Opinion: Kingston’s Sleeping Cabins Debate

Editorial note: The following is a submitted opinion piece. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Kingstonist.

For the past year, Kingston has been debating ‘sleeping cabins’ for people who are homeless, the funding from the City, and where the cabins should be located.  We seem to be no closer to resolving basic questions posed last Fall (2021) when cabins were first approved with funding for the Portsmouth Harbour location in the winter.  At that time, it seemed that ‘heated’ sleeping cabins were to provide a warmer place to sleep for some homeless people living outdoors during the winter, possibly as a form of ‘harm reduction’ (such as freezing to death).  

Homeless people have used the cabins at Portsmouth Harbour and then at Centre 70 for the summer.  Now, the cabins have been moved back to Portsmouth Harbour and Council already approved adding more cabins. City Council asked staff to find a ‘permanent,’ year-round location with nearby bathroom and kitchen facilities. So, it seems that the cabins will provide permanent, year-round living if people choose to stay there rather than moving back to tents or encampments.  

We may be losing sight of the fact that these cabins are not ‘housing,’ ‘homes,’ or ‘tiny homes,’ nor ‘shelters, transitional or supportive housing.’  The Social Planning Council of Kingston & District (SPCK&D) suggests that we need to discuss the purpose of cabins and the question ‘Where do people in cabins go next?’ Only then can we determine if this is a cost-effective way for the City and the community to create alternatives for some people experiencing homelessness.

The full costs for the existing cabins have not been clear. These direct costs include: the actual cost of a cabin structure outfitted with a bed, the moving and set-up cost for the cabins, utility costs to heat them and the nearby building with bathroom and kitchen facilities, insurance costs, staffing costs to run the cabins, and all the food and other items donated by the community. Rental costs for the actual sites have been avoided by using City-owned property, but the costs of property maintenance and upkeep are the City’s responsibility. The costs for City staff time to work with the cabin operators and prepare reports to Council have also been considerable. Volunteer time from community groups helped enhance services and make cabins more useful.

However, if the full costs to the City and the community were known, it may have been less costly to provide some ‘rent top-up’ money to help the same number of people obtain some actual housing.   

When we asked some of the people in the cabins where they expect to go next, their answers were that they do not expect to find places to live. In their words, the cabins are not intended to help them find housing – cabins are simply an alternative to living outdoors in tents or encampments. For people who adapt to cabin-life, this becomes a final destination for as long as Kingston covers the costs for a few permanent cabin residents.   

This poses difficult questions for the cabins no matter where the buildings are located. The SPCK&D would highlight four broader questions for the community to consider.    

First, like other Canadians, people in the cabins have the ‘right to housing,’ according to the new federal housing act and under the National Housing Strategy. As cabins do not fit any definitions of housing or homes, the rights of the residents are not being addressed. Likewise, the cabins are not aligned with provincial tenant rights laws or municipal by-laws for residential buildings. So, how can the cabins be aligned with all these basic rights?  

A second dimension relates the purpose of the cabins. It appears that cabins may help create communities with mutual support. If groups of residents could move together to housing, could this make way for other homeless people in dire need next winter?

Thirdly, is ‘harm reduction’ in winter a strong enough goal for cabins? Other alternatives include goals for ‘recovery’ or reintegration into the community. Could cabins also help support pathways to housing and assist people who stay in cabins to consider other alternatives?

Lastly, do people in the cabins have access to other assistance such as ‘housing first’ offered to people who use shelters? Could community support workers help improve access to housing alternatives for cabin residents? Then, cabins could be part of the larger network of services for people who are homeless. 

Until these questions are resolved, sleeping cabins may remain an isolated, self-contained entity, operating on the fringes for a distinct, small group of homeless people with no right to housing or any alternative. As such, the associated costs to the City and the community could be difficult to justify on a sustainable track.

Patricia Streich
Chair
Social Planning Council of Kingston and District

Share your views! Submit a Letter to the Editor or an Op/Ed article to [email protected].