Do or do not. There is no try.

What does it say about us as a society that a science fiction fictional character reflects more common sense on the question of ending homelessness than our so-called leaders. We must make a choice about homelessness – either we end it or we don’t.

As Mr. Philip Mangano’s visit to Abbotsford makes clear, as evidenced by the experience of U.S. cities including some of similar size to Abbotsford, ending homelessness is a matter of our choice.

If we choose to end homelessness then the symptoms that come with homelessness will end and we will have nothing to bitch about; if we choose to not end homelessness then stop bitching about the symptoms – you chose to live with them.

In either case stop bitching. All our “trying” has accomplishing is nothing – except to waste the resources we could bring to bear on ending homelessness.

Do or do not. Choose.

One of the downsides that does not occur to you as one seeks improved mental hygiene is the side effect of improved listening. I can hear all those voices as people shout: ‘What, I am already a great listener!’ as they close their eyes, ears and minds. Just as so many citizens of Abbotsford chose to ignore those, who for years had tried to draw their attention to homeless issues that needed to be addressed while the problem was relatively small and thus more manageable. This willful ignorance continued until homelessness grew to a size where it could no longer be ignored, a size where the problem was much larger and a great deal more complex. This is so often the case when we do not hear what is said even as we claim to be listening. With things we do not want to hear, see, think about or that disagree with how we believe the world is, our minds shut down so that what is said goes in one ear and out the other – leaving no trace or impression on the mind. How many citizens looking at “Compassion Park” see only what they want to see, a camp of homeless people. The choose not to hear, see or think about the reality that this is the tiniest tip, a small visible indication of a much larger and complex national issue. They spend all their time screaming “Not in My Backyard” to avoid the need to listen to, and then think about, the real and pressing larger issues. Apparently people prefer ignoring problems by not listening, then complaining about the Fallout because it is much easier not to listen – at least in the short run. In this manner they avoid actually having to think about what was said and the issues connected to what was said.

Take as an example the Conservative parties promise to increase prison sentences, crack down on (what they consider to be) crime, re-criminalize things (such as marijuana) they do not approve of, etc. Voters liked what they heard, but did they really listen? Listening requires concentration and critical thinking. We can all agree that probation for a drunk driver who kills or maims someone is unacceptable and that there are other specific situations/areas of the law and sentencing that need attention. BUT if you listen to and think about what the Conservative party was saying, you soon realize the Ed Fast was making a vast understatement when he stated the government would not close any of Abbotsford’s prisons because they would be needed to house ALL the prisoners after the Conservatives change the criminal code to their liking, matching it to their beliefs. If you think about it, with all the new people the Conservatives want to throw in prison and the longer (in some cases much, much, much longer) sentences they propose the prison population is going to soar explosively. Incarceration is going to be a booming industry. I do not intend to argue the philosophical or moral issues of this proposed mass incarceration, nor the effects upon Canadian society. Still, it is obvious from the election outcome the voters of Abbotsford do not want to consider, ponder or think about those issues/questions with no easy answers. So let us consider a related issue on a topic the city has demonstrated its love of: Money! The citizens of Abbotsford loved hearing the promise of cutting taxes, but also the promise of not cutting funding to popular programs such as medical coverage. The Conservatives promised a massive increase in incarcerating Canadian citizens. This is going to require building prisons, more prison guards and administrators, an expanded court and police systems, etc. The conservative promise in this area will require billions of dollars to keep, on top of the billions they have promised to spend on the military.

Cutting taxes means the federal government have less money to pay for all these promises. Either they run a big deficit, cut Medicare or raise taxes. The voters will scream about broken promises, when they bear the responsibility. If they had listened, thought and Questioned, their choice may have been much different. People so often prefer the easy answer/way, if it sounds nice they do not really ‘listen’, avoiding the trouble (or Pain) of thinking, Then complain about the fallout of their own choices and actions.

So it is with the current homeless situation in Abbotsford. For years citizens and politicians refused and/or chose not to listen to the people who advocated: “We should address homelessness”, because it was far easier not to listen. Only now that the problem has grown so large are people listening, well at least some of the people. But far to many do not want to listen and be required to actually (shudder) think. They focus on and scream about the existence of Compassion Park to avoid thinking about the larger problem that the Park is only the tiniest symptom of. Think about it, what happens if you chase them from the Park? They will not evaporate, they will just move somewhere else, until they are chased and chased and chased and chased and chased and chased and chased and chased finally returning to the site they were originally chased from. Why wouldany one want to go right back to the pointless, costly policies and actions the city pursued before? Nothing accomplished and the homeless numbers permitted to continue into an even more overwhelming problem.

The best solution is to solve the problem of homelessness; then there is no (need for) Compassion Park. Unfortunately this ‘best solution’ is as unrealistic as many a politicians promises. Listening and thinking about the homeless situation one soon realizes how complex the situation is; one sees that it is highly improbable (OK, impossible) that you could ever reduce the number of homeless to zero. Reality is that even as you reduce the current members of the diverse group of people lumped together as homeless, new homeless are being created by government policies and policy choices. Reality is also that some of those currently homeless will, for a variety of reasons, remain homeless. While this may make one want to throw up one’s hands and give up, that is not rational. The only Rational Choice is to begin. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. We can as a city, or as a society begin to take steps to address the issues that have led the homeless into homelessness. We can reduce the current numbers of homeless, helping fellow Canadians to get back the lives and ability to choose that they lost when they began their slide into homelessness.

We do this by putting in place the services, support and aid they will need to transition off the streets. By co-ordination and co-operation among the organizations, groups and churches that step forward to act. By co-ordinating existing services so that the homeless can find the right help. It does no good to have a service available if those who need it cannot find or access it. By encouraging the homeless to seek and find the help that is already in place we maximize the effectiveness of the existing services. Co-ordination also allows these existing services to maximize the good they achieve by avoiding duplication. We also need to think about (and encourage the homeless themselves to think about) what services are needed to get off the streets.

We must remember that just getting them off the streets is not a solution. If we fail to address their needs for getting their act together and making sure they get aftercare and support, follow through (as opposed to abandoning them) they will just slip back down and onto the streets.

We need to be flexible and to remember we are dealing with people. This means problems, failures, headaches etc. It also means success, triumph and lives reclaimed. We need to be committed for the long haul.

Above all else we need to begin. To take the first steps in this years long, thousand mile journey that is needed to address the issues associated with homelessness. Otherwise we risk talking the homeless to needless pain and deaths.

Perhaps what is truly needed is motivation. I suggest we move all those involved in this issue in Abbotsford into Compassion Park. Not having nice comfortable homes to go to at the end of a day spent talking about homelessness should serve to provide the decision makers with first hand experience of conditions and needs. As an aside: I would be willing to house sit for the transplantees as I am sure several of my fellow homeless would be willing to also house sit. In fact we could do the planning and discussing as the transplantees gain in dept experience with the frustrations of homelessness. I am sure we could stall … I mean discuss the matter for a year or two. This innovative proposal on transplanting should be highly motivational in getting those first steps taken and giving back to the homeless something most have lost – HOPE.

To Mr. Hoekstra:

I must point out that it would have made it easier to understand and appreciate his problems if he had told us what business he was managing and its location (if necessary). I heartily agree that “Our focus show be on treating our ill citizens not expecting them to camp out in the rain.” Unfortunately the problem has been ignored by both the politicians and citizens, such as Mr. Hoekstra, until it has reached the point where it has become such a large problem that it can no longer be ignored. The difficultly with the approach of ignoring the problem until it becomes ‘in your face’ in size is that there is nothing in place to address the issue. As a homeless person myself I regret the need for compassion park. But until the politicians and citizens get their act together and start to get the needed co-ordination, programs and access to facilities in place the people of Abbotsford are going to have to endure compassion park and the other problems associated with having allowed the homeless. It is the price society pays for sitting on its a** with its head in the sand on an issue it wanted to ignore because it had no neat, comfortable 100% successful solutions, until it reached the size it could not be ignored. I do feel insulted Mr. Hoekstra paints us all with the same brush, many of the homeless are extremely honest and honorable. At the same time I acknowledge his difficulties and the difficulties that others can have. But, if you chose to ignore a problem until it blows up in your face, you have to deal with the mess it makes as well as the original problem. Oh, as a final point, you might want to worry about the type of customers you have if you need to worry about them “accidentally” driving over people.

To Mr. Pihowich:

I can only say: get a dictionary. It is clear from your letter you have no understanding of what the word solution means. Solution: a. The method or process of solving a problem. b. The answer to or disposition of a problem. A solution requires solving the problem of the homeless. Spreading the homeless and their tents throughout the city in backyards solves nothing. Of course it would hide the problem so it could be ignored again. At least until it reached truly gigantic problems. Of course ignoring the problem is how it reached its present state and size, but then if you cannot understand what a solution involves it is hardly surprising you cannot understand the consequences of continuing to avoid addressing the homeless situation. As to those Barbecues, you might want to ask Councilor Lowen as I understand that one of them was his originally. But generousity is probably in the class of ‘solution’, that class of ideas and concepts you cannot grasp.