Thursday, June 22, 2006
This City needs some sense of proper priorities.
One can only wonder were exactly the heads of our local politicians are buried with reference to their proposed capital projects. A sports/entertainment center, another recreation/community center and a museum/art gallery. Do not get me wrong; these are all facilities that our city can use. In fact, it is only because our local government has demonstrated an inability to properly plan and manage growth and development that these facilities do not currently exist. Which means they will be built at a cost millions of dollars higher than it would have cost with a well thought-out and managed capital building plan.
I would love to see a properly designed multi-use pool built in the city as part of a recreation/community centre. Of course with the city’s track record on building capital projects the citizens are not very likely to get either a well designed venue or good cost management, maximizing our bang for the buck, on any city (mis)managed project. However I have a sense of priorities. When you choose to proceed with only 3 projects, you have to set priorities, not just choosing popular projects. Excuse me, I should say that it should mean not just going with popularity as the way of choosing projects to proceed with. Unfortunately it appears that the city has done this.
As much as I would wish for a new pool, I can see more important needs. The old library in downtown Abbotsford desperately needs replacement. Not only is it inadequate in size, but when the staff warns users not to plug in their laptops because the electrical system cannot be trusted not to fry them – it is time to replace the building. A library may not be a “sexy” project but for students, people needing access to the internet, research, literacy programs, encouraging young people to read and supporting the general public in reading it is a priority. A new library is long overdue.
Perhaps it is that because any new library would fall under the Fraser Valley Regional Library that it lacked any champions at City Hall to point out that a library should be a priority. Or perhaps it is just that those in parks, recreation and culture were much better at political infighting - since all three projects fall under their control. What is clear is that there should have been public discussion and debate about our city's priorities before any decision on which three projects the city should proceed with, since it is clear from their three choices that neither city management or our elected local politicians have any sense of proper priorities for our City. Of course this would have required leadership and vision, qualities that seem non-existent in our local government on a wide range of social, development, growth and capital projects issues.
I would love to see a properly designed multi-use pool built in the city as part of a recreation/community centre. Of course with the city’s track record on building capital projects the citizens are not very likely to get either a well designed venue or good cost management, maximizing our bang for the buck, on any city (mis)managed project. However I have a sense of priorities. When you choose to proceed with only 3 projects, you have to set priorities, not just choosing popular projects. Excuse me, I should say that it should mean not just going with popularity as the way of choosing projects to proceed with. Unfortunately it appears that the city has done this.
As much as I would wish for a new pool, I can see more important needs. The old library in downtown Abbotsford desperately needs replacement. Not only is it inadequate in size, but when the staff warns users not to plug in their laptops because the electrical system cannot be trusted not to fry them – it is time to replace the building. A library may not be a “sexy” project but for students, people needing access to the internet, research, literacy programs, encouraging young people to read and supporting the general public in reading it is a priority. A new library is long overdue.
Perhaps it is that because any new library would fall under the Fraser Valley Regional Library that it lacked any champions at City Hall to point out that a library should be a priority. Or perhaps it is just that those in parks, recreation and culture were much better at political infighting - since all three projects fall under their control. What is clear is that there should have been public discussion and debate about our city's priorities before any decision on which three projects the city should proceed with, since it is clear from their three choices that neither city management or our elected local politicians have any sense of proper priorities for our City. Of course this would have required leadership and vision, qualities that seem non-existent in our local government on a wide range of social, development, growth and capital projects issues.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Re: City Manager Gary Guthrie's comments
To quote Mr. Guthrie: “I think the real story is that this ended successfully and many of these people have been successful in finding accommodation. They are working with various agencies and hopefully we can get them back into a regular lifestyle.” And later “ …getting them into the system.”
“ … getting them into the system.” The question I have about this is, what good does getting anyone into a system with the serious flaws the current welfare system has do them? Anyone with recent experience with the current system can tell you that the system itself is a major barrier to finding work and getting back onto your feet. Abandoning people to “the system” is something you reserve for your worst enemies – and even then only if you are particularly vengeful. If the city chooses to abandon people to “the system” it owes those people its best efforts to reform and/or advocate for the needed reform/changes to “the system”. This in order that the system become about lending a helping hand to those in need, as opposed to the current practice of only paying lip service to the concept of helping. But then all levels of government seem much better at paying lip service to this problem and in applying Band-Aids, than in providing the leadership and vision to begin to address the needs and long-term commitment required to make a successful start in addressing homelessness and poverty in our society.
“…many of these people have been successful in finding accommodation.” Technically yes, but I do not consider that a temporary bed at the Salvation Army as being a true success in finding accommodation. “… these people”? I have serious reservations about just what this means about the city’s attitude towards, the way in which it thinks about the homeless and the prejudicial mindset the term suggests.
I had intended to revile Mr. Guthrie about his use of the word successful in the city’s actions vis-à-vis Compassion Park. However, in looking into the definition of successful (some of us like to keep in touch with the reality of a situation) I found I could not do that. Successful: Having a favorable outcome; having obtained something desired or intended: was successful in avoiding responsibility and bad press. So I must concede that from the city’s viewpoint this was undoubtedly a successful outcome. They got to use some very nice sounding sound bites such as “ended successfully”, shift responsibility for taking any real or positive actions onto “various agencies” while avoiding accepting any responsibility to take action themselves, obscuring actual outcomes behind platitudes and fancy verbal footwork and above all avoid the need to show any initiative, vision or real leadership on this pressing social issue.
I can only conclude by admitting that I was a little surprised and disappointed when I looked up the definition of successful. Even the definition of success, the achievement of something, is somewhat of a disappointment. I always thought of being successful or of achieving success as having a more positive and beneficial outcome. “I think that the real story is that” unfortunately the City does not seem to share this positive action oriented, providing leadership and vision view of what constitutes success.
“ … getting them into the system.” The question I have about this is, what good does getting anyone into a system with the serious flaws the current welfare system has do them? Anyone with recent experience with the current system can tell you that the system itself is a major barrier to finding work and getting back onto your feet. Abandoning people to “the system” is something you reserve for your worst enemies – and even then only if you are particularly vengeful. If the city chooses to abandon people to “the system” it owes those people its best efforts to reform and/or advocate for the needed reform/changes to “the system”. This in order that the system become about lending a helping hand to those in need, as opposed to the current practice of only paying lip service to the concept of helping. But then all levels of government seem much better at paying lip service to this problem and in applying Band-Aids, than in providing the leadership and vision to begin to address the needs and long-term commitment required to make a successful start in addressing homelessness and poverty in our society.
“…many of these people have been successful in finding accommodation.” Technically yes, but I do not consider that a temporary bed at the Salvation Army as being a true success in finding accommodation. “… these people”? I have serious reservations about just what this means about the city’s attitude towards, the way in which it thinks about the homeless and the prejudicial mindset the term suggests.
I had intended to revile Mr. Guthrie about his use of the word successful in the city’s actions vis-à-vis Compassion Park. However, in looking into the definition of successful (some of us like to keep in touch with the reality of a situation) I found I could not do that. Successful: Having a favorable outcome; having obtained something desired or intended: was successful in avoiding responsibility and bad press. So I must concede that from the city’s viewpoint this was undoubtedly a successful outcome. They got to use some very nice sounding sound bites such as “ended successfully”, shift responsibility for taking any real or positive actions onto “various agencies” while avoiding accepting any responsibility to take action themselves, obscuring actual outcomes behind platitudes and fancy verbal footwork and above all avoid the need to show any initiative, vision or real leadership on this pressing social issue.
I can only conclude by admitting that I was a little surprised and disappointed when I looked up the definition of successful. Even the definition of success, the achievement of something, is somewhat of a disappointment. I always thought of being successful or of achieving success as having a more positive and beneficial outcome. “I think that the real story is that” unfortunately the City does not seem to share this positive action oriented, providing leadership and vision view of what constitutes success.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
RE: Don Warkentin letter June 10th
When I reached the end of the first paragraph of Mr. Warkentin's letter I was shaking my head and having yet another self-righteous cretin share his "expertise" on the homeless. By the end of the letter I wanted to scream "ARRGGHH!! Not another one."
The only thing Mr. Warkentin (and others who tell the same tale of woe) appears to be expert at is enabling drug addicts to stay in their addiction, avoiding reality and the choices that having to face reality force upon the addict. This is evident from his own statement: " Like a magnet, last Saturday I was drawn to Abby's cocaine king."I have no idea what need Mr. Warkentin has that drives him to repeat this pattern of failure over and over. Perhaps he needs to be a martyr - "poor, poor me; I give so much, it does no good and I am abused or taken advantage of." Obviously the stories he tells (so believably) are the gut of his sympathy line. I have heard them all. I would suggest that Mr. Warkentin seek treatment for his need (or addiction) to behave in this destructive manner. If not for his own sake then fo the sake of all the addicts his actions harm.
For Mr. Warkentin is correct on one point - you DO NOT give money to an addict. Giving a job to an addict who is not in recovery is just the same as handing them money to enable them to continue to live in and pursue their addiction. You give them shelter, access to amenities (showers, laundry etc.) and food. You provide a way to maintain contact with the addict until reality has come to call and has them, at some point, ready to face and make choices. at which point you give them support and help in seeking and finding treatment. Once they are in or finished treatment you provide them help and support in getting established in the community and establishing a healthy life style. This is the point at which finding/giving them jobs is helpful to them.
Cretin. What else but cretinous could you call repeating the same behaviour over and over for 40 years, expecting that this time the outcome (addicts behaviour) will be different? You would think that a Mr. Warkenin and others supposedly thinking people would come to realize that what they do, or what actions they advocate, are not working and try another approach. But then what can you expect from a writer who cannot distinguish between homelessness and addiction. The homeless are a widely varied group. Made up of people such as: those who lost their jobs and whose world collapsed under their debt load, putting them on the street; those who for a variety of reasons (such as my own mental illness) had their world implode and are struggling to get re-established; the working poor; the mentally challenged; the mentally ill and many other sub-groups. Yes, there is a sizable segment of the homeless who suffer from addiction. If Mr. Warkentin really understood anything about the homeless he would know he has not accumulated "many lessons learned from the homeless" but that he has been floundering in the world of the addict and addiction.
Addiction is a harsh and demanding Mistress. Helping the addict is a long, frustrating and pretty much thankless task. But I want to live in and contribute to the type of society that does not throwaway people, but has the patience, integrity and spirituality to aid even the least of our fellow citizens. Even if they ain't pretty - or thankful.
The only thing Mr. Warkentin (and others who tell the same tale of woe) appears to be expert at is enabling drug addicts to stay in their addiction, avoiding reality and the choices that having to face reality force upon the addict. This is evident from his own statement: " Like a magnet, last Saturday I was drawn to Abby's cocaine king."I have no idea what need Mr. Warkentin has that drives him to repeat this pattern of failure over and over. Perhaps he needs to be a martyr - "poor, poor me; I give so much, it does no good and I am abused or taken advantage of." Obviously the stories he tells (so believably) are the gut of his sympathy line. I have heard them all. I would suggest that Mr. Warkentin seek treatment for his need (or addiction) to behave in this destructive manner. If not for his own sake then fo the sake of all the addicts his actions harm.
For Mr. Warkentin is correct on one point - you DO NOT give money to an addict. Giving a job to an addict who is not in recovery is just the same as handing them money to enable them to continue to live in and pursue their addiction. You give them shelter, access to amenities (showers, laundry etc.) and food. You provide a way to maintain contact with the addict until reality has come to call and has them, at some point, ready to face and make choices. at which point you give them support and help in seeking and finding treatment. Once they are in or finished treatment you provide them help and support in getting established in the community and establishing a healthy life style. This is the point at which finding/giving them jobs is helpful to them.
Cretin. What else but cretinous could you call repeating the same behaviour over and over for 40 years, expecting that this time the outcome (addicts behaviour) will be different? You would think that a Mr. Warkenin and others supposedly thinking people would come to realize that what they do, or what actions they advocate, are not working and try another approach. But then what can you expect from a writer who cannot distinguish between homelessness and addiction. The homeless are a widely varied group. Made up of people such as: those who lost their jobs and whose world collapsed under their debt load, putting them on the street; those who for a variety of reasons (such as my own mental illness) had their world implode and are struggling to get re-established; the working poor; the mentally challenged; the mentally ill and many other sub-groups. Yes, there is a sizable segment of the homeless who suffer from addiction. If Mr. Warkentin really understood anything about the homeless he would know he has not accumulated "many lessons learned from the homeless" but that he has been floundering in the world of the addict and addiction.
Addiction is a harsh and demanding Mistress. Helping the addict is a long, frustrating and pretty much thankless task. But I want to live in and contribute to the type of society that does not throwaway people, but has the patience, integrity and spirituality to aid even the least of our fellow citizens. Even if they ain't pretty - or thankful.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
10 Days? How very ... useless.
The idiots who …. I mean the politicians and bureaucrats who are suppose to provide leadership, solve problems and behave with at least some intelligence, will probably cite the above ten days in trying to defend or explain their actions in serving notice to the homeless camping in “Compassion Park”. So, what are those 10 days about? The Salvation Army has received funding to enable it to open all the beds in the emergency shelter, doubling the beds available to 20. This was desperately needed as many nights people seeking shelter were turned away due to a lack of beds available. Ironically, the people turned away had to go to “Compassion Park” to find shelter (spare tents) for the night. Now with the City choosing to close down the “Park” before they have taken any useful actions to address the many pressing issues, as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of the past month, the residents of the “Park” will have to seek shelter at the Salvation Army. But they only get 10 days which, while double the normal allotment of 5 days, just delays them returning to living on the streets – and provides the City another smokescreen to cover their actions and a demonstrated lack of ability to begin to address the issues raised by homelessness, poverty and lack of affordable housing.
One cannot fault the Salvation Army for the decision to limit their stay to 10 days (or even the usual limit of 5 days) as this limit has been demonstrated by experience to be necessary in order to be as fair as possible in providing all with access to the emergency shelter. This is after all, suppose to be an ‘emergency shelter’, not a shelter to serve the Homeless of Abbotsford on a longer term basis. This conflict between its purpose as an emergency shelter and the overwhelming need of the homeless on the city streets for shelter is a result of the failure of leadership, ideas and ideals on the part of Abbotsford’s politicians (local, provincial and federal), the bureaucrats and other supposed “civic leaders". In their wilful blindness on the issue of homeless they have failed to provide the longer-term shelter, other facilities and services so badly needed if one wants to help reduce homelessness and aid the less fortunate citizens of Abbotsford.
They will probably also claim that the Salvation Army will help them find homes, jobs and anything else they need, as if they have not had access to and contact those services for the past month. Another attempt to hide their failure to fulfill their ‘duty of care’ to these citizens. The real problem appears to be that the politicians wanted a ‘quick fix’ to plaster over the problems. Reality is that this is an issue that has grown over time and has no fast, easy solutions. It requires commitment, leadership, thoughtfulness, creativity, innovation and intelligent. All qualities that the politicians, administrators and civic leaders demonstrate a total lack of, at least on these pressing social issues.
One cannot fault the Salvation Army for the decision to limit their stay to 10 days (or even the usual limit of 5 days) as this limit has been demonstrated by experience to be necessary in order to be as fair as possible in providing all with access to the emergency shelter. This is after all, suppose to be an ‘emergency shelter’, not a shelter to serve the Homeless of Abbotsford on a longer term basis. This conflict between its purpose as an emergency shelter and the overwhelming need of the homeless on the city streets for shelter is a result of the failure of leadership, ideas and ideals on the part of Abbotsford’s politicians (local, provincial and federal), the bureaucrats and other supposed “civic leaders". In their wilful blindness on the issue of homeless they have failed to provide the longer-term shelter, other facilities and services so badly needed if one wants to help reduce homelessness and aid the less fortunate citizens of Abbotsford.
They will probably also claim that the Salvation Army will help them find homes, jobs and anything else they need, as if they have not had access to and contact those services for the past month. Another attempt to hide their failure to fulfill their ‘duty of care’ to these citizens. The real problem appears to be that the politicians wanted a ‘quick fix’ to plaster over the problems. Reality is that this is an issue that has grown over time and has no fast, easy solutions. It requires commitment, leadership, thoughtfulness, creativity, innovation and intelligent. All qualities that the politicians, administrators and civic leaders demonstrate a total lack of, at least on these pressing social issues.
