Housing Pt 2 - Supportive Housing, Homelessness, and Difficult Solutions

In conversations, and definitely in social media discussions, housing density, affordable housing, and supportive housing are often discussed together, and though they are distinct items on their own, what they do share is that they all three have the potential to impact established neighbourhoods and the residents of those communities.  I’ve stated in a previous blog that we cannot stop building housing, so in this entry, I’d like to dive deeper into how supportive housing, affordable housing, and housing density are critical for ending homelessness, and also, what lessons we need to take from supportive housing programs that are currently operating in the community.  

This is a bit of a read, so please stick with me, but if you want to skip to the end to just get to the parts about supportive housing, that’s cool too.  

Homelessness in Edmonton

In a growing city facing complex problems, there are inevitable frictions. Per Homeward Trust's data from May 2025, 4,896 people are experiencing homelessness and accessing services - noting that these are people engaged with service providers, so the real number is likely a bit higher.  More specifically, there are also 1,966 who report that they most often sleep in emergency shelters (such as those at the Hope Mission or Mustard Seed shelters) or who are sleeping rough (in unsheltered settings like parks, greenspaces, and in other places unfit for shelter.  This number has climbed precipitously since prior to COVID (where numbers hovered around 2,000 individuals experiencing homelessness), and it would be a fair criticism that the homeless-serving system is overcapacity.  

Where do people go?

So what happens to these humans?  A moderate success story is that many eventually get housed.  Social service agencies (and this includes the folks housed via the Government of Alberta’s Navigation and Support Centre and those supported by Edmonton Police Services’ HELP teams) have housed almost 2000 people annually over the past few years (and over 20,000 people since the start of the first Housing First programs in 2009), and that number currently remains at approximately 140 people monthly despite recent changes in funding models mandated by the Government of Alberta.  But the unfortunate truth is that people enter (or to return) homelessness all the time, and so as people are housed, the “inflow” of humans who experience a loss of home continue, and homeless-serving sector’s work continues.   

Why does housing matter? 

We often hear - it’s not a housing issue.  Or, it’s not an affordability issue.  Or it’s not a rent control issue.  It’s a mental health and addictions issue.  The actual truth though - it is ALL of those things. 

The below is an over-simplification, but in order to be successfully and sustainably housed, people experiencing homelessness need: 

1. Stability (both medical and situational) 

2. Sufficient income to afford the necessaries of life 

3. Access to housing that is safe, affordable, and suitable for their needs 

All these things are required, and in an ideal circumstance, the first two should not be a pre-condition to accessing housing.  It is in everyone’s best interest to get people off the streets and into stable housing, for all reasons from community safety, to economics, community development, and critically, for the welfare of individuals.  

As it stands - of all the above, the only point that the City really does have leverage over is housing development.  Those being zoning bylaws that permit housing density, the infrastructure to develop affordable housing, and the recognition of the need for supportive housing, and City resources to unlock access to Federal and Provincial funding.  

Density and affordable housing

My last entry referenced zoning, and again, others (like this article from the Edmonton Journal) thoroughly discuss the friction around zoning. I won’t add to that, but will rehash again the need for additional housing to house both incoming Edmontonians - those being the approximately 65,000 people that moved to Edmonton between 2023 and 2024 (as part of the Alberta is Calling campaign). Those people need places to live, and in a very real way, those 65,000 per year are competing for many of the same housing spaces as those experiencing homelessness may be.  

Housing density creates more available units, but those units are still offered at market prices Affordable housing, by definition, are government subsidized units that offer below-market rent. As inflationary pressures continue, the demand for affordable housing will continue to grow, and the City estimates that by 2050, we will need almost 40,000 units of subsidized housing, divided between rent-geared-to-income, deep and shallow subsidy, and near-market housing. 

That we need additional housing is not a debatable point - the planning of nearby infrastructure, considerations of parking and land use, and availability of essential public services are key considerations that will be critical considerations in zoning applications in the coming years.  This applies as much to infill development as further urban sprawl, and as I previously mentioned, we need a variety of housing solutions to offer to Edmontonians.

What is supportive housing

Supportive Housing is, in a simplified description, deeply affordable housing that is supported by onsite 24/7 services. It is intended to serve individuals who, for a variety of reasons, have experienced chronic homelessness and are unable to be housed in market housing in the community (also noteworthy is that that the vast majority of individuals leaving homelessness are housed in market housing - these typically being lower cost rentals in basements, bachelor suites, small apartments, and all embedded within community).  As of July 2025, Edmonton has 632 supportive housing spaces spread across 12 buildings (operated by 8 different non-profit organizations), and the majority have provided services in an integrated manner within their home communities.   These programs are located across different communities in Edmonton, vary in age and construction, but share commonalities in that they all:

• include onsite housing support teams (often 24/7)

• include some manner of guest management (e.g. controlled access, rules for visitors, and reception area staffing)

• support individuals to maintain tenancy in their own suites; residents pay rent, have accountabilities to the landlord (most often, the landlord is NOT the program operator), and pay bills

• are mandated to support residents in their recovery from homelessness - that includes connections, referrals, and case management to conventional health service providers, recovery operators (including supervised consumption sites, detox, and treatment programs), financial service providers, legal services, etc.

Programs may also include "in-reached," or onsite health supports provided by AHS or other health service providers. And many programs will include crisis planning and crisis response for their residents, and yes, while this may include reversal of drug poisonings and provision of harm reduction supplies to residents, no program operates supervised consumption services as part of their program.

Supportive housing in communities

One of the more contentious sites with Edmonton residents in recent history is the supportive housing program contracted to and operated by Boyle Street Community Services in the Terrace Heights area - Morningstar Homes.  There is a Reddit thread that captures virtually all aspects of this conversation, and frustrations are real (demonstrated by protests at the site).

I’m not writing to dismiss the concerns of those residents, but rather, to recognize that the program was not operating as intended. This public apology details an isolated (and corrected) incident that the program was functioning outside the scope of supportive housing and providing services to unhoused community members.  This service coincided with an enhanced police response to encampments downtown which pushed unhoused community members further away from the downtown core (the October 2024 PiT Count counted 328 people staying in park lands around the city), and very likely may have turned the Morningstar program into an unintended service hub for community.  This is consistent with what Edmonton knows of Boyle Street as an organization - they prioritize the needs of community members and are strong advocates for vulnerable persons.  In this instance though, it was the wrong response in a program not intended for this purpose. 

I am no longer at Homeward Trust and speak as an individual and council candidate - it is unacceptable that the Morningstar program operated out of scope.  Supportive housing is intended as a solution for individuals who cannot be housed elsewhere - the building of resiliency, relationships, and attachment to community is core to the work, and a supportive housing program operating as a makeshift public drop-in service would be very damaging to this model of service, let alone to the impacts on community. It is a testament that the other supportive housing sites in Edmonton have operated relatively quietly and are integrated with their home communities as intended.

Though EPS Data shows relatively consistent trends in neighbouring areas between 2023 and 2024, there is no doubt that the community has noticed an increase in concerning activity, with complaints centering around debris and open drug use.  Addictions and mental health, and the lack of availability of detox spaces, is a longer topic for another blog, but few would disagree that we would collectively benefit from stronger public health services, addictions support programs, and accessible treatment spaces.  The lack of these services, combined with the displacement of individuals away from core services downtown, as well as the opening of the LRT as a mode of transportation, are likely contributing factors to any increased traffic in the area. That the 50 residents of the Morningstar program are solely responsible for this increased traffic and disorder is unlikely, and as the program should no longer be attracting unhoused individuals to the doorsteps, we need to concentrate on other solutions to community safety concerns rather than targeting a program that, as designed, is intended to be part of the solution to homelessness in Edmonton.

Our focus moving forward needs to be accountability and execution of all homeless-serving programs, including supportive housing programs, with appropriate oversight of funders and operators of programs. Supportive housing is a solution for homelessness - it cannot be a half measure that also draws in traffic to home communities.  

If not housing, then what? 

Homelessness and social impact are real, tangible concerns. We need real solutions, and those extend beyond ensuring that we have sufficient emergency shelter spaces to protect houseless Edmontonians from the elements.   Every night, according to the Government of Alberta’s Open Data source, over 1000 individuals utilize Edmonton’s emergency shelters (numbers are currently available up to March 2025).  Those individuals, coupled with those who are sleeping rough, are on Edmonton streets, public spaces, and park lands on a daily basis, and their presence causes the friction described by Edmontonians all over, and contributes to the public perceptions of safety and homelessness in our communities.  

For those that say “it’s a drug problem” or “it’s a mental health problem” - I completely agree.  We very much need sufficient addictions treatment spaces, and for all province’s investments in this area, Edmonton still has access to the only the approximately 80-90 detox spaces offered at the George Spady and Addictions Recovery Centre.  As shown by the October 2024 PiT Count, over 80% of surveyed individuals reported substance use as an issue impacting their lives.  If we extrapolate that 80% to even just the 2000 individuals reportedly sleeping in shelters or living rough in May 2025, it equates to an unmanageable logjam of individuals who may benefit from detox and treatment, but would be unable to access it in a timely manner.

Our city, and its people, does not benefit from a system that doesn’t prioritize housing solutions for homelessness. Anything other than housing is a half-measure - we either leave people where they are (where they survive from the elements using expensive emergency shelter spaces, essentially live in public spaces, and scavenge for survival), we can send them somewhere (where would be TBD and frankly, likely a forced relocation is against the charter rights of individuals), or, we can suspend emergency responses and let them perish. The first of these options is what we would be choosing by default if we do not continue to increase the availability and diversity of housing supply - the latter two options are unacceptable to me, and I suspect, to most Edmontonians.

Incidentally, the status quo option is also what people should really be upset about, but that anger is often directed at the very service providers who are trying to find solutions. Using the case sample of Chinatown (where I volunteer on the board of the Chinatown Transformation Collaborative) - we are continually talking about the responsibility of social service agencies to "control their clients" and talk about the "concentration of social service agencies" in Chinatown. And while it is true that there are multiple service providers in the area, those providers have been in the area for decades - this is no recent development. It may be more helpful to reflect that, on a given night in July, over 650 people sleep overnight at the three emergency shelters in the Chinatown area (a number that swells to over 1000 people in the cold of winter). Those people, despite the province funding shelters to remain open 24/7, cannot remain indoors in their cots all day long. Just as Rogers Place empties out after a hockey game and foot and car traffic is atrocious for a time, there is a sheer volume issue of those experiencing homelessness and having no where to go when they are accessing shelters. That leads to the crowding of public spaces in front of businesses and parks, and while individuals have a right to be in that public space, it is equally true that such a concentration of vulnerable people impact businesses, the perception of community safety, and invite predatory criminals into the area. In the same way that traffic after an Oilers game inevitably resolves after a period of time, so many Chinatown issues would be resolved if only those people could go to their own homes!.

These aren't easy choices. There is absolutely an impact to the lives of neighbours and communities as we try to accommodate more people in Edmonton. There is a real dilemma between wanting to both end homelessness (to reduce the number of people living in public spaces and scavenging for a way to support themselves, and yes, often their addictions) and also to not wanting to disrupt established neighbourhoods (by adding in additional homes and programming that contribute to ending homelessness). We have to find a balance between those tensions, and that is the accountability and duty that is owed to Edmontonians by their elected officials and public services of all levels of government.