Category Archives: Homeless

Wishing all a …

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Canada great (not to imply that Canada is necessarily greater than any other country), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, or sexual preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:
-This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal.
-It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting.
-It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.

This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

Path to Hell paved with “for their own good”

A chill went down my spine and across my soul listening to Vancouver’s new Mayor Gregor Robertson talking about forcing people, “for their own good”, to behave in a manner he judges is an appropriate and wise.

Frighteningly no one on the news report disputed his statement and others echoed the “force them for their own good” sentiment. Hopefully this lack of a disagreeing cautionary voice was a result of editorial decisions by news staff and not from a lack of those questioning the wisdom of going down the “force them for their own good” path – no matter how well intentioned the steps onto that very slippery slope may be.

The police officer who let her light her candles made the correct decision. Someone was appalled that I would give candles to homeless people living in tents or other makeshift shelter. I know how important they can be to providing heat to survive in frigid weather.

The same day the news had reports of people killed in house fires. Does that mean that we should force people not to live in houses because fires will happen, houses will burn and people will die?

Yes the death of the woman who died in the fire in her modified cart was tragic, but the tragedy was not that she refused to come inside. The tragedy is that we as a society have failed to put in place the resources that would have allowed for the building of a relationship of trust with the woman and the existence of housing/shelter she would have found acceptable.

The true tragedy will be if we heedlessly, thoughtlessly plunge down the “force them for their own good” path. History is full of examples of what happens when we as a society decide what is good for somebody or a group and force them “for their own good” to do what we, not they, want.

Just ask members of our First Nations who were forced into residential schools “for their own good” while looking at the damage done to our First Nations and their cultures and society in the name of “their own good”.

In this case forcing people to behave in a manner “for their own good” is not about their own good but about making society feel better, salving society’s conscience over the consequences of its decision to abandon these most vulnerable people and all to often avoiding having to invest the time, resources and effort to deal with the issues in a manner that would truly be of benefit to those in need.

I have been one of the people who Mr. Robertson wants to “force for their own good” to behave as he sees fit.

While I acknowledge that appropriate housing and supports would have been helpful, what I really needed was the time and personal space to find my way to recovery. “Forcing me for my own good” would have denied me the chance to find that path and to find recovery and myself.

A warm Candle Thanks.

A quick note of THANKS to the kind people who collected then delivered candles to me over the past few days.

They were very much appreciated by the homeless seeking candles on a blustery Monday. This weather driven run on candles seriously reduced the level of candles on hand and has me seeking additionally supplies (hint, hint).

For those who are weathering out artic temperatures in their camps the candles can well be life savers.

Thank You all.

Supportive Housing Proposal – discussion pointless without information

I want to thank the gentleman (and his wife) I spoke to after this afternoons (Monday October 20, 2008) Council meeting for his patience in taking the time to talk to me.

Listening to what he and his wife had to say was though provoking and sent me back to read all the documents and material again from as analytical/language/neutral prospective as possible.

I read the handouts, went to government web sites and read the materials there and went back over all these materials again.

The conclusion I reached was that the documents were written in bafflegab (confusing or generally unintelligible jargon; gobbledegook), complicated by government bureaucratese (a style of language that is full of circumlocutions, euphemisms, buzzwords etc) and ass covering language.

It is no wonder that at the community meetings city staff (with apologies) appeared somewhat clueless and less than truthful vis-à-vis the proposed housing. Reading over the material available this afternoon, this housing could be anything; mention is made of the second stage housing I was told it was to be and was speaking of OR it could be minimal barrier housing OR it could be something else entirely.

There is no way to tell what kind of housing we are speaking of. Without knowing what type of housing we are talking about there is no way to make any judgment, must less a decision, on location.

I spoke to Mr. Giesbrecht this evening (Monday) and while I am not in agreement (or necessarily disagreement – to many unknowns), with his preference to build nothing there I do agree with his point that without knowing what other options as to location are available and the pros and cons of the locations you cannot judge “best’ location. I would go so far as to say that without knowing what kind of housing we are speaking off there is no way to judge if a location is even suitable, much less good or the best.

We agreed that from the information provided one cannot know or understand what type of housing or who the occupants will be or who will be responsible for the operation of the housing and that that information is critical. Speaking to Mr. Geisbrecht did send me back to read the Questions and Answers handout from the City.

I said to some people on Wednesday night in reference to the first community meeting that I was not sure that this type of meeting and the timing was a good idea. I can now say that this type of meeting and the timing was an ill-considered idea.

Until the city and citizens know what kind of housing, tenants and operating organization we are talking about any discussion is pointless. Garbage in garbage out, certainly applies here where we are missing the most vital pieces of information needed to judge the matter which means any decision at this point could be flawed, wrong or garbage – or all three.

The city cannot and should not be having a discussion on the matter of this proposal until they (and citizens) know what is being talked about in terms of what kind of housing, tenants and operating organizations are under consideration.

We need to step back and wait for the information needed to have an intelligent conversation, make an informed judgment and come to a sensible decision is available.

At that point we will at least all know what we are talking about and if we have points of disagreement we will at least be disagreeing about the same thing. We will not be arguing/comparing apples to oranges to watermelons to kiwi to pineapples etc. as we currently are doing.

The Homeless Numbers Game

Any homeless you think you see on the streets of Abbotsford must be mirages, hallucinations or some other form of figments of imagination.

That is what I was forced to conclude when I took a moment to do the math and add up the numbers; the numbers of homeless that I have heard stated by organizations, groups or individuals as having been assisted off the streets by said organizations, groups and individuals.

When I added up all the numbers I have heard claimed recently it turns out that according to the numbers not only does Abbotsford not have any homeless on its streets, Abbotsford has negative numbers of homeless its streets.

Now either Abbotsford is experiencing some strange space/time continuum disruption, or Abbotsford has become the center of some kind of psychic/hallucinatory phenomenon, or we need to examine/define what should be meant when claims are made about the numbers of homeless “assisted into housing or off the streets.”