Consider

Reality Check

Leave a comment

I spent some extra time with some homeless friends today as a reminder and reality check.

There is this kafuffle going on concerning the building of safe, affordable, supported housing in Abbotsford with BC Housing and Social Development picking up the cheque.

It was not the fact that none of us know what type of housing were are talking of at this point and won’t know what type of housing it is that is proposed to be built until the submissions are made in response to BC Housing’s call for proposal submissions that had me seeking a reality check.

The reality check was set in motion by the comment from someone experienced with politics in Abbotsford who said that the way to win a council seat was to come out in opposition to building this type of housing or housing of this type on these sites or for building this type of housing only in the “right place” and that supporting this housing, no matter how badly needed, was political suicide.

I had found myself thinking along those lines as I sat at both Wednesday’s and Thursday’s public meetings. It was on my mind when I got up to speak on Thursday evening. When speaking to someone after Monday’s council meeting I found myself wondering if I should admit my name and that I was a candidate for council. I knew what the proper course of action was and I took that course of action but I was aware of the political implications and was tempted to take easy way out.

That temptation had me heading off to spend time with some homeless friends for a reality check and a reminder – of who I am and what I stand for.

Abbotsford has some serious problems it must address such as homelessness. A major reason homelessness and related social problems have become such a large and pressing issue is the failure to deal with the problems. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the failure is the result of avoiding having to make unpleasant decisions and tough, unpopular decisions.

To often the politically astute choices are the wrong choices because the politically astute choices are choosing not to deal with the problem in an effective manner to avoid conflict or making an unpopular decision.

So it was that I sat down to talk to my homeless friends about this because they have a way of cutting through the angst and inner conflict of such dilemmas to ground one in the harsh reality of the streets and remind me of who it is that I am and that I am prepared to stand for something rather than rolling along whichever way the wind is blowing.

Municipal

Abbotsford Ratepayers Questions – My Answers

Leave a comment



Question 1A:

I was a strong and vocal opponent of Plan A attending all public information meetings, asking questions of City councillors and staff, speaking with the public at the meetings, writing to the news paper and writing on www.homelessinabbotsford.com.

I filed a complaint with the BC Ombudsman over the City’s behaviour in conducting the referendum and wrote to our provincial elected officials (MLAs, premier, ministers) concerning the City’s conduct during the referendum.

I was a member of the board of directors of the ratepayers association during its first year of life and have continued to write and ask questions on the costs, the management and the effect of Plan A on the public.

Question 1B:

Since several of the articles and letters that I wrote referenced the need to consider interests costs when talking of making “profits” I clearly consider interest costs to information to be considered.

If the public wants to know how much interest the City will pay in addition to the repaying the principal, that information should be provided.

Question 2:

Speaking of unreasonable and arbitrary, what about the tone and content of this Question?

I have never been on council, but I have been a vocal and active opponent of council and wrote/complained about the way the Plan A referendum was handled.

However I would have to say that reasonable restrictions on making presentations to council are not unreasonable nor a barrier to addressing council. For example: the 15 minute time limit cited in the question is not unreasonable; requiring advance notice of the matter you want to bring before council is to be expected – groups I am a member of like the courtesy of including topics in the agenda, does not the ratepayers association have agendas for its meetings?

As to addressing council, limits to avoid the same person, topic or questions from appearing week after week after week and preventing other citizens from raising new topics and questions are needed but must be clear as to the rules.

New persons, topics or questions cannot/should not be denied just because the council does not want to hear them.

I am fully prepared to support an opportunity for the public and attendees to pose questions to council and think such an idea has merit. However I will not support a limitless free-for-all. Such a questions session would need to be structured to permit access to new speakers and for new topics not for the same people and topics to be raised time and time again.

I plan to have a website to blog about what is happening to council that would permit feedback and discussion.

Question 3:

I do not believe in government by referendum or survey; in fact I would say that popularity contest is a terrible way to make decisions.

I certainly hope that people elect you to council based on your experience, judgment and character, expecting you to exercise those traits in making decisions on their behalf.

I think the public needs to be heard; allowed to raise questions, concerns and ideas on matters; that a councillor has to listen to all of this input; but I believe that as a councillor you need to make decisions based on one’s experience, judgment and character. I do believe that the public is entitled to know why you decided as you did.

This is why I plan to blog about items and decisions facing the city and council – and expect feedback in the form of comments from the public.

I volunteer with several local organizations, sit on non-city committees, am a board member of a local organization and am connected to the community in a variety of other ways. I fully expect and hope that this will provide me with direct feedback and input and ideas from the public on city, council and public matters.
Question 4A:

I have had no involvement on this matter. While municipalities can raise this issue I am not sure there is any way for a municipality to exert pressure on more senior levels of government on this matter. Indeed it seems to me that this is a matter where the public is more suited and likely to affect change than a municipal council.

Question 4B:

I am aware that monies that are designated to improve and maintain our roads goes into general revenue and that it for the most part stays in general revenue and is not spent on our roads as intended.

Question 5:

I think this is far to complex an issue to address in the limited time and space available.

I also have some serious concerns and reservations about the effect this may or could have on funding for smaller communities, the sparsely populated regions etc.

While this is a concept that sounds simple it is in fact very complex, with far reaching consequences and affects.

This is an issue that has to be addressed not at an individual city level but by cities as a group to negotiate an agreement among provincial, federal and municipal levels of government.

In the meantime when the federal or provincial government download responsibility they need to provide funding for the municipality to pay for those downloaded responsibility. Infrastructure and other expensive expenditures also require funding support from higher levels of government with their higher ability to raise funds other than through property taxes.

Question 6:

I am not in favour of web based electronic voting, so I am not only not prepared to work for it, would in fact oppose it.

Your fuel cost argument is nonsensical.

If you do not want to spend money on gas – walk. I did when lack of a vehicle or poverty required me to walk to the poll to vote.

Getting out and voting is easy in Canada. If you are not prepared to expend the minimal effort required to vote – tough.

Question 7:

You left out the kitchen sink.

You pose a reasonable, sensible question on road infrastructure and I will answer it.

Question 8:

Yes.

Question 9:

Not Applicable.

Question 10:

I have read the applicable provincial statute and the guide provided by the province for municipalities to understand the statute and implementation of DCC.

I am aware of the questions/problems with Abbotsford’s new DCC bylaws. I have written about this matter on homlelessinabbotsford.com, in a letter to the newspaper and in letters to the Minister responsible and Premier Campbell.

We need to address this matter and bring Abbotsford’s DCC bylaws into line with provincial law.

Question 11:

Does not disclosure “prior to an election” inherently also include possibility or requirement of disclosing donations prior to such donations being made?

I have no problem with the concept of providing information about funding and donations prior to an election. However I really need to know exactly what your proposal entails before I can say yes or no. At the municipal levels many candidates do not have organizations and I am not willing to put in place requirements that will be barriers to citizens who want to run for local office and favour those with the resources to provide such information.

I personally cannot afford to spend money on campaigning and since I can think of many better uses to be raising money for I have no intention of formally raising money for my campaign.

A friend decaled his van with vote of James W. Breckenridge for city council and gave me a decal for my car. Some friends have spoken about doing something about getting some signs up – time will tell what happens on that front.

I am campaigning through candidates meetings, networking and getting out and meeting people.

Question 12:

I have been a resident of Abbotsford (and Matsqui) for twenty years.

I have a commerce degree, was a chartered accountant, have experience in public practice and business.

I manage to pay all my bills and the next months rent every month, living within my means.

Our city faces serious social issues in affordable housing, addiction, mental illness, the working poor and poverty all areas I have experience and familiarity with.

Unique life experience having been solidly middle class, ended up homeless from mental health challenges, worked hard to become mentally healthier than at any other point in my life, struggled to find and get into housing.

I volunteer with several organizations in our community; this includes a volunteer relationship were I was volunteering while homeless. I am co-chair of the Abbotsford Mental Health and Addictions Advisory Committee and sit as a member on a Fraser mental health and addictions committee. I am on the board of the Focus Disability Network Society. I am a member of several housing committees and groups in Abbotsford.

I work at the shelter in Abbotsford, do peer support and facilitate WRAP (wellness recovery action plan) groups.

I have friends, acquaintances and connections throughout the community.

I have been actively involved and engaged in the community, with community issues and with city and council decisions and behaviours.

In Conclusion:

I have taken the time to answer these questions because I believe the public has a right to this type of information in deciding whether to vote for me.

However I found the tone of the letter objectionable, particularly the accusatory tone in reference to current or prior council members.

Some of the questions were far to complex and convoluted to be answerable.

Given that the questions arrived in the mail on the very day they were due to have been answered and returned the questionnaire was unreasonable in its length and complexity.

I also find it hard to believe that these are the 12 top questions and concerns of the citizens of Abbotsford; they certainly are not representative, except in a few instances, of the concerns that have been expressed to me by the public at large.

James W. Breckenridge

Homeless, Municipal

Supportive Housing Proposal – discussion pointless without information

Leave a comment

I want to thank the gentleman (and his wife) I spoke to after this afternoons (Monday October 20, 2008) Council meeting for his patience in taking the time to talk to me.

Listening to what he and his wife had to say was though provoking and sent me back to read all the documents and material again from as analytical/language/neutral prospective as possible.

I read the handouts, went to government web sites and read the materials there and went back over all these materials again.

The conclusion I reached was that the documents were written in bafflegab (confusing or generally unintelligible jargon; gobbledegook), complicated by government bureaucratese (a style of language that is full of circumlocutions, euphemisms, buzzwords etc) and ass covering language.

It is no wonder that at the community meetings city staff (with apologies) appeared somewhat clueless and less than truthful vis-à-vis the proposed housing. Reading over the material available this afternoon, this housing could be anything; mention is made of the second stage housing I was told it was to be and was speaking of OR it could be minimal barrier housing OR it could be something else entirely.

There is no way to tell what kind of housing we are speaking of. Without knowing what type of housing we are talking about there is no way to make any judgment, must less a decision, on location.

I spoke to Mr. Giesbrecht this evening (Monday) and while I am not in agreement (or necessarily disagreement – to many unknowns), with his preference to build nothing there I do agree with his point that without knowing what other options as to location are available and the pros and cons of the locations you cannot judge “best’ location. I would go so far as to say that without knowing what kind of housing we are speaking off there is no way to judge if a location is even suitable, much less good or the best.

We agreed that from the information provided one cannot know or understand what type of housing or who the occupants will be or who will be responsible for the operation of the housing and that that information is critical. Speaking to Mr. Geisbrecht did send me back to read the Questions and Answers handout from the City.

I said to some people on Wednesday night in reference to the first community meeting that I was not sure that this type of meeting and the timing was a good idea. I can now say that this type of meeting and the timing was an ill-considered idea.

Until the city and citizens know what kind of housing, tenants and operating organization we are talking about any discussion is pointless. Garbage in garbage out, certainly applies here where we are missing the most vital pieces of information needed to judge the matter which means any decision at this point could be flawed, wrong or garbage – or all three.

The city cannot and should not be having a discussion on the matter of this proposal until they (and citizens) know what is being talked about in terms of what kind of housing, tenants and operating organizations are under consideration.

We need to step back and wait for the information needed to have an intelligent conversation, make an informed judgment and come to a sensible decision is available.

At that point we will at least all know what we are talking about and if we have points of disagreement we will at least be disagreeing about the same thing. We will not be arguing/comparing apples to oranges to watermelons to kiwi to pineapples etc. as we currently are doing.

Other Writers

Newspapers need to stop taking the easy way out

Leave a comment

Editor

This is my first time in my 40 years I have been compelled to write a newspaper. I have been dealing with my mental health issues and for the last three years have received help and support from an organization which has supported and helped many other in our community.

I have been reading both the Times and News for a few years watching for recognition of this organizations contributions to the community of Abbotsford.

From personal experience I know this organization is client centered, providing not just services but a fellowship and belonging which next to shelter and basic needs is necessary for Self-esteem and Self-worth.

To a certain degree this not receiving recognition is a fault of the organizations priorities. Employing a PR person to arrange for newspaper stories and recognition of their numerous contributions to the community and the people they serve is simply not a priority for this organization as it has better uses for its money and time.

Apparently my view of what newspapers are supposed to be about is skewed. I have always assumed that publishers, editors and reporters where aware of and in touch with what was going on in their communities and what organizations were contributing to the welfare of citizens within their communities. I thought local newspapers would inform the community at large about these organizations services and contributions to the health of the community.

Instead it seems that our local papers simply rely on and write about what an organizations PR shill chooses to submit to them.

Leaving an organization which provides amazing long term successful mental health recovery services and programs in our community not getting the recognition they deserve from our local media.

I agree with James W Breckenridge’s article about the fact that if you add up all the claims of people housed by organizations in Abbotsford we should have a negative number of homeless on our streets.

A number of organizations are pumping out turnstile numbers to access funds and grants, taking funds away from organizations that actually provide people with the fellowship, belonging and long term support that is necessary for recovery. Because if an organization is not providing the services to be successful long term they have a turnstile endlessly counting the same services and people over and over.

I count today; tomorrow when you come back I will count that as 2: when next day comes that will be 3; and so on and son on.

Same with housing, Wondering why they are able to help so many, yet the numbers on the street haven’t changed. What are the successes based on? Even if an individual is able to find housing for a month, but has no other fellowship or sense of belonging to anything else besides the street they will simply find there way back where? To the street, Why? We fed them gave them shelter all the necessities right. Why did this person throw all that away? I will explain this and its simple you can give a person all that you feel they need but if there fellowship and belonging has not changed they will return to the one they had.

A successful count should be only be long term only has meaning in the long term. Having a person housed for 12 months with a newly developed sense of fellowship and belonging in the community should be a bare minimum consideration for being able to say they have a success.

There needs to be some kind of accountability when these organizations say they have helped xyz number of persons in need.

I am not saying that these organizations are not in need, they very much are. I would just like them to be honest and upfront – if you simply fed or shelter someone then say we successfully served xyz with a meal and shelter for xyz number of days. But do not say that this is recovery or rehabilitation because it is simply not true.

I believe, based on my personal experience, that any organization that does not develop a peer system or fellowship with the persons they serve will fail. Whether it is addictions, mental health, or homelessness they will fail.

Somewhere some basic psychology has been lost. One of the first things you encounter in psychology, that has been around forever is Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs to self actualization.

Most successful organizations in the recovery field have a peer support system; examples of this are AA sponsors, MH Peer Support Workers, Mentors. For some reason the most inexpensive and successful treatment of persons in need has been lost, replaced by politicized, expense formulated costly services that have complicated matters and left out the basic need for fellowship.

Fellowship provides belonging, when we are validated and accepted only then do people have a sense of self-esteem or worth. Organizations need to heed this approach to be successful.

Newspapers need to stop taking the easy way out, start paying attention to what is happening in the community and informing the public what the actual situation is. Only in this manner can the public make informed judgments and decisions about these pressing social problems.

Ray Patrick

Municipal

Re-writing History?

Leave a comment

“Gibson initially spoke out against the Plan A initiative but later supported it after the three projects received public support through two referenda.”

Let us be accurate here – there were not two referendums on Plan A. The first referendum Mr. Gibson cites was only permission to make a plan and present it to the community. It was in no way an approval of Plan A – except perhaps in the minds of those desperately seeking to justify their support of Plan A.

More importantly, if as he states Mr. Gibson was opposed to Plan A his duty to the people who elected him was to stand up and speak his opposition out loudly during the Plan A debate, informing the public of his opposition so they could take that into consideration as they voted on Plan A

As a strong and vocal opponent of Plan A I attended all public meetings and sessions about Plan A and carefully scoured the local papers for any words written about Plan A.

I do not recall hearing or reading of Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A nor do any citizens I spoke with about Mr. Gibson’s claim remember any statement or statements by Mr. Gibson against Plan A.

Given the closeness of the referendum results, a long term Councillor such as Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A would in all probability have resulted in a NO outcome and spared taxpayers the large cost overruns, the large tax increases and the debt load the city carries as a result of Plan A.

Massive cost overruns, high taxes and big debt load – all barriers to filling more pressing needs for the city such as infrastructure. Leaving one to wonder how if indeed “Municipal infrastructure, particularly roads, is a high priority for Gibson” he could have failed to strongly and vocally oppose Plan A – as did those of us who also had concerns about municipal infrastructure? How could he in any way support Plan A when it would be a major barrier to being able to fund infrastructure?

Why did we the public not hear of Mr. Gibson’s opposition to Plan A? How could Mr. Gibson vote for Plan A and its costs if infrastructure is a high priority for him?