THUNDER BAY — The city councillor representing the ward where a temporary shelter village is slated to be built says there are many questions about the site his colleagues have chosen.
On Monday, Thunder Bay city council rejected a recommendation by city staff that would have seen the village built adjacent to Fort William Road in the Intercity area and where the Neebing River enters into the Neebing-McIntyre Floodway. Instead, council voted to approve another site that administration had rated relatively favourably in its analysis of potential locations — an undeveloped piece of city-owned land on Cumberland Street North next to the Salvation Army’s Journey to Life Centre.
Current River Coun. Andrew Foulds was one of the councillors who opposed the Cumberland Street site. In an interview with Newswatch, he said there are many unknowns about the location.
“We don't know a lot about the property; we knew significantly more about the Fort William Road property,” he said. “If you know more about it, you have a better handle on the costs.”
The Cumberland Street site “annually gets flooded and there are water drainage issues,” Foulds continued. “There's bedrock potentially there, and it's close to a railroad, so I mean, I don't know what the consequences of that might be.”
Foulds said he’s concerned about the development costs for the Cumberland Street property, including the potential for additional needed infrastructure directly related to the village’s construction, like sidewalks, a pedestrian crossover or increased lighting.
“I would rather that money go into people and servicing people as opposed to servicing a property.”
He also pointed to the site’s relative distance from many social services and support agencies — the Salvation Army excluded — which are largely concentrated in Thunder Bay’s downtown south core.
“I worry because this is so far away … what will the success of this location be overall?” Foulds said. “If you are going to invest this level of money, you want the project to be successful.”
“With this sudden change, I have more questions.”
In 2024, council voted to reject administration’s first preferred location, which was an empty lot on Miles Street, after public backlash. That happened after council unanimously voted to approve a 10-part human rights-based plan for responding to homeless encampments, with the construction of a secure, serviced temporary village being one of the initiatives.
On Monday, some councillors cited concerns from Intercity-area businesses and the proximity to waterways for their opposition to the Fort William Road site for the village, even though city staff reported that many existing homeless encampments are near water with no related deaths or injuries and few emergency calls.
Adopting the Cumberland Street site for the shelter village is still contingent on council ratifying its decision at its April 14 meeting. Coun. Kasey Etreni is expected to present an amendment to formally designate the LRCA-owned property as a secondary option, should development not be possible at the Cumberland Street site.
Foulds said he plans to raise his concerns again at the ratification meeting and seek answers to his questions, adding that “I need to have some assurances.” Previously, Foulds has backed both the Miles Street and Fort William Road locations.
He also said a Current River ward meeting held a day after council’s tentative adoption of the Cumberland Street site for the shelter village drew over 50 people, more than twice the usual turnout. The routine meeting had already been scheduled to address other city issues.
“There were also a lot of questions about what a temporary village is, and we were able to, I think, belay some issues because we talked about the security, we talked about the support, we talked about the code of conduct,” Foulds said. “There was a lot of education that also happened … which was also really good.”
“It was a really good engagement evening, to be perfectly frank.”
