Re: Drug Kids editorial from The Post

Mr. Bateman, assuming your implicit argument that these children are in more toxic environment than they would be in under the care of the Ministry of Children and Families is correct, I find it extremely unlikely that there is not a single provision of our current child protection legislation under which a child can be remove from dangerous drug lab or grow-op environments is correct. In fact I find it hard to believe that those charged with protecting these young citizens cannot find numerous provisions to use to remove and place these children in other environments.

If police officers, social workers and our justice system require a clear signal that children in grow-ops or drug labs are in need of help – our society is in serious trouble. I would go so far as to say that anyone who needs a “province wide directive” in order to act on behalf of children in these circumstances is in the wrong job and should seek employment elsewhere.

Mr. Bateman’s original editorial The Post Friday March 21, 2008

My wife and I have two little girls under the age of five. They are bright and happy and we would stop at nothing to keep them safe. Every night, I tuck those two girls into their beds and I say a little prayer that God would keep them healthy.

Not every child in B.C. is so lucky .In hundreds of other homes across this province, children sleep in beds with hastily-wired electrical cables running past them. Toxic mould grows in the walls. Poisonous drug precursors litter the house .Dirty needles lay in the living room, and crystal meth residue is all over the kitchen.

This is a new social issue in B.C. and it should break the heart of anyone who cares about children. These are drug-endangered children and there are hundreds of them living on borrowed time.

As a Langley Township councillor, the issue of drug-endangered children first came onto my radar when I received a memo from our fire chief. Like Abbotsford and many other municipalities, Langley has put together a Public Safety Inspection Team, which inspects suspicious electricity users for safety violations. We do it because these homes are far more likely to burn than others, and we need to protect our neighbourhoods .In the memo, our fire chief reported that the team found evidence of children living in 36 of the 158 grow-ops they discovered.

As I tucked my two little girls into bed that night, I thought about those 36 grow-ops that children lived in. I thought of these kids, living in an environment with shoddy electrical work that could cause a fire at any time. I thought about the toxic mould growing inside the walls– often undetected behind the drywall. That’s why municipalities have strengthened their building bylaws to make sure that homes that had been used as grow-ops or meth labs are brought back up to a healthy standard. I thought about the dangers of living in a home that could be the target of an organized crime grow-rip.

I started reading, researching, and asking questions. I found the story of little Deon, Jackson and Megan White, three preschoolers killed in a meth lab explosion in California. I saw pictures of babies – the same age as my little Danica – with burns from meth precursors on their faces.

I saw pictures of meth ingredients contaminating the same kitchens that kids eat in. I read about power cables running under cradles to grow-ops. I read about needles and drugs being found next to sleeping infants. These children are being abused by the carelessness and high-risk lifestyles of their parents and guardians. They deserve better protection.
I’m not the only one who thinks that. Police officers I speak with feel the same way; so does the BC Association of Social Workers; and UCFV criminologist Darryl Plecas; and the Government of Alberta, which has a law protecting drug-endangered children. While the B.C. government has moved to protect children from their parents’ second-hand cigarette smoke in cars, it has ignored the hundreds of children living in grow-ops and meth labs.

In 2006, Alberta passed a Drug-Endangered Children Act, which sent a clear signal to police officers, social workers, and the justice system: children growing up in grow-ops or drug labs are being abused. Their parents are subject to prison terms and fines. The children are seized and put with other family members or in another safe environment.

In B.C., our social workers don’t even have a uniform provincial protocol on how to deal with children found in these homes. Each region makes its own policies, despite three years of lobbying by the BC Association of Social Workers for a province-wide directive. We need to do more for these drug-endangered children. The health studies are staggering.

“Children living in those labs might as well be taking the drug directly, ”says John Martyny, a medicine professor with the National Jewish Medicaland Research Centre in Denver. A U.S. Attorney’s Office study shows that as many as 80 per cent of children rescued from meth labs in the US test positive for toxic levels of the chemicals used in meth production. These chemicals can cause cancer, severe skin conditions, tremors, lead poisoning, kidney, lung and liver diseases and more.

On the grow-op side, the mould from the growing process can cause chronic respiratory problems, neurological damage, and cancer.

That doesn’t count the psychological harm from living in such an environment, or the elevated risk of fires and explosions. Every child deserves a safe and happy place to grow up. When will British Columbia step up to the plate for our hundreds of drug-endangered children.

Illegal

Illegal: adjective forbidden by law or statute; contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.

Immoral: adjective violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

Once again I find myself providing definitions for the education of Abbotsford’s city council and staff. Perhaps readers with a spare dictionary could take it to city hall and give it to the mayor? Citizens would then know with certainty that yes city hall has a dictionary; they just choose not to use it.

An aging parent who is ill and needs care, your home is on an acreage with plenty of room for a trailer to provide a home that will allow you to provide care, the rational decision is to put a trailer in for your parent. This is a situation that more and more people across the lower mainland face as our population ages.

Being an honest citizen you go to city hall to inform them of this and get your $287 building permit. Imagine your surprise when you are billed an additional $25,000 for DCCs. Imagine the greater surprise when upon enquiry you are informed that under the city’s new DCC bylaws anyone who gets a building permit for anything is billed $25,000 for DCCs.

Development Cost Charges are the charges municipalities are allowed to levy to cover the cost of providing services (sewer, water etc.) to new developments or construction. It would seem to me that the purpose and scope of these charges is perfectly clear just from their name.

For purposes of clarification the provincial government provides a “Development Cost Charges Best Practices Guide”. Finally there is The Local Government Acts, the statute that govern the powers and behaviours of Abbotsford’s municipal government.

DCCs are to allow the City to cover or recover the costs associated with construction or development; they are clearly not and never were intended as a cash grab method. A fact testified to by the law itself.

Section 933(3) of the Local Government Act states that DCCs are not payable if it can be proven that the development does not impose a new capital cost burden on the municipality, or if a DCC was previously paid for the same development.

Section 933(4) of the Local Government Act says that DCCs are exempt where a building permit is issued for the construction, alteration, or extension of a building that contains less than four dwelling units, and the building is exclusively for residential use, where the costs are less than $50,000.
Section 933(4) also states that the reason for DCC exemptions is to avoid capturing renovations that do not require improvements to infrastructure.

For those who have any doubts remaining the Act also states: “…normal costs of repairing and maintaining existing infrastructure can’t be included, in DCCs, nor can operating costs. DCCs represent a way to hold new development accountable for the infrastructure costs it imposes on existing taxpayers.”

This all seems pretty clear and straight forward to me, how does it seem to you?

Apparently it is not clear to Abbotsford City Council or to staff at Abbotsford City Hall – including it seems, legal staff.

Fortunately for Christine Masztalar, her neighbour Russ Walsh is of Irish decent and happy to fight city hall on her behalf. (As a personal aside I would like to state my opinion that this city would benefit from more neighbours such as Mr. Walsh).

The question is: What about all the other citizens of Abbotsford who did not have a neighbour such as Mr. Walsh or were unaware of what “The Local Government Acts” set out as the law for DCCs?

The attitude and behaviours of Abbotsford City Council and City Staff and their actions and lack of actions on the matter of DCCs has and is totally unacceptable.

That City Hall is not taking immediate action to address this matter thus forcing citizens to go to court and get an estoppal order to put a stop to illegal DCC levying, is unconscionable.

Council and staff have been repeatedly informed of their illegal actions, but for reasons only they know, they continue this illegal activity.

As taxpayers we need be concerned as we will pay any financial costs associated with these illegal actions.

As citizens we should be concerned that these behaviours certainly do not “conform to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics”.

That is not Charity.

What kind of bottom dwelling scum uses charities as a place to dump their unwanted crap and avoid paying dumping fees?

The cost of disposing of the junk these low lives dump has become a drain on the resources of the charities involved; sucking money out of charitable activities to provide free garbage disposals for this tight-fisted, self-centred bunch of vermin.

This is compounded when someone who cannot afford the loss buys something that doesn’t function. The swine that dumped it might just as well rob them at gun point.

Get some character, some morals, you despicable trash!

Why let Reality intrude on your Plans?

62 people hungry people, including a mother with three children who “just had no money for food”, were fed Tuesday night at Calvin Presbyterian Church. This is the third year for Tuesday night meals at this location, three years of increasing numbers of hungry people needing to be fed.

Two days earlier the Blue Bus handed out bags of food to 113 people – before running out. Late comers were at least fortunate there was some stew and coffee left to put something in their hungry stomachs.

Wednesday at Global Harvest floor space to move around was at a premium because of the need to crowd extra tables onto the floor to feed the hungry, including children, who came for an evening meal.

At Hillside’s monthly lunch there was just enough to give everyone one serving where usually there is enough for seconds and thirds – and it was not the quantity of food that changed.

Gordon Campbell and Rich Coleman blithely assured British Columbians that there was no need to react to the report prepared for BC Mental Health that cited 15,500 as the number of homeless on the streets of the province because “These reports always lag behind” and “I know what is happening on the ground”.

NO, you “know” what your plans say is happening on the ground. We all know just how much attention Reality pays to “plans” – none. If the politicians took the time to step outside their sheltered, privileged existence, they might come to see the difference between what they think is happening and what is actually occurring.

Rather than spending the Easter break lying on a sun soaked beach, courtesy of the large raises they voted themselves out of taxpayer’s pockets, Mr Campbell and Mr Coleman should earn those exorbitant salaries by booking their places on the Breckenridge Homeless Life Tour.

Nights spent at various locations – the emergency shelter, under bridges, bush camps, doorways or just on the street. A chance to learn how to find washroom facilities you can use or to find a place cleanup or to shower. A culinary tour de force of food sources for the hungry poor, including far too many chances to experience the delight of having to survive the night(s) without food.

Pack light tourists; keep in mind your need to carry all your belongings with you. The tour does include the one opportunity to wash and dry your belongings – if you are fortunate; it also includes opportunities to seek used clothing.

The Tour provides a unique opportunity for direct feedback from those so directly and adversely affected by government policy or lack of policy.

Whether Mr. Campbell or Mr. Coleman will take the Tour, whether they have the mental and physical toughness to last two weeks in the reality the homeless and poor face daily, they need to get out of their golden castles into the real world and experience the world of seniors, families and children who “just cannot afford food” or of the poor and homeless who “simply cannot afford housing”.

Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coleman and all the Liberal MLAs need to heed Jawaharlal Nehru’s admonition on the need to temper theory with reality; they need to open their eyes and truly see the effects their decisions and actions have on the citizens living in BC who are not part of the privileged classes.

It was needed … Why?

The Parks and Rec department in Abbotsford “needed” what had been the community bulletin board – because they had so much they needed to post. It was only after patron complaints to City Council that a community board was put up to replace the board taken over, because of claimed need, by Parks and Rec. After the photos were published (see below) contrasting Parks and Rec’s board with the new, smaller public board; Parks and Rec redid the board as seen below, covering a much larger area of the surface of the board.

In the interests of an informed public we have a picture of the new display, a picture of the new display bluing out all but the information portions of the display (a handout for the public) and a new photo of the current public board.

Leaving us once again wondering: why was it that Parks and Rec “needed” to take over the public board?