Montreal City Weblog

Kate 14:54 on 2025-06-05 Permalink Reply  

• Taylor C. Noakes 16:02 on 2025-06-05 Permalink

  I don’t normally advocate for building walls as a solution to problems, but hear me out:

  1- It’s absurd to force them to find a new safe consumption site somewhere else when we’re talking about a distance of 7 meters. Am I wrong or the best practices here to keep services contained together on one site? Spreading the problem throughout the neighbourhood hardly seems like a solution.

  2- A tall brick wall around the green space accomplishes three things: it gives people using the facility additional privacy, something I think would be welcome by those who need its services as much as those who work there. It also means everyone else doesn’t see the people using the facility (and to be clear, I think this is 99% of everyone else’s problem with this place… they feel unsafe because of what they see, not because of any specific threat to safety and security). Furthermore, building a privacy fence or wall is probably cheaper in the long run than renting space or building another facility elsewhere.

  3- If it hasn’t already been done, move the Bixi station across the street to the market, to minimize potential interactions. It’s not about shunning people in need of medical assistance for substance abuse disorder, but officials need to understand the public is a long way off from accepting these people as members of general society. Thta’s not going to change overnight, but also won’t change through ‘forced’ interactions. Getting on and off a Bixi is a potentially ‘vulnerable’ position, but if you move it across the street I’m sure this would minimize concerns (and probably lead to more people using those bikes).

• MarcG 08:53 on 2025-06-06 Permalink

  I’m at the market right now and the Bixi station is on the market side

• Andrew 09:09 on 2025-06-06 Permalink

  That measurement seemed surprising based on all the hullabaloo we had. On google maps, the buildings are about 85 meters apart. 143 meters seems to be the distance between the school and the farthest point on their property. Like if you could pick up the whole building and move it, the new location would be 7 meters from the old property line, but you actually moved it 65 meters. I guess it worked to grab headlines, but the logic is a bit tortured.

  I like the wall idea, Atwater is a very busy street, it would also deflect noise and make it a much more pleasant space.

• jeather 09:56 on 2025-06-06 Permalink

  I saw somewhere it was measured front door to front door. Probably from parents who wanted it change to closest as the crow flies property lines.

• Em 10:02 on 2025-06-06 Permalink

  To be clear, I don’t think Benoit Labre would have to move its whole operation, because that building is mostly supportive studio apartments. It’s only the supervised consumption aspect (which I understood to be two cubicles). There would probably also be pressure to move the day centre, which is what causes people to congregate.

  I guess a part of me wonders if it’s not a better thing to have the supervised consumption site separate from the main building, which contains supportive housing for people coming out of homelessness (some of whom may have had substance issues they’re addressing).

• MarcG 10:04 on 2025-06-06 Permalink

  I also noticed that the gate to the park next to the school on Ste-Émilie was locked up.