Tony Ruprecht darkens my doorstep, brings up 184 Wallace

One of Tony Ruprecht's campaign workers came to my door this evening. After he told me Ruprecht was on his way over, he said: "Do you know they're planning to build a 'mental health facility' up the street?" This was a reference to the property at 184 Wallace, where a government-funded non-profit organization called "Accommodation Information and Support, Inc." plans to place people who have experienced mental health problems.

The worker then handed me a copy of the letter to the Committee of Adjustment that Ruprecht had written opposing the application for a minor variance for the property. When Ruprecht himself came, he said this was the wrong neighbourhood for a "mental health facility." . . . "We can do better for these people," he said. Then he winked.

It looks like Ruprecht, a Liberal, has found a campaign issue. It will be interesting to see how the Conservatives and NDP respond. It will also be interesting to see if 184 Wallace comes up in any candidates debates and if it will be mentioned outside of Davenport. Opposing supportive housing for people suffering from mental illness might win votes in our riding, but it won't necessarily sit well with Liberal and NDP voters in other places.

My city councillor is Adam Giambrone. In addition to representing Ward 18 at city hall, he is TTC chair and a past Federal President of the New Democratic Party of Canada. He was at the July 19 meeting to discuss 184 Wallace while his executive assistant, Pat Chastang, was at the August 2 meeting. On his blog, Giambrone says this about 184 Wallace:

In case some of you weren't able to attend last Thursday's meeting regarding the development plans for 184 Wallace, read the article below, written by Bert Archer of the Globe and Mail and contact Pat in my office for more information. Let's prove Mr. Archer wrong!

In the article, Archer predicted that the developer, Fernando Matos, would get his variance.

I wonder how NDP members outside Davenport feel about one of their own seeming to oppose housing for the disadvantaged. I say 'seeming' because opposition to the variance, which would allow for 10 units on the property, doesn't necessarily mean opposition to all supportive housing at the site.