All posts by James W. Breckenridge

Homeless, Municipal, Politics

Perhaps You Should Listen to What You Say?

Leave a comment

Do you ever find yourself wondering if politicians ever bother to actually listen to what they are saying?

Do politicians ever actually THINK about what they are saying?

Or must politicians be able to disconnect their brains and/or shut off their ears before they can spout what comes out of their mouths?

How have we reached a point where politicians don’t even try to dazzle us with brilliance but go straight to baffling with bullshit?

Watching Bruce Banman on Unfiltered with Jill Krop had me shaking my head and wondering ‘does Banman ever listen to what he is saying?’

I don’t know if she was, but Jill Krop certainly looked flabbergasted when Bruce Banman appeared on her show – and began to speak longingly of the ‘good old days’ when “We got to use shock therapy, sterilization, frontal lobotomies.” And how “…back in the day we used to do things like it was a never ending prison sentence.”

Until that bad, bad Supreme Court decided that a health issue, even a mental health issue, did not take away a person’s rights TO NOT BE BRUTILIZED by the government.

After listening to Bruce Banman speak longingly of the depraved treatment so many endured at the hands of the government, it was no wonder Ms Krop was off balance when Banman began to regurgitate the different amounts spent by the different Health Authorities on mental health as he sought to baffle with bullshit and shift responsibility to Fraser Health for his [and his cronies] blowing off $2.5 million to build, and $$$$$ millions more to operate and provide services, from  the provincial government for the Abbotsford Community Services Housing First housing.

I do mean ‘baffle with bullshit’. Bruce Banman’s contention was that the problem was that Fraser Health spent the lowest amount per capita on mental health services of the five health regions. The implication being that throwing money at the problem would fix it.

Included in Mr. Banman’s litany of numbers was the fact that Costal Health spends considerably more per capita on mental health than Fraser Health. Ignoring the fact Costal Health will be reducing their spending on mental health and cutting mental health services in the coming fiscal year [April 1, 2014 – March 31, 2015].

More importantly, the implication Mr. Banman was making, that spending per capita had a direct correlation to the mental health of citizens in the health region, means:

Given:    that per capita spending determines the mental health of a Health Region

And:       that Costal Health spends significantly more per capita than Fraser Health

Then:     the cities in the Fraser Health region have a worse  problem with metal illness, substance use and homelessness than does Vancouver.

Perhaps someone should take Mr. Banman downtown Vancouver and show him Hastings?

Speaking of baffling with bullshit, let’s examine Mr. Banman’s excuse mongering for an irrational [as John Smith described his vote] vote against the ACS housing proposal.

Mr. Banman loudly proclaimed that ACS should have been talking to the ADBA from the moment ACS began speaking to BC Housing.

Setting aside the fact the ADBA’s rabid, fear mongering Not In My Back Yard response to the ACS housing proposal makes it clear there was nothing ACS could do that would cause the ABDA to behave rationally and in a civically responsible manner…..exactly what was ACS to be talking to the ADBA about.

It was not until ACS and BC Housing had reached their agreement that ACS had anything concrete to take to the public.

Anything prior to that point would be speculation, rumour, Maybes, “I heard that……”, fear mongering, lies, false and misleading statements – “you have to listen to the people in the neighbourhood” [unless the person or business proposing the rezoning contributes to your election campaign].

It is because the behaviour in the preceding paragraph is exactly what has happened in the past [and what happened to the ACS proposal even though the reality of the project was clearly spelled out and accessible to anyone who was interested in facts, not fiction] that BC Housing requires all the Ts be crossed and the Is dotted before a project is presented to the public.

And what was that nonsense about C7 zoning being sacrosanct? There was no trouble with re-zoning for social enterprise housing at the Fraser Valley Inn……..of course that was housing for young professional and University students. And how is it Money Mart is downtown when C7 zoning excludes that type of financial business unless it is a bank?

If services for the people and the needs of the community are not permitted, why was ACS included in the C7 zone rather than excluded? Was it to limit the services ACS could offer unless it relocated services to a different location in Abbotsford, as happened with the moving of Substance Use counselling to Clearbrook?

Then there is the matter of funding for the ACS housing proposal.

BC’s Finance Minister [one of Abbotsford’s MLAs] in a series of interviews with local media stated clearly that the ACS housing proposal would be built where and how proposed or the money would leave Abbotsford and go to ‘a community that was committed to building housing to serve the needs of the homeless’.

And the reaction of Mr. Banman and his nay saying council cronies?

That the Finance Minister was joking? Mistaken? Telling a Fib? Didn’t mean what he said in the interviews?

That Fraser Health, under provincial review for going $50 million over its budget for the past 3 years, would miraculously find millions of dollars to spend on housing in Abbotsford? After Abbotsford had turned down millions of dollars for housing from BC Housing? With Abbotsford insisting that housing conform to the traditional recycling people model, rather than the recovery based Housing First model?

And just when you think the excuses out of City Hall on homelessness could not get any lamer and the bumbling any more Pink Pantherish, Mr. Banman attains a new level of lame when the promise of a plan to address homelessness in Abbotsford turned out to be an announcement of the formation of a Task Force.

A task force made up of citizens who would tell council how to deal with homelessness and other social issues just as the Abbotsford Social Development Advisory Committee was to do – at least before ASDAC told mayor and council to approve the ACS housing proposal.

Not a bold roar from Abbotsford City hall but a loud WIMPER; as City Hall declares that in over a decade of studying the issue of homelessness City Hall has learned – Nothing.

Sigh.

At this point I am not looking to be dazzled by brilliance, I will settle for rational behaviour.

Because the politician’s reliance on baffling with bullshit has dug all levels of government into financial holes of such proportions, we cannot afford the negative consequences if we fail to stop digging.

Homeless, Municipal, Politics

We Got Ourselves a Task Force

Leave a comment

The purpose of the Task Force announced by Bruce Banman and headed by John Smith is:

  1. Cover the posteriors of Abbotsford’s mayor and city councillors Smith, Barkman and McGregor.
  2. Distract citizens and media from the mayor and city councillors Smith, Barkman and McGregor blowing off a $2.5 million capital grant to build Housing First housing for the homeless and $$$$$ millions more in funding for operations and programs – all the while pitifully crying about the need for senior levels of government to provide funding for homeless initiatives.
  3. Provide the illusion that Abbotsford’s mayor and fellow nay-saying city councillors Smith, Barkman and McGregor are taking positive action on homelessness in Abbotsford.
  4. Provide an excuse for the City of Abbotsford to DO NOTHING because it is waiting for the Task Force to report on what action the city needs to take.
  5. Baffle citizens, the media, Canadians and the world with bullshit.
  6. Allow the City of Abbotsford to return to chasing the homeless pointlessly from location to location around the city.
  7. Enhance Abbotsford’s reputation for incompetence, hateful and irrational behaviours – particularly in regards to the homeless
  8. All of the Above.

Instead of naming a Task Force why didn’t the mayor and councillors Smith, Barkman and McGregor create a committee to advise them on social issues such as homelessness? Oh wait, a previous mayor and city council already did that didn’t they? Several years ago [three elections ago] the excuse of the day for Abbotsford politicians was “we cannot do anything until we get an advisory committee made up of the ‘right’ citizens that can tell us what we need to do”. Which bought mayor and city councillors several years of pointlessly chasing the homeless around the city before the passage of time forced them to actually create the Abbotsford Social Development Advisory Committee. Whereupon the city policy vis-à-vis the homeless……continued to be chasing the homeless pointlessly around the city. In creating the Task Force are the mayor and councillors Smith, Barkman and McGregor saying the members of ASDAC were the ‘wrong’ citizens and are incompetent bunglers who are incapable of providing the city with any useful or effective advice on addressing homelessness and that ASDAC should be ended? Or is it that ASDAC made the fatal mistake of telling the mayor and councillors Smith, Barkman and McGregor what they did not want to hear – that approving the Abbotsford Community Services housing first proposal was a necessary first small step in beginning to effectively address homelessness in Abbotsford? What happens if the Task Force, at the end of its first meeting, advises that council revisit their decision and rezone the ACS property so that construction can start immediately on housing based on the recovery focused Housing First approach rather than continuing to use the traditional recycling approach? Will the mayor and councillors Smith, Barkman and McGregor appoint a new Task Force? And continue to appoint new Task Forces until they get a Task Force that tells them what they want to hear – chase the homeless out of the city? If it were not for the cost to taxpayers and the cost to the lives of the homeless this keystone cops routine would be laughable, pitiful but laughable. But there is nothing funny about the negative consequences on people’s lives, on Abbotsford, that result from the actions of the mayor and his cronies.        

Homeless, Issues, Municipal, Politics

Behaved “Badly”?

Leave a comment

“…back in the day we used to do things like it was a never ending prison sentence. We got to use shock therapy, sterilization, frontal lobotomies. We behaved badly…”

Bruce Banman

People had their brains fried with electricity; people had holes cut into their brains; people were turned into drooling zombies by drugs; people were turned into vegetables, their personalities and minds destroyed; people were used as experimental animals by their government; and the victims of this abuse could do nothing but suffer the torture inflicted on them because they were locked up and the key thrown away.

For the ‘crime’ of having a chemical imbalance in their brain chemistry people were condemned to a HELL created, maintain and run by other Canadians.

This is not “behaving badly’. This is depraved behaviour; it is behaviour that damns those whose actions – or silence – destroyed people’s minds and lives.

And Bruce Banman pines for those good old days?

In putting an end to this depraved behaviour the Supreme Court asserted the right of those victimized NOT to be tortured; asserted the right to recovery, mental wellness, love, joy; the right to a life – NOT a tormented existence locked away for the convenience of government and society.

Once again we hear the cry “they need to be locked up for their own good”, raised across the lower mainland.

Mayors, politicians, citizens, society can delude themselves all they want, but this is not about the mental health, wellbeing and wellness of those they seek to lock away – as once they did when  “…back in the day we used to do things like it was a never ending prison sentence. We got to use shock therapy, sterilization, frontal lobotomies.” but the truth is that it is about the convenience of politicians and society.

Spare me your feinted concern for anything but your own convenience.

After more than a decade of ignoring calls to put in place the community based services, supports and housing needed to permit those living with mental illness and from other mental health issues to find wellness……

……..suddenly mayors and citizens are concerned about those they seek to lock away, ‘for their own good’ – after they have become an issue, a problem, on city streets.

A faithless, counterfeit concern fabricated for the convenience of politicians and others.

A concern whose hypocrisy is clear in the call to warehouse, to lock them up for their ‘own good’ when knowledge and understanding make it clear that a large institution warehousing people is more harmful to mental health and wellness than helpful.

If politicians and others now calling for people to be locked up for their ‘own good’ were not simply concerned about their convenience and had any true concern for the people they seek to ‘disappear’ off their streets, they would join the call to put in place the community based services, supports and housing needed to permit those suffering mental illness and from other mental health issues to find wellness.

We would not be subjected to Abbotsford’s Bruce Banman, beating his chest piously, expressing the need to ‘lock them up for their own good’ mere days after he voted down a funded proposal for first stage housing that would have helped those he, obviously, so falsely expresses concern about find mental health and wellness.

And please, spare me any those lame ‘I got to find an excuse – no matter how ridiculous’ excuses.

We are talking about providing the means for people to find wellness; a course of action and behaviour far more important than catering to baseless fears and fear mongering of merchants, even if those merchants do contribute to the election campaigns.

I am one of those fortunate enough who, finding themselves homeless on the streets of Abbotsford, were/are able to find and access the limited resources, services and support, resources, services and support that have become more limited and unavailable over time, and struggle off the streets and into housing.

I am blessed in that as the resources, services and support decreased – I had and found friends who stepped up to help me stay off the street.

It would be kinder, far kinder and more humane, to be taken out and shot – than it would be to fall into the clutches of Bruce Banman et al and locked away in a Hell of their creation – ‘for my own good.’

And their convenience.

Business, Caveat emptor, Finances, Issues, Life, Mental Health

Suing Ensuing

Leave a comment

To sue Shaw or not to sue Shaw that is the question…….although, admittedly, at this point the question is rather moot.

The discussion about homelessness and housing that resulted from the ACS housing proposal, made it clear that citizens do not appreciate how many barriers exist for anyone trying to move off the streets and into housing and  just how difficult it is overcome those barriers.

It is also clear that there is no understanding of just how hard it is to remain housed once one succeeds in finding housing. Especially if one lives on a fixed or low income where your budget has your money spent before you ever get it, months in advance.

Where an unexpected and unavoidable expense presents, at best, a severe financial challenge or begins the death spiral down into homelessness on the streets of Abbotsford once more.

A budget were all monies received are committed to covering expenses such as rent, insurance, phone etcetera; a budget without any ability to set aside some money for emergencies; an emergency that requires you to spend money means something, or several some things, does not get paid.

Which pushes you out onto the slippery slope that leads back to the streets and homelessness; a slide I have witnessed many suffer. It is a prospect, a threat, you are forced to live and deal with; a prospect that weighs on your mind and grinds away at you; a prospect that, even if you manage you finances with skill, puts you through periods of economic strain, poverty and mental stress and distress.

A major automobile expense ripples through my finances with all the subtlety of a tsunami. Couple that with one of the twice a year financial landmines of severely reduced cash flow caused by the interaction of bi-weekly pay periods and monthly payments  and you are staring down the double barrels of increased arrears and homelessness.

The money, robbed from money budgeted to pay the Shaw bill, to pay the automotive expense leaves you scrambling to squeeze money from anywhere in your budget you can to keep internet access.

The severe reduction of cash flow from one of the twice a year landmines means there is no extra cash to be found to appease Shaw and one is faced with the reality that service charges of $85 out of a budget of $100, means you are only going to sink deeper into a financial quagmire and it is time to stop digging.

The introductory low rate of $30 available if you switch service providers permits you to not only pay off what you owe, but will present an opportunity for fiscal wiggle room.

Budget less reduced rate [$100 – $30 = $70] leaves money to catch up, to pay off the amount owing..

So to Shaw’s on-line chat, where you find out you must phone in if you want to disconnect your Shaw service – giving Shaw an opportunity to retain you as a customer. So it is off to the mall to locate a pay phone [car repairs and the looming financial crunch of a month of reduced cash flow have resulted in the loss of phone service – the internet being judged a more vital connection] and speak with Shaw’s customer retention people.

Where I was offered a package that would result in a lower cost, a cost that would let me pay off the balance owing without changing providers and, as the package rate was to be ongoing, it would provide future financial wiggle room and/or the opportunity to add a specialty channel package (Space, BBC).

Even better, the package included phone service.

Unfortunately I would need to pay for connection etc so I would have to do without a phone a while longer. The agent asked me to hold while checking to see if they could include the phone connection.

YES! A day and time [6 – 8 PM on the day of the homeless count]  was arranged for the phone to be hooked up and a number chosen.

With phone included in the cost the budgeted phone cost could pay off the amount owed and allow for setting aside some money each month so the next emergency would not automatically threaten a return to homelessness.

I went to bed that night with……well, dreams of sugarplums dancing in my head and a profound feeling of relief.

The next day I go to use the internet and there is no internet. After nearly an hour online at the Library to access Shaw’s chat I find out that Shaw has decided to renege on the agreement I reached with their representative and am directed once more to phone Shaw’s customer – so called – service.

Where it takes about an hour for Shaw to confirm ‘No Deal For You’ and give me [figuratively] the bums rush out the door – don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

No mention or suggestion of working something out so I could keep Shaw as my service provider. Just a threat about the account being sent to a collection agency if it was not paid off in a month and a transfer to Accounts Receivable where a reasonable person said they would make a note on the account after I explained about tight cash flow and set out what I could budget to pay the balance off over the next three months.

24 hours. Talk about a mood swing, about triggering depression, anxiety, panic, catastrophizing…..

Not only was I left with major challenges to my mental wellness to clean up – I was left Vexed and Vexed I remain.

Being vexed is what had me requesting, just before i was threatened with a collection agency and drop kicked to Accounts Receivable, for a name and address to send a letter outlining what had happened and my thoughts on the matter; a request that was met with direction to the link on the Shaw website to send an email.

I did not ask about emailing, I asked about an address for a letter as this is not a matter that you send off an email about; it is a matter that demands a written letter sent via Post.

Fortunately years as an accountant, in business and management have made me familiar and comfortable with forms. So I have no problem stopping by the courthouse to pick up the documentation to file a claim to sue Shaw in small claims court.

I did as I was instructed, phoning and speaking with an authorized agent of Shaw who made me an offer which I accepted. Offer + Acceptance = Contract.

As customers Shaw does not permit us to say: sorry this is not a deal that should have been made. Try this and they will take every penny out of your hide if necessary

I may not know where or to whom to send a letter about this matter, but I rather expect that I will find serving Shaw with the papers for a small claims court action far more satisfying than a letter – and far more conducive to my mental wellness.

behaviour, Consider, Issues, Municipal, Politics

This is Abbotsford: Common Sense Overrated

Leave a comment

At the Abbotsford City Council meeting on Monday February 17, 2014 Bruce Banman stepped up and delivered yet another blow to democracy in Abbotsford.

When Simon Gibson was elected as a Liberal MLA in the provincial election of May 14, 2013 Mr. Gibson, mayor and council decided democracy for the citizens of Abbotsford was not worth the cost of a by-election.

If Mr. Gibson, mayor and council had not decided that saving a few thousand dollars was more important than the democratic rights of the citizens of Abbotsford, the citizens of Abbotsford would have been going to the polls to elect a new member of council last Fall [2013] as did every city where a city councillor had been elected a provincial MLA.

Every city except Abbotsford, where it was decided the cost of a by-election was to high a price to pay for democracy.

A by-election in the Fall of 2013, when the details of the Abbotsford Community Services housing proposal were before the public for their consideration; a by-election that would have permitted the citizens of Abbotsford to express their opinion on the housing proposal. But no, the cost of a by-election was to high a cost to allow the citizens of Abbotsford to express their will on the ACS housing proposal – or was it the cost to council and special interests that was to high to permit the citizens of Abbotsford to democratically express their views?

Keep in mind Abbotsford City Council was aware of the proposal and of the proposal being made public once all the Ts were crossed and all the Is dotted. Council knew that not holding a by-election would deny the citizens of Abbotsford the right to democratically express, through the ballot box, the citizen’s position on the ACS housing proposal. Council robbed voters of their right to vote, but hey – they saved taxpayers the cost of a by-election.

Ironic, coming from a council that willingly spends millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars every year to subsidize the ownership, by a few privileged business people,  of a professional hockey team.

A few thousand of taxpayer dollars? Far to high a price to grant taxpayers a democratic say in the actions, the governance, of city government.

Spend millions of taxpayer dollars to protect council’s ego by buying a tenant so council’s Great Folly [aka the Great White Elephant] did not sit there empty – no matter how many millions of dollars an empty Folly would have saved taxpayers? Council has no problem squandering however many millions of taxpayer dollars are required.

“It may be irrational, but that doesn’t matter,” said Councillor Smith. A statement that, while warped, makes perfect sense when you consider all the other irrational decisions made and/or supported by Councillors Smith, Barkman, MacGregor and Mr. Banman.

With a municipal election this November 2014, having run twice for council and lost one begins to wonder if the citizens, as mind-boggling as one may find it, want a council that is financially reckless and irresponsible.

What else would you call it when, after years of calling on BC housing for funding  and BC housing steps up with $2,5 million, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for support programs for residents, council tells them to take their housing and their money and shove it?

When council tells the Finance Minister to take his $$millions$$ to a community that wants to do something – besides whining – about homelessness in their community?

When the mayor, with visions of sugar–plums [or something] dancing in his head, expects Fraser Health to step up with millions of dollars to fund housing in Abbotsford; the same Fraser Health that is under scrutiny for its inability not to go $50 million over budget every year. Fraser Health, when Fraser Mental Health must make a special funding proposal to the provincial government for funding to undertake new, and needed, services.

Only reckless and irrational dreaming would have anyone thinking that the Finance Minister is going to give Fraser Health extra funds to spend on housing in Abbotsford after the mayor and council told BC Housing, the Finance Minister and the government to take their money and give it to a community that cares.

One begins to wonder if the citizens want a council that ignores reality, facts and experience and behaves irrationally when dealing with social issues such as homelessness.

A council that deployed chicken manure  in its war on the homeless. An action one Abbotsford citizen heard about when surrendering their passport as they checked into a hotel in Scandinavia where the front desk staff, upon seeing they were from Abbotsford BC informed them they were from the city that dumps chicken shit on its homeless citizens.

A council that chases the homeless around the city never answering the question “where are the homeless suppose to go?” A council that, as it pointlessly chases the homeless around Abbotsford, ensures there is no place for the homeless to go by voting not to permit ACS to use the housing first model to build housing to help the homeless transition off the streets.

A council whose action in rejecting homeless housing provide proof to the courts, for the ongoing homeless related litigation, that not only is the City of Abbotsford not doing anything about affordable housing and housing for the homeless, but that the City is actively preventing the building of homeless related housing projects.

But then Mr Banman stated “Council has to ensure that any changes made to our bylaws are made for the greater benefit of the entire community……. we also need to make sure the interests of all residents are considered in our decisions.”

A statement which brings to mind a notable prior assault on Abbotsford citizens by Mr. Banman and Councillor Smith when, after council voted not to approve the rezoning of the Mahogany at Mill Lake, Mr. Banman ambushed council and citizens by sneaking Mahogany at Mill Lake back before council at a time when one of the council members who had voted against the project could not attend the council meeting, allowing Mr. Banman and councillor Smith to have the project approved against the wishes and interests of the citizens living in the area.

An assault on democracy made worse as both Mr. Banman and Mr. Smith had accepted campaign contributions from the developer.

Mr. Banman is right, the citizens of Abbotsford need people on council who are concerned about building a community, people concerned about considering the interests of all residents not just the well connected and moneyed, in decisions; people who don’t make reckless, irresponsible, fear based or irrational decisions.

It is clear that the majority of the citizens of Abbotsford, those who are not among the well connected and/or the moneyed, need new blood on council to protect their interests from irrational, irresponsible actions such as Mr. Banman, councillors Smith, Barkman and McGregor rejecting the desperately needed housing proposed by ACS.