Our Concerns
In April 2025, the City said the shelter proposed for 66 Third Street would now have 50 - 60 beds and “focus on seniors”. This came after a December 2024 plan for an 80 bed shelter for adults. We believe the City planned this shift from the beginning—announcing an unpopular proposal first, then attempting to appease the community with a revised version. But it doesn’t address the core issues. No matter who the shelter serves, this is still the wrong location.
Why 66 Third Street Is the Wrong Location
On a residential street: 66 Third Street is a busy GreenP parking lot on a small, dead-end residential street. There is a children’s playground and wading pool at the end, two schools and daycares within 250m, and directly beside a Toronto Community Housing seniors residence (Woods Manor) currently facing safety concerns.Not aligned with City guidelines: It’s the only shelter site announced on a residential street and doesn’t meet the City’s size requirement for shelters. The lot is under 10,000 sq ft—less than a quarter the size of the lots used in the City’s own “success story” shelters.
Our community is overburdened: New Toronto already carries more than its fair share. 27% of New Toronto’s housing is subsidized, almost double the City average of 14.2%. Compared to just 4% in Alderwood, 17% in Mimico-Queensway, and 5% in Long Branch. We also have the only harm reduction site in all of Etobicoke - located one street over on Fourth Street. Adding a 24/7 shelter with harm reduction services puts even more pressure on a community that’s already doing more than others.
Removing parking will damage our local economy: The City plans to eliminate 131 of New Toronto’s 209 Green P parking spots—a 62.7% loss—by converting lots on Third, Fifth, and Sixth Streets into a shelter and subsidized housing. These lots are heavily used (80–90% capacity in the case of 66 Third Street) and essential to the survival of small businesses along Lake Shore Blvd W and nearby area. Unlike larger urban centres with strong transit access, our local shops, restaurants, and services rely on convenient, affordable parking to attract customers—especially seniors, families with young children, and those with mobility challenges. Once these lots are lost, they are not coming back.
We’ve been ignored: Since December, our community has sent hundreds of emails, left hundreds of voicemails, and made repeated requests for meetings with Mayor Olivia Chow. All have been ignored.
No transparency: We’ve submitted multiple FOI requests to learn about the shelter site selection process. The City refuses to provide this information.
No real say: City Council delegated shelter siting authority to staff, leaving communities out of the process entirely. Public consultations are performative, not meaningful, and only conducted after a shelter siting decision has been made.
We have serious safety concerns
Harm reduction services: Unlike supervised injection sites, harm reduction and HART hub services give shelter users drug-use supplies (like needles, crack pipes, tourniquets, condoms, etc) but don’t allow them to use inside. As a result, shelter users buy and use drugs in public spaces—like playgrounds, sidewalks, school yards, and alleyways—leaving dangerous paraphernalia behind. Nearby residents may witness overdoses, aggressive behaviour, or drug dealing outside their homes or businesses. We are also aware that the City provides “safe supply” prescriptions which are then sold by shelter users to their drug dealer in exchange for their street drug of choice. This fuels drug activity in New Toronto and erodes the sense of safety we deserve to feel in our neighbourhood.
Increased crime risk: We know not every shelter user struggles with addiction or mental illness. But the City’s own data shows that many do—and that shelter violence has gone up dramatically. This small neighbourhood cannot safely support a shelter of this size and nature.
50% of shelter users have mental health struggles
42% of shelter users struggle with substance abuse
The annual number of incidents of interpersonal violence in Toronto shelters increased by 283% between 2011 and 2021, while the mean daily users only increased by 66 per cent during the same decade. Critical incidents, including violence, went from about 2,000 incidents per year in 2011 to 10,000 in 2021 according to the CAMH The Shelter Safety Study.
At the City’s shelter “success stories”, there were on average 22-28 serious incidents annually. A serious incident is defined as: An incident that involves death, fire, serious assaults, serious accidental injuries, attempted suicide requiring acute medical attention or the possession or use of a weapon. If these incidents are happening at the few shelters that the City calls their “success stories,” imagine how many more incidents happen at other shelters within the City.
Unreliable shelter mandate and misleading definition of “seniors”: The City can change the shelter’s population or capacity at any time, meaning there’s no guarantee it will remain focused on older adults or limited to 50–60 beds. Even the current mandate is misleading—under the City’s definition, “seniors” start at age 55, which still includes many individuals who contribute to existing safety concerns in our neighbourhood. As we’ve heard directly from residents living near Thistletown Seniors Shelter, crime and drug use rose despite the senior label, reinforcing that our concerns are valid and the risks to our community are real.
Central Intake and inmate release: This is not a shelter for local people. It will take in people from across the city, including some released from Toronto South Detention Centre. New Toronto does not currently have a visible homeless population - approximately five homeless individuals who were offered housing and refused. This shelter will bring individuals not from New Toronto and increase the safety concerns within this community as a result.
Poor access to emergency services: The shelter is 6.3km from the nearest police station (Dundas and Bloor - 22 Division) and 9.3km from the nearest hospital (St. Joseph’s). A far distance for a high-risk facility housing users with complex health needs.
Our seniors deserve better: Woods Manor, a Toronto Community Housing building for seniors, is right next to 66 Third Street. Residents there are already dealing with drug activity, crime, and security issues. The City hasn’t been able to keep them safe—and now wants to place a shelter right beside them. This puts vulnerable seniors at greater risk. Many don’t feel safe as it is, and they can’t afford to move. Over 85 Woods Manor residents have signed a petition against the shelter, but their concerns have been ignored by the City and Councillor Amber Morley.
The City’s Funding Strategy
Extremely high costs and inefficiencies: Toronto’s proposed shelter infrastructure plan (HSCIS) seeks $675 million to build 1,600 shelter beds, averaging $421,875 per bed, with some sites like 66 Third Street approaching $675,000 per bed. These small, partitioned beds offer minimal privacy and come at a cost that far exceeds national housing standards.
Manufactured crisis to justify accelerated approvals: The City has intentionally closed federally subsidized hotel shelters, creating a controlled shortfall to frame an emergency. This has allowed them to bypass public consultation and fast-track projects without financial safeguards, undermining democratic processes.
Strategic cost transfer to Province and Federal Government: As federal refugee shelter subsidies decline, Toronto is attempting to secure a lump-sum capital payout for the entire $675 million dollars now while deferring operating shortfalls into future years. If Ottawa resists, Toronto may shift pressure to Queen’s Park to fund the gap - transferring long-term financial and service burdens to Ontario while sidestepping coordination and accountability.
Better value in existing supportive housing initiatives: Toronto’s shelter plan offers diminished dignity at inflated costs, with each basic cubicle-style shelter bed costing more than double the cost of a fully private, wraparound-supportive modular housing unit. Existing supportive housing initiatives have already proven more cost-effective, more humane, and are permanent. Redirecting funds toward these models would yield greater long-term impact, while addressing homelessness at its root rather than expanding an overburdened shelter system.
Our Request to the Province
Mandate a 500m buffer zone between shelters and schools, daycares, and seniors’ residences—just as Toronto requires for body rub parlours.
Require shelters be built on employment industrial land, not in residential areas, to ensure community safety, better access to services, and more appropriate shelter infrastructure.
We already have thousands of signatures supporting this petition. We’re not opposed to helping the vulnerable—we’re asking for decisions that are thoughtful, equitable, and safe.