Category Archives: Municipal

Homeless, Issues, Life, Municipal, This is so Stupid

‘Right Location’

Leave a comment

There is no ‘Right location’; I would even be leery of suggesting that a ‘best location’ exists.

There are good locations and bad locations; locations that have good points and bad points, strengths and weaknesses, advantages and drawbacks.

But a ‘Right location’ for Abbotsford Community Services proposed first stage housing does not exist, and to pursue the ‘Right location’ is to chase a mirage.

The only actual existence the ‘Right location’ has is in the context of the ‘Right location’ being a location anywhere Not In My Back Yard.

“I am not against [insert name of project under discussion] it is just this is not the ‘Right location’ for __________, sounds so much more politically correct and so much less egocentric than NIMBY.

It has been repeatedly stated that Abbotsford has a critical need for the proposed housing and that those who oppose the ACS proposal are not against this type of housing in the ‘Right location’ – said  ‘Right location’ being in somebody else’s back yard.

Which is why no doubt it has not been stated where this mythical ‘Right location’ is. Given the people in the stated ‘Right location’ would find (and support) that the proposed location behind ACS was the ‘Right location’

The truth is that if you choose any location in Abbotsford for the proposed housing, I can give you ten solid reasons that the location is not the ‘Right location’.

Abbotsford has a critical need for first stage housing – assuming the city and citizens want to pursue an approach to reducing the number of homeless on the streets that has been demonstrated to be effective.

An assumption I freely admit has a high probability of being wrong given the reaction by city council and citizens to the ACS proposal.

A reaction which provides no evidence of any desire to stop chasing the homeless around Abbotsford until……………what??….the homeless fall down a rabbit hole and join Alice in Wonderland?

An outcome which, sadly, is no more insane than council’s chasing of the homeless around Abbotsford year after year after year after year…………in the hope that this time something different will occur and the homeless will……….disappear?.

Caveat emptor, Hmmm, Homeless, Issues, Municipal, Politics

Now That’s a Surprise

Leave a comment

The call by the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce for an end to the rezoning of property in Abbotsford from the use it is zoned for, to a zoning that permits the owner of the property to use the property for purposes different than its original zoning, came as quite a surprise.

No doubt the neighbours of the Mahogany at Mill Lake highrise are wondering why Allan Asaph, executive director of the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce, did not speak out against rezoning the property on Bevan Avenue, a rezoning necessary for the developers to build their highrise, given how unfair it was to “…citizens to change the rules.”

Or does the Chamber of Commerce’s “no rezoning” and “fairness to business and citizens” only apply to projects the Chamber is opposed to?

“He [Allan Asaph] said no one disputes that supportive housing is needed….” adding the Chamber of Commerce to those chanting the ‘we need this type of housing but this is the wrong location’ mantra. Mr. Asaph then proceeded to add to the frivolous justifications being given, such as the presence of liquor stores downtown……as if there were no liquor stores elsewhere in Abbotsford and ignoring the fact that a simple phone call will have liquor (or drugs) delivered to your door, as to why all the calls to put the housing somewhere, anywhere, else are not NIMBYism.

What will the Chamber champion next on this matter? Will they join the calls for this housing to be built on the outskirts of Abbotsford, well away from the services the residents need? Why not go whole hog and build Abbotsford’s homeless housing in……..Langley of Vancouver?

Abbotsford Community Services [ACS} has stepped up to provide leadership to get this badly needed housing [first stage housing, a first step to reducing street homelessness in Abbotsford] built. They have proposed a specific location for this housing and secured funding for the project.

So let me be blunt, if you are a member of those whose mantra is ‘we need this type of housing but this is the wrong location’: stand and deliver as ACS has.

Tell the citizens of Abbotsford where, exactly where, you propose this housing be built – as ACS has done.

Give the citizens of Abbotsford the address you consider the ‘right’ location; a specific address, not some vague statements about a mythical ‘better’ location or somewhere in Clearbrook or on the outskirts of Abbotsford or ‘over there’.

ACS is seeking to rezone the property at 2408 Montvue Avenue. What is the street address of the property you propose for the location of this housing?

Specify how you will fund the construction of this housing. Because the funding ACS has from BC Housing is specific to the proposed housing at 2408 Montvue Avenue.

Caveat Emptor: this is the same type of behaviour that cost Abbotsford the $11 million in capital funding offered by the province to build affordable housing for men, matching the funding made available to build the Christine Lamb Residence.

 

“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”

Will Rogers

Business, Consider, Issues, Municipal

Was I Mistaken?

Leave a comment

I didn’t consider the use of chicken manure by the City of Abbotsford against the homeless as a challenge to see who could behave in the most ignorant, moronic and unenlightened way.

Unfortunately, others apparently felt challenged to further Abbotsford’s growing international reputation for heartless, impious and unethical behaviour.

I had hoped the position and behaviour of the ADBA [Abbotsford Downtown Business Association] would prove to be an isolated incident.

But there, blasting out over the airwaves [and internet] was the report about the vandals who acted to support the ADBA and their opposition to Abbotsford Community Services [ACS] plan to provide first stage housing for 20 of the homeless on the streets of Abbotsford.

I am sure that these cretins would claim they support the proposal to build first stage housing for 20, housing desperately needed to begin to reduce the number of homeless on the streets of Abbotsford.

What the actions of said cretins actually did is evoke sympathy and support for the ADBA; cast supporters of the proposed first stage housing as thugs and vandals and, worst of all, change the focus of the discussion away from the need for first stage housing, what first stage housing is [it is NOT a shelter] and the behaviour of the ADBA.

Ah yes, the ADBA. An organization that has for years moaned about how the homeless negatively affect business. And when Abbotsford Community Services brings forward a plan [funded by the province, not the city] to build first stage housing and begin reducing the number of homeless on Abbotsford streets the ADBA reaction is of course NO, don’t reduce the homeless we [the ADBA] have been moaning about for years,

A reaction that, while it seems irrational is not unexpected.

After all, the proposal does not involve any ‘getting’ [grants, lower taxes, etc.] by the ADBA. Just because the proposed first stage housing is of benefit to the citizens of Abbotsford and the citizens of Abbotsford have given years of benefits to the ADBA is no reason the ADBA………should give a thought to the needs of citizens and community, rather than mercenary egocentrism.

So currently we have the ADBA and their’ Not In the ADBA’ petition versus a petition of support from those who support the building of first stage housing.

I have declined signing any petition because ‘Petition Wars’ should be one more (bad) reality program, not the way to make important decisions that will have far reaching and long term consequences for our community, province or country.

I propose that the citizens of Abbotsford take leadership in stopping our national obsession with racing to the bottom and/or seeing how low we can stoop and instead champion a new standard – striving for excellence.

Specifically that the citizens of Abbotsford ignore the rhetoric and fear mongering, set aside any preconceived Ideas and seek out the facts, then use the facts to make up their minds.

That those who support, or oppose, this first stage housing project set out the facts and evidence that their support or opposition are based on, providing the citizens of Abbotsford the facts and evidence to be able to arrive at an informed opinion on the project.

behaviour, Hmmm, Homeless, Issues, Municipal, Politics

To Be, or not to Be, or what to Be,

Leave a comment

……that is the question; the primary question [or questions] you must ask if you are located outside of a shelter rich environment such as Vancouver or Toronto.

In an environment with multiple shelters, individual shelters can be tasked to serve the needs of a single class of clients [i.e. a class composed of those waiting for a spot in a treatment center – such as Kinghaven – to become available].  Using a single shelter to meet the needs of a single class of clients avoids the problems that arise from the conflicts between the differing needs that different classes [groupings] of homeless have.

In a shelter rich environment, meeting the needs of the different classes within the homeless population requires determining the size of each class of homeless and assigning a shelter [or shelters] to meet the needs of each different class [classification] of homeless.

Outside of major population centers such as Vancouver, in locations where there is only a single shelter (Mission, Maple Ridge, Chilliwack, Abbotsford etc.) serving the conflicting needs of the different classes among the homeless is a challenge.

Indeed, it is highly probable the conflicts between the needs of the different classes of clients among the homeless will make it impossible to serve all the conflicting needs equally.

This reality makes it vital to consider the purpose, the raison d’etre, for the shelter and to set the priorities of the shelter in accordance with the raison d’etre of the shelter.

Having decided upon the purpose [or purposes] and priorities of the shelter one uses the purpose [purposes] and priorities to set the operating policies and procedures for the shelter, and to resolve the conflicts that arise from the differing needs of the various classes of homeless.

Setting shelter policy first will set the the purpose and priorities of the shelter without regard to whether the purpose and priorities thus set are good, bad, ugly, desired, helpful or suitable.

As an illustration of why it is vital to give careful consideration to the purpose and priorities of the shelter in order to set the policies and priorities and avoid unwanted negative consequences, consider the following example:

Suppose you decide the shelter beds must be full every night; thereby setting the primary purpose of the shelter as maximizing the number of homeless warehoused by the shelter.

Having set the shelter’s purpose as maximizing the number of homeless warehoused you are faced with two basic policy approaches to maximizing the probability that the shelter will be fully occupied every night.

The simplest approach – theoretically – is first come first served; where you open the shelter doors at a designated opening time and, starting with those at the head of the line, admit the number of homeless required to fill the beds.

For purposes of our example let’s set 6 PM as the time the shelter opens; have the shelter provide an evening meal for those in the shelter, but only for those in the shelter; have the shelter have beds that will accommodate 15 men and 5 woman [20 beds in total].

This approach maximizes the probability the shelter will be fully occupied every night, and that the number of people in line at opening will increase over time.

The two major consequences associated with this approach:

1)    no provision for continuity for people to be in the shelter every night; if you were in the shelter the prior night but are not among the first 15 men or 5 women in line –  you are SOL.

2)    The need to be among the first 15 men or 5 women in line will tend, over time, to have the line for a shelter bed that evening form at a time earlier and earlier before the shelter opens; the need to be among the first 15 men or 5 woman combined with the line for a shelter bed forming at an ever earlier time increases the probability of conflicts over position in the line and line etiquette; leading to an increasing probability of violence and the need to police the line;

The other principal approach is to open the shelter doors, admit those who were in the shelter the prior night first and then fill the empty beds, if there are any empty beds.

Of course this approach means that as long as a person shows up at the time the shelter opens every night you are housing them. It also reduces accessibility to the shelter as a bed (beds) only become available when someone in the shelter fails to be there at opening. Over time the beds in the shelter will become filled with those who are capable of, and good at, arriving at opening time. This will result in access to a shelter bed for anyone not already in the shelter becoming a more and more infrequent occurrence.

You can address the issue of access to shelter beds through turnover in the shelter by setting the number of nights someone can access a shelter bed and requiring that anyone who reaches the allowed number of nights must be absent from the shelter for 30 days before they can again access the shelter.

To ensure the shelter has no night where any bed is empty, you will want to set a high number of nights someone can access the shelter before they are required to wait 30 days before they can again access a bed in the shelter.

For purposes of our example let’s set a month, 30 days, as the number of nights a person gets before they are required to wait 30 days before being eligible to access a shelter bed.

What are the consequences of setting 30 nights as the number of nights before someone is required to wait 30 days to return?

Once the homeless are aware of and adjust to having 30 nights (as opposed to a lower number for nights such as……..5) there are likely to be no nights, or almost no nights, where all the shelter beds are not in use; no nights, or almost no nights, where there is a bed available in the shelter.

In fact, once the 30 days availability is widely known the probability is that the shelter beds will be full and it will be necessary to turn away people upon opening the shelter.

You will have succeeded in minimizing [or eliminating] empty shelter beds.

Succeeded……if you evaluate the results and consequences solely on the basis of the purpose of the shelter being to maximizing the number of homeless warehoused by the shelter.

What are the consequences of having filling all the beds as your primary focus?

The operating policies that reduce the number of empty beds to (or close to) zero also result in a significant reduction in turnover and therefore the opportunity for someone not already in the shelter to access a bed. Should everyone from the night before return, a circumstance that becomes more frequent under policies of 100% occupancy, nobody not already in the shelter will get a bed.

The operating policies of 100% occupancy will also result in there being few, if any, nights were any shelter beds are available after the 6 PM shelter opening time.

What major consequences flow from setting the purpose of the shelter as being to have 100% of the beds occupied and the operating policies to achieve this purpose?

If you are going to have an emergency that would result in you needing a shelter bed you have to make sure it happens sufficiently before 6 PM for you to get to the shelter before opening time. Additionally you need to ensure your emergency occurs on a night were there will be some turnover among those staying at the shelter and that either you are the only new to the shelter client or there are a sufficient number of beds available for all newcomers to get a bed.

The police will also need to ensure that all incidents that currently lead to their calling the shelter to see if it has a bed available (i.e. a domestic dispute where the APD feels that having one of the parties spend the night at the is the best recourse) occur before 6 PM and on a day when a bed will be available so the APD’s quest can find accommodation at the shelter.

The Hospital will also need to be sure that anyone at the hospital who needs a bed at the shelter is treated in time to be at the shelter by 6 PM and that this occurs on a day when there will be sufficient turnover in people staying at the shelter so that sufficient beds are available for newcomers to the shelter to be accommodated. .

The shelter line and after hours emergency services will simply need to live with the fact that there are no beds available after 6 PM or, alternatively, also ensure those needing a bed are at the shelter by 6 PM and on a day there will be a bed available.

Those considering getting into treatment will need to be sure to time their thinking about/considering treatment on a timeline that ensures their arrival at the shelter by 6 PM on a night when a bed will be available. Statistically they will need to be prepared to return night after night at 6 PM until a bed becomes available to accommodate them. No longer will they be able to find a bed if it is not until after 6 PM that they are moved to come to the shelter and talk to (be encouraged by) shelter staff about signing up to talk to Outreach who will help them get find a treatment program.

And those who are headed to treatment when a bed becomes available for them, but need a safe place to stay and staff who will support/encourage them to hang in there (stay sober) until a treatment spot opens up for them? They had better be lucky enough in their timing to be able to access a bed.

Those in recovery houses who suffer a slip and need refuge for the 3 – 5 days they are required to be sober before being allowed to return to the recovery house – pretty much SOL and trying to stay sober and survive on the streets.

Need shelter and help to find a new home? Do you need some other form of assistance?  If you are not one of the lucky few for whom a bed is available – too bad.

A newbie? Good luck; you are going to need lots of luck going for you to get a bed in the shelter and gain access to shelter staff to talk with and explore options and services available before falling through the crack into long term homelessness.

Have mental health issues that make functioning difficult? Under these circumstances the best option to find help is to find the person responsible for setting the purpose of the shelter as being 100% full and kick their ass, repeatedly while screaming aspersions as to said person’s nature, ancestors and abilities. This will ensure the police take you to the hospital where you will have priority for a bed and help, circumventing the shelter’s sorry, SOL state.

Hopefully this limited examination of the consequences of setting the policy (and thus the purpose) of the shelter as being 100% occupied is sufficient to make clear why it is vital to set the purpose and priorities for a shelter before setting the policies and procedures.

Achieving 100% occupancy of the shelter is not progress, or necessarily progress-  depending upon whether you view a cannibal using a fork as progress.

To be (or not to be) a shelter for those suffering a true emergency (i.e. fire), or to be a shelter for those seeking to retake and rebuild their lives by undertaking the hard work to find housing or treatment for substance use or to begin the journey in search of mental health; or to be a flophouse to warehouse those who have no interest at this point in time in changing?

It is vital that you decide what it is you want to accomplish with the shelter, setting out what the shelter is to be or not to be and setting the operational policies and procedures based on the purpose of the shelter being defined in terms of what it is you want to accomplish with the shelter, what needs do you want the shelter to address and meet.

Given purpose, priorities and needs I see the shelter having to meet, I would argue that having policies and priorities that result in an empty bed every night will serve those varying needs whereas a focus on ensuring all the beds are full will in fact defeat or deny the ability of the shelter to meet the purpose, priorities and needs of the city and its people.

Understand that I am not saying one should not seek to maximize the utilization of shelter beds, but that that operating policies should first seek to ensure the needs of the community are met and then make adjustments to your operating policies to maximize shelter bed usage only to the point where continuing to focus on bed usage will have negative consequences on the shelters ability to meet the communities needs.

Serving the purpose and priorities the community needs served is more important than having 100% bed usage and failing badly in meeting the community needs.

This is particularly true when the focus on 100% bed usage has the shelter performing more in the nature of a flophouse/semi-crack shack than as a shelter seeking to address the varied needs of the community to the best of its ability.

 

Postscript: The example used in examining why it is vital to set shelter operating policies in line with and to support the purpose(s) and priorities of the shelter does not mean that one cannot seek to increase the rate of occupancy of shelter beds. What the example reveals is that if you want to maintain the ability of the shelter to meet the needs of the community it is necessary to be cognizant of the reality that maintaining the shelter’s ability to serve the community’s needs will require acceptance of less than 100% bed usage and that any actions taken to increase bed usage require thoughtfulness, care and patience to ensure the shelter continues to serve the purposes, priorities and needs of the community.

The number of nights was adjusted from 10 to 5 to accommodate the introduction of Case Management and the reality that in the beginning Case Management had often required the use of more than 50% of the shelter beds. In order to ensure the shelter’s ability to meet the needs of the community the number of nights one received before needing to wait 30 days to return to the shelter was reduced from 10 to 5 to provide for adequate availability.

Over time the ‘rush’ on the new Case Management services had peaked and steadied at a lower level of demand for Case Management services. This lower level of demand resulted in a decrease in bed utilization.

In light of the history of, and experience with, the shelter the first step in increasing bed usage in the shelter should have been to raise the number of nights someone could stay at the shelter without working with Case Management from 5 to back to 10 nights to see the effect this change had upon bed utilization and the ability of the shelter to serve the needs of the community.

Should it prove necessary careful adjustment of the nights up (or down) from 10 could/would be made in the future to maximize bed usage and to continue to serve the needs of the community.