Friday, October 06, 2006
Re: Bridge Housing
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.
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.
# posted by James W Breckenridge : 11:02 AM
