The District of Muskoka is considering decommissioning 36 affordable housing untis in Gravenhurst and Huntsville and replacing them with 78 modern units but questions are swirling about what to do with the tenants while the work is done.
During a District Committee of the Whole meeting held yesterday, councillors heard that several aging semi-detached housing units on Pinedale Road in Gravenhurst and Meadow Park Drive in Huntsville have been deemed uninhabitable or in need of significant repair.
The Committee considered a motion to proceed with decommissioning units that are no longer safe to occupy, including the relocation of impacted tenants. They also considered incorporating the decommissioning of the remaining units, as well as redevelopment timelines, into future capital planning and phasing strategies.
According to Kevin Boyle, the District Manager of Capital Projects, redevelopment plans for the Pinedale Road site include removing 14 existing units and replacing them with a proposed 34-unit, three-storey apartment building. At Meadow Park Drive, the plan involves the demolition of 22 aging units—a mix of apartments and duplexes—while retaining 28 units still in fair condition. In addition, a new 44-unit, three-storey apartment building is proposed for construction on the site.
Both housing complexes were originally developed in the 1970s as semi-detached and low-rise units. Staff reported that water infiltration and structural damage, which worsened significantly over the past winter, left several units unsafe to inhabit. While not all units are currently affected, staff emphasized that substantial investment would be needed to ensure all units—both damaged and intact—remain safe and livable.
The issue of tenant relocation during the redevelopment process was a key concern for several councillors.
Boyle acknowledged the challenge, stating that District staff would work closely with affected families to find temporary or permanent housing solutions during construction.
However, not all councillors were convinced. Councillor Guy Burry expressed reservations about the estimated $32 million cost of the project and the associated expense of relocating residents.
“Where is the money coming from?” Burry asked. “Taxes are already too high. At what point do we say we can’t afford this, or that we need to reprioritize?”
A final decision on the motion has yet to be made, and staff are expected to return with a more detailed capital plan and funding strategy at a future meeting.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox six times per week!
Click here to support local news
Homes built 100ish years ago were build with older quality lumber, stronger and with actual 2x4s. A lot are still standing. In the seventies, building codes were very lax and cheap homes were built with an estimated 60 year life span before renovations or major repairs would be needed. Todays standards have housing lasting 80ish years. Blaming the tenants, pets or hygiene is absurd. People lived quite rough 100 years ago, but had strong houses.
Build new better quality housing is the only answer.
Muskoka need more housing, lots more. More will bring the price down.
Not sure how a 1970s built home is uninhabitable and how to prevent this supposed new built from only having a 50ish year lifespan again.. there are homes built in the 1800s still standing and liveable.
The residents of the housing units need to accept some.respinsibliy in maintaining the properties as well including not smoking, limiting nimber of pets , cleanliness and hygiene
This is what happens when routine maintenance and repair initiatives are deferred year after year. There is no reason why a 50 year old structure should be uninhabitable, if it is otherwise well maintained. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Who is responsible for letting these housing units get in such bad shape that they can’t be lived in? Does no one from the district ever inspect public housing? If damage was caused by tenants then they should be kicked out. If the damage was the fault of the district then the employees responsible for letting the units fall apart should be reassigned or terminated. Houses built in the 1970’s are not old! What will be the point of building new housing if no one looks after them?