No Quick Fix: $110M gap to bring LMCH public housing up to ‘good' condition
A recently completed Asset Management Plan (AMP) has determined that bringing public housing operated by London Middlesex Community Housing (LMCH) up to a 'good' condition would require up to $110 million over the next decade.
A condition assessment of 31 residential properties generated an overall grade of 'poor', with none evaluated as being in 'good' or 'very good' condition.
According to the report, seven were in 'fair' condition, 18 in 'poor' condition, and six in 'very poor' condition.
'These assets are a different type of asset because there's a human factor here-- people live in these units,' Councillor Sam Trosow told colleagues on the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.
Councillor Hadleigh McAlister, who also sits on the LMCH Board, explained, 'Many of these properties were built in the 1960s and 1970s. So, all of these properties are falling into the same trap, which is aging infrastructure.'
Escaping that financial trap will be costly.
The AMP determined it will cost $6.4 million to simply maintain the overall 'poor' condition and not slip into 'very poor' over the next 10 years.
Making improvements to achieve an overall 'fair' condition would boost the 10-year cost to $34.6 million.
An estimated $110.3 million would need to be spent over the next decade to improve to an overall 'good' condition.
'These are discussions that have to happen through the multi-year budget, because they have ramifications in terms of the financial impacts,' said McAlister.
Mayor Josh Morgan suggested there is no quick fix.
'There is not going to be a plan that is going to bring that gap to zero in a short period of time,' Morgan told colleagues on SPPC. 'It would require significant investment from other levels of government, and those other levels of government know that this is a challenge many municipalities have.'
The mayor cited financial investments made in the 2020-2023 budget as an indication that there's a commitment to address the problem.
'Work through 2025 will have over $60 million in capital repair investments into our community—so that work has begun,' said Paul Chisholm, CEO of LMCH after the meeting. 'The data tells us there's more work (and) that we need to up the level of maintenance and capital work we do.'
City staff will provide LMCH with support, assisting LMCH in developing action plans to implement recommendations in the short, medium, and long-term.
The committee voted to receive the report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
How Alberta is facilitating the repatriation of Indigenous artifacts
In the late 1980s, Lewis Cardinal was among six Indigenous men who ran 4,400 kilometres from Edmonton to New York City in the wintertime to retrieve Cree Chief Big Bear's grizzly paw sacred bundle. To this day, it's housed in the American Museum of Natural History in New York. But the elders' teachings offered during that seven-month quest live on. "What they told us is that this run is not about returning the bundle, but it's about sending a message to all these young Indigenous people … to return back," Cardinal, an educator and storyteller from Sucker Creek First Nation, located in northern Alberta, said in a recent interview. "It's time to return back to the ceremonies in order to help them heal." On Saturday, as celebrations across Canada honour National Indigenous Peoples Day, calls to return sacred artifacts scattered around the globe are being renewed. A letter-writing campaign, launched by the Alberta Museums Association, urges the federal government to show leadership regarding the soon-to-be auctioned off collection of the bankrupt Hudson's Bay Company. A spokesperson for the Department of Canadian Heritage said it is actively monitoring HBC's upcoming auction, mindful that some items "may be of great significance to Indigenous Peoples." The federal government has no overarching legal framework to guide the complex process of repatriation, but Alberta stands out as an example "Alberta is actually the only jurisdiction in Canada that has enacted legislation about repatriation of sacred and ceremonial artifacts," said Jack Ives, a retired University of Alberta anthropology professor. He helped craft the First Nations Sacred Ceremonial Objects Repatriation Act, which passed in 2000. Ives said a careful, deliberate pathway is needed to ensure the right groups are consulted and items end up where they're supposed to. In a black market, he added, they could be worth millions. Since the legislation passed, more than 2,000 sacred objects have been repatriated to First Nations from government collections at the Royal Alberta and Glenbow museums, in consultation with communities. Museum culture has shifted, too, with an emphasis on amplifying diverse, authentic voices, cultivating understanding and building community, said Meaghan Patterson, executive director of the Royal Alberta Museum (RAM). "Sometimes they're identifying objects, they're telling stories, and then they're deciding what they'd like to have returned to the community," Patterson said. A case in point is the Manitou Stone — or Manitou Asinîy, as it's known in Cree. The 145-kilogram meteorite was repatriated from a college in Coburg, Ont., east of Toronto, in 1972 after 160 years. Once housed in the RAM's geological section, the Manitou Asinîy now has its own protected space, mimicking its original earthly home that overlooked the Iron River near Hardisty, Alta., about 175 kilometres southeast of Edmonton. The scent of sage and sweetgrass also lingers in the space from cleansing and ceremony. But Cardinal, of Sucker Creek First Nation, says true progress won't come until repatriation is addressed on sovereign footing between Canada and First Nations. He said the shift also requires a fundamental change in language. "Rematriation is the most appropriate term that we have now," said Cardinal. Repatriation focuses on returning objects to their place of origin. But rematriation goes deeper, seeking to also restore matrilineal perspectives.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
If Canada is seeking an ideal nation-building project, it should invest in First Nations infrastructure
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak is national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. At a time of growing global uncertainty – amid trade disruptions, rising inflation, climate change and international instability – Canada is looking for ways to strengthen its economy, create good jobs and build lasting resilience. Investing in First Nations infrastructure directly supports these national priorities and represents one of our greatest collective nation-building opportunities. Every person in Canada deserves clean water to drink, reliable infrastructure to support their families and a strong foundation to build a future. Yet for far too many First Nations, these basic needs remain out of reach owing to generations of underinvestment. According to the Assembly of First Nations' report "Closing the Infrastructure Gap," an estimated $349.2-billion is needed to bring First Nations infrastructure in line with the rest of Canada by 2030. Delays would only increase the cost and limit the potential returns. And there would be significant returns. Additional research, supported by the Conference Board of Canada, shows that improving First Nations infrastructure would generate $635-billion in economic output, boost GDP by $308.9-billion, and create 330,000 jobs annually across Canada over seven years. Prime Minister Mark Carney has even acknowledged the 'potential economic opportunity' of closing the infrastructure gap. On the campaign trail, Mr. Carney argued that doing so would, on its own, have a larger positive impact on Canada's economy than the negative effects of Donald Trump's tariffs, underscoring both the urgency and the scale of this opportunity. New federal legislation would cut internal trade barriers, advance 'nation-building' projects Beyond the economic data, these investments would also mean that children could sleep safely in their own homes, enjoy clean water in every community, use reliable transportation to access high-quality healthcare and education services, and take advantage of connectivity that allows young people to fully participate in Canada's economy. This would be nation-building in the fullest sense. First Nations are not waiting. Across the country, First Nations are already leading major nation-building projects, from the Clear Sky Connections broadband project linking 63 Manitoba First Nations, to new water systems in Listuguj Mi'gmaq territory, to the Squamish Nation's Sen̓áḵw housing project in Vancouver. These projects meet urgent needs while driving growth, clean energy, and digital connectivity that benefit the entire country. They show what's possible when communities have the resources to build. But to fully close the infrastructure gap nationwide, sustained federal investment is essential. Opinion: Canada needs to attract private investment in infrastructure – and Indigenous communities hold the key As governments put forward legislative proposals to advance major infrastructure projects, proposals that come at the expense of First Nations rights are not the path forward. Any development must respect inherent and treaty rights as recognized and affirmed by the Constitution, and must reflect the Crown's duty to consult and obtain free, prior, and informed consent, as affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Today marks National Indigenous Peoples Day and the four-year anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Yet instead of advancing reconciliation, Canada is pushing legislation like Bill C-5 without hearing from First Nations rights holders. At this week's AFN National Virtual Forum, leaders raised serious concerns about the bill's impact on First Nations rights. Chiefs called for that same urgency to be directed toward the infrastructure our communities actually need – homes, schools, clean water, roads and internet. Chartrand on Bill C-5: 'We do have to have consent from Indigenous rights holders' Fast-tracking development while sidelining rights-holders doesn't advance reconciliation – it undermines it. Attempts to override rights and exclude First Nations from decision-making reflect a narrow and incomplete vision of nation-building, and risk sidelining one of Canada's most transformative opportunities for shared prosperity. The path forward is not to build first and address rights later. True national interest requires full participation and consent of First Nations rights-holders from the start. Canada must prioritize sustained investments in First Nations-led infrastructure that strengthen community resilience and contribute directly to Canada's economic, climate and long-term sustainability priorities. By any measure, investments in First Nations infrastructure meet the definition of national interest. The government's own proposed framework includes priorities like economic growth, resilience and clean growth, all of which would be directly advanced by such investments. If Canada is serious about building a stronger, more secure and more prosperous future, let's start with fast-tracking the construction of new homes, modern schools and clean water systems in First Nation communities. Let's fast-track internet access, all-season roads and community infrastructure that has long been neglected. Let's work in true partnership, through full consultation, shared legislative development, and recognition that Canada's future is tied to the success of its First Peoples. That is how you build a country – by ensuring the foundations are strong for everyone. The future of Canada depends on it.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Reconciliation is not a return to the past – it's creating something new together
David A. Robertson is a Swampy Cree novelist and the author of 52 Ways to Reconcile. It will take longer to get to reconciliation if we don't fully understand what we're attempting to do. That statement might be self-evident, but it is no less relevant. When it comes to reconciliation, in my experience, I am not sure how effective our actions can be if they are actions based on a misnomer. The term reconciliation itself, within the context of this countrywide movement, in the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, is most certainly an inaccurate description. What does reconciliation mean? It's essential to be clear: I don't want to discount Canadians' work on reconciliation. As with anything relatively new, there is a learning curve. But we have done well, although we can't rest on our laurels. We must forge ahead and look to the future, invested in the path and the length we need to walk it. Because this is a marathon, it is not a sprint. The Grandparents do not say that healing takes one generation; it takes seven. The dictionary definition indicates reconciliation is the restoration of friendly relations. That sounds nice, doesn't it? Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people want to have a friendly relationship. I have been around long enough and have been to enough places across Turtle Island to be sure of that. Is that what we're trying to do? Restore friendly relations? Restoration is returning to something. What do we want to return to? Here's a quick example of reconciliation: Two people meet, fall in love and everything is great. They move in with each other, have children, and look to the future with love and hope. But then something breaks, and the relationship falters. The couple splits. Years later, after a lot of work and healing themselves individually, they can, in turn, heal their relationship. They return to what they used to be. That is reconciliation. Here's my question: When was the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people right? It wasn't. Ever. So, there is nothing worth returning to. On one level of this journey, reconciliation is indeed proper terminology. Thanks to colonialism's historical and continuing effects, there is brokenness within Indigenous communities. The former principal at Jack River School in Kinosao Sipi (Norway House Cree Nation) once told me that you can't heal brokenness with brokenness. She meant that teachers needed to heal from their trauma, direct or passed down, before they could genuinely help the kids. Individually, in our families, and in our communities, we have work to do to heal before we can even think about the breadth of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations. Opinion: We cannot let Pope Francis's efforts toward Indigenous reconciliation die with him But when we get there in seven generations (and keep in mind, with the impacts of colonialism still prevalent across Turtle Island, that clock hasn't quite started ticking yet), we will not be returning to anything. My father passed away in December, 2019, just a couple of months before the world shut down. At the time of his death, he had been working with a group of knowledge keepers, of Grandparents, on a new term for reconciliation, considering what it really entails, the work we really need to be doing. Their focus was not on returning to anything, but rather, on starting a dialogue. I found a paper in my dad's stuff entitled Guiding Principles for Working Together to Build Restoration and Reconciliation. The first point is 'Building Relationships through Mutual Respect and Understanding – respect enhances our ability to see, hear, and value others.' 'Nothing's off the table': AFN warns of potential legal action if Bill C-5 passes You sit across from me, we share with one another, we learn about one another, and through that respectful interaction we begin to see through the preconceptions we might have of each other. We see each other as human beings, first and foremost, and through knowledge transfer, we develop empathy, understanding and respect. That is how you build a good relationship. It's a foundational practice that ensures, going forward, you have something solid to stand on. Together. You and I. Collectively, it doesn't mean that we are returning to anything. What it means is that we are building something for the first time. It means that we are building community. Do you want to know the dictionary definition of community? It is a group of people with a shared interest living together within a larger society. We don't all have to do the same thing. Not at all. You have your life, and I have mine. But within the context of what we continue to call reconciliation, we do have a shared interest: coming together, working with and for each other, for equitable opportunities where everybody has a chance at success. Because we recognize that one person's victory is the victory of the community we have built, and that success, the stuff that comes from listening and learning, from empathy and action, will lead us to a better, strong and sustainable future. Whatever we want to call what we're doing, that's the way forward.
