View From the Homeless Streets

Fund it with property-transfer taxes, municipal politicians say

Frances Bula, with file from Jonathan Fowlie
Vancouver Sun
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Some B.C. municipal politicians have urged the provincial government to use the hundreds of millions of dollars it collects in property-transfer taxes to help fund a housing program that will create housing.

However, at least one mayor said Tuesday it's not really housing that's needed. Instead, the province needs to put more into mental health and addictions treatment to get people off the street.

Whichever approach was argued, homelessness and housing dominated conversations at the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual meeting in Victoria this week. The meeting has attracted 1,900 councillors and regional district representatives from around the province.

"[Monday], we had a session on health that turned out to be about homelessness. A second session on affordable housing turned out to be about homelessness," said New Westminster Mayor Wayne Wright, as he spoke Tuesday at a session for delegates from large urban centres.
Homelessness continued to be the theme of Wright's day as he went to the washroom at the Empress Hotel, next to the convention centre, and found himself sharing it with a homeless man who was using it as his wash-up facility for the day.

Wright, along with many others, said the province has a crisis on its hands and no one is tackling it. "We spend billions on cancer research. Yet here we have a disease that's in the middle of us that we're not attacking the same way."

Many politicians criticized, for the second day, Housing Minister Rich Coleman's recently announced housing strategy, which will provide money to build shelters and transitional housing, along with giving housing subsidies to poor families living in private apartments who are spending a lot of money on housing in relation to their income.

Councillors like Dean Fortin of Victoria and Heather Deal of Vancouver argued that with vacancy rates near zero in those cities, housing subsidies won't solve any problems, but will just raise rents.

Several politicians, including Alan Nixon from North Vancouver, Vic Derman of Saanich, and Al Hogarth of Maple Ridge, urged the provincial government to create a funding mechanism similar to the one now used for transportation, where part of the gas tax goes towards transit projects.
The property transfer tax, created in 1988 to discourage speculation, and which generated $830 million for the province last year, could be used to create a housing fund that others could add to.

That recommendation was echoed Tuesday afternoon, when delegates heard recommendations from an "economic opportunities" task force, which made the same suggestion.

But Mayor Gord Robson of Maple Ridge said his municipality doesn't need housing, it needs treatment for its mentally ill and drug-addicted homeless people. Robson said a recent survey of all 177 homeless people in the Tri-Cities area showed that 98 per cent of them were either mentally ill or drug-addicted or both. "We don't need housing, we need help. We can't put them in jail. We can't take them outside of town and shoot them. What do we do? They're sick, it's an epidemic, there's thousands of them."

The housing minister's new assistant deputy minister, Mary Freeman, said the ministry wants to hear from communities about what is working and what isn't so it can make adjustments.
The issue of affordable housing was once again addressed on Tuesday when Vancouver police arrested six protesters from the Downtown Eastside who had occupied an abandoned hotel.
The protesters moved into the empty North Star Hotel at 5 West Hastings St. on Sunday, demanding it be converted into social housing.

On Tuesday afternoon, VPD spokesman Const. Tim Fanning said the six people -- three women and three men -- were arrested and charged with assault by trespass. Fanning said the arrests were made without incident. "It went very smoothly. We kept the lines of communication open between the people running the protest and the leadership of the police operation and that helped keep things civil," he said.

Email from the editor of http://www.somethingcool.ca/

“Thanks for the email, as always. Do you have examples of this >treatment you are talking about or this just more of a general >feeling? If you have seen or heard of some things the powers that be >are doing that demonstrate these "inappropriate" behaviours, let me >know. I would like to bring attention to them and perhaps even get a >comment or two from Casey Vinet.”

Fred:

Hello. No it is not a "general feeling". I had one of the homeless I know who was upset about it tell me about being awoken 10 time in one night to move along. Several others have volunteered stories to me of the police once again repeatedly moving them along, not to anywhere specific just “Not Here”. I went back and spoke to the worker I mentioned who looked me up to say someone needed to say something about this. Since the closing of the Park numerous clients have been complaining of once again being woken up and told to move while they are sleeping. As the worker said to me, and I have asked in letters to the editor at the local paper and to "officials" in meetings, what is the point in waking them and telling them to move when they have nowhere to go - except further down the street, to be awoken and moved repeatedly. The thing is these stories/complaints were not being told during the time the Park was open. In fact while the Park was open the police just sent people there if they found them sleeping somewhere. I need to note that some of those complaining were at Compassion Park when it was open - makes one wonder just how the /city and Mr Guthrie (city manager) define successful since they claimed their actions vis-à-vis the Park and its residents were "successful".

One of the other things that I am hearing more of now is the homeless being stopped and searched or asked about stolen items. Actually I have witnessed this myself. One of the advantages I (and other homeless) derive from keeping our clothes and ourselves clean (and what a struggle that can be) is that we blend in, appearing to be “regular citizens”. Thus I have been walking down the street past a police officer who ignores me but accosts a homeless person (whose appearance is more in keeping with the police and public’s idea of what a homeless person appears like) behind me. Clearly they are making judgments based on appearance of homelessness. I have no doubt that some of the homeless may well be involved in some of the thefts. But the police take that as a reason/excuse to stop any of the homeless and accuse – or as they probably claim ask – about the stolen property. Again, while the Park was open and media, City government and politicians attention was focused on the homeless situation this type of harassment was greatly reduced. While some of the thefts are being committed by the “regular citizens” the police do not walk up to “regular citizens” on the street and in effect accuse them of being thieves, wanting the stolen items back. Hmmm?? I wonder what you would need to file a human rights complain against the Abbotsford Police for this clear prejudice and stereotyping?

The one thing that is clear is that in none of these cases where a social or outreach worker contacted by the police – as per the stated/claimed City policy.
Clearly one of the benefits of the Park that was lost when it was closed down by the City was a place to direct the homeless to that was “open for business” 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Now it appears it is easier to just return to old behaviours than it is to work out and implement new procedures for interfacing with the homeless residents/population of the City.

Clearly the big disadvantage for the homeless in the City that came from the closing of “Compassion Park” was the removal of all the media attention. It appears that without the threat of wide exposure of bad behaviour posed by the media, the City does not feel the same need to behave in a rational, intelligent, humane or compassionate way.

Myself? Well I am continuing to try to keep the citizens of Abbotsford thinking about ways they can help those members of the community in need. I am hoping that the charities and other local groups who have become aware of the homeless and poverty issues will be able to come together to accomplish some of the things that need to be done. Although I must admit it is a little frustration to read about Victoria breaking ground for the type of facility this community could use for the homeless while in Abbotsford they are just about to have the first meeting to plan for the wet/cold weather shelter (and I ask what about food?) for this coming, looming winter.

I am also experimenting/exploring the difficulties involved in moving on and transitioning off the streets. I am in one of the only 14 “supported independent living” (aka 2nd stage housing) units in the City priced at the shelter rate of $325.
I am upstairs at the Salvation Army in one of their rooms. I continue to work on my mental health and on job searching – although I hope to avoid accounting and find something that contributes to improving the plight of those in need. I have had several people tell me I should write a book so that is a project I am getting an outline/start on. Right now cash flow is a real problem although I do work part time in the Salvation Army emergency shelter. I have applied for PPMB since on that I can earn and keep $500 a month before the government takes dollar for dollar away (and where is the incentive to work in that idea?). The timing is such that I will either have to get around to meetings for a few days by bus and begging rides OR driving without insurance until the money hits the bank and I have the cash to buy it. Oh well, I should write about the problems in trying to transition off the streets – the public thinks of it as sooo easy , when in fact it is a real pain and a difficult journey.

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.

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.