A frightening level of ignorance (and you can take ignorance both ways for meaning) was demonstrated at Monday night’s all candidates meeting at UFV about the social problems of homelessness, addiction, mental health, recovery and wellness, poverty, affordable housing and to a degree crime.

“We cannot build 50 units of housing in one place, we have to break them up into smaller units, spread them all out and check to make sure the police can handle, have plans to handle, all the extra crime that will occur because of these houses/people being located in the area.”

Statements along these lines made clear the failure of those making these and similar statements to have become informed on the reality and extent of the affordable housing crisis and other social problems in our city, displaying a woeful lack of basic awareness and knowledge on these issues.

The statements also demonstrate an unacceptable level of blind prejudice.

Admittedly my reaction is influenced by the insult given to myself and many others I know in those sweeping, ignorant statements.

Let me say again that I have been in and may find myself again, given my precarious one financial hiccup from homelessness situation, in need of this type of affordable, supportive housing. Supportive since falling out of your home is a traumatic experience.

I am also dismayed at the willingness to make judgments and sweeping demeaning, prejudicial statements concerning housing when nobody knows what kind of housing or tenants we are speaking of. Bad enough to fail to inform yourself on what are major issues facing the city, but to be unable to recognize a situation where there is no information at this time to make a decision on….

I have been involved in housing and other social issues in this city for years; indeed I have personal experience with the affordable housing issues having been scrambling at this time last year to find safe, healthy affordable housing.
With my experience and expertise I have no clue what type of housing we are talking about building with the BC Housing money or what organization (or organizations) will be involved in building and running the housing.

We won’t know until proposals are submitted to the city about what will be built and who will be the tenants.

I believe that as a member of city council I should know what I am making a decision about and what the facts are before I make a judgment and decide what course of action to pursue.

I just find that decisions I make tend to work out much better when I am informed about the issue or matter at hand and actually know what I am talking about.

The only part of this matter on which we can speak is about the monies that are or will be attached to each of the projects for supportive services.

While I am far healthier mentally and as a person than I have ever been in my life and so cannot regret the journey that brought me to this state of health and wellness I faced far more of a struggle to achieve that wellness than I needed to or should have faced. Indeed I admit that luck was a factor in my journey to balance and wellness. Luck should not be the factor that determines recovery or whether you have a high quality of life.

Far to many people are going to suffer because the support they need to prosper and be housed does not exist. The BC Housing buildings come with funding for this needed support.

The type of support needed is the same in a 50 unit building or a 5 unit building. The difference is that building 10 smaller 5 unit buildings will result in a cost 10 times as much to provide the needed level of support services for each building. Where do they suggest we get the extra $5,850,000 per year for the next 30 years?

Then there was the mayoralty candidate who stated they were against building any more housing for the homeless, that we already had too much homeless housing.

This will certainly be news to the hundreds of people who are currently homeless on the streets of Abbotsford. I am sure they will be as surprised as I was to hear that rather than a shortage of safe, healthy affordable housing Abbotsford has to much of that type of housing.

I am sure this surplus will be a relief to the increasing numbers of seniors, families, women and children finding themselves homeless because they cannot afford the cost of housing, of living in Abbotsford.

Or was the real meaning of the statement about no more housing that they wanted to ignore these people and leave them suffering homelessness?

We all know how well ignoring these social issues and problems worked out to this point.

As much as we all may want the statement made by one of the candidates that “these are complex problems but the solution is simple” to be true, it is not. The reason that these problems have grow year after year is that governments were searching for a simple solution that did not exist, rather than facing reality and doing what was necessary to begin addressing and reducing these social problems and their related societal costs (e.g. property crime).

The only thing that chasing a nonexistent simple solution will do is waste time and money, while allowing these social ills to continue to grow and worsen.

The thought of an alternate financial reality that exists only for our current city councillors crossed my mind at the UFV all-candidates meeting.

First it was one current councillor telling me I did not need to spend any money on filing Freedom of Information requests to find out what the actual costs of Plan A are. I could save my money because he could tell me the total cost for Plan A and that was $85 million. City Hall has already admitted to additional costs of $23 million for Plan A. Information leaking out of City Hall indicates that the costs have soared beyond the admitted to cost over budget.

Sorry, I still want to know the actual monies spent on Plan A since clearly, by the city’s own admission, the costs exceed $85 million. What does it say about the openness and veracity of financial claims by councillors that one is still sticking to the original $85 million claimed cost – even when we know it is at a minimum $23 million higher and have realistic reasons to believe it is higher than that?

Just as an aside: what does it say that citizen’s best hope for accurate and timely financial information is leaks and rumours?

Then there was the councillor insisting that Abbotsford’s property taxes are 4th lowest in BC and waving a piece of paper as proof of this. My typing “the moon is made on green cheese” and waving it around does not make the moon made of green cheese.

I say this because when I go to the websites cited by Vince Dimanno president of the ratepayers association (Provincial Government, InvestBC, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and numbers created by the City Finance Manager from the Township of Langley) I find that the numbers show Abbotsford having not only the highest taxes in the region but the highest by to many percentage points.

Obviously there is evidence which raises reasonable doubt about the claim by council concerning how Abbotsford compares to other communities in the region.

Given this kind of behaviour and record when it comes to the accuracy of statements made on financial matters by council and/or councillors is it any reason so many have no trust for statements and claims made by council?

How could any reasonable citizen, given this type of behaviour, not be demanding more transparency, openness, information and input on financial matters?

Citizens have the need and the right to be given a detailed report on how their money was budgeted to be spent compared to how it was spent. That way citizens can clearly determine what effect large unbudgeted expenditures such as the $500,000+ on the cement puddle at the library aka friendship garden have on other city services. In choosing to spend that $500,000+ on the cement puddle what did not get done that was suppose to be done in order to build the cement puddle.

Another aside: does anyone else find it a little strange to be building a 6 foot high fence around something called a “friendship garden”? Still I suppose the wall will provide privacy for the homeless who can certainly us a tub (pond) and shower (artificial waterfall) to improve personal hygiene.

As to costs associated with determining this information for a Freedom of Information request it should be $0.

The city should know what it has spent to date on Plan A and when finished should what the total expenditures were.

The city should know, should be keeping track of, how the money it has spent to date or the totals of monies spent in the fiscal year compare to how it was budgeted to be spent.

If the city does not know these basic facts about how it is spending or has spent taxpayers money then we as taxpayers have a serious problem and need to undertake a thorough housecleaning and hire competent financial people.

Further taxpayers should not have to be filing Freedom of Information requests to get this information. Taxpayers are paying the bills, they have the right to know how their money is being spent or how it is being misspent.

Question 1A:

I was a strong and vocal opponent of Plan A attending all public information meetings, asking questions of City councillors and staff, speaking with the public at the meetings, writing to the news paper and writing on www.homelessinabbotsford.com.

I filed a complaint with the BC Ombudsman over the City’s behaviour in conducting the referendum and wrote to our provincial elected officials (MLAs, premier, ministers) concerning the City’s conduct during the referendum.

I was a member of the board of directors of the ratepayers association during its first year of life and have continued to write and ask questions on the costs, the management and the effect of Plan A on the public.

Question 1B:

Since several of the articles and letters that I wrote referenced the need to consider interests costs when talking of making “profits” I clearly consider interest costs to information to be considered.

If the public wants to know how much interest the City will pay in addition to the repaying the principal, that information should be provided.

Question 2:

Speaking of unreasonable and arbitrary, what about the tone and content of this Question?

I have never been on council, but I have been a vocal and active opponent of council and wrote/complained about the way the Plan A referendum was handled.

However I would have to say that reasonable restrictions on making presentations to council are not unreasonable nor a barrier to addressing council. For example: the 15 minute time limit cited in the question is not unreasonable; requiring advance notice of the matter you want to bring before council is to be expected – groups I am a member of like the courtesy of including topics in the agenda, does not the ratepayers association have agendas for its meetings?

As to addressing council, limits to avoid the same person, topic or questions from appearing week after week after week and preventing other citizens from raising new topics and questions are needed but must be clear as to the rules.

New persons, topics or questions cannot/should not be denied just because the council does not want to hear them.

I am fully prepared to support an opportunity for the public and attendees to pose questions to council and think such an idea has merit. However I will not support a limitless free-for-all. Such a questions session would need to be structured to permit access to new speakers and for new topics not for the same people and topics to be raised time and time again.

I plan to have a website to blog about what is happening to council that would permit feedback and discussion.

Question 3:

I do not believe in government by referendum or survey; in fact I would say that popularity contest is a terrible way to make decisions.

I certainly hope that people elect you to council based on your experience, judgment and character, expecting you to exercise those traits in making decisions on their behalf.

I think the public needs to be heard; allowed to raise questions, concerns and ideas on matters; that a councillor has to listen to all of this input; but I believe that as a councillor you need to make decisions based on one’s experience, judgment and character. I do believe that the public is entitled to know why you decided as you did.

This is why I plan to blog about items and decisions facing the city and council – and expect feedback in the form of comments from the public.

I volunteer with several local organizations, sit on non-city committees, am a board member of a local organization and am connected to the community in a variety of other ways. I fully expect and hope that this will provide me with direct feedback and input and ideas from the public on city, council and public matters.
Question 4A:

I have had no involvement on this matter. While municipalities can raise this issue I am not sure there is any way for a municipality to exert pressure on more senior levels of government on this matter. Indeed it seems to me that this is a matter where the public is more suited and likely to affect change than a municipal council.

Question 4B:

I am aware that monies that are designated to improve and maintain our roads goes into general revenue and that it for the most part stays in general revenue and is not spent on our roads as intended.

Question 5:

I think this is far to complex an issue to address in the limited time and space available.

I also have some serious concerns and reservations about the effect this may or could have on funding for smaller communities, the sparsely populated regions etc.

While this is a concept that sounds simple it is in fact very complex, with far reaching consequences and affects.

This is an issue that has to be addressed not at an individual city level but by cities as a group to negotiate an agreement among provincial, federal and municipal levels of government.

In the meantime when the federal or provincial government download responsibility they need to provide funding for the municipality to pay for those downloaded responsibility. Infrastructure and other expensive expenditures also require funding support from higher levels of government with their higher ability to raise funds other than through property taxes.

Question 6:

I am not in favour of web based electronic voting, so I am not only not prepared to work for it, would in fact oppose it.

Your fuel cost argument is nonsensical.

If you do not want to spend money on gas – walk. I did when lack of a vehicle or poverty required me to walk to the poll to vote.

Getting out and voting is easy in Canada. If you are not prepared to expend the minimal effort required to vote – tough.

Question 7:

You left out the kitchen sink.

You pose a reasonable, sensible question on road infrastructure and I will answer it.

Question 8:

Yes.

Question 9:

Not Applicable.

Question 10:

I have read the applicable provincial statute and the guide provided by the province for municipalities to understand the statute and implementation of DCC.

I am aware of the questions/problems with Abbotsford’s new DCC bylaws. I have written about this matter on homlelessinabbotsford.com, in a letter to the newspaper and in letters to the Minister responsible and Premier Campbell.

We need to address this matter and bring Abbotsford’s DCC bylaws into line with provincial law.

Question 11:

Does not disclosure “prior to an election” inherently also include possibility or requirement of disclosing donations prior to such donations being made?

I have no problem with the concept of providing information about funding and donations prior to an election. However I really need to know exactly what your proposal entails before I can say yes or no. At the municipal levels many candidates do not have organizations and I am not willing to put in place requirements that will be barriers to citizens who want to run for local office and favour those with the resources to provide such information.

I personally cannot afford to spend money on campaigning and since I can think of many better uses to be raising money for I have no intention of formally raising money for my campaign.

A friend decaled his van with vote of James W. Breckenridge for city council and gave me a decal for my car. Some friends have spoken about doing something about getting some signs up – time will tell what happens on that front.

I am campaigning through candidates meetings, networking and getting out and meeting people.

Question 12:

I have been a resident of Abbotsford (and Matsqui) for twenty years.

I have a commerce degree, was a chartered accountant, have experience in public practice and business.

I manage to pay all my bills and the next months rent every month, living within my means.

Our city faces serious social issues in affordable housing, addiction, mental illness, the working poor and poverty all areas I have experience and familiarity with.

Unique life experience having been solidly middle class, ended up homeless from mental health challenges, worked hard to become mentally healthier than at any other point in my life, struggled to find and get into housing.

I volunteer with several organizations in our community; this includes a volunteer relationship were I was volunteering while homeless. I am co-chair of the Abbotsford Mental Health and Addictions Advisory Committee and sit as a member on a Fraser mental health and addictions committee. I am on the board of the Focus Disability Network Society. I am a member of several housing committees and groups in Abbotsford.

I work at the shelter in Abbotsford, do peer support and facilitate WRAP (wellness recovery action plan) groups.

I have friends, acquaintances and connections throughout the community.

I have been actively involved and engaged in the community, with community issues and with city and council decisions and behaviours.

In Conclusion:

I have taken the time to answer these questions because I believe the public has a right to this type of information in deciding whether to vote for me.

However I found the tone of the letter objectionable, particularly the accusatory tone in reference to current or prior council members.

Some of the questions were far to complex and convoluted to be answerable.

Given that the questions arrived in the mail on the very day they were due to have been answered and returned the questionnaire was unreasonable in its length and complexity.

I also find it hard to believe that these are the 12 top questions and concerns of the citizens of Abbotsford; they certainly are not representative, except in a few instances, of the concerns that have been expressed to me by the public at large.

James W. Breckenridge

“Gibson initially spoke out against the Plan A initiative but later supported it after the three projects received public support through two referenda.”

Let us be accurate here – there were not two referendums on Plan A. The first referendum Mr. Gibson cites was only permission to make a plan and present it to the community. It was in no way an approval of Plan A – except perhaps in the minds of those desperately seeking to justify their support of Plan A.

More importantly, if as he states Mr. Gibson was opposed to Plan A his duty to the people who elected him was to stand up and speak his opposition out loudly during the Plan A debate, informing the public of his opposition so they could take that into consideration as they voted on Plan A

As a strong and vocal opponent of Plan A I attended all public meetings and sessions about Plan A and carefully scoured the local papers for any words written about Plan A.

I do not recall hearing or reading of Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A nor do any citizens I spoke with about Mr. Gibson’s claim remember any statement or statements by Mr. Gibson against Plan A.

Given the closeness of the referendum results, a long term Councillor such as Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A would in all probability have resulted in a NO outcome and spared taxpayers the large cost overruns, the large tax increases and the debt load the city carries as a result of Plan A.

Massive cost overruns, high taxes and big debt load – all barriers to filling more pressing needs for the city such as infrastructure. Leaving one to wonder how if indeed “Municipal infrastructure, particularly roads, is a high priority for Gibson” he could have failed to strongly and vocally oppose Plan A – as did those of us who also had concerns about municipal infrastructure? How could he in any way support Plan A when it would be a major barrier to being able to fund infrastructure?

Why did we the public not hear of Mr. Gibson’s opposition to Plan A? How could Mr. Gibson vote for Plan A and its costs if infrastructure is a high priority for him?