345 Sylvan Street: not the appropriate location for a “stabilization space” for London's homeless addicts
152 Comments
S
Shannon McGuigan
6 years ago
No one is disputing that services for those who suffer from addiction are needed; however, this residential area is an inappropriate choice. Having this facility there will bring down property values and in crase crime rates.
V
Vivian Gonzalez
6 years ago
Featured
My property back on to the house on Sylvan. My little girls window has a perfect view . I have a disabled little boy. There are many other children that live in this neighborhood.
Where is the concern from the city for their safety?!
A
Anonymous
6 years ago
492 Baseline Rd E
M
Matt
6 years ago
I am worried about the safety of my children and family and neighbours with putting this site on sylvan, put it closer to the hospitals or closer to the area where the addicts come from, please do not bring these addicts into this neighborhood
N
Natasha Fraser
6 years ago
No thanks. My neighbourhood, my kids, their school, our lives and we don’t want high junkies looking for a place to come down. I’ve been in public where someone high as a kite has come into an event and made a huge scene causing police intervention leaving behind a trail of needles most were used! My very young children do not need exposure to those used needles and police intervention while the high person is screaming profanities and curse words. I was afraid when it happened and I’m a grown adult who can defend myself!. They are little kids and we have a public school right there. What a horrible idea. Pick a spot where there are no elementary schools, no high schools in the area. My oldest goes to HS downtown and same issue. She has to step over people high and passed out on her way to school. What kind of a city are we becoming?!
A
Ashley Webster
6 years ago
18921 ERIEAU RD
C
Catherine patrick
6 years ago
I am very much apposed to having a million dollar house, in my neighbourhood, being used to accommodate drug addicts. Where is the incentive for these people to try and kick their habit when we are enabling their life choices by catering to theim: Injection sites , nurses and doctors available , free needles, free drugs, and the luxury accommodations When they decide to get high. I am very disappointed with our city politicians.
V
Vicky Belair
6 years ago
This is not an appropriate area for this type of shelter. This is a quite family neighbourhood with schools and churches nearby.
J
John Bryson
6 years ago
I too, oppose this plan. As an adjacent property owner for nearly thirty years, raising children and now a grandchild here, the fence that separates my family from the dangerous and unpredictable situations resulting from drug addiction will not be enough to ensure our safety . Shame on those boneheaded city planners who thought this would be a good idea, remember that it's OUR tax dollars pay your wages !! Hey Ed Holder .... do you want one of these places next to your house ? .... didn't think so
A
Ann Westwood
6 years ago
716 Wonderland Rd S
J
john bryson
6 years ago
280 high street
S
Steve
6 years ago
this does not belong here ! should be at the london health department
L
Lyndsay Terzis
6 years ago
I do not live in this neighborhood...but I could not imagine this happening to the neighborhood that I live in! I feel it is completely inappropriate, especially to those who chose the area knowing it was safe and secure!
C
Christopher Videcak
6 years ago
Not the place!! Don't ruin neighborhoods!
B
Bud Gracey
6 years ago
I'm sorry, this is too close to home! Our neighbourhood has had enough crime lately, we don't need the potential for more!
D
Darryl Jones
6 years ago
Absolutely not!! We have enough problems with homeless people in this neighborhood.
D
Dustin Gosnell
6 years ago
337 balderstone ave
J
Jordan Claes
6 years ago
This should not be in a residential neighbourhood.
J
Johnna Hackett-Bryson
6 years ago
I believe that it is important to protect and advocate for vulnerable populations and it is quite evident that London has a very large homeless population and concerns regarding substance abuse. With that being said, I strongly oppose the concept of putting other vulnerable populations at risk (like the many children neighbouring this property) and I do not see this as an appropriate solution. As a community, we need to advocate for the homeless, but first and foremost we need to advocate for the children. Their safety comes first!
D
David Dekoter
6 years ago
I am against the city's plan. This is a family residencial area with many children. This creates unnecessary risk to everyone in the neighborhood.
No one is disputing that services for those who suffer from addiction are needed; however, this residential area is an inappropriate choice. Having this facility there will bring down property values and in crase crime rates.
My property back on to the house on Sylvan. My little girls window has a perfect view . I have a disabled little boy. There are many other children that live in this neighborhood. Where is the concern from the city for their safety?!
492 Baseline Rd E
I am worried about the safety of my children and family and neighbours with putting this site on sylvan, put it closer to the hospitals or closer to the area where the addicts come from, please do not bring these addicts into this neighborhood
No thanks. My neighbourhood, my kids, their school, our lives and we don’t want high junkies looking for a place to come down. I’ve been in public where someone high as a kite has come into an event and made a huge scene causing police intervention leaving behind a trail of needles most were used! My very young children do not need exposure to those used needles and police intervention while the high person is screaming profanities and curse words. I was afraid when it happened and I’m a grown adult who can defend myself!. They are little kids and we have a public school right there. What a horrible idea. Pick a spot where there are no elementary schools, no high schools in the area. My oldest goes to HS downtown and same issue. She has to step over people high and passed out on her way to school. What kind of a city are we becoming?!
18921 ERIEAU RD
I am very much apposed to having a million dollar house, in my neighbourhood, being used to accommodate drug addicts. Where is the incentive for these people to try and kick their habit when we are enabling their life choices by catering to theim: Injection sites , nurses and doctors available , free needles, free drugs, and the luxury accommodations When they decide to get high. I am very disappointed with our city politicians.
This is not an appropriate area for this type of shelter. This is a quite family neighbourhood with schools and churches nearby.
I too, oppose this plan. As an adjacent property owner for nearly thirty years, raising children and now a grandchild here, the fence that separates my family from the dangerous and unpredictable situations resulting from drug addiction will not be enough to ensure our safety . Shame on those boneheaded city planners who thought this would be a good idea, remember that it's OUR tax dollars pay your wages !! Hey Ed Holder .... do you want one of these places next to your house ? .... didn't think so
716 Wonderland Rd S
280 high street
this does not belong here ! should be at the london health department
I do not live in this neighborhood...but I could not imagine this happening to the neighborhood that I live in! I feel it is completely inappropriate, especially to those who chose the area knowing it was safe and secure!
Not the place!! Don't ruin neighborhoods!
I'm sorry, this is too close to home! Our neighbourhood has had enough crime lately, we don't need the potential for more!
Absolutely not!! We have enough problems with homeless people in this neighborhood.
337 balderstone ave
This should not be in a residential neighbourhood.
I believe that it is important to protect and advocate for vulnerable populations and it is quite evident that London has a very large homeless population and concerns regarding substance abuse. With that being said, I strongly oppose the concept of putting other vulnerable populations at risk (like the many children neighbouring this property) and I do not see this as an appropriate solution. As a community, we need to advocate for the homeless, but first and foremost we need to advocate for the children. Their safety comes first!
I am against the city's plan. This is a family residencial area with many children. This creates unnecessary risk to everyone in the neighborhood.