Category Archives: The Issues

If this is what Black Press’s BC reporter passesoff as thinking – it is no wonder others consider BC lala land

I wish I could say my first thought upon seeing the title of Tom Fletcher’s “Discerning bums prefer ocean view” was that he was talking about the type of “bum” who would accept payment for writing trite, cliqued trivial nonsense just to meet the mortgage payment on his ocean view home. But I would be lying since it was clear that this was going to be another thoughtless rant about complex social issues. Reading this foolishness, as I did right after reading the News “Our View” on the same page, I did think that the employees of Black Press might want to insist on an environment study. Brain damage due to hazardous environmental contaminants seems a most plausible explanation for the lack of brain function inherent in both demonstrations of an inability to reason.

Given the closeness to Abbotsford and the people travelling between the two communities, perhaps the reason that nobody wanted to accept the offer of work is that they heard what happened with a similar offer made in Abbotsford. In this case the homeless accepted the promise of employment and the opportunity to move forward with their lives. As soon as the media spotlight moved on this “plenty of work” suddenly disappeared and the workers found themselves not only homeless but in many ways worse off than before they accepted “work”. Had they said “No” to the offer of work fingers would point and tongues wag about them not wanting to work, but where was/is all that moral indignation when the employer fails to keep his commitment?

Having spent long months living outside, due to circumstances beyond my control, I got lots of fresh air and retain my ability to cogitate. Which means that I am not foolish enough to see only black or white in what is a complex, many faceted situation made immensely more convoluted because it is, at its very core, a people problem. Of course some homeless do not want to work. On the other hand I, and I am sure many readers, have known people whose only “ability” was to be able to get paid for doing nothing (or at least nothing useful) on the job. There are those who defraud the Health Care system. Would it be sensible to address the problem of fraud by shutting down Medicare? While this approach would certainly stop all fraud, it would condemn all those others who do not abuse the system but seek only help in getting well to continue suffering. In the same manner I find it maddening, frustrating and disingenuous – not to mention totally lacking in any sense or compassion – to use the “bad apples” to condemn everyone else to continued depravations.

Mr. Fletcher so easily holds forth that some homeless would not accept housing even if it was available, with wilful blindness ignoring just how wrenching a transition this change is. Even being motivated and full of desire to begin the transition from living in my car it was most challenging to hang in and get used to being inside. Confined, jailed, walls closing in, on the verge of panic attacks – all of these were feelings I had to deal with. To a certain degree it was only stubbornness (an attribute I am noted for, although not always in a complimentary fashion) that drove me to hang in there. What truly allowed/helped me to make this gruelling adjustment was that I was participating in an 8 week psychiatric out-patient program during this time. Been there, done that and it was torturous – not some easily accomplished task.

Ah yes, Mr. Pakarinen. As those who know the views, approaches and behaviours of both of us, including Kerry himself, could tell you – I have serious philosophical and methodological differences with Mr. Pakarinen. Unfortunately it has become apparent that in order to get the media, and more importantly the citizens of our communities, province and the country itself to actually – well more accurately hopefully actually think with careful consideration about these full of twists and turns, interrelated and thorny matters you need to get the citizens and journalists attention. Since both these groups seem to approach any issue that actually involves careful thought and rational action with all the willingness of a jackass learning something new, the only approach that seems to hold any promise for a useful dialogue is the same approach one would employ in teaching a jackass something new. First you get a two by four, then you drive the jackass right between the eyes with the two by four to get its attention, then you proceed with the lesson. While, as said I have serious differences with Mr. Pakarinen he does function well as a two by four for the media and public.

Complex, byzantine, no nice neat easy answers, requiring long term commitment. All these statements are true. One of the biggest barriers to public understanding is that the only true way to begin to fully get an appreciation for this mess is to journey through it. Being in the process of the journey myself, I would not wish such a learning experience on anyone – including those who so blithely pontificate on the matter.

Re: Bridge Housing

Self Righteousness: so self-gratifying, so self-indulgent, so sanctimonious, so often inflicting pain and misery on others in the name of helping or “correctness”.

The 2004 proposal of 6 Houses, when 30 is about what actually exist and with an MCC study suggesting that Abbotsford’s need is for close to 40 Houses, clearly demonstrates just how little understanding of reality the City has on this question. So before everybody breaks an arm smugly patting themselves on the back and the City “protects” the residents for the Houses into homelessness on the city streets, let us spare a few moments to actually THINK.

“… required to sign over their $325 a month.” Yes, well where would you suggest they find other shelter for $325 a month? Yes, there are safety issues, but it is dim-witted to suggest living on the streets would not be more of a threat to life and limb than being in their current houses.

The reason that the Province dropped bridge housing from their regulations were that the regulations were designed for institutions such as MSA hospital and thus were so onerous in a bridge housing situation nobody could realistically meet the standards. Which would mean no bridge housing; easy for council and the City, but an awfully cruel and callous way to treat those needing help on the road to recovery? But then pointing their fingers at the Provincial government is an old favourite method for the City to avoid acting on difficult issues such as homelessness.

Councillor John Smith’s “.. the moral issue” must be speaking about some special type of Abbotsford Politicians Morality. A most convenient morality; where it is “morally wrong” for the City to permit these people to be living in crowded housing, but it is “morally OK” for the City council and staff to drive these people out of shelter and onto the streets. The advantage to the City of such a fluid concept of moral behaviour is an easy way out of complex situations – to bad for the casualties, and there are casualties of this fluid “morality”.

An example of this is the Fraser Valley Inn. Yes there were problems with the Inn but the City just used an old magician’s sleight of hand to appear to act. Closing the Inn did not solve anything; it merely spread the people and problems around the city, in reality making them harder to deal with. This nice fluid view of moral behaviour means the City can continue to ignore those it tossed onto the streets and who are still there a year latter. Just who or what is going on that the City seems to like throwing people onto the streets in time for winter weather?

Be very clear on the point that I am not saying you should not want to close the substandard among them. I am saying you cannot close them until you have available alternatives for housing and services. Because throwing them onto the streets is an Immoral way to act. Unless you follow that special Abbotsford Politicians Morality, where morals can be used to act anyway you want without getting inconveniently in the way you elect to misbehave.

Just how dumb …

What, Abbotsford couldn’t build a much smaller, cheaper arena with someone to help pay the bills for an established hockey team like the Chilliwack Chiefs. Instead we chased them out of town when they wanted to come here. Now council wants to build a building we don’t need that has nobody to use it except for some vague promises of maybe getting some kind of team. Like we are suppose to take a politicians promise seriously. You use to have more sense George. They promise to stick your name on it or something? 55 MILLION BUCKS!!!! For that we could build and buy all the other things we need.

I’ve lived in Abbotsford for years and I never heard of any world class art or world class museum bits and pieces. So why blow 10 million more bucks on a world class place for regular stuff? Why can’t those who claim to support that kind of thing put their own money where their mouth is and do fund raising themselves to pay for it like they do in big cities such as Vancouver? The Whalers raised money for improvements to Centennial Pool and the city has not kept faith with them. If the chic don’t think it important enough to raise money for then just stick some rooms on the ARC extension. Maybe then the ordinary people who pay the bills will see it.

I want a guarantee that council and anyone who votes yes will be paying all taxes needed over 158.00 a year. We all know about estimates and skyrocketing real cost. Why should I be forced to pay for councils boondoggles?

Chris O’Neill

Refreshing Media change.

You keep going like this… and you are going to not only live up to your stated aspirations, maybe even exceeding them, but you are going to have a very interesting, must read publication. That is how I had planed to end the last sentence in my prior letter, but then the best laid plans of mice and men. Or perhaps it was just fate this week’s edition contains an excellent start covering an important issue even though it is not “nice” and entails a certain amount of controversy.

Perspective – Whoa! An informative piece hinting at the temptations that a drug can have, the seductive promises that the drug and its effects can make: euphoria, endless energy, decreased appetite (easy weight loss), alertness. For the education of the public who tend to only see the end product of drugs – the addict – Ms Daniel paints a picture of the ordinary people that it lures into using with its siren song. The housewife, mother, sons and daughters, outstanding school athletes and scholars, fathers, business people – these are the real people that lie buried within the addicts that end up on our streets. Hopefully articles such as this can help people to see that the “addicts” are people, people suffering from listening to the seductive promises of a “mother’s little helper”. Then perhaps we can cease judging and concentrate on healing.

The promise of the Post that this is only the first of a series on this issue holds forth the promise of bringing knowledge and understanding to allow Post readers to begin to comprehend the nature of the insanity that is drug addiction. Dare I hope for a perspective that examines what effect legality (nicotine, cigarettes) vs. illegality (crystal meth) can have on addiction, the addict, “functional users” and on crime.

The issue also contained Kevin Gilles’s article on the growing and increasingly visible challenge presented by homelessness. The first thought I want to share is that it is a rather damning comment on our society that the Salvation Army and other organizations that help those in distress need a PR hack … ahem, let’s make that a PR person as, in spite of her unfortunately required occupation, Deb is a nice person – whom I know as a caring individual. How can we have any expectation of achieving progress on a multifaceted series of interrelated acutely complex and muddled people problems, when on even the simple aspects of this gargantuan chaotic mess we have to apply spin in presenting even the most elementary and simple pieces of the issues to the public. Given that the only route I see holding promise to help the homeless regain their souls and their lives lies thru community involvement, how do we eradicate the need for PR, educate and involve the community?

Perhaps the need for PR and what it says about our society should have been second on my list. First definitely has to be having a local newspaper that is part of and engaged with their communities, providing the needed forum for an examination of the reality of ours streets and an exchange of ideas – opening the gateway to addressing these pressing issues. We have to get past what people believe and most especially what they want to believe (because of their own personal world view) is the situation; to open their eyes and gain an awareness and a degree of understanding for the nitty-gritty, often dirty facts that underlie homelessness and its street kin – mental illness, drugs etc. We need an informed public on this matter so we do not need to spin what IS. To permit trying new ideas as well as adapting and using methods that have generated positive results elsewhere in the efforts to tackle these dilemmas. Adopting Edison’s attitude that he had not failed a thousand times in trying to invent the light bulb but had merely carried out the necessary thousand experiments, is crucial to making any true progress in addressing these problems. If we cannot honestly discuss: this worked, that did not work, this result wasn’t what we expected – why?, Say… how about trying this?, this kind of worked, and so on; we are going to find ourselves trapped in the quagmire that results from all the churning of the ground we are trying to work on by all the spin that these types of discussions would generate.

Wondering about the why behind the headline “Homeless numbers rise despite abundance of jobs”? Here is a sample or two of the actual reality behind that Why? to think about. What happens to all those functioning users in Ms Daniel’s Perspective as they become less and less functional, starting the fall from home, employment and social network to the harsh loneliness of the streets. Rising job numbers do nothing for them as a job is not the type help and support they need to begin to slowly and painfully turn their lives around. Consider the worker for whom losing their job was an economic disaster that left them having nothing and on the street or the recovering addict whom, in the throes of their addiction, burned all their bridges behind them and now has nothing, no one and are on the streets. Without a phone, an address, a way to be contacted, a way to keep clean and presentable, to have time and energy to look for work after taking care of the necessities of food, water and sleep, without transportation other than by foot, with basically nothing – just how are you to find work? Yes I am aware of Social Assistance. Are you aware of its inadequacies, how far short it falls of providing the basics needed to enable a person to conduct a successful job search? It is just as inadequate, perhaps more maddeningly so, in providing support to help those who find work in meeting their basic needs in a way that does not interfere with keeping their jobs and getting back onto their economic and social feet. Ponder the obstacles that being homeless puts up if you should find work, little things such as adequate sleep, personal hygiene and appearance, food to keep you alive, getting to work. Actually there are separate articles that could be written just on these barriers. To keep this letter from becoming a novel I will leave the reader with a final point to consider. Due to whatever circumstances you find yourself with nothing, absolutely nothing and without family or friends to help. Damage deposit; first months rent; the most basic of furniture, pots and pans, dishes; a phone; old debts; bad credit. Yes, we all at one point started out, but if we are honest we have to acknowledge just how much support we received from family and friends and how important, how necessary that help and support was in getting onto our feet and taking our first steps into our new lives.

I hope that this quick and rather superficial look at just some of the points that flow from considering the implications and issues raised by reading Kevin Gillies’s article serves to let the reader begin to see just how complex the labyrinth of issues and needs connected to homelessness is. You want neat, simple, easy, quick answers? They don’t exist. You want a perfect solution? You are living in a very altered state of reality. We are dealing with people here. It will be messy; mistakes will occur; it will take patience to allow for adequate time frames; it will take and try the patience of the saints in dealing with some of those in need of help; there will be some who cannot or will not be helped. There are many other disagreeable aspects we would rather not have to deal with or face, that must be dealt with or faced in order to bring positive change to these serious issues.

To have success we need the involvement, support and commitment of our entire communities. We need to achieve a public understanding of the underlying realities of the situation through education, insight, perspective and commentary. We need to put aside partisanship, politics and self delusion while dealing with the entrenched vested interests. We cannot be afraid of controversial issues, of facing and dealing with the facts – the un-spun, bare facts. We need to accomplish change, or suffer the insanity of continuing to repeat that which has not only failed to work, but has allowed things to worsen. We need a forum for public discussion, generation of ideas, a steadfastness of purpose and a commitment to action.

Wisdom or lessons can come from strange places. So, let us take to heart the words of Yoda: ”Try not. Do or Do Not. There is no try.” We need to stop hiding behind “trying” and choose. Do Not and accept the costs and consequences. Do and begin reclaiming lost or shattered lives. Do or Do Not. Choose what kind of society you want to live in. DO.

Just what does binding mean here?

It there some secretly enacted bylaw in Abbotsford making it illegal to ask Councillors or City Staff probing, hard or difficult questions? As part of this hidden bylaw are staff and politicians exempt from answering, except when and where they feel like it? These questions popped into my mind upon reading “Beck stays mum on Big 3 details…”. Since I am posing questions just what does binding mean as used here?

A few weeks ago Mr. Beck was quoted in your publication as saying that the referendum was only about timing, not about if the proposed projects would get built. Now it is said to be binding. So which is it? Is the referendum a pointless waste of taxpayer dollars because these projects will be built no matter how loud the public’s NO is? Or is it binding and does binding mean that when people sensibly vote NO council will turn from this “Big 3” and address the many pressing small facility needs?

If the strike has caused problems in adequate planning and preparation exactly why are we rushing to hold the referendum in November? Oh wait; this is typical behaviour of council and staff, rushing in without thinking. Don’t think it is typical behaviour that has caused massive cost overruns, resulted in construction of facilities lacking needed aspects such as adequate seating for spectators and being a little short of what they should be because of such peccadilloes such as running out of room for the ice surface and having to cut it short of Olympic size? Just ask anyone who is familiar with the true tale of the building of the rink at ARC, at least those with nothing to hide about oversights.

This giving the bums rush to taxpayers seems likely to prevent thoughtful consideration of the plans and the City’s true needs as to facilities we need to build. Why the rush? Are there details and costs that will be kept hidden by forcing a rushed decision? Would taking a look at setting priorities based on what the City really needs get in the way of councillor and staff pet projects?

If we are to be rushed to judgement can we add the requirement for council and staff to act with careful planning and consideration, due consultation with the users of the facilities and prudent management?

Once these ill-considered, unneeded projects representing a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars are defeated with a loud, resounding NO we can get on with choosing and planning badly needed capital projects. Assuming that staff and council can recognize that NO means NO, that binding is binding and that the taxpayers who foot the bills have a right to set priorities for their City’s facility development and needs.