Radial bylaw violates human rights

Hamilton’s so-called radial separation bylaw, which legislates a separation of at least 300 metres between group homes, halfway homes and shelters, is a blunt and broken tool that needs to be scrapped or fixed.

And considering events in motion in other parts of the province, city council would be wise to address that sooner rather than later. Legal actions have already been launched in Toronto, Kitchener, Smiths Falls and Sarnia. The latter wisely sidestepped a messy outcome by striking down its bylaw and drafting new ones. Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said: “Arbitrary restrictions on group homes are discriminatory and have nothing to do with planning and everything to do with negative stereotypes about disabled people,” adding he would like the province to adopt uniform regulations to supersede local bylaws.

The most recent illustration of the radial separation bylaw in action concerns ongoing challenges faced by staff and patients at Lynwood Charlton Centre, which wants to move from its disintegrating city-owned building to a nearby facility on Augusta Street. The city has thus far said no because it would violate the bylaw — there is an existing facility also run by Lynwood that offers day treatment programming. The eight teenage girls who live at Lynwood Charlton are not a risk to the community. They suffer from mental and emotional disorders that make them a threat to themselves more than to anyone else. They need appropriate care and decent facilities. The difference between their home and the Corktown facility is that no one sleeps in that one. The move to Augusta would be covered by existing financial resources. They cannot afford to renovate on Charlton. One other facility that wouldn’t violate the bylaw would cost $1 million to buy and more to renovate. But for the sake of not adding eight beds to the day treatment facility on Augusta, here we are. This makes no sense.

Councillor Terry Whitehead is the only voice speaking out against the bylaw, pointing out the absurdity of possibly allowing 24 units in a single facility but not allowing five beds within 300 metres of another five beds. The bylaw is ineffectively blunt, not recognizing the wide range of needs and community impacts of different kinds of facilities. It simply lumps everyone who needs those services into one homogenous group and says where it can and cannot be located based on no evidence or science. It also assumes the city actually knows where there is a saturation of these services, when in fact the city does not know that, and is struggling to come up with a comprehensive inventory.

This bylaw violates the human rights code. It violates several international conventions that recognize housing is a fundamental right that must be protected in law. Hamilton needs to address this inequity.

Howard Elliott


(2012-04-07/thespec)