Community and Protective Services Committee – Jan 26,2026
In December, Councillor Stevenson moved to refer the Housing Stability Service Procurement Framework to the January 26 Community and Protective Services meeting to explore potential amendments of contracts to include “good neighbour” agreements. She, along with Councillors Lewis, Lehman and Pribil submitted an amendment that included transferring funding from London Cares to Ark Aid Mission to change the focus for this funding. This amendment has the impact of moving funding from medium to longer term housing stability solutions to immediate care needs. This is not increasing funding.
Before the meeting, Councillors Lewis, Stevenson, Pribil and Lehman submitted a motion to: work with London Cares on a contract (for Council approval) that reallocates London Cares’ outreach ($1,896,768) and London Cares’ housing stability ($989,431) funding to provide an expansion of service to 7 days a week and longer hours (at 602 Queens).
The Good Neighbourhood Agreements were seen to be a huge administrative burden on the service providers, including the responsibility for garbage and sharps clean up within 100m of a facility; and hosting quarterly community townhalls
This report was originally tabled December 1, 2025. Its delay caused more work for city staff; creating delays in a program that is in crisis, and upheaval for the service providers involved.
I urge you to consult with us to build a framework that can actually be realized for contracts
Chuck Lazenby – Unity Project (Video Timestamp 4:03:46)
We engaged in a strategic planning process and intentionally invited Councillor Stevenson and the MidTown Business group to share their perspectives. Neither responded.” (Councillor Stevenson later responded that there was a “confidential matter” that restricted her from being involved)
Chris Moss – London Cares (Video Timestamp 4:26:04)
I think this (motion) is doing a disservice to landlords. I think we have pushed them as far as we can with the renoviction bylaw. And I have spoken to landlords who have told me this. Our current bylaw is very, very effective. It’s doing its job.
Councillor Cuddy (Video Timestamp 2:28:01)
Re: London Care’s Housing First policy and the placement of unhoused in social housing
“continues the placing of potentially very risky, dangerous behaviour into buildings where families are trying to survive. People are in affordable housing, they’re in buildings and we’re placing people with severe addictions, untreated, potentially, in these apartments. At that point they are having to be involved with illegal activity, they are trying to make money to feed an addiction that is not covered by OW and ODSP. So we’ve got these very dangerous apartments throughout, several of them in OEV. … tax payer funded, tax payer supported apartments where they were incredibly unsafe. Smoke alarms missing, damaged apartments, evidence of tons of drug use. Doors to the outside that don’t lock. We have women and children living here.
To say status quo is ok for another year is not acceptable to me. In July 2023 we were brought the contract amendments for April 1, 2023-March 31, 2024. What is the rush, why do we need to sign these one year contracts right now, when it can wait. Most of the contracts are signed late in the last couple of years. Let’s just take our time and make some small changes which could stop creating problems that are causing public safety issues. The drug crisis is real it involves criminal activity it involves drugs and crime and drug trafficking and all kinds of other things are we are perpetuating it .”
Councillor Stevenson (Video Timestamp 5:25:59)
“I’ve heard from the service providers that one year funding doesn’t allow for stability in the sector, of employee turnover, of care for the individuals they are trying to help. One year seems like a lot but it’s not that many months before they’re back wondering if the next contracts are going to come up and be renewed.”
Councillor Peloza (Video Timestamp 5:30:30)
Asked staff “the proposed system transformation, the framework, what was that based on? Was it based on what we know of what works and what does not work and the resources , like housing we have available?
KDickens “There is a lot of work that we set out to do that has been scrambled due to timelines.”
Councillor Ferreira (Video Timestamp 5:32:38)
“What we proposed to you originally was a well thought out plan that provided a reasonable set of time to do deep dives to come back with a very professional report and seek council’s direction at every step of the way so that at the conclusion of this, you as council have created the system you want to see.”
Kevin Dickens – Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development (Video Timestamp 5:35:33)
“I don’t know why we are making changes on the fly.” And wonders why Council is tinkering with the framework and not focusing on the big picture.
Councillor Ferreira (Video Timestamp 5:36:36)
“Our whole of community systems response is basically a support for decriminalization of drugs.”
Councillor Stevenson (Video Timestamp 5:55:21)
“The reason I moved the motion in December to say can we look at amendments to contracts. What can we do to change what we’re doing?”
Councillor Stevenson (Video Timestamp 5:55:44)
“We haven’t been invited to the table. We don’t hear from the Whole of Community Systems Response, we’re just going to roll it forward and do it.”
Councillor Stevenson (Video Timestamp 5:56:45)
“I listened to what was said by the service providers about having a more thorough conversation with them and I’m willing to do that.” But don’t want to destabalize housing for others”. “I can’t support 2 years”
Councillor Lewis (Video Timestamp 5:57:55)
Asking for quarterly community meetings is essentially an administrative burden. Putting the onus for all neighbourhood problems on the service providers.
Councillor Peloza (Video Timestamp 6:03:25)
“If we were serious about housing the homeless
> we wouldn’t approve applications that demolish rent controlled housing and displaces people onto the street”
> we would not have displaced 45 people in the OEV
> we would have fully implemented the whole of community response and the hubs model
> we wouldn’t use people on the street as social media content
Councillor Ferreira (Video Timestamp 6:11:14)
“I think it’s unfair to say we have no data.” Sam talks about a report from outside academic sources saying that “a lot of the things we are doing are working.” However, more [unhoused] are being created every day. People are suffering because of the rent control regime that we have and the fact that welfare payments are not going up.
Councillor Trosow (Video Timestamp 6:31:00)
NOTE: A renoviction is a practice where a landlord evicts a tenant under the pretext of needing the unit for major renovations or repairs, often to re-rent it at a much higher price, sometimes without actually performing substantial work or allowing the tenant to return. London’s renoviction bylaw (Rental Unit Repair Licence bylaw) came into effect in March, 2025.
Watch the meeting at the “London Ontario City Council” Youtube channel
1. Before the meeting, Councillors Lewis, Stevenson, Pribil and Lehman submitted a motion to:
work with London Cares on a contract (for Council approval) that reallocates London Cares’ outreach ($1,896,768) and London Cares’ housing stability ($989,431) funding to provide an expansion of service to 7 days a week and longer hours (at 602 Queens).
2. The Good Neighbourhood Agreements were seen to be a huge administrative burden on the service providers, including the responsibility for garbage and sharps clean up within 100m of a facility; and hosting quarterly community townhalls.3. This report was originally tabled December 1, 2025. Its delay caused more work for city staff; creating delays in a program that is in crisis, and upheaval for the service providers involved.
Vote 1
The proposed system transformation approach and multi-year Housing Stability Services procurement framework as outlined in the December 1, 2025, staff report, BE ENDORSED; PASSED
that the Homeless Prevention Service Standards regarding Good Neighbour and Community Relations (attached as Schedule A) BE APPROVED; FAILED
Additional Votes
The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore other funding options for basic needs; and, (PASSED)
The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with an information report describing the execution of service agreements associated with each procurement process; (PASSED)
Looking forward: The motion effectively moving funding for London Cares that was using funds for outreach and for housing stability (more medium to long-term solutions). Ark aid would use it to address immediate needs to expand hours of operation at 602 Queens ave to 24/7 (focused on immediate needs). This is re-directing funds rather than increasing funding to address the issue.
Finding housing in this housing market can be challenging for most people but is especially challenging for the unhoused. Where can service providers find housing if London’s social housing is removed as an option?
Where is the conversation about repairing social housing units that are currently vacant?
What is an acceptable time period to pilot a new idea? The Whole of Community Response was developed over 2 years ago, however was never fully implemented. Is it possible to implement? Is it time to re-evaluate if the plan is achievable?
Why are some city councillors not reaching out to service providers for guidance in the same way they reach out to developers when considering development issues?
How do you justify the city paying Imperial Oil $7M to relocate an unused pipeline under Sunningdale Road to allow for road widening to the funds allocated for homelessness?