NIMBY Scorecard: Oakwood residents versus a homeless shelter

By Steve Kupferman | August 8, 2014

By Steve Kupferman | 08/08/2014

When someone or something draws a neighbourhood’s ire, just how legitimate are the locals’ concerns? Here, we quantify the outcry.

The Battleground:

The former Town Talk Restaurant and Bar, near Vaughan Road and Oakwood Avenue.

The Enemy:

Cornerstone Baptist Tabernacle, a church that wants to buy the vacant building and turn it into a men’s homeless shelter.

The Scorecard:

“I’m not against shelters in our community,” says a guy who is being interviewed by the Star precisely because he opposes a homeless shelter in his community. +20 NIMBY points

A different resident almost actually says “not in my backyard,” except not quite in those words: “I don’t oppose the notion of a shelter,” she tells the Star. “I think the location of the shelter is a disaster.” +25 points

From another Star piece: “Residents want the city to hold off until there’s more information on what kind of impact the shelter would have.” (Meaning, presumably, forever.) +20 points

Bonus awarded for opposing social services for the homeless, maybe the most classic form of NIMBYism: +5 points

Total Score:

70/100 points

NIMBY Level:

Expert

11 thoughts on “NIMBY Scorecard: Oakwood residents versus a homeless shelter”

This article proves that there are no fact checkers at Toronto Life. If they had read the star article or done any research they would have seen that the community is not against the shelter, but they do have serious concerns about placing a shelter in an area that has a high crime rate, known drug houses, several bars, is residential and has no community support system in place to help those that will be housed at the shelter. It should also be noted that the shelter kicks everyone out at 7:30AM leaving those in need with no where to go for support, with the exception of the bars, drug houses, the several elementary schools that surround the shelter or the local park.

Good Job Toronto Life, next time get your facts start before you publish an article. This makes me question other articles you have posted.

I don’t think you are representing the opposition to this shelter
accurately in this article. The residents have two main complaints to
locating this shelter at that particular intersection. One, that it is
not a particularly accessible location with very few businesses or
amenities for these residents to frequent during the day. There are no
coffee shops, parks, or affordable retail in the immediate area.
And, public transit in this area is removed from main lines of the TTC.
Second, this is a neighourhood in transition. There is still alot of
crime and illegal activities in the area that are not an optimal
environment for a vulnerable group of people to live amongst. You also
failed to mention that Cornerstone Baptiste Tabernacle already had been
operating a shelter on St. Clair West that was unopposed by neighbours
in that area.

agree with other comments … way to misrepresent and make people in this area look like azzholes.

Toronto Life Douchebag Level: Expert

It’s a five-minute walk to Eglinton Avenue (and all its businesses and public amenities) from that intersection, is it not?

It is actually a 7- 10 minute walk ( again, please check your facts before you post, a google search would do wonders for your articles) . Also, If you had checked your facts you would have known that Eglinton ( between Dufferine and the Allen Rd) is littered with empty storefronts, so many that the Eglinton BIA had to start a program that encourages building owners to install creative art in the windows so the buildings do not look abandoned. Again, a quick google search would get you this information.

I’m the woman quoted second for your “scorecard.” When I went to journalism school, we used to conduct full interviews, then later extract the quotes that worked best. This is what the Star reporter did here. She did not misrepresent my statement, but the quote, extracted from the entire conversation, is slightly misleading. So, call me a NIMBY. You don’t know anything about me, my opinions, or my community. I look forward to seeing you volunteer your time at the new shelter!

Those who don’t want this have never been broke or homeless. They don’t know that it can happen to them, too.

So your opposition is that there aren’t enough places for the homeless people to go shopping during the day?

I am not for or against the proposed shelter. My comment was based on reading the original Toronto Star article that detailed the concerns of the residents in the area. The Toronto Life article is uninformed and very one sided, it vilifies the residents without representing their concerns accurately. However, to directly respond to your comment about shopping, it is a concern. If there are not affordable places to go for a coffee, or buy food and drinks during the 10+ hours the shelter is closed what impact will it have on the people from the shelter? The area businesses? The residents? I don’t know the answers, but I think is it an important issue that should be explored before locating a shelter at an isolated intersection that does have known crime issues.

According to Toronto Life, this neighbourhood doesn’t even actually exist, so it’s ironic that TL is now being critical of it, when it won’t even acknowledge its existence

The dissension of residents to the proposed homeless shelter is not a case of NIMBYism. Each community strives to strike a balance of community development, social, environmental and economic supports, and while the Oakwood village community has been on the path towards striking this sustainable balance – it is not there yet. Why can’t the community become a healthy mix of cultural, ethnic and mainstream services, while providing opportunities for small business owners, increasing foot traffic and spurring economic and social activity? While some communities can cater to a homeless shelter, Oakwood village is currently unbalanced and the proposed shelter will drive back the years of work put in towards becoming the healthy, sustainable community that ALL stakeholders have in their sights. For this reason, the decision should not be framed as one pinning homeowners against the homeless shelter. Counsellors are not deciding between the two. It is the community that must take precedence. And the community is simply not ready. Not ready to support the residents of the nearby homes, and definitely not ready to support the needs of residents of a homeless shelter.

Comments are closed.