Municipal

Fringe Festival

Leave a comment

With apologies to Ms Gwynne Hunt I did not realize we had a Fringe Festival in Abbotsford. But then, when we did not have the Post to provide a forum for different voices within the twin communities, we ended up far to often without any reporting of out of the ordinary happenings and so you end up with “…the greatest kept theatre secret in Abbotsford”. For some reason the idea of a Fringe Festival has a great deal of interest to those of us whom inhabit the fringe. Even more appealing is the concept of participation in the Fringe by the fringe. I envision the homelessinabbotsford.com Players presenting a new and original one act play: our story opens on a council chamber where a council meeting is in progress…. With the current setting for the fringe there seems a certain synergy, not to mention justice and biting wit, in such a play presentation.

Our play opens. Standing at the supplicant’s podium before council a young woman laments “… the theatre arts have been set aside with vague promises. We were not asked…” Council members roar with laughter “ASK? You want us to ASK?” One councillor laughs so hard he falls out of his chair to the floor. “Why would we ask the actual users of facilities in the City what the City NEEDS? Next you would expect us to listen to the citizens. What then? Build the projects that are needed and would be well used by groups and people within the city? HA! Business as usual? Old boy’s network? Vested interests? You obviously do not understand, how we do things the Abbotsford Way and pay no attention to common sense. I suppose you think planning is a good idea. What then? Stop chasing the homeless around, show some leadership and address the problems associated with homelessness?”

“That young lady would start us down the slippery slope to rational action and abandoning our old unsuccessful, inadequate and feeble ways of thinking and running Abbotsford. Start doing that and people will come to expect you to act and solve challenges. We couldn’t have that.”

I have often wondered why the City does not ask the current users of facilities in the city, and any projected end users, what they think the City’s needs are vis-à-vis current and future facilities. I have concluded that if they do not ask they do not get answers they do not want. Thus the City can proceed willy-nilly in whatever manner they feel like, without being burdened by any common sense or planning.

With Ms Hunt having brought it to my attention I must admit that upon consideration I have a lot of questions about the decision to build a fancy museum slash art gallery as a single $10 million dissipation of money for the Arts in Abbotsford. If the City wishes to truly become the city it likes to believe it is then it needs to consider the importance of a lively performing arts scene to a city’s cultural life. I for one would really like to hear an explanation of why there was no public discussion or debate about building venues for live performances by a wide range of groups in Abbotsford?

Better yet, why was it that city staff and city council were the ones to get to decide, behind closed doors, without wide public input and discussion? Does it not seem sensible to ask those who use the facilities or to get ideas from the broadest possible spectrum of the various sub-communities such as the Arts? What was I thinking? We are speaking of Abbotsford, I should know better than to expect them to ask anything of those who pay the bills, much less make thoughtful, careful, rational and at least semi-intelligent decisions – about anything.

Upon hearing of the decision to waste $55 million on the (hopefully soon to be resoundingly NOed!) proposed boondoggle my first thought was I had not known the Canucks were moving out of Vancouver and relocating to Abbotsford. What else could explain building such an extravagant palace? Otherwise, ignoring the pie-in-the-sky maybes, you are building a white elephant with burdensome operating and upkeep costs that is at this time and in the foreseeable future not what is needed on the recreation front to serve the needs of the users of the facilities. I say “the needs of the users” because that is how we should be deciding what we need to design and build – NOT the egos or wishes of councillors and city staff.

What can be said about the arrogance of acquiring the land before the people even get a chance to express their opinion? This is typical behaviour for council and the City ignoring reality, not addressing pressing issues and needs, failing to consult and LISTEN to the people who use city facilities. Worse they fail to consult and listen to the citizens and groups within the city about what is needed to nurture arts, culture, sports, and recreation in OUR (not the council or city staff’s private kingdom) City.

By the way, is this being built for use by the citizens of Abbotsford or is it a ‘gift’ being built for the fairly exclusive use and benefit of UCFV? If it is for the city why build in that out of the way location? It seems to me that if UCFV is to be a major beneficiary of this structure they should be making a significant capital contribution – at the very least. If UCFV needs this type of facility to further its pursuit of University status and to benefit its sports programs and teams it should be building said structure itself. That way the funds could be directed to building structures to meet the current and future needs of the Citizens, the people paying for them.

The council and staff are touting illusionary uses and benefits. Here is a project, costing considerably less than $55 million, that would have many benefits for the city and citizens – add a 50 meter competition worthy pool to the ARC upgrade. We have two swim clubs in town, one of whom the City owes. The Whalers raised money to upgrade facilities at Centennial outdoor pool on the understanding of upgrades to the pool tank. The Whalers kept their potion of the understanding. A highly successful well established swim club, a new swim club based at MRC (which is OK only as a make-do location) and the city lacks a venue for them to hold swim meets. Did you enjoy the BC summer games a few years ago? Well, you will not be seeing any other competitions of that nature without an adequate swimming competition venue. So say goodbye to all the economic, press and tourist fallout from that or similar competitions. Oh, lest I forget, what about the high school swim teams? Not to mention the advantages for the regular length swimmers in particular and general public access in general of a well thought out, flexible and well designed pool facility. It also seems to me to be sensible to design and build both the pool and recreation additions together to allow you to plan in order to achieve the maximum benefit to other groups within the community, such as meeting rooms.

The original legacy plan was to total $83 million but was ambitious and proposed to meet a wide variety of the City’s capital needs and died in main part because the council and staff made it an all-or-nothing choice. Apparently it would have been to close to consulting the citizens for their opinion on the needs and wants of the community to have allowed the citizens to vote on all the proposed capital projects. The current $85 million dollar proposal continues their abysmal record of failing to ask the citizens and interested groups and parties what the City really NEEDS. We went from $83 million for a wide variety of capital projects to a $2 million more costly $85 million dollar plan for three projects – two unneeded palaces and the useful and user friendly ARC expansion (assuming proper thought and design). More money, less bang for our buck – which seems to be some kind of “law of the universe” about government project spending.

Want a radical but very beneficial idea? Turn the entire city into a WI-FI area network. The City, fire and police get marvellous communications and the citizens all gain access to the internet on a more affordable basis. Internet providers will scream, to the undoubted delight of frustrated customers, but who cares. The best side benefit is to those who cannot afford monthly internet charges in a world where access to the internet is becoming more and more required. We have programs to recycle older computers to those lacking the money because they are a needed tool. For a small capital upgrade we could, under this proposal provide them with access to the World Wide Web.

Finally: the increase in costs, before the large cost over runs one gets with these projects, raises questions of timing. We currently have an over-heated construction market which we know will be adjusting itself when the massive building associated with the Olympics ends. This should begin to occur before the Olympics as the numerous projects are completed, freeing up construction capacity that will be looking for something to build, even at reduced prices. It would seem that instead of wasting even more money on a referendum beating the dead horses of Palaces housing art gallery, museum and arena we could better use the funds to actually consult the Community as to its wants and needs. Depending on the effect this would have on the one good idea proposed in the expansion of ARC.

What is really needed is to get out and really consult the community, citizens and community groups to determine what their needs and wants are. We can then evaluate these wants and needs to determine demand and priorities. With the input of the people who will be using the facilities we could plan and design facilities that meet the end users needs as opposed to the current wing it, start building it and develop plans as you go along building practices of the City. This way Ms Gwynne Hunt and all the other often ignored and frustrated interested parties would have a chance to be heard and to provide input into the decision process. A process that needs to be conducted in an open and transparent manner rather than “business as usual” with decisions made by Staff and Council behind closed doors and the public’s backs. Yes this would cause some delay, which in this case is beneficial as it would move construction out of the stratosphere of the building boom into the bang for the buck region of the post-boom era. Now there is a new concept for council and staff, fiscal responsible behaviour.

Perhaps this time around we can get an open-minded examination of the proposals, contrasted with what would best serve the needs of citizens not the usual vested or hidden interests. I have hope of the possibility of this occurring since there now exists a forum for addressing these issues as opposes to the old “cheering sections” that always supported and avoided opposing views the time and again lame-brained practices and actions of the City. Viva the Post and revolutionary, thoughtful, responsible behaviour by and on behalf of the citizens of Abbotsford.

Caveat emptor, Municipal

Unasked Questions

Leave a comment

It is only fair and just that Jerry Gosling’s letter of support be offered as is, since it is on the letters/opinion pages. Being identified as the president of the MSA Museum Society provides the entire context needed to understand and evaluate his RAH-RAH leading of a cheering section in support of the capital plan, given the inclusion of a world class museum and art gallery, which far surpasses any sane or reasonable proposal, in the council’s absurd proposal.

There can be no excuse for boosterism disguised as “news reporting” on the front page of Thursday’s News. In large bold text the News trumpets “Trustees back Plan A, say students benefit most”, including in the body of the story that the vote was unanimous. The News blindly printed statements citing benefits while failing to ask a question so obvious any non-partisan, semi-intelligent person’s mind screams “Where’s the Beef” or in other words what are or were these never stated benefits? Or did the school trustees unanimously support imaginary, perhaps non-existent, benefits? The fact there were no actual benefits to support the vote certainly would explain the failure of the News to print even one so-called benefit. Or incompetence.

It is perfectly within their rights for the News to support and lead a cheering section for the capital plan. Fair and principled behaviour demands that this boosterism be made clear by the use of the Opinion page and at least minimal journalistic standards applied to any information purported to be news This apparent effort to hide the News’s leading of a cheering section for the proposed capital plan concealed as ‘news’ is, at the kindest questionable behaviour, more accurately described as bordering on the unethical.

The argument for it just being incompetence does have clear support on the same first page. It seems to me that the theoretical semi-intelligent person cited above would feel the statement “… with 533.91 fewer students” demands an answer to the question of exactly what .91 of a student is. More importantly, what exactly is the .09 of a student that is still attending school here? Just as an aside: in a city growing this fast what explains that Abbotsford schools have less students?

While on the subject of the capital plan council and supporters are seeking to foist, by whatever means possible, upon the gullible citizens – why is it called Plan A? I was not aware of any Plan B, C, D. Would it not be more accurate to name the plan based upon the grade it deserves – F?

Speaking of obvious and unasked questions: Why award a contract to replace the Centennial pool tank to a company that “… had not completed a cement pool before”? They came “highly recommended” – as what? It would appear obvious that the recommendation could not be as a builder of pools. Was it just because they had the lowest bid? Given the recent fiasco with pool building in Mission it would seem semi-intelligent behaviour to award the contract to an experienced pool builder who has experience with estimating what the pool replacement will actually end up costing the taxpayers as opposed to the low-ball bid submitted by a builder with NO EXPERIENCE in actually building a pool. The need to choose an experienced and knowledgeable builder would seem to be further demanded by the tight deadlines imposed by the replacement schedule.

But then it is a demonstrated, though sad and costly, fact of life that even semi-intelligent decisions and behaviour is beyond council and city planning or engineering staff. Alas, it also seems asking the obvious and needed questions are beyond the capabilities of, at the very least, the editorial staff of the News.

Caveat emptor, Homeless

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

Leave a comment

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.

Homeless, Municipal

Re: Bridge Housing

Leave a comment

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.

Homeless

Conflict of Needs

Leave a comment

I was talking to an acquaintance of mine as we wolfed down Sunday lunch served by some practicing Christians. Steve is bright and articulate, giving voice to the dilemma he was facing. He had a job that was to begin on Monday, but as you would expect it would be three weeks before his first paycheque. Steve was depending on the Salvation Army for his food, but would be unable to get to the Salvation Army when (if) he started work. Without some source of food Steve was looking forward to starving 5 workdays a week, which could also have a significant effect on how he performed his job.

So what would you do? It is much easier to say Steve should go hungry than it is to do it oneself. Hunger, another barrier to employment, and one that is easy to solve. Unfortunately the provincial Liberals are into paying lip service to the idea of getting the homeless and poor to work, not to actually doing anything to help them back into the workforce.