To quote Mr. Guthrie: “I think the real story is that this ended successfully and many of these people have been successful in finding accommodation. They are working with various agencies and hopefully we can get them back into a regular lifestyle.” And later “ …getting them into the system.”

“ … getting them into the system.” The question I have about this is, what good does getting anyone into a system with the serious flaws the current welfare system has do them? Anyone with recent experience with the current system can tell you that the system itself is a major barrier to finding work and getting back onto your feet. Abandoning people to “the system” is something you reserve for your worst enemies – and even then only if you are particularly vengeful. If the city chooses to abandon people to “the system” it owes those people its best efforts to reform and/or advocate for the needed reform/changes to “the system”. This in order that the system become about lending a helping hand to those in need, as opposed to the current practice of only paying lip service to the concept of helping. But then all levels of government seem much better at paying lip service to this problem and in applying Band-Aids, than in providing the leadership and vision to begin to address the needs and long-term commitment required to make a successful start in addressing homelessness and poverty in our society.

“…many of these people have been successful in finding accommodation.” Technically yes, but I do not consider that a temporary bed at the Salvation Army as being a true success in finding accommodation. “… these people”? I have serious reservations about just what this means about the city’s attitude towards, the way in which it thinks about the homeless and the prejudicial mindset the term suggests.

I had intended to revile Mr. Guthrie about his use of the word successful in the city’s actions vis-à-vis Compassion Park. However, in looking into the definition of successful (some of us like to keep in touch with the reality of a situation) I found I could not do that. Successful: Having a favorable outcome; having obtained something desired or intended: was successful in avoiding responsibility and bad press. So I must concede that from the city’s viewpoint this was undoubtedly a successful outcome. They got to use some very nice sounding sound bites such as “ended successfully”, shift responsibility for taking any real or positive actions onto “various agencies” while avoiding accepting any responsibility to take action themselves, obscuring actual outcomes behind platitudes and fancy verbal footwork and above all avoid the need to show any initiative, vision or real leadership on this pressing social issue.

I can only conclude by admitting that I was a little surprised and disappointed when I looked up the definition of successful. Even the definition of success, the achievement of something, is somewhat of a disappointment. I always thought of being successful or of achieving success as having a more positive and beneficial outcome. “I think that the real story is that” unfortunately the City does not seem to share this positive action oriented, providing leadership and vision view of what constitutes success.

On June 1, 2006 the city served notice to the homeless residing in “Compassion Park” that they had 72 hours to move, following through this action and closing the camp. I will address this City invasion separately because I want to examine some of the important lessons to be learned from the Woods rather than have these lessons lost or obscured in an argument about this action. Rather than being irrational – as all to many of those who want to find excuses for sitting around doing nothing, bury their head in the sand and pretend all is right and wonderful in their community – I would rather take a look at some of the important lessons we can gain from the past weeks. With homelessness growing not only across the nation, specifically in Abbotsford, it is an issue that demands action. This is such a complex issue, a problem with so many facets to it that it truly takes a community to respond in any meaningful way.

1) For years those who believe you handle difficult issues by sitting on your … posteriors and hoping someone somewhere finds an easy solution for you, have cried “We cannot do anything or the homeless hordes (or is that hordes of homeless?) will descend upon Abbotsford, savage and pillage the city!” Even around the discussion tables of the past few weeks, where those struggling to address homelessness gathered, some have worried that the city would attract a large influx of homeless. However, even with the coverage on television and newspapers in Vancouver there has been no flood. I went on record and told those who worried about this it would not happen because running off to Abbotsford to camp in the woods was/is not a wise survival strategy or move. Being homeless does not mean being stupid, which you would have to be to move from food, shelter and services you know to the unknown. When you are use to worrying about where your next meal is going to come from and where you will find shelter for the night, going in search for Nirvana is not on top of one’s ‘To Do’ list. Surviving is. So, we now have demonstrated proof that taking rational actions to address Abbotsford’s homeless issues will not draw masses of homeless to Abbotsford. I extend my condolences, for their loss of a favourite excuse, to those who want to use a flood of homeless as an excuse OR a scare tactic in order to do nothing.

2) Most people I have spoken to seem to agree that it is ridiculous to consider $325 an adequate amount to cover shelter costs in the lower mainland. One of the good things about the last few weeks is that the mayors of the lower mainland’s cities have spoken together about addressing issues of homelessness. With issues such as the shelter allowance and the homeless there is the possibility of applying enough political leverage to get the Liberals to act in a rational manner as opposed to their past blind denial of reality when it clashed with their ideological belief’s. Given the fact that many of the issues connected to the homeless and poverty demand rational thought and actions in order to be addressed and given that the provincial Liberals and federal Conservatives wish to continue to blindly follow their beliefs and dogma while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that these approaches not only fail but contribute to worsening the situation, it is only by building political consensus at a grassroots level that we will be able to apply enough pressure on those senior levels of government to begin to get them to act in a rational, thoughtful manner to deal with these complex, messy but needing our attention issues.

3) Personal contact and follow may well be the most important and necessary ingredients in any plan designed to help people. The actions taken over the past few weeks have resulted in those residing in the Park getting onto income assistance, but without any direct one-on-one help they have remained living in the park, frozen in place. Been there, done that myself. The process of becoming homeless, of living homeless and the way society treats the homeless inflicts a great deal of psychological damage, especially to one’s self-esteem. The result of this is that self-doubt, fear of making a bad choice, lack of self-confidence and not trusting your own judgment paralyze you. You need a sounding board, a friend, someone to help you decide what to do and if needed, drag you around to accomplish what you have decided needs to be done. Further to this, the changes involved in moving off the streets and into some form of housing are stressful. Going to work every day, job training, dealing with coworkers, customers and bosses are each a major change and a major source of stress. Lacking any support to deal with all this stress, people trying to get their lives back on track are in grave danger of ending back on the streets – homeless. This is especially true for those who are also struggling with addiction. Not only for those who are trying to get off the streets but also for those coming out of treatment and into or back into our community. I have witnessed to many people, who coming out of treatment without any contacts and support, end up slipping back into their old behaviours and back into their addictions.

4) In the beginning there were many people stopping and dropping off donations at the Park. They had so much food donated that residents of the Park were not coming to eat at the Salvation Army, their donated rations being more abundant and tasty. Over the weeks of the camp’s existence the donations tapered off and the Park inhabitants had to again turn to Salvation Army for food – a food program that is in for the long haul. The important point here is that most people tend to have a short attention span while this issue and its associated problems require a long-term commitment in order to be effective and accomplish anything useful. Since success needs community involvement, one must design one’s plans so as to draw people in over time and get their interest engaged so that they remain involved for the longer haul.

The idiots who …. I mean the politicians and bureaucrats who are suppose to provide leadership, solve problems and behave with at least some intelligence, will probably cite the above ten days in trying to defend or explain their actions in serving notice to the homeless camping in “Compassion Park”. So, what are those 10 days about? The Salvation Army has received funding to enable it to open all the beds in the emergency shelter, doubling the beds available to 20. This was desperately needed as many nights people seeking shelter were turned away due to a lack of beds available. Ironically, the people turned away had to go to “Compassion Park” to find shelter (spare tents) for the night. Now with the City choosing to close down the “Park” before they have taken any useful actions to address the many pressing issues, as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of the past month, the residents of the “Park” will have to seek shelter at the Salvation Army. But they only get 10 days which, while double the normal allotment of 5 days, just delays them returning to living on the streets – and provides the City another smokescreen to cover their actions and a demonstrated lack of ability to begin to address the issues raised by homelessness, poverty and lack of affordable housing.

One cannot fault the Salvation Army for the decision to limit their stay to 10 days (or even the usual limit of 5 days) as this limit has been demonstrated by experience to be necessary in order to be as fair as possible in providing all with access to the emergency shelter. This is after all, suppose to be an ‘emergency shelter’, not a shelter to serve the Homeless of Abbotsford on a longer term basis. This conflict between its purpose as an emergency shelter and the overwhelming need of the homeless on the city streets for shelter is a result of the failure of leadership, ideas and ideals on the part of Abbotsford’s politicians (local, provincial and federal), the bureaucrats and other supposed “civic leaders”. In their wilful blindness on the issue of homeless they have failed to provide the longer-term shelter, other facilities and services so badly needed if one wants to help reduce homelessness and aid the less fortunate citizens of Abbotsford.

They will probably also claim that the Salvation Army will help them find homes, jobs and anything else they need, as if they have not had access to and contact those services for the past month. Another attempt to hide their failure to fulfill their ‘duty of care’ to these citizens. The real problem appears to be that the politicians wanted a ‘quick fix’ to plaster over the problems. Reality is that this is an issue that has grown over time and has no fast, easy solutions. It requires commitment, leadership, thoughtfulness, creativity, innovation and intelligent. All qualities that the politicians, administrators and civic leaders demonstrate a total lack of, at least on these pressing social issues.