“The micro-modular shelter is working,” Morgan told CTV News. “People are finding indoor spaces. Certainly, there are still people outdoors, but [there’s] a big decline in the numbers of both encampments and people living unsheltered through the winter.”

Last fall, London City Council approved $7 million to construct and operate the 60 unit community (50 single-occupancy and 10 double-occupancy) that will house up to 70 people until April 2027.

The municipality’s Coordinated Informed Response (CIR) Team, who offer support to the unhoused, enforce encampment policies, and respond to the concerns of businesses, has witnessed the transformation of several people who moved into the MMS.

“An incredible change, we visibly see it in folks,” said Debbie Kramers, CIR manager. “We’re now visiting the MMS, going there regularly, and the conversation has changed. It’s about their future and it’s about housing. They’re actually having conversations with my team about what [life] looks like next.”

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 35 minutes ago (1 children)

"WE WANT SOCIAL HOUSING IN ACTUAL HOMES WHERE PEOPLE CAN GET OFF THE STREET AND LIVE IN SAFETY AND DIGNITY!"

"Best we can do is a fancy heated box with a mattress."

Like, c'mon! This is barely an upgrade from living in a cardboard box or a camping tent. Where's the investment in social housing Carney promised during the debates? People need apartments or a room in a shared apartment at least. Near amenities and services. A real home. Not some fucking box out in a field in the middle of nowhere.

[–] brianpeiris@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 minutes ago (1 children)

"I KNOW YOU'VE TOLD US THAT THESE MICRO-SHELTERS ARE MUCH BETTER THAN THE ENCAMPMENTS, AND YOUR LIVES HAVE IMPROVED REMARKABLY IN JUST SIX WEEKS, BUT WE'RE SHUTTING IT DOWN BECAUSE ZOMBIECYBORGFROMOUTERSPACE INSISTS THAT WE CAN'T GIVE YOU THIS SOLUTION UNTIL WE'VE IMPLEMENTED AN ABSOLUTELY PERFECT SOLUTION, AND THAT WILL PROBABLY TAKE A FEW YEARS, IF YOU'RE LUCKY. SORRY!"

Nothing wrong with having higher expectations, but you don't have to shit on a good thing in the mean time.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 10 minutes ago

Yeah sure those boxes are an improvement. Did I say the program should be shut down? No. So quit insinuating.

We ought to be more angry and vocal and demand better living conditions for homeless people. Now more than ever a lot of people are one rent increase away or one job loss away from ending up on the street. They're already lining up at food banks.

[–] enbee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Holy shit giving people free housing improves their lives we cracked the code

[–] enbee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 hours ago

You won’t believe what happened when we started giving them money!

[–] IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Did they just dump them on the ground like a bag of Halloween candy and be done with it?

Edit... Nvm I see they are in horseshoe shapes.

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

$7 million for 60 units?

I love the idea, but that's about $115k each. I built my kids a playhouse of similar size and materials for like $5k. There should also be some efficiency of scale here.

Granted they need to pay for heating and a few other things, but that seems crazy expensive. Do they have plumbing? I would think they would be able to build hundreds of units for that investment.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 hours ago

Building code is part of it, would be my guess. Your kids' playhouse wasn't intended as a permanent residence, so it didn't have to follow nitpicky little rules about drainage and such.

[–] rozodru@piefed.world 3 points 3 hours ago

well considering that in 2017 there was a study that revealed it cost on average $56k per year per homeless individual: https://ontario.cmha.ca/news/new-study-highlights-cost-of-homelessness/ and that's just medical, and shelter use. homelesshub.ca reported that in 2013 it was more, 75k a year per homeless individual, and again that's without providing housing.

so 115k in the long run will potentially save money. A person who has private and reliable shelter is more likely to start to contribute to society again, get a job, pay taxes, etc.

The solution has always been a homes first initiative with needs based assistance.

[–] brianpeiris@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It's a fair question, but the cost might include land rental, property taxes, and salaries for support staff. It's not just the physical housing that's important. What makes it successful is the services available to the residents. I think it's worth digging into the financials, but I don't think it's fair to assume that it's $115k just to build each unit.