Here are some interesting housing-related facts put forward at the August 20 housing strategy meeting at the Keeler Centre.
Stable and secure housing provides a foundation for people to escape poverty. It reduces the need for government services. It attracts and keeps skilled workers.
The provincial and federal governments are combining to provide $1.2 billion which will be used to add 4,500 affordable housing units and repair 50,000 others in Ontario.
There are 3.2 million homeowners in Ontario and 1.3 million renters. Twenty percent of renters live in social housing. Abouot 6,000 Ontarians use shelters daily.
In Northumberland County there about 6.500 people living in poverty. The average rent in Cobourg is $875 plus utilities.
There are 284 households waiting for subsidized housing - almost all have family incomes under $20,000.
The Salvation Army Rent Bank assists 39 households.
The Northumberland Shelter for Women provided shelter for 131 women in 2007.
There were 13 teen mothers served by Alpha House in the same year.
Food 4 All warehouse distributed 263,604 pounds of food in 2007.
One in six children in Canada live in poverty.
In the area served by the Haliburton Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health Unit there are 4,000 families with children who live iin poverty.
A minimum wage of $10 per hour is needed to meet basic needs.
Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Monday, 25 August 2008
Councillor Van Egmond then reiterated an earlier statement, blaming the organisers of the meeting for not holding it first at the site where people could discuss the proposals and alternatives. By meeting at the township office first, the team which was planning the project could provide a unified statement and the site would become secondary to the discussion. Then, at the site, the company and consultant would give lip service to the locals.
When Ms. Preston took credit for the format of the meeting, the councillor went on blasting, "You're wrong. You put together a combined effort and push it through. You pick a circle on a map, drive around and pick a spot. You get only one response and you send your reply back late."
It seemed that the site-selection procedure suggested by the councillor was close to the one actually used. Mrs. Clarey asked why they had not considered another location up the hill from the Hambletons and was told it had no power. Her comments that it did were supported when the group went to the site later in the afternoon.
Ms. Preston's admission brought a further acknowledgment by Mr. Narday that the process was flawed, and a suggestion that, in future there should be public meetings as part of the process.
His comment brought a tart, "Not done," from the councillor.
Even discussion among the principals involved appeared to be difficult as they could not agree on the impact of the newly proposed tower location behind the Hambleton barn.
Councillor Van Egmond's fears appeared to be supported to answers to the next question by Mrs. Clarey. When she asked why others hadn't been consulted regarding hosting the tower, Mr. Narday responded that Mr. Hambleton had agreed to take it. There was no need.
Mrs. Clarey applauded the actions of Cramahe Council on August 11 by telling the group that there would have been no August 21 meeting if council had rubber stamped the Barrett request. She and her husband were disturbed that they had not been suitably notified of the August 11 meeting which they missed.
Ms Goddard-Sarria replied that she had called them on the Monday before the Tuesday, August 11 meeting and gotten no response. She didn't want to call earlier because she wanted "to see if there were other issues."
Determined to defuse the situation, Mr. Davey agreed to look at alternative locations when they travelled to the site.
A visit to the area where the tower is to be located did produce several other possible sites an an adjacent 200-acre property. The proposals would not affect the aesthetics of the concerned residents.
Mr. Narday took measurements while there and his findings will be sent to company engineers for analysis. The results will be reported back to the county and then to the people concerned within 1-2 weeks.
Mr. Davey promised that changes will be made if, "engineering pans out and there is no impact on the project".
He concluded the hillside meeting by stating, "We understand what it takes to do business in a rural area. It's not our style, even if that's the way it is perceived."
Mr. Davey stated early in the discussions that he wanted to work with the residents. The decision of his company regarding the Cramahe tower location will prove whether he actually meant what he said or was giving lip-service to resident concerns.
When Ms. Preston took credit for the format of the meeting, the councillor went on blasting, "You're wrong. You put together a combined effort and push it through. You pick a circle on a map, drive around and pick a spot. You get only one response and you send your reply back late."
It seemed that the site-selection procedure suggested by the councillor was close to the one actually used. Mrs. Clarey asked why they had not considered another location up the hill from the Hambletons and was told it had no power. Her comments that it did were supported when the group went to the site later in the afternoon.
Ms. Preston's admission brought a further acknowledgment by Mr. Narday that the process was flawed, and a suggestion that, in future there should be public meetings as part of the process.
His comment brought a tart, "Not done," from the councillor.
Even discussion among the principals involved appeared to be difficult as they could not agree on the impact of the newly proposed tower location behind the Hambleton barn.
Councillor Van Egmond's fears appeared to be supported to answers to the next question by Mrs. Clarey. When she asked why others hadn't been consulted regarding hosting the tower, Mr. Narday responded that Mr. Hambleton had agreed to take it. There was no need.
Mrs. Clarey applauded the actions of Cramahe Council on August 11 by telling the group that there would have been no August 21 meeting if council had rubber stamped the Barrett request. She and her husband were disturbed that they had not been suitably notified of the August 11 meeting which they missed.
Ms Goddard-Sarria replied that she had called them on the Monday before the Tuesday, August 11 meeting and gotten no response. She didn't want to call earlier because she wanted "to see if there were other issues."
Determined to defuse the situation, Mr. Davey agreed to look at alternative locations when they travelled to the site.
A visit to the area where the tower is to be located did produce several other possible sites an an adjacent 200-acre property. The proposals would not affect the aesthetics of the concerned residents.
Mr. Narday took measurements while there and his findings will be sent to company engineers for analysis. The results will be reported back to the county and then to the people concerned within 1-2 weeks.
Mr. Davey promised that changes will be made if, "engineering pans out and there is no impact on the project".
He concluded the hillside meeting by stating, "We understand what it takes to do business in a rural area. It's not our style, even if that's the way it is perceived."
Mr. Davey stated early in the discussions that he wanted to work with the residents. The decision of his company regarding the Cramahe tower location will prove whether he actually meant what he said or was giving lip-service to resident concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
