Homeless

Dark disturbance in the Force

Leave a comment

A dark disturbance in the Force; that may be as close as I can come to putting my feelings upon seeing the addition of the locked gate to the doorway alcove at the Abbotsford District Teachers Association building.

The way the building was built had resulted in a sheltered alcove protecting the door that leads into the teamster’s area of the building. Over the years it has served as home to several of the homeless I know, being handed on from occupant to occupant because it was a prime location if you are homeless.

With the Paliotti’s just across the road the evenings often brought the generous gift of a good meal from patrons of the restaurant, sometimes even cigarettes or cash.

The alcove provided superior shelter from wind and the elements. Still the best point of this location was that, because the police had not received a complaint from the owners, homeless tenants could sleep through the night without being disturbed – removing themselves when the building opened.

Knowing the history and the people who had used this alcove over the course of several years, the appearance of a locked gate whose only purpose was to deny access to any homeless seeking shelter from the elements was very disturbing; a dark disturbance in the Force.

Yes the owners have the legal right to put up the gate, as the East German government claimed a legal right to build the Berlin Wall. Yet in that action, and in the context of the history of the alcove and homelessness, there lies a deep symbolism whose message is of a bleak exclusion and uncaring.

Provincial politicians speak of their plans and of “knowing” what is happening, while on the streets more people find themselves seeking food and shelter. Our local politicians form committees and say all the right things – but have not provided a single shelter space for any homeless person, nor a single meal for the hungry. The community pats itself on the back for being so generous and boasts of the number of places of worship, while hunger and need grow.

The letter pages of the local are full of letters from local Christians complaining about magazines at checkout stands, about Darwin, about the lack of moral behaviour, about…, about…, about… … but about the need to follow the example of Christ and love thy neighbour, minister to and help the homeless or the hungry?

I look at that gate and wonder if, as happens at other places of loss and accident, I should leave flowers to mark this diminishing.

The dark forbidding clang of that gate as it closes resounds through our community, province and across Canada.

Is it the sound of the alarm calling us to arms and action against poverty; or is it a Bell tolling out a lament for our souls?

Stop, look at the gate, light a candle and meditate on what kind of world you want to create.

Homeless

Homelessness in Metro Vancouver up 20 per cent since 2005

Leave a comment

Homelessness in Metro Vancouver up 20 per cent since 2005

Frances Bula and Doug Ward
Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

METRO VANCOUVER – Homelessness continues to increase across Metro Vancouver, especially in the suburbs, according to preliminary numbers from the latest homeless count announced today.

There are now close to 2,600 people in shelters and on the streets any given night in this region, almost a 20-per-cent increase from the last count done in 2005.

But the numbers didn’t go up as much as people thought they would and it’s far less than the increase between 2002 and 2005, when numbers almost doubled, said Alice Sundberg, co-chairwoman of the Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness, which directed the count.

That is giving people such as Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts some hope that increased services and aggressive efforts to reach out to the homeless are beginning to slow the flow a little.

Surrey’s counts indicated that 386 people were either in shelters or, predominantly, sleeping outside on the night of March 11, when the count was done. On one hand, that’s grim news. On the other, the number of street homelessness is up only 15 per cent from 2005.

“We have the lowest increase in the region,” Watts said. “I think that’s because we’ve made a really concentrated effort with outreach. We’ve housed almost 300 people in the past two, 21/2 years, and put them into permanent housing.”

So although the tap of homelessness is still turned on, the drain seems to be working better.

The early counts show that suburbs such as Burnaby, the Coquitlam region, and the Langleys showed the sharpest jumps in homelessness. At the same time, they had the fewest shelter beds proportionally to accommodate them, so that the majority of their homeless were out on the street.

Langley city Mayor Peter Fassbender said that picture will be drastically different in three years. A new centre that combines 30 shelter beds with 25 transitional housing units, along with a “feeding centre” and space for counselling and training, is due to open in June next to the Kwantlen University College campus. That centre, jointly financed by the city, township, Salvation Army, province and federal government, is Langley’s acknowledgement that it must help.

“It’s a big step. We have come to the place of saying we have to be part of the solution,” Fassbender said.

In Coquitlam, Mayor Maxine Wilson said the area’s three municipalities are looking for a location to put a permanent shelter. Coquitlam is also working with the YWCA on another project to build supported housing for women and children.

But Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said he thinks it’s reprehensible that municipalities are constantly made to feel that it’s their job to solve homelessness, when it’s the provincial government that cut housing programs and tightened up access to welfare.

His city is focusing on long-term housing solutions, building on a foundation of the second-highest number of social-housing units of any other part of the region. (Only Vancouver has more.)

The homeless-count statistics prompted responses from both Downtown Eastside advocates and Housing Minister Rich Coleman about what they meant and what the trends for the future are.

A coalition of advocacy groups held a press conference outside an up-for-sale rooming house downtown to highlight the ongoing problems of evictions and speculation in the Downtown Eastside, which they say are accelerating homelessness. And they accused the provincial government and city of doing little to address the problem.

But Coleman said he was actually relieved by the numbers.

“People were predicting it would be double or triple [the 2005 numbers]. The way I look at it now, we have 2,500 homeless and what have I got in the pipeline? Do I have 2,500 units coming? The answer would be yes.”

But even Coleman cautioned that doesn’t mean the problem is solved, because there are always more people becoming homeless.

That’s something that certainly proved true in Vancouver where, in spite of Mayor Sam Sullivan’s commitment to reduce homelessness by 50 per cent in time for the 2010 Olympics, the number of street homeless actually increased by 32 per cent, so that there are now almost exactly the same number of people on the street (about 780) as in the city’s numerous shelter beds.

The count also fueled debate about what is causing the significant increases in suburban homelessness.

Sundberg, from the regional homelessness steering committee, said she believes it’s a case of homeless people now being able to stay in their home communities because there are finally some services there for them.

David Eby, a homeless advocate with the Pivot Legal Society, said he thinks the numbers are going up in the suburbs because people from Vancouver are being driven out of the city by the continuing losses of the city’s cheapest housing in the Downtown Eastside.

Corrigan said he thinks the numbers increase, especially in cities like his, are driven by a deliberate plan in Vancouver to “push these people out into the suburban municipalities, trying to clean up for the Olympics.”

Those actually out on the streets see it a little differently.

Chris Fontaine, whose battered face fits his life story of bad luck and bad decisions, has been homeless in Surrey for about 18 months.

“It’s a crappy life to live. But, hey, I get by,” Fontaine said Tuesday while staying at The Front Room shelter in Surrey – a last-resort place for people whose addictions and mental illness make it difficult for them find housing elsewhere.

It’s no surprise to Fontaine that a homeless task force recently found about 390 homeless people in Surrey over a 24-hour period.

“I can believe it. They come from Vancouver, Burnaby, New West – they all come to Surrey,” he said.

“There’s better resources here. It’s a better area. More drugs, I guess. There are at least 40 guys that I know who are down here from the Downtown Eastside.”

The 33-year-old single man hopes to find a cheap apartment but knows the odds – and his own past – are stacked against him.

“You need a rental history and my rental history around here ain’t so good.”

For now the Front Room, with its 40 beds, is home.

“The people here at the Front Room – they care about us a lot. They give us hope.”

Federal, Homeless, Provincial

Callousness, irrationality or amorality?

Leave a comment

I was pondering the fact both the provincial and federal governments are pursuing policies that de-house people, forcing them into homelessness; and the fact that both levels of governments continue to choose not to engage in policies to re-house people. Leaving me to mull over why both levels of governments seemingly aspire to increase the numbers of homeless, as opposed to decrease the number of homeless on the streets.

The only rational explanation would appear to be that these are anti-terrorism driven policy choices. Drive enough Canadian citizens into life on the streets; make it difficult, if not impossible, to get back onto their feet and into housing; force them to live under bridges, in, around and under other pieces of infrastructure; you have in place a solid first line of defence against any terrorists targeting our nations infrastructure. While perhaps effective, this entails a callous disregard for, and devaluing of, the people being (ab)used.

Alternatively, we are dealing with government behaviour, thus there is a high probability that these are simply your average run of the mill, day-to-day irrational government behaviours.

Of course, given their ideology, there is the distinct possibility that the BC Liberal Party and the Canadian Conservative Party just lack the ethical and spiritual values that would make the levels of homelessness and poverty unacceptable; values that would necessitate pursuing policies to reduce homelessness and poverty.

Mr. Campbell, Mr. Harper: is it cold -blooded anti-terrorism, irrational behaviour or a lack of ethical and spiritual values?

Municipal

Attempt to “Fix” November’s Abbotsford elections?

Leave a comment

I was talking to a friend the other night and she brought up the fact a mutual acquaintance told her that she was not sure she could run in November’s municipal election because it was much harder to run in Abbotsford’s upcoming municipal election than in past years.

Fortunately I had been online to my favourite webzine, which had a story highlighting this matter, and had followed the link to read the questionable piece of writing calling upon Abbotsford council to make it much harder for “fringe” candidates to run. I was able to share that no changes had yet been made to the requirements to file and run in this year’s city elections.

While reading this anti-democratic call, I did wonder just what central committee or Orwellian big brother gets to decide what or who is “fringe”?

I was left pondering the actual purpose or motives behind a call for making it harder for “fringe” candidates to run. Making it harder for “fringe” candidates also clearly makes it harder for anyone to run, a fact conveniently ignored in the call to limit candidates and voter’s choices for city council. Rather a nice boon for current city councillors, would it not be?

Who no doubt find it daunting to be seeking re-election at a time so many citizens have questions and concerns about council’s sense of priorities, decision making, the fact that decisions are made behind closed doors excluding public scrutiny, financial management ability, etc; at a time people want a voice in the decisions, the direction the city takes and the vision that shapes the future; when citizens are engaged in local politics, motivated to participate and highly motivated to get out and vote.

One can understand why some members of Abbotsford City Council might like to make it much, much harder for “fringe” candidates to run thus making it much, much harder for all other candidates to run. The temptation to reduce the number of people who can run against you and thus protect oneself from defeat is understandable.

Just as understandable is the fact that seeking to protect oneself from answering to the voters by limiting their choice in who to vote for is totally unacceptable behaviour.

Democracy can survive a few fringe candidates since it thrives where anyone and everyone, including the so-called “fringe”, has the right to stand up and be heard, Democracy does not exist where some central committee or council is deciding who can run.

Let us be democratic, keep the playing field level, let the citizens hear from all and leave the final decision about who is fit and proper to represent the citizens in the hands of the citizens.

Municipal

Blatalnt political partisanship, Not opinion.

Leave a comment

Masquerading under the pretence of being an opinion the Abbotsford News “opinion” of Saturday March 22, 2008 has worrying implications for the democratic process in Abbotsford, particularly as regards the upcoming November municipal elections.

This blatant piece of political partisanship in support of John Smith is unbalanced and unfair, containing as it does misleading factual omissions and implied untruths.

“City projects apparently make good targets for detractors of city council, simply because they all cost money.” Only by being completely ignorant of the public record, whether written by my own hand or made in public debate and comment, could anyone truthfully make this statement.

As one of those prejudicially labelled detractors, I am on record as wanting to build a 50 metre indoor competition swimming pool, more all weather soccer fields, upgrades to both the sewage and drinking water treatment plants as well as other needed projects. I was just as critical of council’s failure to build needed projects in order to hold tax increases to zero.

Despite the implication in the News opinion, being opposed to vanity projects such as John Smith’s friendship garden or new, tenantless arena does not mean one is against projects “… simply because they cost money.”

It simply means one is in favour of fiscally responsible behaviours. Behaviours such as setting priorities based upon the needs of the citizens not councils wants.

An example would be the matter of the lack of a single accessible playground for children with disabilities and handicaps. When approached for $50,000 to make ONE playground accessible, John Smith and council could not find $50,000.

But for city councillor John Smith’s garden – $500,000, ten times the amount they COULD NOT find for children. This is praiseworthy – how?

Let us examine one of the glaring omissions made by the News in its opinion. The grant is not without cost to the city since it is a matching funds grant and in order to be able to spend the provincial funds there must be matching city funds. The city is required to come up with $500,000 to get and spend the provincial $500,000.

“Coun. Smith asserts that the city will be able to find local businesses offering in-kind donations to come up with its share…” Ignoring for the moment the reasonableness of accepting unsupported claims that local business will leap in with the needed $500,000; would this not be the same Councillor Smith that assured taxpayers that the provincial government would be contributing millions of dollars to Plan A costs? We are all aware of how those promised funds failed to materialize, leaving taxpayers on the hook for all those nonexistent $$$ millions.

“… it is surely better for Abbotsford that some of this funding come here …” implies that we spend these funds on this friendship garden or not get any funds. A simple check of the facts would reveal this is not the case.

I would suggest that rather than waste Abbotsford’s share of the provincial program these funds come from on Councillor Smith’s friendship garden, the funds be spent on needed projects such as accessibility – which would be far more in keeping with the spirit of the “Spirit” grant(s).

I wish I could go so far as to suggest spending the entire amount on making more than just one single playground accessible to those with disabilities and handicaps but I am not, unlike others, so fiscally irresponsible.

Without cash on the barrelhead, that is donations in hand, the city is on the hook for $500,000 plus any additional spending (currently projected at $400,00) and cost overruns. Unlike the News I am not willing to ignore fiscal reality or past fiscal performance. Where will we get the funds and what work or projects will not be done in order that Councillor Smith can have his friendship garden?

It is irresponsible for the News to promote the friendship garden without an examination of where the $900,000 in city funds will come from and the effect this will have on city operations and budgeting. Unless the News, in its avid support for Councillor Smith’s garden, will be contributing the $900,000?

As to “…it will be the kind of place people will enjoy and be proud of”. We need to consider all the playing fields, green spaces and park spaces that are overgrown with vegetation run wild and so unusable, simply because Parks and Recreation does not have the budget to clean up and maintain these spaces in usable shape. Leaving one to wonder how much additional green space we will lose in paying for Councillor Smith’s garden? Let us also not overlook Jubilee and other parks that would benefit greatly from care and attention.

Obviously the News and I have very different views on what is “real community leadership”. To the News this is apparently merely having “…councillors who strive to accomplish something”.

There are those in the city who probably share the News’s opinion. Among these would be the people who said to me “I don’t think the Plan A projects are what the city needs but I am voting yes because we have to build something.” HUH?

I am sorry but to me leadership is about seeking to accomplish what the city needs to have accomplished. It is about a pool for competitions and to meet the growing demand from swim clubs, school swimming teams and provide more flexibility scheduling public use of our existing pools; attracting businesses, their jobs and their contributions to the tax base and the community; putting in place the waste and drinking water treatment to service our rapidly growing city; about building playgrounds accessible by ALL children.

Leadership is not about vanity projects such as an arena without a tenant, an arena that there was no demand for, nor is it about finding funds for a friendship garden while having no funds to make even a single playground accessible to handicapped or disabled children.

The News is entitled to its opinion, although as a local newspaper this should be in accordance with journalistic principles. In choosing to be partisan in support of John Smith; in choosing to be unbalanced and unfair; in choosing to mislead through factual omissions and implied untruths; the News has chosen to abandon journalistic principles.

This development, in the months leading up to a municipal election, has worrying implications for the democratic process.

Citizens should be outraged by this development, writing to demand this unacceptable state of affairs be corrected.

The Abbotsford News opinion Saturday March 22, 2008

Abbotsford’s proposed International Friendship Garden is already drawing fire. City projects apparently make good targets for detractors of city council, simply because they all cost money.

Our kudos to Coun. John Smith for spearheading this project to create a beautiful space in the city.

It would be easier for him to be a council member who proposes nothing, and who does nothing except vote against proposals that might raise the tax rate. That approach will certainly win a politician the city’s curmudgeon vote, but it is not real community leadership. Better to have councillors who strive to accomplish something.

Parks are an important part of any city, and every community has their residential developers donate land that is set aside for green space. Taking a city’s green spaces and further developing them into ball parks, trails, playgrounds and other facilities is a goal of any city’s parks and recreation department.

The staff at Abbotsford city hall has been aware of the provincial government’s Spirit Squares program, which aims to improve outdoor public meeting and celebration spaces. City hall has taken heat in recent years for not attracting enough provincial and federal funding to the community, but it was able to win Abbotsford the maximum grant under this program, $500,000, and Premier Gordon Campbell came to Abbotsford last Friday to announce the grant.

So, kudos also to city hall officials, elected and hired, for attracting this money to Abbotsford. Detractors do not even acknowledge the good in this, saying it is all taxpayers’ money. But it is surely better for Abbotsford that some of this funding come here, and not to some other city’s “spirit square.”

Coun. Smith asserts that the city will be able to find local businesses offering in-kind donations to come up with its share of what will be a million-dollar garden. So it should not be costly, but it will be the kind of place people will enjoy and be proud of.