Dignity
People must be treated as human beings, not statistics, nuisances, political props, or problems to be moved.
Proposal under public review · Not approved or funded
The Living Futures Center · Full Presentation
Somewhere Real to Go. A Path Forward.
When the answer is “there is nowhere to take them,” that is the gap this proposal is trying to solve. The first decision is not to approve a building. It is whether London should formally test what is missing, what already works, and whether London can connect stabilization, treatment, recovery, supportive housing, work and independent living into one clear route, with someone responsible at each step.
After the police call, ambulance ride, outreach visit or shelter bed — what is the next real place? London already has many of the pieces. Living Futures asks whether we can connect them, make every handoff somebody’s responsibility and keep independence as the destination.
4,576
people experienced homelessness in London in 2024–25, according to Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office.16
PROPOSAL UNDER PUBLIC REVIEW
Campaign concept for public review. Nothing has been approved: no site, operator, partner, funding or construction timeline. The first question is whether London should study the idea properly.
- Approval
- Not approved
- Site / partners
- Not selected or committed
- Funding
- Not in place
- First decision
- Whether to ask staff to study the idea in public — not whether to build
Three-minute decision brief
What is the idea? What happens first? What would have to be proven?
What this is
A proposal to test whether London can connect crisis stabilization, treatment and recovery, supportive housing and independent living more effectively — and whether that should happen on one campus, through a network or through a mix of both.
What happens first
Not construction. First, test the need, how it could operate, where it could go, who would have to be involved, what it could cost to build and run, and which government would pay for what.
What would count as progress
A public case people can challenge: realistic costs, clear responsibilities, how it could operate, what a suitable site would require, measurable results and a Council decision before anything permanent moves ahead.
What this is not
It is not approval for a 1,000-bed shelter, a chosen site, a selected operator, a construction budget or a promise that one building will solve homelessness. The 1,000+ figure later in this deck is a long-term planning scenario to test — not an approved target.
The model question is still open
Compare the options before deciding whether London should build anything at all.
Before choosing a model, compare at least three options on the same facts: results, staffing, build and operating costs, transportation, neighbourhood impact, room to grow and how well people are connected to permanent housing and independent living.
Coordinated center model
Put more services and housing functions at one main site. The question is whether easier handoffs between services are worth the land, scale, transportation and neighbourhood impacts.
Distributed network model
Keep services spread across multiple sites, but connect them through clearer referrals, shared responsibility and one public way to report results. The question is whether coordination can improve without a large central site.
Hybrid model
Use a smaller 24/7 stabilization hub connected to treatment, supportive housing and independent homes across the city. The question is whether this keeps the benefits of coordinated services without putting everything in one place.
Rights and safeguards belong in the feasibility test
Any future model should be tested against clear safeguards before it advances: voluntary participation except where existing law provides otherwise; privacy and informed consent; accessibility; a clear complaints and review process; separation of housing rights from treatment compliance where legally required; culturally appropriate and Indigenous-led pathways where applicable; and public reporting that measures outcomes without exposing personal information.
The Crisis
The crisis is not one number. It is thousands of lives caught in repeated instability.
The public record shows a difficult picture: homelessness has risen sharply even as some opioid-harm indicators improved from their 2021 peak. Acute spikes still happen. The question Living Futures puts on the table is not whether London cares. It is whether housing, health, stabilization, recovery and public-safety responses connect well enough to help people move out of repeated crisis and toward a stable life.
4,576
people experienced homelessness in London in 2024–25.
That is up 18.3% from 2022–23.16 The number establishes the scale. The rest of this presentation is about what London can do with that reality.
174+people have died while experiencing homelessness in London since 2022.1
39overdose-related police calls were recorded in one 24-hour period during a March 2026 toxic-drug alert.17
The point
These measures describe different pressures, not one interchangeable statistic. The point is the pattern: repeated crisis becomes the system. Living Futures is built around a different sequence — stabilize, connect, house, support recovery, build skills where appropriate, and keep responsibility attached to the next step.
The Economic Question
The business case has to be proven.
Homelessness places real demands on shelters, healthcare, emergency response and other public systems. That does not prove that this Center would save a particular dollar amount. A formal business case would have to compare a phased Center model with existing approaches using current London data.
PROVE ITBefore Council is asked to support construction, the public should be able to see realistic construction costs, yearly operating costs, service costs, who would pay for what and the results that would be tracked.
London’s evaluation of highly supportive housing reports encouraging early outcomes, including reduced reliance on emergency services for some residents, while also emphasizing the need for continued evaluation and sustained operating investment.1 That evidence supports examining coordinated housing and supports. It is not a forecast of what an unbuilt Center would achieve.
Measure outcomes first. Do not promise savings before the operating model and business case exist.
The feasibility process should establish the baseline, methodology and reporting standard before any claimed financial benefit is published.
CAPITAL
Land, servicing, construction and development costs must be shown separately from annual operations.
OPERATING
Housing operations, healthcare and support services need identified funding responsibilities before approval.
Why the pieces have to connect
Housing, mental health and substance use overlap — but they are not the same problem.
Canada-wide homelessness survey data help explain why a housing response cannot be designed in isolation: 74% of respondents reported mental-health and/or substance-use issues, and 47% reported both.18
Among people experiencing chronic homelessness, 64% reported substance-use issues, compared with 54% among those who were not chronically homeless.18 These are Canada-wide survey results, not London-specific rates. They are included only to show why housing, treatment, recovery, stabilization and public safety have to connect rather than operate as separate referral lists.
The Idea
Connect the system before building another layer.
Living Futures is not one enormous shelter and it is not a proposal to duplicate services London already has. London already has shelters, Hubs, outreach, health care, treatment, recovery, supportive housing and a new Housing Stability Action Plan. The question is whether people are still falling through gaps between those systems — and whether those gaps can be fixed by stronger handoffs, expanded existing services or, only where evidence supports it, new capacity.
The pathway — connected steps from crisis to a stable life
Right person. Right level of care. Somewhere real to go. A person in acute crisis, somebody ready for treatment, and somebody ready to move into housing do not need the same intervention. The pathway has to match the response to the need and keep a real next step in view.
Crisis & triage
A clear front door after outreach, police, paramedic or shelter contact — with the next step matched to the person's actual level of need.
Stabilization
A safe place to stop the immediate crisis and assess what comes next.
Treatment & recovery
Mental-health and addiction care connected to a housing plan, not another referral into the unknown.
Supportive & transitional housing
A supported place to live while the next permanent step is arranged.
Permanent & independent living
A stable home with the level of support the person actually needs.
Income-linked / below-market housing
Move-on homes so supportive units free up.
Work, skills & belonging
On-site work, meals, training and employment — the daily structure of rebuilding a life, and a community worth staying for.
The destination is not the center. The destination is independence. For one person that next step may be treatment. For another it may be supportive housing, an accessible apartment, training, work, reconnection with family or permanent housing elsewhere in the community. Housing navigation, stabilization, treatment and recovery connections, health and social supports, skills and employment pathways, and appropriate community partners could be organized around one people-facing pathway. Every part would carry a named operator, a service standard and public reporting, so London can see whether the whole path is working, not just whether a building opened.
One place to enterA clear front door instead of asking people in crisis to navigate a maze.
→Connected servicesDifferent providers can work from one shared plan, with clear responsibility when a person moves from one service to another.
→Housing · recovery · workThe pathway is about rebuilding a stable life, not simply managing the next emergency.
→Measured resultsPeople can see who is responsible, what the money is for, what is delayed and what results are being achieved.
One center does not mean one organization does everything
Provincial health funding, federal housing programs, municipal contributions, philanthropy and provider funding have different rules. The proposal is to coordinate them, not pretend they become one pot of money: map who funds what, identify gaps and duplication, assign responsibility, and show publicly what each funded component is supposed to deliver. London’s Official Plan already encourages co-located public facilities and partnerships where appropriate to support efficient, integrated public services.19
The Standards
Start with dignity. Build around a path forward.
The point is not simply to move people indoors or move a problem somewhere else. Any version of Living Futures would have to connect safety, housing, health, recovery, responsibility and a real next step — and then show the public whether it is working.
A person is not a statistic, a nuisance, a political prop, or a problem to be moved.
The first standard is dignity. The next is delivery: a system that knows what the next step is, who owns it, and whether it actually happened.Housing
Temporary shelter is not the final result. The system must create pathways from stabilization and supportive housing toward permanent and independent living wherever that is appropriate for the individual.
Health + recovery
People need a voluntary place to access nursing, primary care, mental-health and addiction care, withdrawal-management assessment and recovery support without treating a hospital emergency department as the only front door. Emergency and specialist care must still transfer to the appropriate hospital or health service.
Safety
Safety standards must apply to participants, workers, nearby residents, local businesses, visitors, and the surrounding community.
Responsibility
Every funded service needs a named operator, a clear authority, a service standard, a reporting requirement and a process for fixing failures.
Connected steps
The proposal must connect 24/7 access, stabilization, health care, withdrawal management where needed, treatment and recovery, supportive housing, income support, skills, employment and permanent housing — with a clear next step instead of leaving people to navigate disconnected programs alone.
Build on what exists
London already has Hubs, highly supportive housing, outreach, health partners and a new Housing Stability Action Plan. Living Futures has to prove what gap remains, what connection is failing and what additional capacity is actually needed before new infrastructure is justified.
Delivery
Programs must be measured by results, not announcements, press conferences, temporary openings, or money spent alone. Housing exits, housing retention, service access and repeat-system use should be visible where lawful and available.
Accountability
The public must be able to see what was promised, what was funded, who was responsible, what happened, what remains unresolved, and what changes are required.
Build From What Exists Here
Build from what already works. Fix the gaps between the pieces.
Ontario’s HART framework and London’s own system already connect treatment, mental-health care, primary care, housing, income and employment supports. Ontario’s Big City Mayors is also calling for recovery-based treatment, supportive housing and stronger provincial participation through its 2026 Solve the Crisis — Reaction to Recovery campaign.5,6,20 Living Futures starts there: identify where London’s pathways still break, then connect or expand what is missing instead of duplicating what already works.
A larger Ontario direction — not an endorsement of this proposal
Ontario’s Big City Mayors is calling for expanded voluntary recovery-based treatment, supportive housing capacity, HART Hub expansion and coordinated provincial action with municipalities and community partners.20 That does not mean OBCM has endorsed, funded or designed Living Futures. It does show that the central problem this proposal is trying to solve — disconnected housing, treatment, recovery and municipal crisis response — is being identified across Ontario’s largest cities.
ON
A made-in-Ontario pathway already exists to build from.
HART Hubs can connect withdrawal management, addiction treatment, mental-health and primary care, social assistance, employment services, transitional beds and supportive housing.5
StabilizeBasic needs, health assessment, crisis support and withdrawal-management access.5
TreatMental-health, addiction, primary-care and recovery services connected through one care plan.5
RebuildIncome, employment and social-service supports can be connected before and after housing.5
What Living Futures would add
The proposal should not create a parallel bureaucracy. A feasibility process should map London’s existing HART Hub, Hubs, highly supportive housing, health care, Ontario Works and Employment Ontario pathways; identify wait-list, handoff and capacity failures; and recommend only the missing links that require expansion, co-location or new capacity.5,6,9
The Pieces Already Exist
London already has pieces. Prove what is still missing.
Supportive housing, Hubs, experienced service providers and funding programs are already operating or developing here. Before proposing new capacity, Living Futures would count those assets, identify the missing links and test whether co-location or stronger handoffs would actually improve the path to stable housing and recovery.
422
highly supportive housing units are open, in development, or in endorsed proposals seeking funding toward London’s 600-unit goal.
That existing pipeline has to be counted before any additional Living Futures capacity is proposed.9
422Highly supportive housing units open, in development or in endorsed proposals seeking funding toward the City’s 600-unit goal.9Existing housing pipeline
HARTLondon’s treatment-oriented HART Hub connects mental-health, addiction, primary-care, housing, income and employment supports.7Existing treatment pathway
$81.4MLondon’s Housing Accelerator Fund agreement.8Housing context · not Center funding
$37.6MReported raised by the Health & Homelessness Fund for Change.11Community context · not Center funding
What these numbers mean
They show that London already has housing work, service capacity, public funding agreements and community fundraising in motion. They do not mean those dollars or programs are available to Living Futures. A feasibility report would have to identify what is actually eligible, what is already committed elsewhere and what gaps remain.
See the existing funding and program context
London has an $81.4-million Housing Accelerator Fund agreement, while the community’s Health & Homelessness Fund for Change reports $37.6 million raised.8,11 Those figures demonstrate existing housing and philanthropic activity; they are not presented as money committed or available to a Living Futures Center.
Do not build a parallel system
London does not need another disconnected ecosystem. LHSC and St. Joseph’s / Parkwood anchor clinical care; CMHA Thames Valley runs the HART Hub; Atlohsa leads Indigenous healing; and Mission Services, Unity Project, YOU, LIHC and London Cares deliver frontline services across London. A Living Futures model would have to show exactly what it connects, what it expands and what gap remains before any new building is justified.
Partner names identify roles in the system only. No endorsement, partnership, or commitment by any organization is claimed.
The Phased Vision
Start at a scale that can work. Prove it. Then earn the next phase.
The long-term concept could potentially grow to serve 1,000+ people across multiple buildings, housing types and levels of support — but only if demonstrated need, outcomes, land, infrastructure, funding and operating feasibility justify that scale. The first decision is not how many buildings to construct. It is what London is missing, what already exists, and what scale can be staffed, funded and expanded responsibly.
Long-term planning scenario — not an approved capacity or construction target; exact scale and housing mix remain subject to feasibility, funding, health-system participation and Council approval
Build the pathway first24/7A no-wrong-door health, stabilization and navigation centre connected to housing, treatment, income, employment and community supports.
Long-term capacity scenario1,000+people housed or served across a mixed community of supportive, transitional and independent homes plus non-residential health and service capacity — if the needs assessment supports that scale.
This is not a proposal for a 1,000-bed shelter or a single institution. It is a proposal to test a mixed community: smaller residential buildings and accessible homes, supportive and transitional housing, independent affordable homes, green and community space, and a central health-and-service hub. London’s existing supportive-housing pipeline must be counted first: the City reports 169 units open and 422 open, in development, or in endorsed proposals seeking funding toward its existing 600-unit goal.9
Build for growth without overbuilding blindly
Choose a site and servicing plan that can grow if demand supports it. Open in workable phases, publish results and expand without forcing London to abandon the site and start over. Capacity decisions should use verified housing need, service demand, staffing, treatment access, housing exits and the existing housing pipeline.
What people should be able to get here
- A clear housing path: stabilization when needed, supportive or transitional housing, then permanent or independent living wherever appropriate.
- A voluntary 24/7 health-access point with nursing, primary-care and mental-health/addiction pathways, with clear transfer to hospital for emergencies or specialist care.
- Recovery and health support connected to housing rather than separate from it.
- A real progression to permanent and independent living for people who no longer need intensive support.
- Training and employment preparation for participants who are ready.
- An alternative place to seek appropriate non-emergency care, while keeping a direct transfer pathway to hospital when emergency or specialist care is required.
- Safety standards that apply to participants, workers, neighbours and businesses alike.
- Public reporting that shows whether any of the above is happening.
How It Could Be Paid For
Match each cost to the government or partner responsible for it.
There is no approved Center budget and no committed funding package. Feasibility should separate housing construction, health care, homelessness supports, employment services, site infrastructure and ongoing operations — then confirm which current programs are actually eligible for each piece.
Possible funding responsibilities for feasibility testing — not a Center budget or commitment
CAPEX
Land, design, construction, servicing, accessibility and equipment priced by phase.
Feasibility requirement
OPEX
Staffing, health services, housing supports, security, maintenance and utilities priced annually.
Feasibility requirement
A real operating plan has to answer
01Who pays for each service every year?
02Which funding is permanent and which is time-limited?
03What staffing and clinical coverage does each phase require?
04What unfunded gap remains before Council commits capital?
No opening phase should depend on an unidentified operating subsidy.
Who Would Have to Be Involved
No one office can build this. That is why responsibility has to be explicit.
The City can lead the housing, planning and coordination work. It cannot deliver every part itself. Health care, treatment, housing finance, operations, employment supports and Indigenous-led services require the organizations that actually hold those responsibilities. No organization is presented as committed.
City of London
London is the Service Manager for London and Middlesex. It leads local housing-stability planning and also controls municipal planning, servicing and local budget decisions.
Council
Council decides motions, municipal budgets, land decisions and other matters that legally come before it.
Ontario / health system
Clinical care, mental-health and addiction treatment require provincial authority, health-system participation and qualified providers.
Government programs
Federal, provincial and municipal housing programs can be tested where the project meets their current eligibility rules.
Ontario programs
Ontario Works and Employment Ontario can connect eligible people to income, assessment, training, job search, placement and retention supports.
Qualified providers
Housing and service operators would need defined responsibilities, staffing standards, performance measures and funding.
Indigenous-led organizations
Indigenous homelessness and housing responses should be designed and led with Indigenous organizations, consistent with London’s current housing plan.
Residents + businesses
Consultation should address site design, access, transportation, safety, neighbourhood impacts and ongoing reporting.
No organization listed here is presented as having agreed to participate, and no operator has been selected.
Where It Could Go
Do not start with an address. Start with the standard the address has to meet.
There is no chosen location. A credible site has to survive the service, planning, transportation, servicing, safety, neighbourhood and cost questions first. The proposal therefore publishes the criteria before the pin on the map.
Criteria for study — not a chosen location
Site standard
Room to grow in phases
Space for a first phase and later ones — whether that is land to build on or a large existing building the public already owns and could adapt.
Site standard
Already serviced
Water, sewer, power and transit at the door, so the money and the time go into people, not trenches.
Site standard
Close to care
Within reach of hospitals, clinics and the services residents already rely on.
Site standard
The right property
Compare public land, adaptive reuse, nonprofit or partner land and new construction on the same acquisition cost, readiness, servicing, location and public-value tests.
Site standard
Fits its surroundings
Zoning that can realistically work, with genuine neighbour and business consultation built in from day one.
Site standard
Serves the region
London and the surrounding area share this crisis — the site should serve that whole catchment, not just one ward.
Why a standard first, not a pin on a map
Some of the strongest campuses reuse what a city already owns — a surplus building, an underused institutional site — instead of building from nothing. Which of those fits London is exactly what a feasibility study exists to answer. Publish the standard first and the address only after the study, and this gets done right instead of fast.
The Honest Part
The unanswered questions are part of the proposal.
No site, operator, final housing mix, clinical model, capacity, budget or funding package has been approved. A feasibility process has to answer those questions publicly before Council is asked to consider a real project.
Is the Living Futures Center already approved?
No. The Living Futures Center is a BISSON13 proposal for coordinated care, recovery, and housing. It would require public reports, clear responsibilities, funding, planning, qualified operators, community input and Council approval before anything could be built or operated.
Has a location been selected?
No location should be announced or supported before public site-selection criteria, servicing requirements, transportation planning, neighbourhood-impact considerations, safety standards, costs, and consultation requirements are established.
Is this only a shelter?
No. The proposal is a mixed housing, health and life-pathways community: 24/7 access and stabilization, voluntary health and recovery services, supportive and transitional housing, employment and life-skills supports, and permanent or independent living. It is not a proposal for one 1,000-bed shelter or institution. The exact mix and scale would have to be proven by demand, cost, available services and formal public decisions.
How is this different from London’s existing Hubs and supportive housing?
It is not presented as a replacement for them. London already has Hubs, highly supportive housing, shelter, outreach, a Housing Stability Action Plan and health-system partners. The proposal has to pass a harder test: what gap is still open, where are handoffs failing, what can be fixed by connecting or expanding existing services, and what — if anything — requires new capacity. Any new capacity must add something the current system cannot deliver and must be coordinated with London’s existing housing pipeline.
How does this fit with the City’s October 2026 housing and treatment proposals?
The October 2026 campaign discussion includes a proposal for 200 more highly supportive housing spaces, requests for expanded provincial treatment capacity and questions about homelessness spending and expiring program funding. Those are proposals and reported priorities, not proof that additional places are already open or funded. Living Futures should be assessed alongside existing Hubs, the HART Hub, shelters, treatment services and the supportive-housing pipeline. First identify which referrals, transitions and supports are missing; then determine whether coordination or expansion of current services can fix the problem before proposing new construction.
Who pays for ongoing services, and how will results be reported?
A capital announcement is not an operating plan. Any formal proposal should distinguish one-time construction and servicing costs from recurring staffing, clinical care, maintenance, security, transportation and housing supports; identify which level of government or partner would be responsible; flag grants or programs with expiry dates; and publish what happens if funding ends. Public reporting should distinguish approved funding, committed amounts and actual spending, alongside access to treatment, transfers between services, housing retention and neighbourhood outcomes, using reliable and privacy-respecting measures.
Would one councillor control the project?
No. If elected, I would work with councillors across London to bring the concept into a formal public process. A councillor can bring motions, request reports, ask public questions, vote on matters before Council and report back publicly, but a project of this scale would require Council decisions, staff analysis, public review, partner participation and qualified operators. I would represent Ward 13 while also considering what is best for London as a whole.
How would neighbourhood safety be addressed?
Any serious proposal must include participant, worker, visitor, resident, and local-business safety standards; clear operating rules; transportation planning; neighbourhood-impact measures; incident reporting; defined responsibility; and a public process for correcting failures.
How much would it cost?
No total project cost or claimed saving should be treated as established until a formal study shows realistic land, servicing, construction, annual operating, health-care, staffing, transportation, security, maintenance and housing costs. Those categories should be reported separately, with potential funding responsibilities identified before Council is asked to approve a project.
Would people be forced into treatment?
The proposal is focused on creating coordinated pathways to housing, health care, recovery support, stability, and accountability within the law. No legal or clinical claim about compulsory treatment is published without verified authority and expert review.
Are the Living Futures Project or the Living Futures Center connected to another organization?
No. The Living Futures Project and the Living Futures Center are working names for a BISSON13 proposed coordinated recovery and housing center for London, Ontario. The campaign does not claim affiliation with any existing charity, nonprofit, treatment provider, or similarly named organization. The names have not been legally registered, incorporated, or trademarked.
What this evidence does not establish
The evidence here — Ontario’s HART framework, At Home/Chez Soi and London’s House of Hope evaluation — shows that coordinated treatment and well-supported housing can improve stability for people with complex needs. They are a reason to evaluate this model seriously. They are not a forecast for a campus that has no approved site, operator, budget, or opening date.
How This Actually Moves
The first Council decision should be whether there is a gap worth solving.
If elected, I would ask Council to start with the existing system: map capacity, funding and current plans; identify handoff failures and unmet demand; test whether existing services can be connected or expanded; and only then examine new infrastructure, site criteria and cost. If the evidence does not show a real gap or a workable operating model, the proposal changes — or stops.
Proposed motion direction
That Civic Administration report back on options for a coordinated Living Futures Center model for recovery, housing and pathways to independent living for London, including:
- Existing HART Hub, Hub, housing, shelter, withdrawal-management, treatment, recovery, primary and mental-health care, highly supportive housing, Ontario Works, Employment Ontario, Indigenous-led, employment, and outreach capacity
- Service gaps, duplication, wait-list pressures, handoff failures, system bottlenecks, and the specific gaps not already addressed through the Housing Stability Action Plan or Whole of Community System Response
- Options to connect or expand existing services before creating new capital infrastructure, including a clear explanation of why any proposed new component cannot be delivered through existing programs or facilities
- Potential operating models with a named lead operator and accountable partner roles
- Potential roles for the City of London, the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada, health-system partners, housing providers, nonprofit agencies, and qualified operators
- Demand-based growth scenarios, including whether the model could eventually serve or house 1,000 or more people across multiple buildings, housing types and service settings — only if demonstrated need, results, land, infrastructure, funding and operating capacity support expansion, and never as one institutional building
- Capital and operating cost ranges by phase and service type
- Potential funding sources
Final motion wording must be reviewed against Council procedure, legislative authority, and verified staff information before submission.
Reported publicly at every milestone
First 30 Days
Within the first 30 days, if elected, I would start the public work needed to find out whether this idea can actually move through Council.
- Publish the Living Futures Center proposal and its limits
- Identify the responsible City committees and decision pathways
- Request one inventory of London’s HART Hub, Hubs, housing, shelter, withdrawal-management, treatment, recovery, primary and mental-health care, highly supportive housing, Ontario Works, Employment Ontario, Indigenous-led and outreach pathways — including what is already tracked through the Housing Stability Action Plan and Whole of Community System Response
- Request a gap-and-duplication map showing where people are losing the next step between those existing services, what is already funded, and what problem a Living Futures model would solve that the current system does not
- Begin a formal motion and staff-report request for a testable Living Futures pathway — not a pre-approved building
First 60 Days
By 60 days, the public should know what information already exists, what is missing and what additional legal, financial, planning or service work is required.
- Review available City and partner information
- Identify missing information
- Request public cost categories
- Identify responsibility across the City, Province, health system, housing providers, community operators and federal funding programs
- Identify which existing services or facilities could be connected or expanded before any new capital build is considered
First 90 Days
By 90 days, the public should be able to see whether the proposal is advancing, delayed, redirected, or blocked.
- Publish the status of requested reports
- Identify confirmed decision points
- Identify confirmed authorities and responsibilities
- Identify known costs and unresolved cost categories
- Identify confirmed service gaps and which body controls each one
First 100 Days
By 100 days, there should be a public answer — not another vague statement.
- Report: What was requested
- Report: What information was received
- Report: What remains unavailable
- Report: What existing services were identified
- Report: What service gaps were identified
How Progress Is Reported
If it works, show it. If it stalls, show that too.
No blank cheque. No building first and questions later. Accountability starts with the gap we are trying to solve, the body responsible, the cost, the deadline and the result.
Publish the major decisions, costs, timelines, responsibilities and results. Report delays as well as progress. Separate verified system data from proposed Center targets, and update the public when assumptions change.
BISSON13 · Ward 13 · October 26, 2026
Real Problems Real Solutions Real Results
Connect what already exists. Fill the gaps that are real. Build only what the evidence supports. Then measure the results and report them publicly.
Produced, developed, researched, and presented by Schelley Bisson.
“Living Futures Center” is a working name for a proposed model under public review — not an approved, funded, sited, or operated project.
Sources
Every number, sourced.
- 1City of London, "Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Research and Evaluation Report" (2025 evaluation of London’s coordinated response; includes early supportive-housing outcomes and limitations that require continued evaluation). https://london.ca/sites/default/files/2025-10/Health%20and%20Homelessness%20Whole%20of%20Community%20System%20Response%20Research%20and%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf
- 2CMAJ Open, "Costs of services for homeless people with mental illness in 5 Canadian cities" (mean $50,810/yr; 90th percentile $93,165). https://www.cmajopen.ca/content/5/3/E576
- 3The Trillium, on the Ontario government-commissioned KPMG review ($1.60–$2.00 saved per $1; supportive housing $75–$150/day vs hospital $730–$1,200/day). https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/housing/more-supportive-housing-could-help-ontarios-health-system-government-hired-firm-found-10572525
- 4Mental Health Commission of Canada, National Final Report: At Home/Chez Soi (73% vs 32% of days stably housed; $10 → $21.72 for the costliest 10%). https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/drupal/mhcc_at_home_report_national_cross-site_eng_2_0.pdf
- 5Government of Ontario, HART Hubs client journey (integrated pathways can include primary care, mental-health and addiction treatment, withdrawal management, social assistance, employment services, transitional beds and supportive housing). https://www.ontario.ca/page/homelessness-and-addiction-recovery-treatment-hart-hubs-client-journey
- 6City of London, Housing Stability Action Plan 2026–2031 (prevention and diversion, housing supply, coordinated health and wraparound supports, and stronger pathways to housing). https://london.ca/living-london/community-services/homeless-prevention-housing/housing-stability-action-plan-2026
- 7CMHA Thames Valley, "HART Hub announcement" and Wire Service (London HART Hub opened Oct 27, 2025; 60 spaces + 60 units; part of Ontario's ~$550M, 28-hub program). https://cmhatv.ca/hart-hub-announcement/
- 8CMHC, HAF Action Plan Summary — London (~$81.4M; London was the first city in Canada to sign a Housing Accelerator Fund deal). https://assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sites/cmhc/professional/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/funding-programs/all-funding-programs/housing-accelerator-fund/action-plan-summaries/haf-action-plan-summary-london-en.pdf
- 9City of London, "Highly Supportive Housing" (600-unit goal endorsed April 2, 2024; 169 units open; 422 open, in development, or in endorsed proposals seeking funding). https://london.ca/living-london/community-services/homeless-prevention-housing/whole-community-system-response-health
- 10City of London, "Affordable Housing Development Programs" (Dollars to Doors up to $45,000/unit; development-charge relief). https://london.ca/business-development/affordable-housing-development-programs
- 11London Community Foundation, "Health and Homelessness Fund for Change" ($25M seed; $37.6M raised). https://www.lcf.on.ca/fund-for-change
- 12CMHC, "Canada announces funding for 42 supportive homes in London" (Indwell build ≈ $269,500/unit all-in). https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/media-newsroom/news-releases/2025/canada-announces-funding-supportive-homes-london
- 13Wellesley Institute, "Ontario 2026 Budget: our submission on supportive housing" (~$150,000/unit capital benchmark; operating $24k–$60k/unit/yr). https://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/ontario-2026-budget-our-submission-on-supportive-housing/
- 14Catalyst Community Finance, "Profile: Indwell" (operating revenue ≈ 35% rents / 45% Ministry of Health / 8% other government / 12% donations). https://catalystcommunityfinance.ca/2025/07/23/profile-indwell/
- 15Government of Canada, "Accelerating the supply of affordable housing…" (Build Canada Homes ~$13B; Affordable Housing Fund $1.5B top-up, Sept 2025). https://www.canada.ca/en/housing-infrastructure-communities/news/2025/09/accelerating-the-supply-of-affordable-housing-by-investing-in-build-canada-homes-and-the-affordable-housing-fund.html
- 16Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, "An Update on Homelessness Programs in Ontario," Sept. 10, 2026 (London: 4,576 people experiencing homelessness in 2024–25, up from 3,868 in 2022–23; 787 per 100,000 residents). https://fao-on.org/en/report/homelessness-programs-2026/
- 17Middlesex-London Board of Health, April 16, 2026 agenda package: London Police reported 39 overdose-related calls within 24 hours on March 12, 2026 during a public-safety advisory about a potentially toxic illegal drug supply. https://www.healthunit.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/April-16-2026-BOH-Agenda-Package-Public-Session.pdf
- 18Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, homelessness data snapshot on mental health and substance use (74% reported mental-health and/or substance-use issues; 47% reported both; 64% of people experiencing chronic homelessness reported substance-use issues versus 54% among those who were not chronically homeless). https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/homelessness-sans-abri/reports-rapports/mental-health-substance-use-sante-mentale-consom-substances-eng
- 19City of London, The London Plan — City Building Policies 437–439 (co-location of public facilities and partnerships encouraged where appropriate to support integrated and efficient public services). https://london.ca/sites/default/files/2026-04/City%20Building%20Policies%20-%20AODA.pdf
- 20Ontario’s Big City Mayors, “Solve the Crisis — Reaction to Recovery” (Aug. 16, 2026) and Solve the Crisis campaign materials (calls for urgent provincial action, expanded voluntary recovery-based treatment, supportive housing capacity, HART Hub expansion and coordinated work with municipalities and community partners; OBCM does not endorse or sponsor the Living Futures Center). https://www.ontariobigcitymayors.ca/ontarios-big-city-mayors-launch-solve-the-crisis-reaction-to-recovery-campaign/
Crisis, existing-system, and precedent figures are verified and dated. Figures about the proposed Center itself are labelled illustrative or drawn from comparable builds — never asserted as a plan.