County council continues to find 310 Division St. a hot topic

Warming Space at 310 Division Street in Cobourg. Northumberland 89.7 FM File Photo.

By Cecilia Nasmith, Northumberland 89.7 FM News

Cobourg

Even though it's been open for three months, Northumberland County's homeless shelter at 310 Division St., Cobourg, continues to inspire heated debate.

Not for the first time, Northumberland County's homeless shelter at 310 Division St., Cobourg, sparked heated debate Wednesday at council's February meeting.

The discussion began with a review of the facility's Feb. 11 inspection under the town's Emergency Care Establishment bylaw.

Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Moore said the report was received Friday afternoon, Feb. 14. In most instances, items identified required further clarification, which they are trying to obtain. However, no orders were issued and no deficiencies explicitly identified, and another inspection will take place in a couple of weeks.

Cobourg Mayor Lucas Cleveland asked if security had been one of the concerns identified. Associate Director of Housing and Homelessness Rebecca Carman said that calls to the number they have made available to the public for issues and concerns (1-877-770-2564) are usually successful in addressing these issues. Once one is reported, she said, they are typically on it within four minutes. On average, there are results within 13 minutes.

In the interests of clarifying roles and responsibilities, Cleveland insisted that the creation of an infographic might be an easy and accessible resource, though Warden Brian Ostrander pointed out that it would involve multiple parties including Northumberland County, Transition House as the contracted party to operate homelessness services out of the shelter, the Cobourg Police and the town's bylaw enforcement personnel.

Discussions ensued on reports outlining services at the shelter, with Cleveland questioning how they were ensuring wrap-around services were being maximized on the premises, especially during non-business hours, but his questions could sometimes not be answered out of confidentiality concerns.

Carman pointed out that success is not exclusively measured in clients getting addiction treatment or employment services.

“Having a safe place to stay is a success. The fact that someone can have access to a shower is success. The fact that someone can do laundry is a success,” she said.

“Success is not a warm shower. Success is a warm shower is a community that is welcoming,” Cleveland said.

“That is what the purpose of all this has been, to work toward an integrated hub,” he said, referring the the Community Liaison Committee's mission of establishing a facility at 310 Division St. that is fully integrated into the surrounding community – though he noted that in his talks with individual members, he is often told they cannot discuss certain information.

“In order to integrate that hub, success has to be looked at not from the myopic viewpoint of social services,” Cleveland stated.

Clearly frustrated at being told some information could not be shared (both by CLC members and by staff members at council), he declared, “I have an issue when I hear staff will go back and tell us what information we need. It is our job as elected representatives to tell them the information we need to make the decisions we have to make.”

As a motion was made to accept the reports made, Cleveland made an amendment to “hire outside legal counsel to provide council in closed session the legal realities of what information is allowed to put to the public, both from the CLC reports and social services updates in general.”

Deputy Warden Olena Hankivsky seconded because of her strong belief in transparency. However, in the recorded vote Cleveland requested, they were the only ones voting in favour, the representatives of the other five county municipalities voting against.

“I am not surprised by the vote on the amendment – of course! Why would the other five levels of government want to know what's going on in Cobourg?” Cleveland said.

“Thank you for once again showcasing how each and every one of the other townships totally turn a blind eye to getting the relevant and needed information.”

“To suggest we are not getting the relevant information is both an insult to this council and to this staff,” the warden responded – and indeed, at the very end of the closed session, Cleveland delivered a statement to the county's attorney that his motion was not meant in any way to suggest any thought that his counsel was not sufficient.