At a recent Ottawa Housing board meeting, I brought forward a motion to change the status of the social housing apartment building at 540 Thomson Avenue from "age-mixed" to "seniors-only". The motion addressed a very real and urgent problem. It passed with only one dissenting vote. Yet it gave rise to a lot of controversy, controversy that only increased when the Board voted to put a temporary freeze on the allocation of social housing units to non-seniors across the entire range of its "age-mixed" stock pending a thorough study of the issue by City staff.

A History of Changing Demand
Ten years ago, the supply of social housing for seniors exceeded demand. At the same time the overall waiting list for assisted housing was growing. In response to the situation, Ottawa Housing converted, in two phases, a total of 11 "seniors-only" apartment buildings to "age-mixed" buildings.

The pattern of demand has now shifted, and the seniors' component of the waiting list for social housing is growing at twice the rate of any other category. So what is the problem with effecting a reconversion?

The problem is that, as governments have downsized, the strategy in responding to demand for various social services has fundamentally changed. A great many people with mental or drug problems (or both), who were formerly institutionalised, are now looking for assisted living within the community. The model of "deinstitutionalisation" has merit, but it does depend heavily on the availability of suitable community resources. The emphasis is on "suitable". We have all seen unfortunate results of early discharge from hospitals combined with insufficient after-care. All too frequently, patients have to return to hospital on an urgent basis, having had at least a scary experience if not a tragic one. A similar phenomenon has occurred in the mental-health and drug-rehabilitation fields. In both cases, the province has downloaded public responsibility to local communities without putting in place local resources adequate to the needs.

The surplus space in seniors-only buildings has, all too frequently, been taken up by this new "difficult to house" population, a population that needs significant on-site resources to function in the community. For most of the ten years that this experiment in "age-mixed" (a euphemism for "needs-mixed") housing has been underway, no on-site resources at all have been provided. More recently, one staff person from organizations specialising in assistance to those with mental disabilities or drug-induced problems have been recruited for on site service for at least some part of each day. In my view, this is far from adequate. The assistance provided is not nearly sufficient to address the problem.

As a result, the lives of many seniors who require social housing have changed for the worse. They live in fear everywhere in their buildings: in the common areas, in the elevators and even in their apartments. The violence of the drug scene, which heretofore they had seen only on the news, has become a frightening part of their daily lives. As their buildings have become hangouts for prostitutes and drug dealers, their social lives (and they at one time had a rich infrastructure of social clubs and interest groups) have become difficult and sometimes impossible to pursue.

So what is the answer? Some of those who were shocked by the recent decision of the Ottawa Housing Board believe that adding more 'band-aid" fixes would put the situation to right. I don't believe so, partly because these quick fixes merely address the need to be seen to be doing something without actually coming to grips with the nature and extent of the problem.

We do have some programs that address society's responsibilities toward those living with mental disorders (and toward their families). These programs need to be strengthened and brought together into a coherent service. The overall shortage of social housing must also be addressed. The problem is sufficiently serious that it cannot simply be downloaded onto a helpless community of the elderly and poor. Nor can it be adequately dealt with by municipal government alone: governments that have recently moved away from the table must be persuaded to come back.

Our seniors, however, don't have time to wait and see how this ill-considered and poorly implemented experiment in social engineering will work out in the long run. Let us immediately correct a mistake that is already abundantly clear and within our power to solve. This can be achieved with no net effect on the overly long waiting lists for social housing. Let's give our seniors back the hope that they can live out their remaining years in peace and dignity. They have earned that much.


Jacques Legendre
City Councillor
Rideau-Rockcliffe