!
“Remember I voted to PURCHASE the property…..that was 100% a good idea and a valuable asset for the corporation.”
The PURCHASE of the property is not the issue/concern for the residents of Cobourg.
The USE of the property is the issue/concern for the residents of Cobourg.
When you voted on the PURCHASE and IF you were aware of the USE as 310 Divison St./Transition House, then I have a problem with the decision you made.
NO TRANSITION HOUSE AT 310 DIVISION ST. it is still not too late to make the change.
Mayor Cleveland,
You note that you have a lengthy legal opinion supporting the concept that a member of NC council must work for the overall benefit of NC in deference to the interests of their home municipality and its residents. I have no doubt that this is what the “rules” (statute??) require.
This is at odds however with the political reality that the residents who elected you expect their elected representative(s) to represent and advocate for THEIR best interests.
I seriously doubt that any of the residents of Cobourg expect you to represent NC’s interests over Cobourg’s. Similarly, in the other NC municipalities with wards, like Port Hope, Cramahe and Trent Hills, the ward residents fully (and rightfully) expect their elected ward Council members to represent and advocate for the best interests of their ward(s). To do otherwise could seriously reduce the elected Councilor popularity and may result in political defeat.
If a 310 type facility was proposed for Brighton (Campbellford??, Colbourn??), would the Mayor (in deference to NC) greet the proposal with open arms?
I doubt it.
Mayor Cleveland, during the election campaign, you indicated that you were only interested in one term as mayor.
Has that changed?
Have you become accustomed to wearing the Mayor’s chain?
Is it a chain of power or enslavement?
You need to solve the statute-political reality conundrum and figure out your allegiance: Cobourg or NC.
Who do you serve?
I listened to the entire podcast — very interesting and I agree that Ostrander thought that “information was leaked prematurely” — but obviously it was best for “Cobourg” because Council/Staff were able to get that bylaw in place and thank heavens it’s now “law” — Also interesting that Ostrander mentioned a “county-wide” police force was needed and that because we didn’t currently have a “county-wide” force (I’m paraphrasing here) that the county was unable to properly police Transition House. Curious…
Good catch. Warden Ostrander was denied a glide path and lets slip his annoyance. Nowhere in the interview does he say “drug addiction” or “crime”. He speaks of services with which Clients may voluntarily engage.
He also says it would have been preferred to have kept the whole process in closed session ( because they were the experts)
until they had prepared the whole plan for moving forward with their new super shelter. I read this as,we had a big pile of money from the Provincial Government….with more to come, which has since been announced, so we have to show we are putting it toward a proven success, Transition House, (l’m laughing up my sleeve) There was ,to me, never any intention of County council to monitor outcome of the investment….only to pat themselves on the back for a job well done and ensure their relevance in the public eye, as they throw money on a lame duck.It shows in their appearance of being gob smacked that the public might actually question their superior work in this area of housing and also the admission that this very expensive project will not likely solve the big problem of the encampment of troubled folks….because we cannot force people into a better choice.Big bags of wind..Let’s spend on some consultation before wasting more money the immediate need has been tackled and rejected by those on the street…time for a new tactic
Consultants are torn between laundering what they are paid to say, and not alienating future government business. Where is the transcendent all-knowing consultant to be found? You know more than they do 🙂
I bring up consultation because this is ,sadly, what has been missing on this whole nightmare…a process that may bring to light decisions on how we, more effectively as a society,could aid those around us needing guidance. It will not be achieved in a manner that the “WOK” folks will sit well with As Mr. Ostrander says the solution may be one we dislike equally. A definite accountability for the providing of living allowances handled by individuals,as opposed to care providers,is for sure necessary and rules are a must. As adults we should all be able to understand this…nothing that comes with no strings attached and we earn our way in life if we are able. If we need help, it is available but not without transparency.
Presquile Park in Brighton seems like a great spot for an Encampment
There is already facilities in place Wash rms , Showers BBQ areas Easy 1 road access that can be controlled plenty of Wood s & Wood Covered Picnic shelters where a tent can be placed under roof Out of sight Brook side looks like HOBO Central
and a lot of Stuff is going into the Creek that shouldn’t where is the GRCA on that
they get involved in every other subdivision
Go to https://consider-this.ca/county-warden-addresses-concerns-over-cobourg-emergency-shelter-bylaw/ to hear why the County Warden Ostrander favours housing more addicts in a low/minimal barrier facility at 310 Division rather than elsewhere in the county.
Golden Plough is owned and operated by the County with no Town involvement. Correct?
If so, then that is how 310 should be operated. County should own and manage without Town involvement. As 310 is not a nursing home or assisted living, then the current bylaw must stand as a protection for the downtown.
Checking the Plough’s website, there are currently 150 rooms growing to 180 when the building is complete. 30 new rooms for the ridiculous cost overruns? March 2024, the website states 600+ are on the wait list.
I suggest the County ought to make 310 a nursing home or assisted living residence as the 40 or so rooms at 310 will be more than what is projected in the new Plough building.
Let Transition House run under the new bylaw and see how things go. If encampment dwellers did not use Transition House in the cold winter, what are the chances they will be using it in good weather?
Right in their Back yard where they can keep a Concerned eye on things and progress in their
efforts reduce the Homeless in Northumberland
and right next to the New Cobourg & County Police station
And — even better 310 is already to go as a Assisted living facility for Seniors
Fantastic idea
Lets all Vote on that one may be JD can set that in motion
They certainly won’t be using 310 in cold weather if Jenni keeps buying them winterized tents, propane tanks, wood stoves, wood to burn and accessories to keep them nice and warm and comfortable in the encampment. Certain people would like the campers to stay there and the more the better to further their goal of sleeping cabins. That has been the intention from day 1 of that encampment. I’m sure Jenni and friends would rather these people not go to 310.
As was suggested by Robert Washburn in his podcast with County Warden Ostrander…..maybe some of County Council should be in conversation with the encampment members.,.it would certainly make more sense than throwing more fuel ( our tax dollars) on a fire that warms no one but merely keeps the pilot light on for a simmering problem that will eventually bubble up and boil over causing irreversible damage
Yes, I think 310 would be perfect for low income seniors. That should be plan B when addicts destroy 310 and everything and everyone else around that area.
Council, do not repeal the Emergency Sheltering By-Law! As long as the shelter is low barrier, there will be social disorder and crime. Hold those who run the facility (Transition House) legally accountable for the behavior of their clients. If that is unacceptable, close the facility and let them go elsewhere. The ultimate solution, as many of you have pointed out, is to separate the hardened druggies/criminals from those that can legitimately avail of the services and put them in institutions (drug treatment centers or mental health facilities.
Holding those who run a facility legally responsible for their clients would be the same thing as holding a School responsible for its students’ actions at all times, or holding a hospital responsible for the actions of each and every one of its patients. Is that what you’re suggesting then?
Nancy, please read Bryan’s comments regarding bartenders and drunks for an explanation of their liability under long existing laws.
See https://cobourgblog.com/news-2024/progress-on-transition-house-agreement#comment-37280
Students are minors, teachers are adults and school boards take responsibility for actions in their schools……recently an educational assistant wrong fully accused of inappropriate behaviour had a very public case handled and now has a blight on her career even though proven innocent. Hospitals have methods in place to exempt them from culpability …DNR …release forms. ..Why shouldn’t an organization designed for assistance of troubled people be prepared to follow through?
Repeal and Termination out of the Question . Why would we want to build in a Loop Hole
should additional measures be deemed necessary by the Town to protect its Residents and community .
Occupancy to be determined by appropriate Authority ?? What Authority County Housing or Health Dept. ++ give me a break ++ We were told told to expect 35 – 40 Residents despite the fact this building handled 60 Senior s plus and more if Bunkies and wards are used double it ..
Reporting annually — not a chance– NO Business Management sys would wait a year to address , review, inform or disclose the facts .
1 / 4 ly would be more reasonable and responsible way to go at it for at least for the first 2 or 3 years .
This should also include 1/ 4 ly Police reports disclosing any increases in Town crime and specifics relating to that operation and its residents . Along with Cost increases in Policing so this may be passed – Billed back to the County . The Tax Payers through out the County will then all share in the cost not just Cobourg
Further more most other Communities demand to be advised in advance when a person with a history of Criminal Physical , Sexual Assults or Pedofile has arrived — This may include placements from or through the Criminal justice , Parol sys. as permitted under the privacy act.
Tighten this Agreement up
Sandpiper,
Agree that the agreement should be tightened up.
However…..the Town should not be a party to the agreement for the following reasons:
-the Town has no role in the operations of 310/TH
-being party to the agreement makes the Town responsible when things go wrong (and they will)
-NC and 310 will use the agreement to bully the Town into compliance/acceptance of lower standards. Introduction of loop-holes
-being party to the agreement reduces the Towns leverage (bylaw)
-being party to the agreement reduces the Towns ability to set standards
-the agreement is unlikely to have any “teeth”. No incentive for NC & 310 to comply
The “310” bylaw enables the Town to:
-set the desired behavior/performance standards
-define those responsible
-set penalties for non-compliance
-provide enforcement
The NC/310/?? agreement does none of these things and leaves the Town in a weaker negotiating position without leverage.
Bryan – these are excellent points and provides an approach/course of action that makes sense for the Town to follow.
This is something the Town would be in its’ legal right to do – they do not not need to sign/be part of this “Agreement” – particularly as the transaction was formulated solely by NC, without Town involvement or engagement.
I wonder if emails to the Mayor/Council members on this approach would motivate them to take it up?
Bryan you advocate as outlined in your post that the Town of Cobourg should not present and sign an agreement with strong by-laws with regard to 310. I am puzzled as to your statement as to
“The NC/310 agreement does none of these things and leaves the Towin in a weaker position without leverage.”
Are you in favour of a tightened agreement as you said in the top of your post you agree the agreement needs to be tightened up. I would be interested in reading your thoughts on what meansures or further measures you think should be made to the agreement.
The only other question I have for you Bryan is do you feel the Town should not sign a oversight agreement of any kind?
Dave,
To recap my position:
-1 The Town should not be a partner/member in the agreement. As noted before, the Town has no role in the operations of 310
-2 The Town should not agree to rescind or limit the 310 bylaw or agree to not enact any similar bylaws in the future. Doing so weakens the Town’s ability to:
-set standards
-enforce the standards
-reduces the Town’s leverage
As noted previously, as a party to the agreement the Town becomes responsible for whatever goes wrong. NC/310 can also use the “partnership” in the agreement to bully the Town into lesser standards and “loop-holes.
The Town,as a stakeholder, should however push for high standards and protections to be in the agreement.
The “310” bylaw is the Town’s best protection.
It enables the Town to set standards and non-compliance penalties.
It is totally in the Town’s control, provides leverage and helps level the “playing field”
The “310” bylaw is all to the Town’s benefit. An agreement with NC-310 is not.
The NC-310 agreement is all about protecting the collective ass of NC-310’s management. Nothing more
Thank you for your reply Bryan. I see you are in favour of strengthening the by-law without concessions to the County.
However I thought the County must agree as part of the agreement both parties are to sign that the by-law by the Town be part of the agreement to allow operation of 310, an the County could not operate this shelter without agreeing to adhere to the by-law. I have read the County wants parts of the by-law struck down such as ability to recover funds/sue/fine the people operating the shelter should things “go wrong” among other security and drug/alcohol restrictions. In essence the by-law is part of the agreement as a whole.
Seems all part and parcel. No agreement if by-law to be rescinded or not as laid out. We will agree providing these terms are met. by-law, governing structure of Town agreement to open 310.
Dave,
You wrote “in favour of strengthening the by-law without concessions to the County.” Strengthening the bylaw is not in question, It’s fine as is. NC’s proposed agreement is in question.
I suggest that you re-read (read??) the letter from NC. It is not an agreement draft. It is a listing of various elements that could be in an agreement. There is no mention of penalties for non-compliance. Rescinding or otherwise limiting the Town’s “310” bylaw
and future similar bylaws are conditions for continuing negotiations.
You also wrote “ability to recover funds/sue/fine the people operating the shelter should things “go wrong””. Consider who this benefits: NC & 310 management/staff. As I noted previously, covering their collective ass.
NC’s proposed items are things that should be in place for a facility such as 310. NC and 310 are giving up nothing. Their primary concerns are:
-eliminating/reducing management/staff exposure to penalties (accountability and responsibility)
-removing/reducing the Town’s leverage
-preventing similar bylaws in the future
There are no benefits for Cobourg in being part of such an agreement.
Cobourg needs to:
-retain the “310” bylaw
-not be party to an NC-310 agreement.
I guess I am missing something Bryan – I understood here is no agreement if the by-law is forced to be recinded.
Dave,
There is no agreement currently.
NC is trying to negotiate one for a variety of self serving reasons.
One of NC’s conditions for an agreement is rescinding Cobourg’s “310” bylaw.
Exactly, the by-law governing the operation of 310 by order of Cobourg Town Council. Should 310 open they must adhere to the by-law as written. They are attempting as I said to force Council to rescind the by-law. Town Council has presented to the County regulations of operation and County is attempting to have Council agree to what their demands are. You (County) want it here then here are the rules for you to operate under.
I do agree to most part But If we do not have Prohibiting Guidelines in Place
to some extent before it opens
then what is there to enforce or act upon
The Towns Planning department has restrictive us or spot specific zoning policies
on every property in Town That s unfortunate when it comes to good development uses But in this Case It needs TEETH and I still do not believe the proposed use fits The County is trying to make it fit the present zoning and are already Bullying the Town I am sure in one way or another
Despite the fact the Transition house has never been a success or a Good Neighbour
Further mor other larger communities that have put up Transition Homes and Shelters
and increased assistance programs .found that it Didn’t make any difference or reduce the number of Tenters and actually increased the number of street people or vagrants as they were once called as more Free and accessible services became available .
Ie: —-Look at our Hospital Emergency Dept its always over crowded and over worked now
A 6 hr. wait is nothing these days as 50 % or better of the sick and injured are from out side of Northumberland County coming here expecting faster service by driving 30 Minutes or because many have no regular Drs
There were never any ward rooms when it was run as a retirement home. The top number was 47 residents, so I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers from. Every resident had their own room. Also, this is what transition house is getting away from, so that every resident has their own space. What concerns me is the county is trying to weasel out of the agreement even before it opens. They will only provide security for one year, after that the residents living in the immediate are are on our own. At the very least, if the hub should have the same security (2-3 guards) as St. Peter’s church, full,stop. If they can’t commit to security, then they shouldn’t be opening.
Still no public mention /results of drug dealers/suppliers arrests.
Is that a town security strategy or non participation ?
All the County is doing is hold the mortgage – they have washed their hands of the day to operations. All negotiations should be with Transition House.
Agree Dave, and the question l have is why no other service providers were invited to offer an operational plan for this very important application to address the crisis we are facing. Transition House has been given a five year trial with limited success…for any clear thinker when such a large financial investment is involved, all available options should be explored. It becomes obvious that expedience was necessary to claim at least this last “Santa delivery” of 2 million dollars plus. Let’s remember this money comes from tax dollars and l,for one,would like transparency when such an application is being considered with “my” money and l would like to feel that Northumberland County is exercising as much diligence as l would before partnering with the same old, same old, as if there would be a significant change. I do not feel confident in the County council and it’s decisions on this shelter….very pleased with Town council,slowing things down to have the County pay more attention by making a three way member agreement before 310 opens…..by the way, still think low barrier not suitable in the downtown
What all of Ontario needs is rehab centres for drug addicts. We need to remind the police that ONLY marijuana is legal – all other drugs are illegal ! When druggies are out of line they should be put into rehab facilities. They will protest but after they rehab and get past their addictions many will look back and be thankful when they are dried out. Apparently laws already exist to confine drug addicts for several months without a huge legal case.
Coincidentally, Brookside sits empty and it would make an excellent location to run a Drug Rehab Program. Let’s get that started now. There are a number of youth centres like Brookside sitting empty across the province. Put them all to work.
If a society sits back and simply watches a problem deteriorate more and more then WE are simply allowing our community to deteriorate. Do something now!
After several thefts from our condo building we now have new locks and a new security system. We are marching towards a locked down society. Ontario was a very open and cooperative community of people but that is now slipping away. Downtown will no longer by a place for Cobourgians to walk, shop and hang out as things continue to deteriorate.
I have always felt that if drug addicts are caught breaking the law, they should be arrested and charged, like anyone else, but when they appear before a judge they should be told they must go to a drug rehab facility or face jail time and not just a few days or weeks.
I agree Marilyn. This is done in the US with good results. Give them a choice. They would thank the judge afterwards.
Thanks for the comments. I agree with both of you but unfortunately it is quite obvious that druggies are just ignored by the police. we can see them all over the downtown and nothing is done. If they are arrested it seems after a night of ‘sleeping things off’ they are simply let go. Our police could step up a long way in dealing with this issue. That used to be part of their job. We don’t even hear of Drug Busts any more ! Perhaps there are court cases regarding drug issues but it’s a long time since I’ve read about that.
Brookside property would be unsuitable for rehab. The buildings could not be used. Yes, we do need rehab but I would suggest that the rehab should be in another town in the county.
I’m sure nobody wants a drug rehab centre in their town. BUT, Brookside (where I taught for a few years) is perfectly suited to do a great Rehab job. There are good/reasonable accommodations and good work facilities in which to run a rehab program – in the school classrooms. This should not lead to loading Cobourg up with Druggies from other towns, as they will be returned to their home towns. Cobourgites would stick around but I would hope that every town would have a Community Rehab Center to follow up on each person as soon as they got out of Brookside. Is there a place where Drug Addicts can go to get help?
There are 3 or 5? empty Youth Jails across the province and probably other facilities that could be utilized to create a Rehab system. Main problem, I think, is that from Doug Ford down to municipal government no one wants to even acknowledge the whole druggie issue – ‘Leave it for some one else.” I have never heard Doug Ford even mention the issue. Not much of a Premier. Got any money? Then he will reply.
Our society is suffering and it will only get worse if NO government stands up and deals with this issue. How far has our society fallen regarding this problem in just a few years? ! ! ! ! Cobourg should step up and try to fix things. Then our example might spread from coast to coast. We could be the heroes across Canada and be the solution to what is now a terrible problem that is ignored by ALL governments.
I compare the Drug Problem to the Depression. Governments all over the world did nothing to stop the Depression. It only went away when WWII put everyone back to work. How long are we going to wait.
I agree. This is a chance for the “Feelgood Town” to shine! But it won’t happen. Too many entitled NIMBY’s.
Exactly Doug. Those too wigged out should be “in care”. Anyone would agree that letting these folks run free with addiction/mental health issues is truely inhumane. It’s past time to bring back institutions to ensure their safety as well as the community. It baffles me that the encampment folks are demanding that residents of Cobourg want us to solve their problems. That’s not going to happen, nor will the tiny home community. If they continue on this path, the only way out is in a body bag.
I don’t agree with adding any more resources to Cobourg other than affordable housing. Not until Port Hope, Campbellford and other surrounding communities have at least the same resources that Cobourg currently has per capita. Creating a hub for the whole of Northumberland is absurd.
” When druggies are out of line they should be put into rehab facilities. ”
Experience and studies show that mandatory rehab and sometimes voluntary rehab, don’t work. Just think of how many times addicts have been in rehab and failed. Compulsory rehab will only make this problem worse.
Northumberland County Council ramrodded Transition House’s new location down our throats and now they are upset that Cobourg asks for some accountability?
On behalf of, I dare say, the majority of the citizens of Cobourg, Hold Your Ground Cobourg Council.
DO NOT REPEAL the recently passed licensing by-law! Agreement or no Agreement!
Faith in Northumberland Council has long passed.
Stand fast Mr Mayor and the whole of Cobourg Council. Do not let one iota of change to the bylaw pass despite requests from NC.
by next week there should be examples of erratic behaviour ,damage to properly, drug litter etc to be cleaned up and the cost to-pass to the the management and directors of TH . This should start a legal enforcement procedure .If the court upholds them responsible then there will be no one who will volunteer to run the facility so then change its mandate into a high level entry facility fot elderly financially stressed clean adults who need support who will cause no trouble
We will have come someway to helping the truly homeless but leave the addicts to move on out of our Town
If not the biggest expansion in 2024 will be drug tent city!
Unfortunately high barrier won’t allow the encampment to be dismantled. Remember the Waterloo decision.
Impending sale of the property, as inferred in Pete Fisher’s recent video with the mayor will collapse the tent city as it will then be trespass on private property……depending on the new owner
maybe our governments of the 60s & 70s should not of shut down psychiatric hospitals?
Absolutely bang on !!
Agree …. Reason for closure was to integrate the folks needing psychiatric help and drug issues with the rest of us law abiding citizens …. It doesn’t quite work …. Besides Port Hope, Brighton and Campbellford mayors and those supporting the County exec would rather keep all our Cobourg Issues with us …. Same applies to Greenwood Coalition…… why not help move a few of the encampment folks near their facility …… not going to happen
Certainly agree George, closing the institutions did not magically cure patients….and yes, Give me a break, the intention was integration and assimilation…which doesn’t work without long term wrap around assistance, which to a degree was provided….back then. None of this works for newly identified mental patients who have fewer options , especially when not monitored ( wrap around service) and find relief in self medication leading to drug addiction. Mental illness is still an issue for a percentage of our population and without dedicated intervention and aide to maneuver life’s challenges people go unaddressed and feel helpless. The social service system fails here by placing people on disability pensions without requiring attendance in a program of life skills to help with independent living ( budgeting, food shopping, housing, employment,medication …etc.) Until that is realized as a requirement, the result is what we are seeing on our streets…”free money” leading to reckless, harmful and child like behaviour.
Add to above there are organizations in our community helping our mentally delayed and physically challenged..,.time to include the mentally ill…..requires medical intervention.,.with a prescription to methadone ….a referral to a mental health program..,this is where money needs to go ..,not sheltering for mental illness… permanence and dependable support likely for life
Stay strong Cobourg! Please do not cave! I may be off topic but question?
Has the Transition House got a solid plan in place or flying by the seat of their pants?approx. 40 beds and rooms? How are they going to clean these daily? Beds and baths? Let alone animal accidents in carpet? This sounds very expensive let alone the other expenses to run a building of this size! I hope they have a plan and budget in place.
It appears to be the County does not want to take any responsibility to ensure 310 is run responsibly with the safety measures for the residents in Cobourg. Just bow down to the activists. If something “goes wrong” the people hired to run 310 also don’t want any part of personal responsibility as being in this business they know under the planned structure of the County there will be problems which they can evade without the by-law.. All the County and other mayors is thinking is thank goodness it is out of our yard. That is how I see it and using gang up tactics on Cobourg to please the constituents of their own towns.
Mayor Cleveland and Cobourg Town Council – stand strong! Keep the Emergency By-law.
They washed their hands of Responsibility when the saw the Public out cry and Rolled it to a Shell Co with No real Value for the Public or the Town to recover from .
Again why WHY are we Negotiating with the County when Transition House Inc LTD might be a Private separate Owner Who are they and are they Labeled in the Agreement as responsible Parties that the Town can go after . The County will deney obligations after the fact .
Belleville Mayor stood firm and called a State of Emergency …… don’t think that it would bode well with our County exec, MPP and MP if our Mayor would do likewise. Not the photo op that they would engage in …… dropping off $2.5 million is not the solution but another photo op …..
I have seen one of these type facilities in Scarborough turn a former classic hotel into a dump with 24/7 security in the building only. Around the building the residents made it look like the night of the living dead. I have zero confidence that when this facility opens that it will not destroy our once amazing downtown extending through Victoria Park and the beach. What a bloody shame and punch in the face of Cobourg tax payers and downtown business’s
Let’s face it. The Mayors of the other Northumberland towns don’t need our votes to get re-elected. When we have provincial elections, it is hard finding a “Blue” sign in Cobourg. So Mr. Piccini and Mr. Ford know that they don’t need Cobourg’s voters to get a PC candidate re-elected in Northumbertland.
All we have to protect the battered and bruised Cobourg taxpayers from 310 mania is our Council’s Bylaw. Don’t back down Cobourg Council. Hold the ground. Cobourg taxpayers need all of their Council members on their side!
“When we have provincial elections, it is hard finding a “Blue” sign in Cobourg.”
I call BS on this – prove it! Check the results, Mr Piccinin only lost one poll in Cobourg. – Another Sandpiper red-herring!
Ben
I commented on the signs I saw posted during the last Ontario election. Lets cut the nitpicking. Do you support the drug addicts taking over our town or the taxpayers taking over our town. Come clean with us.
Drug addicts are not taking over the Town, only in your imagination. A few visible people suffering from mental illness or addiction or homelessness have made the Town look untidy and perhaps make you feel uncomfortable but they are far from taking over the Town!
Ben
We disagree on the “condition” of King Street regarding the number of beserk looking folks on the sidewalk – standing and sitting. I walk King Street almost daily. Wait until the encampment inhabitants empty into 310 Division Street. Guess where they will spend their time. In the downtown area. I support the taxpayers and Council taking back control of Cobourg.
Just ask Jamie Briscoe Ben, or the families that were assaulted at trinity church after choir practice. Or, others that have had their homes/vehicles broken into, damaged/stolen. Shame on you!
Break ins, thefts, assaults, spitting on citizens, drug paraphernalia everywhere, atms can’t be used, downtown businesses suffering, if you call this “perhaps making you feel uncomfortable “ you have very different societal standards than I do. Those that find this socially abhorrent behaviour acceptable are welcome to live in the midst of it, but those of us who will not live this way have the right to say NO, not acceptable. That is the majority of Cobourg speaking.
“you have very different societal standards than I do.”
Perhaps I do I also think the modern parenting is not good for the children but we have to live with it “We don’t do it like that any more Grandma!”
Whether we like it or not times have changed for many reasons, we either get used to it or turn the clock back many years – good luck with that!
So, Ben, everyone should simply give up the fight because “times have changed”? I don’t agree!
Get used to what? The obstacle course on King St, trying to stay out of arms’ reach of the ones accosting others, I am not normally nervous walking in Cobourg. However, there have been a few times I have felt nervous in this town. Get used to the syringes lying on the ground; your suggestion is to get used to it or turn back the hands of time. No wonder this town is so screwed up.
A few,way more then a few
Do you have room in your yard to accommodate a few …… am sure that they will keep the place tidy …… give me a break
Hey Ben, do you condone Jill Edgar assaulting a 13 yo boy on King St last week? I’m certain he is feeling very uncomfortable at this time. Are you a parent Ben? I’m a parent and may the Lord have mercy on anyone that hurts my child because, mercy I will not show.
Intimidating residents & downtown shoppers. yes
The conservatives won by a landslide in 2022 not sure what you’re saying? Here are the results:
https://cobourginternet.com/cobourg-politics/cobourg-provincial-elections
Resident. I am not disputing the PC victory in all of Northumberland South. My point was that I did not see many PC signs in Cobourg. Lots of them north and east of Cobourg.
I don’t think the Deputy Major will support the majority view.
The County is demonstrating a “my way or the highway “. attitude.l say take it on the road and shop around the rest of the County members to help with this albatross, maybe they will be successful bullying a smaller commumity The track record of success is barely a half mile on a thousand mile journey and doesn’t help with the sale.Of course Cobourg wants protection in further efforts to accommodate the homeless…..by in large drug addicted.We have felt the damage for five years.Stand strong Cobourg council and do not adjust this by-law to appease an agenda being championed by the County .
I agree with Rob and Are_n that the Town should proceed with caution and not be bullied by NC into accepting a poor deal.
Note that Port Hope supports Cobourg’s bylaw. Perhaps LC should focus on converting another NC mayor to the Cobourg view. With that comes weighted majority at NC Council.
The two sticking points, per JD’s article, are:
Agrees to the repeal of the Emergency Sheltering bylaw before this agreement is in effect.
Agrees that this agreement will terminate if the Town makes efforts to regulate shelters through any other bylaw or permitting process.
I firmly believe that the Town should hold fast on these two points. To do otherwise gives up the Town’s enforcement ability and the ability to regulate future situations.
NC’s proposal does not appear to have any teeth. If something goes wrong, say an onsite safe injection site opens, what recourse does the Town have? Stand outside stamping their feet while yelling “You agreed not to”. NC and 310’s response would likely be a raised middle finger.
Consider a similar situation (credit Ken Strauss and John Hill).
A hospitality spot (bar) and its barkeep would be held responsible if a patron got drunk, had a traffic accident while driving home and killed someone. The current criminal and civil laws would kick in to punish the drunk, the barkeep and the bar’s management.
The Law sets out the expected standard of behavior and has the means to enforce the expectation. That is exactly what the Town’s bylaw does (in addition to leveling a tilted negotiating table).
Without the means to enforce the terms of the agreement, the “good behavior expectations” proposed by NC and 310 are meaningless. Their “word” is not good enough and they (NC & 310 staff) suffer no penalties.
NC and 310 staff are very interested in not making themselves a target (accountability & responsibility) if something goes wrong. And it will. Hence the push to repeal the bylaw and prevent similar bylaws from being enacted in the future.
NC and 310 want Town participation as a means of weakening the bylaw and controlling the Town
The Town does not need to party to an agreement regarding 310’s operation. That is between NC and 310. The Town has it’s “310” bylaw and that is all that it needs.
Keep the “310” bylaw in place and enforce it as needed.
Bryan, I understand your concerns regarding the agreement. If NC and/or Transition House break one of the rules could Cobourg argue the whole agreement is void and pass a by-law? It is already drafted, maybe it is already in effect. Or, instead of repealing the bylaw maybe it could be amended. The Emergency Sheltering bylaw will not be enforced if NC and Transition House honour all of their commitments. As soon as a safe injection site is allowed a license is needed or the shelter must close, for example. This would keep the bylaw in place. Of course it, like any law, is only good if enforced.
I clicked on the link provided by JD and skimmed through it. This was sort of interesting:
Appropriate space will be allocated for temporary storage of personal items that is distanced from public spaces and not obviously visible from public spaces.
To me it implies storage of outdoor things like bicycles and personal shopping carts. Out of sight, out of mind? I have returned shopping carts to appropriate stores if I happen to be walking in the general direction. It gets them off the sidewalks.
Kevin,
You wrote “Or, instead of repealing the bylaw maybe it could be amended. The Emergency Sheltering bylaw will not be enforced if NC and Transition House honour all of their commitments.”
Why amend the “310” bylaw? If NC and 310 are honouring their commitments, there is no need for bylaw enforcement.
Enforcement only comes into effect IF the commitments are dishonoured.
Bryan, I read more comments above and understand your opinion better. If the town is not part of the agreement, there is no reason to repeal nor amend the bylaw.
I think most people would agree there needs to be consequences to breaking rules. Rules in the existing bylaw or the possible agreement need to be enforced. If the town is to be part of the agreement then one possible consequence of breaking the agreement would be the existing bylaw. NC clearly does not want the town to have that option. NC is asking the town commits to repealing the bylaw and to not create a new one. I agree with various commenters that the town should not accept these conditions.
My suggestion was a way to make a compromise with NC and have an enforcement mechanism for the possible agreement in place. Bryan, in a response to Dave you wrote, “There is no mention of penalties for non-compliance” (in the letter from NC). I think there needs to be penalties in the agreement, if the town is part of the agreement or not.
Kevin,
Glad you agree that there needs to be penalties for non-compliance.
The proposed agreement deals mainly with 310 operational issues which NC agrees to monitor. This is not a concession. It is part of NC’s responsibility as the upper tier, responsible for social services.
Cobourg has no experience/expertise to contribute to 310’s operation
There is no benefit to Cobourg by being party to the NC-310 operations agreement.
I don’t see a way of embedding effective non-compliance penalties in such an agreement.
NC/310 management/staff clearly do not want compliance penalties, particularly in the hands of Cobourg (an outsider). Such penalties in the agreement would be subject to manipulation by NC/310
Cobourg’s “310” bylaw provides the control that Cobourg requires. Enforcement is in Cobourg’s hands and not likely to be negated or swept under the rug by NC/310.
Levying the penalties is a judicial matter, therefore also out of NC/310’s control.
My advice to “Cobourg” is:
-don’t join the NC-310 agreement. Joining provides no benefits to Cobourg
-keep the “310” BL in place. It is effective control over “310”
These two steps provide Cobourg with the means to “control” 310 and gives up nothing to get it.
Dead On Why can’t the Town see this
No one ever mentioned an onsite injection. Indeed, all involved are against that. That was never a point of contention, so don’t put words in people’s mouths they never said.
Secondly, as per estimates the current number of homeless in Cobourg in 80-90, and the current shelter systems combined operate less than 40 beds. Who do you think are the visible ‘issues’ you’re so concerned about? The homeless who, sadly, have absolutely nothing to do with any of the current institutions and for various reasons remain detached from all forms of potential aid.
Trying to blame a shelter for the actions of the homeless would be like trying to blame a church for the actions of ‘anyone resembling their religion‘ in the local area, many of whom don’t attend that church. Things are far from that simple, I could recommend some case studies with further information if you’re interested in maybe understanding more of the nuances of the issue before claiming things are so clear cut. The real world doesn’t operate in black and white.
Claire, Bryan can certainly defend himself but I like to stick to facts. Bryan mentioned onsite injection as an example of something going wrong. In the letter from NC to Cobourg is written: “A safe injection site on premises will be prohibited.” If there is no mechanism to enforce such rules what is the purpose of the agreement?
The homeless, at least from what many people believe, have been refusing help from the various institutions offering aid. Regardless of the reasons for refusing help it must be very disheartening and stressful for the employees of these institutions who have been trying to help.
I think what most taxpayers are concerned about is a continuation, and possible intensification, of the problems related to drug addicts. How much responsibility should the 310 shelter take for the actions of people they are providing housing to? At the beginning of their life, and sometimes near the end, people are not able to make decisions in their own best interest. Can drug addicts make appropriate decisions or should somebody else make the decisions? Do the decision makers have any responsibility?
No, the world doesn’t operate in black and white. Transition House is clear in it’s stance for low barrier, thereby inviting all of the issues that come with the clientele they serve. Already they admit, they will not likely be housing the folks with addictions…but they serve them at the door.,..making a visible issue with drug use and unmanaged behaviour in the neighbourhood…so, yes they should be responsive to the problems created,,…..or…strengthen the rules with a higher barrier operation
So County and town council are at a stalemate. Why should town council agree to repeal the bylaw before the agreement is in effect? That’s just plain bullying on the county part. Hold the county hostage by keeping the bylaw in place until said agreement meets ALL the demands of the residents of the town of Cobourg, Or how about the town secede from the county as I see little benefit of being part of the county. Think of the tax we’d save.
As a very highly taxed, taxpayer in Cobourg, I’m cautiously optimistic about this development. The County is endeavoring to bully the Town into a position of political impotence; tying the Towns hands and removing its ability to enforce appropriate and reasonable measures. The County is clearly concerned that it cannot effectively run a no/low barrier shelter while maintaining a system of controls and accountability. At this point, my fear is that Cleveland, as a novice and arguably not a very astute politician, will either yield to the pressure (which I’m sure is significant) OR he has cut a backroom deal somewhere and this is all theatrics.
Both of these are very possible IMHO – I would like to be wrong.
You are very wrong. Cleveland will not back down.
Agreed,
Just because Cleveland is a novice does not mean he cannot and have a backbone which is more than can be said for some town councilors.
I think the town should hold firm and not repeal the bylaw. It’s long past time for the town to step up and help “take back” our town and provide a safer, better quality of life for the vast majority of us.
The bylaw needs to stay on the books to ensure that people are held accountable for the messes they create and hopefully provide some legal option to prevent situations like 310 Division from happening again without due diligence and proper consultation.
As well, Cobourg should never give in to those who continue to advocate for the sleeping cabins. Our town is doing more than enough. It’s time for other municipalities to be allowed to shoulder some of the burden.
I realize that this has all been said before, and it will likely be said again but maybe, just maybe, with enough repetition, those at various levels will finally start to pay attention and look after the safety and quality of life that the majority should be able to enjoy.