Homeless in Abbotsford, BC
I DO NOT, HAVE NOT, WOULD NOT ever suggest throwing money at a problem. I am a REALIST, believing in examining a problem to understand what the situation IS. I am not an Ideologue who, wearing the blinders of ideology, looks at a situation and sees what they want to see, not what really is. There is NO perfect solution. A system dealing with people demands flexibility and denies neat, easy answers. Rigidly applying Ideology guarantees failure. How I came to homelessness: click Backstory below.
Well DUH!
Penticton $9.7 million provincial grant secured BEFORE project presented to public; Langley $15 million provincial grant secured BEFORE project presented to public, project modified to maximize grant; Abbotsford $0.00 provincial grant secured BEFORE project presented to public.
In the Friday Abbotsford Times much gnashing of teeth and cries of “we was robbed” by Abbotsford City Hall. Common sense dictates, for those possessing common sense (which evidence suggests is nonexistent at Abbotsford City Hall) that your maximum leverage on a senior level of government for grants is before you fund the project when they (province; federal) can be blamed for the project not proceeding. This was the case in the recent extortion of $2 million each from both the federal and provincial governments for Stanley Park restoration making Vancouver’s contribution $ZERO$.
When asked during the referendum campaign why they had not and if they should not have gotten grants BEFORE coming to the taxpayers for approval, as any rational, fiscally responsible City (i.e. Langley, Penticton) would do, Abbotsford City Hall blew off those posing the questions as “naysayers” and “negative people”.
It turns out that it is Abbotsford City Hall which was/is negative, or is that negligent, to the tune of $millions$ of taxpayer dollars. This may have taxpayers justifiably wanting to say Nay to Abbotsford City Hall and its cavalier and careless attitude to taxpayer’s money.
{shake head} – I am left contemplating how much good could have been accomplished in addressing affordable housing, poverty reduction and homelessness with the $$$ millions Abbotsford City Hall’s carelessness is costing the City. Abbotsford City Hall could have satisfied their hasty drive to saddle taxpayers with $85 million in debt and had a major impact on these growing social problems by diverting borrowings in an amount matching any government grants into investments in meeting the social needs of our community.
But then the one thing the behaviour of Abbotsford City Hall has made very clear during this entire process is that it is not about dealing with the needs for facilities or social issues of the citizens of Abbotsford, but about satisfying the wants of Abbotsford City Hall.
It is also very, very clear Abbotsford taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue to fund Abbotsford City Hall’s record of failure and co$tly mistakes.
Penticton $9.7 million provincial grant secured BEFORE project presented to public; Langley $15 million provincial grant secured BEFORE project presented to public, project modified to maximize grant; Abbotsford $0.00 provincial grant secured BEFORE project presented to public.
In the Friday Abbotsford Times much gnashing of teeth and cries of “we was robbed” by Abbotsford City Hall. Common sense dictates, for those possessing common sense (which evidence suggests is nonexistent at Abbotsford City Hall) that your maximum leverage on a senior level of government for grants is before you fund the project when they (province; federal) can be blamed for the project not proceeding. This was the case in the recent extortion of $2 million each from both the federal and provincial governments for Stanley Park restoration making Vancouver’s contribution $ZERO$.
When asked during the referendum campaign why they had not and if they should not have gotten grants BEFORE coming to the taxpayers for approval, as any rational, fiscally responsible City (i.e. Langley, Penticton) would do, Abbotsford City Hall blew off those posing the questions as “naysayers” and “negative people”.
It turns out that it is Abbotsford City Hall which was/is negative, or is that negligent, to the tune of $millions$ of taxpayer dollars. This may have taxpayers justifiably wanting to say Nay to Abbotsford City Hall and its cavalier and careless attitude to taxpayer’s money.
{shake head} – I am left contemplating how much good could have been accomplished in addressing affordable housing, poverty reduction and homelessness with the $$$ millions Abbotsford City Hall’s carelessness is costing the City. Abbotsford City Hall could have satisfied their hasty drive to saddle taxpayers with $85 million in debt and had a major impact on these growing social problems by diverting borrowings in an amount matching any government grants into investments in meeting the social needs of our community.
But then the one thing the behaviour of Abbotsford City Hall has made very clear during this entire process is that it is not about dealing with the needs for facilities or social issues of the citizens of Abbotsford, but about satisfying the wants of Abbotsford City Hall.
It is also very, very clear Abbotsford taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue to fund Abbotsford City Hall’s record of failure and co$tly mistakes.
$$MILLIONS$$
is the answer and the question is “how much is the ineptitude and laziness of senior city staff and council going to cost Abbotsford taxpayers”.
“… frankly I think our treasury board would have a great deal of trouble providing money for something that’s already been funded” said Premier Gordon Campbell during a visit to Abbotsford.
I enjoy being right. I really enjoy being proven correct when a position I take, especially in an area of personal expertise such as finance, is blown off as untrue and nothing to worry about; particularly when it is a point of plain common sense. But it is not enjoyable when it comes at such an outrageous cost to my fellow taxpaying citizens.
When asked during the NO Plan A campaign why senior staff and council had not bothered to seek funding from senior levels of government to reduce the burden on Abbotsford taxpayers, senior staff and council stated that was something to be done after borrowing the money was approved.
When asked why senior levels of government would contribute funds to a project after the City’s taxpayers were on the hook for the full amount, senior staff and council blithely stated that the fact that voting yes for plan A was also voting to pay the entire cost would be “no problem”.
Yes problem, big multimillion $$$$$$$ costly to the taxpayers problem given Premier Campbell’s statement: “… frankly I think our treasury board would have a great deal of trouble providing money for something that’s already been funded”.
If Abbotsford City Hall had not been so smug, self-congratulatory and busy cramming Plan A down the throats of the taxpayers and had actually listened to the questions of the NO side … well there is no way to tell how many millions of dollars this would have saved taxpayers.
$9.7 million Penticton; $15 million Langley; $0 Abbotsford. It is obvious why senior staff and council did not want to accept personal responsibility for taxpayer’s money wasted on Plan A. What is not clear is why taxpayers should be expected to just accept this demonstrated irresponsible behaviour and how much MORE the ineptitude and laziness of senior city staff and council is going to cost Abbotsford taxpayers
is the answer and the question is “how much is the ineptitude and laziness of senior city staff and council going to cost Abbotsford taxpayers”.
“… frankly I think our treasury board would have a great deal of trouble providing money for something that’s already been funded” said Premier Gordon Campbell during a visit to Abbotsford.
I enjoy being right. I really enjoy being proven correct when a position I take, especially in an area of personal expertise such as finance, is blown off as untrue and nothing to worry about; particularly when it is a point of plain common sense. But it is not enjoyable when it comes at such an outrageous cost to my fellow taxpaying citizens.
When asked during the NO Plan A campaign why senior staff and council had not bothered to seek funding from senior levels of government to reduce the burden on Abbotsford taxpayers, senior staff and council stated that was something to be done after borrowing the money was approved.
When asked why senior levels of government would contribute funds to a project after the City’s taxpayers were on the hook for the full amount, senior staff and council blithely stated that the fact that voting yes for plan A was also voting to pay the entire cost would be “no problem”.
Yes problem, big multimillion $$$$$$$ costly to the taxpayers problem given Premier Campbell’s statement: “… frankly I think our treasury board would have a great deal of trouble providing money for something that’s already been funded”.
If Abbotsford City Hall had not been so smug, self-congratulatory and busy cramming Plan A down the throats of the taxpayers and had actually listened to the questions of the NO side … well there is no way to tell how many millions of dollars this would have saved taxpayers.
$9.7 million Penticton; $15 million Langley; $0 Abbotsford. It is obvious why senior staff and council did not want to accept personal responsibility for taxpayer’s money wasted on Plan A. What is not clear is why taxpayers should be expected to just accept this demonstrated irresponsible behaviour and how much MORE the ineptitude and laziness of senior city staff and council is going to cost Abbotsford taxpayers
OK now I am incensed and disgusted
I got an e-mail from the publisher of Something Cool News asking my reaction to a planned fundraiser “Renewal of the Jewel” and comments by John McComb of CKNW’s “The World Today” on Stanley Park and homelessness. He called Stanley Park a “Jewel” and stated fixing it should be a major priority. When it was suggested by a listener that radio air time would better be spent on an issue such as homelessness Mr McComb’s reply was along the lines of “We did a whole week on homelessness on this station. How many shows on homelessness do you want?”
The publisher wanted to know what I felt about Mr McCombs attitude and about fundraising for the repair of Stanley Park since while I may be a passionate advocate on homeless and poverty issues, I am acknowledged as being objective, forthcoming and rational on the subject.
As I told him, I think that indeed it is important to aid Stanley Park recover from storm damage. The Park is described as natural and undisturbed old growth, leading to its description as a “Jewel”. I use the word aid deliberately. The damage from the storm is something that happens in the natural life of a forest and in due course the forest will heal itself as part of the cycle of life. But … such a self healing would be on the timeline of the trees of Stanley Park and on a plan that results from Nature, not man.
These calls for “repair” or to “restore” are about people’s wants and human hubris, because “we want OUR Park and we want it now”. It is not about Stanley Park. If it was about Stanley Park it would be about cleaning up the portions of the park – roads, causeway, paths – that give access to people to enjoy and commune with the park and letting the Park itself “decide” how, when and in what form it will heal and grow. If this is truly about maintaining the “spirit” or essence of Stanley Park then we must be willing to let Nature and the Park choose the HOW and WHEN.
I feel it extremely important that it is Stanley Park itself that dictates its growth and recovery; otherwise it will be no more than a very large garden or any other ordinary city park.
Still even doing a minimum to restore access and allow the Park to choose its own destiny will have costs and so I fully support the idea of a “Renewal of the Jewel” fundraiser. Especially since the funds raised may be needed for lawyers to protect the Park from overzealous human “friends”. Either way, a fund raiser of this sort seems a perfectly good idea for, hopefully, a sound purpose. Besides, as I rather snidely commented to the News a fundraiser such as this, while it would buy a good supply of Band-Aids for homeless issues, is not what is needed to fund programs to actually accomplish reductions in homelessness, addiction, poverty and a host of other related challenges.
Before I had the opportunity to formulate my thoughts on Mr. McComb I had the misfortune to see the Global 11PM news and their telethon. Seeing their self-congratulation on a telethon to raise money for Stanley Park left a foul taste in my mouth and granted me understanding of what is meant by “seeing red”. It is actions such as this that leave me despairing for the human race.
Several months ago in the Vancouver Sun Peter McMartin had a story about a church that was opening its sanctuary to those homeless who needed a safe place to sleep during the day. Included in this group were those who worked full time at night jobs such as cleaning office towers, but who cannot afford to rent housing in the very city they work in nor can they afford to live elsewhere and commute to work.
The church had accumulated a huge deficit and would continue to add to the deficit because they choose to live their faith and open their doors and hearts to those who needed help. Front page of the Vancouver Sun, a realistic need of hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a million or two for a operating trust fund. Where was Global News that day?
Variety, the Children’s Charity; BC Children’s Hospital; a church in dire need because the pastor and congregation choose to live their faith; are worthy of a telethon. But trees? I just hope that there is someone at CanWest with common sense and clout enough to give everyone responsible for this display of thoughtlessness, bad judgement and a total lack of priorities the swift kick in the ass they deserve.
Although, it would appear that this lack of judgement and common sense is rife on the airways. “A major priority” Mr McComb? If you can look around Vancouver, at our province, our country and our world and consider, what is after all at its very root a bunch of trees, a major priority … well all I can say and/or suggest is that for you a major priority should be removing your head from where you obviously have it lodged.
The answer to the question “how many shows” is – as many as it takes. I am not advocating 24 hour homeless radio or television. But we have no hope of intelligently addressing the issues surrounding poverty and homelessness unless we can, over time, educate and get the public thinking about these complex and messy issues.
People can spend uncounted hours watching Jerry Springer, pseudo-news programs, televised poker or reruns. More hours listening to Mr McComb, Howard Stern and trash radio. They will spend hours, days even weeks arguing and thinking about the Canucks. But thought provoking programs on poverty, addiction or homelessness? Don’t wana see it, don’t wana hear it, most assuredly don’t wana to think... … … about it. Millions can be raised for trees, trendy causes, animals or politicians but people in need?
Maybe therein lies the lesson that Stanley Park has to offer us. On its own timeline, in its own fashion and in accordance with its nature the Park can, will and should be allowed to heal itself. But if we, as a society lack the wisdom inherent in this old forest, then a hundred years from now as the forest is invigorated by the changes that nature has wrought, camped out among its new growth will be the poor, the homeless and the other unwanted. A wise old Park watching over the same old human society, a society that itself remains still desperately in need of healing.
I got an e-mail from the publisher of Something Cool News asking my reaction to a planned fundraiser “Renewal of the Jewel” and comments by John McComb of CKNW’s “The World Today” on Stanley Park and homelessness. He called Stanley Park a “Jewel” and stated fixing it should be a major priority. When it was suggested by a listener that radio air time would better be spent on an issue such as homelessness Mr McComb’s reply was along the lines of “We did a whole week on homelessness on this station. How many shows on homelessness do you want?”The publisher wanted to know what I felt about Mr McCombs attitude and about fundraising for the repair of Stanley Park since while I may be a passionate advocate on homeless and poverty issues, I am acknowledged as being objective, forthcoming and rational on the subject.
As I told him, I think that indeed it is important to aid Stanley Park recover from storm damage. The Park is described as natural and undisturbed old growth, leading to its description as a “Jewel”. I use the word aid deliberately. The damage from the storm is something that happens in the natural life of a forest and in due course the forest will heal itself as part of the cycle of life. But … such a self healing would be on the timeline of the trees of Stanley Park and on a plan that results from Nature, not man.
These calls for “repair” or to “restore” are about people’s wants and human hubris, because “we want OUR Park and we want it now”. It is not about Stanley Park. If it was about Stanley Park it would be about cleaning up the portions of the park – roads, causeway, paths – that give access to people to enjoy and commune with the park and letting the Park itself “decide” how, when and in what form it will heal and grow. If this is truly about maintaining the “spirit” or essence of Stanley Park then we must be willing to let Nature and the Park choose the HOW and WHEN.
I feel it extremely important that it is Stanley Park itself that dictates its growth and recovery; otherwise it will be no more than a very large garden or any other ordinary city park.
Still even doing a minimum to restore access and allow the Park to choose its own destiny will have costs and so I fully support the idea of a “Renewal of the Jewel” fundraiser. Especially since the funds raised may be needed for lawyers to protect the Park from overzealous human “friends”. Either way, a fund raiser of this sort seems a perfectly good idea for, hopefully, a sound purpose. Besides, as I rather snidely commented to the News a fundraiser such as this, while it would buy a good supply of Band-Aids for homeless issues, is not what is needed to fund programs to actually accomplish reductions in homelessness, addiction, poverty and a host of other related challenges.
Before I had the opportunity to formulate my thoughts on Mr. McComb I had the misfortune to see the Global 11PM news and their telethon. Seeing their self-congratulation on a telethon to raise money for Stanley Park left a foul taste in my mouth and granted me understanding of what is meant by “seeing red”. It is actions such as this that leave me despairing for the human race.
Several months ago in the Vancouver Sun Peter McMartin had a story about a church that was opening its sanctuary to those homeless who needed a safe place to sleep during the day. Included in this group were those who worked full time at night jobs such as cleaning office towers, but who cannot afford to rent housing in the very city they work in nor can they afford to live elsewhere and commute to work.
The church had accumulated a huge deficit and would continue to add to the deficit because they choose to live their faith and open their doors and hearts to those who needed help. Front page of the Vancouver Sun, a realistic need of hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a million or two for a operating trust fund. Where was Global News that day?
Variety, the Children’s Charity; BC Children’s Hospital; a church in dire need because the pastor and congregation choose to live their faith; are worthy of a telethon. But trees? I just hope that there is someone at CanWest with common sense and clout enough to give everyone responsible for this display of thoughtlessness, bad judgement and a total lack of priorities the swift kick in the ass they deserve.
Although, it would appear that this lack of judgement and common sense is rife on the airways. “A major priority” Mr McComb? If you can look around Vancouver, at our province, our country and our world and consider, what is after all at its very root a bunch of trees, a major priority … well all I can say and/or suggest is that for you a major priority should be removing your head from where you obviously have it lodged.
The answer to the question “how many shows” is – as many as it takes. I am not advocating 24 hour homeless radio or television. But we have no hope of intelligently addressing the issues surrounding poverty and homelessness unless we can, over time, educate and get the public thinking about these complex and messy issues.
People can spend uncounted hours watching Jerry Springer, pseudo-news programs, televised poker or reruns. More hours listening to Mr McComb, Howard Stern and trash radio. They will spend hours, days even weeks arguing and thinking about the Canucks. But thought provoking programs on poverty, addiction or homelessness? Don’t wana see it, don’t wana hear it, most assuredly don’t wana to think... … … about it. Millions can be raised for trees, trendy causes, animals or politicians but people in need?
Maybe therein lies the lesson that Stanley Park has to offer us. On its own timeline, in its own fashion and in accordance with its nature the Park can, will and should be allowed to heal itself. But if we, as a society lack the wisdom inherent in this old forest, then a hundred years from now as the forest is invigorated by the changes that nature has wrought, camped out among its new growth will be the poor, the homeless and the other unwanted. A wise old Park watching over the same old human society, a society that itself remains still desperately in need of healing.
Year '06 in Review: Part I; NO - Plan A
Contrary to City council and staff accusations I am neither a naysayer nor a negative person.
It is that I hold myself to a standard of excellence and expect of others a job well done. I cannot abide a half-assed effort such as the one City senior staff and council made on Plan A.
Below is what I demanded that the City do before asking my agreement on their plans and the outcome when another Municipality did the work I demanded of Abbotsford senior staff and council. You judge the outcomes.
aaa
I felt it was necessary, that as part of my program of mental health and self-improvement, to reflect upon how I behaved and what I had learned over the past year before setting any goals for 2007. Since Plan A was only a month ago I decided to start my year in review there.
I asked myself if my objections, questions or position on the matter were reasonable since council, senior city staff, people conducting commerce and people laying claim to representing various groups of citizens acted as though it was heretical to question the dictates and decisions delivered to the serfs, I mean taxpayers, from the rulers in their castle, I mean city hall.
What I asked about and wanted the City to provide before I would consider supporting a proposed facility was:
1) I wanted a set of architectural and engineering drawings in order to determine exactly what would be built.
2) I wanted a business plan setting out projected revenues, expenses (all expenses) and deficits. As part of the business plan I wanted to know anticipated users and usage to evaluate how realistic the financial projections were. This would also demonstrate the need for and priority of any facility.
3) For facilities such as an arena I wanted to know who the major tenant would be, permitting the building to be planned to match the actual need and avoid costly overbuilding of the facility. Also avoiding ending up with an expensive white elephant that would be a money devouring black hole.
4) I wanted to explore all possible funding avenues, being ready to adapt and change the building plans to access government $$$. I also wanted to explore private participation in the funding of the projects – whether sponsorship or partnership.
5) I wanted to explore private participation to take advantage of expertise and solid fiscal management practices.
For having the audacity to suggest applying the good governance and financial practices any BCom, Chartered Accountant or businessperson would insist on I, and others of like mind, were vilified as nay saying, negative people. It was asserted none of these actions were needed or would be of any benefit to Abbotsford’s taxpayers and their pocketbooks. During those November days I might have begun to question myself, except that in looking around at those I was standing with - I realized I was onside with the people of reason and intelligent decision making processes.
The questions of heresy and what, if any effect the City having done the homework required to answer my questions would have had looked to go unanswered for years. Then like an early Christmas present, a huge and much appreciated present, Langley made their arena/recreation center announcement.
By doing their homework Langley’s city staff and council will build an arena and recreation center for a net cost of $15 million. Abbotsford’s city staff and council are building an arena and recreation center that will only cost Abbotsford’s taxpayers $75 million. It would appear that Abbotsford’s city staff and council refusal to address my questions and use basic common sense will cost the taxpayer’s an extra $60 million. Chump change, it would seem, to this city staff and council.
You can count an a few things happening in the New Year. Senior city staff and council will have all kinds of excuses for why addressing the questions I and other stopplana.com supporters asked would not have had similar massive savings for Abbotsford’s taxpayers. They will also have excuses for why it was that Abbotsford chased a hockey team out of the City then decided to build an arena, while Langley agreed to build an arena after they had a hockey team – the same one chased out of Abbotsford. You can be sure that they will also have some kind of unsatisfactory explanation that no, the reason they could guarantee the quoted price of $75 million for arena and recreation complex was not that it should only cost the $45 million total that Langley will pay for arena and recreation center. You can count on council and city staff to have many excuses as to why they cannot learn anything from Langley and why re-examining the Abbotsford projects in light of Langley’s behaviour is a “waste of time”. They also can be counted on to insist on rushing ahead while making all kinds of excuses as to why such haste is necessary, that it would only waste time to look for grants and/or private sponsorships or participation.
You can be positive that Langley’s citizens would refuse to trade their senior city staff and council for ours, even if we offered to throw in $50 million. You can also be absolutely certain that even at a cost of $50 million the trade of senior staff and council would be a great deal for the citizens and future of Abbotsford.
Contrary to City council and staff accusations I am neither a naysayer nor a negative person.
It is that I hold myself to a standard of excellence and expect of others a job well done. I cannot abide a half-assed effort such as the one City senior staff and council made on Plan A.
Below is what I demanded that the City do before asking my agreement on their plans and the outcome when another Municipality did the work I demanded of Abbotsford senior staff and council. You judge the outcomes.
aaa
I felt it was necessary, that as part of my program of mental health and self-improvement, to reflect upon how I behaved and what I had learned over the past year before setting any goals for 2007. Since Plan A was only a month ago I decided to start my year in review there.
I asked myself if my objections, questions or position on the matter were reasonable since council, senior city staff, people conducting commerce and people laying claim to representing various groups of citizens acted as though it was heretical to question the dictates and decisions delivered to the serfs, I mean taxpayers, from the rulers in their castle, I mean city hall.
What I asked about and wanted the City to provide before I would consider supporting a proposed facility was:
1) I wanted a set of architectural and engineering drawings in order to determine exactly what would be built.
2) I wanted a business plan setting out projected revenues, expenses (all expenses) and deficits. As part of the business plan I wanted to know anticipated users and usage to evaluate how realistic the financial projections were. This would also demonstrate the need for and priority of any facility.
3) For facilities such as an arena I wanted to know who the major tenant would be, permitting the building to be planned to match the actual need and avoid costly overbuilding of the facility. Also avoiding ending up with an expensive white elephant that would be a money devouring black hole.
4) I wanted to explore all possible funding avenues, being ready to adapt and change the building plans to access government $$$. I also wanted to explore private participation in the funding of the projects – whether sponsorship or partnership.
5) I wanted to explore private participation to take advantage of expertise and solid fiscal management practices.
For having the audacity to suggest applying the good governance and financial practices any BCom, Chartered Accountant or businessperson would insist on I, and others of like mind, were vilified as nay saying, negative people. It was asserted none of these actions were needed or would be of any benefit to Abbotsford’s taxpayers and their pocketbooks. During those November days I might have begun to question myself, except that in looking around at those I was standing with - I realized I was onside with the people of reason and intelligent decision making processes.
The questions of heresy and what, if any effect the City having done the homework required to answer my questions would have had looked to go unanswered for years. Then like an early Christmas present, a huge and much appreciated present, Langley made their arena/recreation center announcement.
By doing their homework Langley’s city staff and council will build an arena and recreation center for a net cost of $15 million. Abbotsford’s city staff and council are building an arena and recreation center that will only cost Abbotsford’s taxpayers $75 million. It would appear that Abbotsford’s city staff and council refusal to address my questions and use basic common sense will cost the taxpayer’s an extra $60 million. Chump change, it would seem, to this city staff and council.
You can count an a few things happening in the New Year. Senior city staff and council will have all kinds of excuses for why addressing the questions I and other stopplana.com supporters asked would not have had similar massive savings for Abbotsford’s taxpayers. They will also have excuses for why it was that Abbotsford chased a hockey team out of the City then decided to build an arena, while Langley agreed to build an arena after they had a hockey team – the same one chased out of Abbotsford. You can be sure that they will also have some kind of unsatisfactory explanation that no, the reason they could guarantee the quoted price of $75 million for arena and recreation complex was not that it should only cost the $45 million total that Langley will pay for arena and recreation center. You can count on council and city staff to have many excuses as to why they cannot learn anything from Langley and why re-examining the Abbotsford projects in light of Langley’s behaviour is a “waste of time”. They also can be counted on to insist on rushing ahead while making all kinds of excuses as to why such haste is necessary, that it would only waste time to look for grants and/or private sponsorships or participation.
You can be positive that Langley’s citizens would refuse to trade their senior city staff and council for ours, even if we offered to throw in $50 million. You can also be absolutely certain that even at a cost of $50 million the trade of senior staff and council would be a great deal for the citizens and future of Abbotsford.
When pondering the Imponderable ....
I made the mistake of not allowing sufficient time to have passed in this New Year before I let my mind wander to consideration of how to change Abbotsford from a community to a community. I should have known better than to let my mind ponder such a seemingly impossible task until the season of despair (aka Christmas season) and its mental booby-traps was long past. I most certainly should have been vigilant enough not to miss taking my medication when contemplating such a potentially depressing undertaking. spirit downward spins/ screaming fading lost quiet/ despair triumphant.
The truly disheartening part of all this is that the widespread reaction on the part of the inhabitants of Abbotsford to reading “change … a community to a community” will be HUH? That’s stupid: a community is a community, is a community.
Untrue. A community is merely a happenstance involving a group of people, usually being in the same spot or area to which we apply a label such as, in the case of Abbotsford, a city. On the hand other a community is much more spiritual in nature involving as it does concepts such as fellowship, connection, empathy, helping, even kinship.
In Abbotsford this is further complicated by the practice inhabitants have of getting together to form cliques. This results in a turning away, a turning ones back on, those who do not belong to the closed circle. Next-door neighbours, if they are not a member, seemingly have no real relevance to clique members.
This past year has resulted in my having connections across several of these groups. With their inward focus these groups, even in areas of mutual concern, do not play well together. Collaboration is necessary to address the needs of our neighbours since the scale of the need has become so large as to require all of us to resolve. The thought of liaising in such a manner as to get them to work together as part of a team is intimidating.
It is even more nerve-racking to consider weaving a web to connect all the city’s differing groups together so that, by tweaking the web, you can center their attention on a vision compelling enough it is capable of drawing all the varied groups within Abbotsford together in such a way as to give rise to a community is.
Contemplating conceiving such a vision is, to say the least, daunting. So daunting that it hovers on being overwhelming. Which is why I definitely should have waited until the bleakness that this season holds for me was solidly behind me. Because part of being able conceive of that inspiring vision is also being able to see the human toll that will be paid in 2007, and the years beyond, if Abbotsford does not achieve the change from merely a community of geographic coincidence to a community with spirit, heart, a soul.
.... depression can take advantage of your inattention.
I made the mistake of not allowing sufficient time to have passed in this New Year before I let my mind wander to consideration of how to change Abbotsford from a community to a community. I should have known better than to let my mind ponder such a seemingly impossible task until the season of despair (aka Christmas season) and its mental booby-traps was long past. I most certainly should have been vigilant enough not to miss taking my medication when contemplating such a potentially depressing undertaking. spirit downward spins/ screaming fading lost quiet/ despair triumphant.
The truly disheartening part of all this is that the widespread reaction on the part of the inhabitants of Abbotsford to reading “change … a community to a community” will be HUH? That’s stupid: a community is a community, is a community.
Untrue. A community is merely a happenstance involving a group of people, usually being in the same spot or area to which we apply a label such as, in the case of Abbotsford, a city. On the hand other a community is much more spiritual in nature involving as it does concepts such as fellowship, connection, empathy, helping, even kinship.
In Abbotsford this is further complicated by the practice inhabitants have of getting together to form cliques. This results in a turning away, a turning ones back on, those who do not belong to the closed circle. Next-door neighbours, if they are not a member, seemingly have no real relevance to clique members.
This past year has resulted in my having connections across several of these groups. With their inward focus these groups, even in areas of mutual concern, do not play well together. Collaboration is necessary to address the needs of our neighbours since the scale of the need has become so large as to require all of us to resolve. The thought of liaising in such a manner as to get them to work together as part of a team is intimidating.
It is even more nerve-racking to consider weaving a web to connect all the city’s differing groups together so that, by tweaking the web, you can center their attention on a vision compelling enough it is capable of drawing all the varied groups within Abbotsford together in such a way as to give rise to a community is.
Contemplating conceiving such a vision is, to say the least, daunting. So daunting that it hovers on being overwhelming. Which is why I definitely should have waited until the bleakness that this season holds for me was solidly behind me. Because part of being able conceive of that inspiring vision is also being able to see the human toll that will be paid in 2007, and the years beyond, if Abbotsford does not achieve the change from merely a community of geographic coincidence to a community with spirit, heart, a soul.
Just who is it that is responsible for turning off the Christmas Spirit, for throwing the Switch from ON to OFF?
On Christmas Day less than half of the clients at the Abbotsford Emergency Shelter wanted even a small plate of food and the Shelter itself was just over half full. The free breakfast and turkey dinners around town this Christmas Day had them all as stuffed as the turkeys they had consumed. During the previous two - three weeks there was an abundance of meals, food and care packages for the poor, hungry and homeless.
On December 26th the switch was thrown, the Spirit turned off for another year and greed was out in full force prowling the Boxing Day Sales. And the Shelter was again full of the homeless who were once more cold, hungry and unwanted.
This is written on New Years Day in a Shelter overfull with clients who have devoured every crumb to be found. What a difference a week makes. They face the bleak cold hungry days of January and a year lacking the promise of anything better. With the upcoming year holding out to me the promise of challenges to be met and things that need accomplishing I cannot help but ponder the Christmas Spirit Switch.
This Switch is why the Abbotsford Food Bank and other such charities work so hard and long at raising funds through donations during the Christmas Spirit Season. They HAVE to raise the majority of their yearly operating budgets during this short yearly outpouring of the Christmas Spirit. Because once the Switch is OFF, getting donations is an uphill battle against the inertia of indifference.
Of course the answer to the question about the Switch is that we are each responsible for our own Christmas Switch and turning OFF our Spirit. I have resolved for the New Year to try to keep my Spirit Switch in the caring/helping/giving position, even when some members of the homeless community have me contemplating homicide.
We each get to choose whether the Spirit of this season if OFF until next year’s Christmas season or stays ON in the caring/helping/giving position throughout the entire year. Take a moment to ponder your Switch and whether your Spirit will be ON or OFF during this New Year. It is Your Choice.
On Christmas Day less than half of the clients at the Abbotsford Emergency Shelter wanted even a small plate of food and the Shelter itself was just over half full. The free breakfast and turkey dinners around town this Christmas Day had them all as stuffed as the turkeys they had consumed. During the previous two - three weeks there was an abundance of meals, food and care packages for the poor, hungry and homeless.
On December 26th the switch was thrown, the Spirit turned off for another year and greed was out in full force prowling the Boxing Day Sales. And the Shelter was again full of the homeless who were once more cold, hungry and unwanted.
This is written on New Years Day in a Shelter overfull with clients who have devoured every crumb to be found. What a difference a week makes. They face the bleak cold hungry days of January and a year lacking the promise of anything better. With the upcoming year holding out to me the promise of challenges to be met and things that need accomplishing I cannot help but ponder the Christmas Spirit Switch.
This Switch is why the Abbotsford Food Bank and other such charities work so hard and long at raising funds through donations during the Christmas Spirit Season. They HAVE to raise the majority of their yearly operating budgets during this short yearly outpouring of the Christmas Spirit. Because once the Switch is OFF, getting donations is an uphill battle against the inertia of indifference.
Of course the answer to the question about the Switch is that we are each responsible for our own Christmas Switch and turning OFF our Spirit. I have resolved for the New Year to try to keep my Spirit Switch in the caring/helping/giving position, even when some members of the homeless community have me contemplating homicide.
We each get to choose whether the Spirit of this season if OFF until next year’s Christmas season or stays ON in the caring/helping/giving position throughout the entire year. Take a moment to ponder your Switch and whether your Spirit will be ON or OFF during this New Year. It is Your Choice.
Might as well just burn the money.
No wonder the City of Abbotsford is always claiming to have NO MONEY to invest in reducing poverty, homelessness, addiction and other pressing social issues. When you like to waste money in $60,000,000.00 chunks, you would tend to find yourself a little short of cash.
They will have lots of excuses, which they will call explanations or reasons, why Abbotsford paying $75 million when Langley is only paying $15 million does not mean Abbotsford is overpaying by $60,000,000.00. Although why they believe and expect taxpayers to believe paying $75 million for what someone else pays $15 million isn’t overpaying …
With just 25% of what they have chosen to overpay we could build the social housing facilities and fund programs to make serious inroads on poverty reduction, homelessness, addiction and affordable housing. Even a paltry (to City staff and council) 10% would fund innovative new approaches to addressing these stubborn issues. It would also provide funds to enable groups within the City to put together applications for monies available from more senior levels of government.
Funding is needed by these groups due to the fact it takes a great deal of paperwork to write up such applications – a very time consuming process when relying on volunteers. It seems that searching for and submitting grant applications is too much work for taxpayers to expect city staff and council to do so. Which may explains why senior city staff felt they deserved big salary bonuses for working during the strike they provoked last summer?
It does cause me to wonder how many thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions?) could be saved every year on the City’s yearly budget through responsible fiscal, grant and management practices? Such sound practices would appear too much work for city managers and council to bother doing in an effort to leave a few extra dollars in taxpayer’s pockets. Now if it were their own pockets …
When I consider how much good could be accomplished in 2007 with a fraction of the money City staff and council are in such a headlong rush to throw away, I am left wondering if I had better get my doctor to double or triple my prescribed antidepressants.
No wonder the City of Abbotsford is always claiming to have NO MONEY to invest in reducing poverty, homelessness, addiction and other pressing social issues. When you like to waste money in $60,000,000.00 chunks, you would tend to find yourself a little short of cash.
They will have lots of excuses, which they will call explanations or reasons, why Abbotsford paying $75 million when Langley is only paying $15 million does not mean Abbotsford is overpaying by $60,000,000.00. Although why they believe and expect taxpayers to believe paying $75 million for what someone else pays $15 million isn’t overpaying …
With just 25% of what they have chosen to overpay we could build the social housing facilities and fund programs to make serious inroads on poverty reduction, homelessness, addiction and affordable housing. Even a paltry (to City staff and council) 10% would fund innovative new approaches to addressing these stubborn issues. It would also provide funds to enable groups within the City to put together applications for monies available from more senior levels of government.
Funding is needed by these groups due to the fact it takes a great deal of paperwork to write up such applications – a very time consuming process when relying on volunteers. It seems that searching for and submitting grant applications is too much work for taxpayers to expect city staff and council to do so. Which may explains why senior city staff felt they deserved big salary bonuses for working during the strike they provoked last summer?
It does cause me to wonder how many thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions?) could be saved every year on the City’s yearly budget through responsible fiscal, grant and management practices? Such sound practices would appear too much work for city managers and council to bother doing in an effort to leave a few extra dollars in taxpayer’s pockets. Now if it were their own pockets …
When I consider how much good could be accomplished in 2007 with a fraction of the money City staff and council are in such a headlong rush to throw away, I am left wondering if I had better get my doctor to double or triple my prescribed antidepressants.
Friends, Adventists, Countrymen lend me your ears;
I come not to bury the Open Door, but to praise them.
Although the truth is, I only think of them as The Open Door when someone specifically asks the name of the church that so dependably turns up so many Sundays to feed the hungry. Currently in Abbotsford there is one other church that serves lunch on the first Sunday of the month, leaving the other 40 Sundays of the year to the brown bag lunch people. For many Sundays they were simply the people to me, those folks who showed up with coffee and handed out their trademark bagged lunches. I must confess it was quite some time before I spoke to any of them. While a bagged lunch may sound rather mundane it is a somewhat harsh fact of life that there is no other source of food available to the hungry on Sunday, which makes even a simple bagged lunch akin to manna from heaven.
Calling them the brown bag lunch people immediately identifies who you are speaking of to other members of the homeless community. While members of the bag lunch gang were away on vacation this past summer, some went so far as to press gang their mother into service to ensure that lunch was served and their commitment to be there week in and week out kept. In fact recently they were close to an hour late (due to other commitments) but none of the waiting multitude left. These people had been so dependable that, unlike with other groups, the crowd just waited with only slightly strained patience for them to arrive.
Often their kids come along to help serve the food, injecting energy and spirit that only the young can add. There is also something soothing about watching the antics of a dog and having the opportunity to pet them. As Charles Schultz penned “Happiness is a warm puppy.”
One of the things that the homeless really appreciate, since “kindness” often comes with that string attached, is that they are not harangued with how wonderful God is and that their troubles would disappear if only they joined whatever congregation was being “kind”. The preaching by those of the Open Door flock who so faithfully serve lunch comes in the way they live their Faith. Not fancy words but actions, not pressure but a quiet invitation to join them in worship on the Sabbath.
The ironic misfortune of the Homeless in Abbotsford is that if the many other churches, especially the large well established congregations (for Abbotsford is time and again noted for the number and size of its church assemblies), were to be as steadfast and committed to living their faith in deeds not formulaic words, so much could be accomplished to reclaim the lives and spirits of those who have fallen so low. So while the previous articles written, posted on www.homelessinabbotsford.com and sent into “Letters to the Editor” were to say a very substantial THANK YOU to the members of Pastor Bill’s flock it was also in the hope that in their actions other congregations would find the inspiration to serve. I also hope that, as Pastor Bill told me he was working on an article for national Newsletter publication, other congregations will be encouraged to seek out a way to make this kind of significant contribution in their communities. So thanks to the Open Door and I go now to hand over a copy of this heartfelt thanks. After all it is Sunday lunchtime and thus I can hand it to members of the Open Door congregation, saying thank you in person as well as on the page.
I come not to bury the Open Door, but to praise them.
Although the truth is, I only think of them as The Open Door when someone specifically asks the name of the church that so dependably turns up so many Sundays to feed the hungry. Currently in Abbotsford there is one other church that serves lunch on the first Sunday of the month, leaving the other 40 Sundays of the year to the brown bag lunch people. For many Sundays they were simply the people to me, those folks who showed up with coffee and handed out their trademark bagged lunches. I must confess it was quite some time before I spoke to any of them. While a bagged lunch may sound rather mundane it is a somewhat harsh fact of life that there is no other source of food available to the hungry on Sunday, which makes even a simple bagged lunch akin to manna from heaven.
Calling them the brown bag lunch people immediately identifies who you are speaking of to other members of the homeless community. While members of the bag lunch gang were away on vacation this past summer, some went so far as to press gang their mother into service to ensure that lunch was served and their commitment to be there week in and week out kept. In fact recently they were close to an hour late (due to other commitments) but none of the waiting multitude left. These people had been so dependable that, unlike with other groups, the crowd just waited with only slightly strained patience for them to arrive.
Often their kids come along to help serve the food, injecting energy and spirit that only the young can add. There is also something soothing about watching the antics of a dog and having the opportunity to pet them. As Charles Schultz penned “Happiness is a warm puppy.”
One of the things that the homeless really appreciate, since “kindness” often comes with that string attached, is that they are not harangued with how wonderful God is and that their troubles would disappear if only they joined whatever congregation was being “kind”. The preaching by those of the Open Door flock who so faithfully serve lunch comes in the way they live their Faith. Not fancy words but actions, not pressure but a quiet invitation to join them in worship on the Sabbath.
The ironic misfortune of the Homeless in Abbotsford is that if the many other churches, especially the large well established congregations (for Abbotsford is time and again noted for the number and size of its church assemblies), were to be as steadfast and committed to living their faith in deeds not formulaic words, so much could be accomplished to reclaim the lives and spirits of those who have fallen so low. So while the previous articles written, posted on www.homelessinabbotsford.com and sent into “Letters to the Editor” were to say a very substantial THANK YOU to the members of Pastor Bill’s flock it was also in the hope that in their actions other congregations would find the inspiration to serve. I also hope that, as Pastor Bill told me he was working on an article for national Newsletter publication, other congregations will be encouraged to seek out a way to make this kind of significant contribution in their communities. So thanks to the Open Door and I go now to hand over a copy of this heartfelt thanks. After all it is Sunday lunchtime and thus I can hand it to members of the Open Door congregation, saying thank you in person as well as on the page.
Reply to Post letter of Mr. Warkentin:
Of course I will respond, for two major reasons. First, because I believe the only way to make any true headway on issues such as poverty or homelessness requires the entire community to be involved. We are speaking of very complex issues that need many new, innovative ideas so we can tease apart the separate threads making up the Gordian knot we currently have. In order to generate these ideas we must have discussion, debate and conversation. The second is that as part of the examination of these problems, issues and ideas it is a fair question to ask about my personal frame of reference. Having an understanding of my background and life experience should help readers understand what I am saying and not have misunderstandings occur, such as happened in the first paragraph of your letter.
Blame is a fool’s game. It accomplishes nothing and gets in the way of change. It would have been most beneficial to course of my life to have dealt with my mental health issues at a much earlier point in my life. I did not or could not get it together then and there is nothing I can do to change that past. I could blame myself for not having been able to act before and constantly beat myself up over that, but that behaviour accomplishes nothing. I have to let it go and accept it as one of the realities of my life I cannot change. While I cannot change what went before, I am responsible for my future mental health. I could be incredibly stupid and go back to the old behaviours that left me vulnerable to having my life trashed by mental illness. Alternatively I could choose to act in a rational and intelligent manner, accepting the reality that I suffer from mental illness. I can, by acting responsibly, choose to walk a path more to my liking. I have medication to put a bottom I can deal with on what was a bottomless pit of mental hell, tools to get me through the bad days, knowledge about my own mental health, awareness of and access to mental health resources to deal with unusual stress or problems, friends and groups for understanding and support, I have regained joy and found passion to pursue interests, issues and causes. Most importantly I have regained my ability to make choices. Hanging onto blame would only serve to anchor me in the unhealthy mental state of my past. I choose to let go and live well.
In a similar manner it is a pointless waste of time to attempt to assign blame for poverty, homelessness, addiction, mental health issues, injustices and the uncivil, selfish behaviour rampant in our society these days. There is plenty of blame to go around and absolutely no point in getting into a pointless argument about who, what, where, why or how we got into this mess. We are in it and I do not really care about blame. What I am concerned about is the future and that we as a community behave rationally and intelligently in the choices we make and the actions we take.
It is clear to me that the actions currently being untaken in regards to dealing with these issues have accomplished pretty well nothing positive while serving to add to the rolls of the poor, homeless, addicted, untreated mentally ill, victims of crime and a host of others ill-fated enough to need support. To continue current policies and behaviours expecting different results is to me behaving in a manner as insane as the insanity of an addict. What I in fact advocate, is that if we want to attain positive results (for example: cause the number of the working poor who depend on the food bank for enough food to live to go down or to reduce the number of homeless living on the streets), we must change policies and behaviours to reflect what is real as opposed to the current practice of seeing what one wants to see or believing what one wants to believe. Reality does not care what you want to see or believe it just IS. Ignoring or denying reality because you do not like, want to believe or want to acknowledge that particular reality is as pointless a waste as blaming. Refusing to face reality perpetuates current behaviours, wasting large amounts of money, resources and time to no purpose. When what you are doing only serves to increase the problems and challenges faced – it is time to change your behaviour.
Before we proceed to your points 1 thru 5 there is a question I need an answer to be able to more accurately understand the points you raise. Since I do not know you I have no real way to determine if you are narrow-minded, wilfully blind or merely uninformed. Your statements equate being homeless with being an addict which is erroneous. Before continuing to read I would suggest you familiarize with the reality of homelessness. Yes those with addictions make up a significant percentage of the homeless but they are far from all the homeless. The last figure I read, sent by another fellow citizen less than pleased with my words, was from a Toronto Star article on a study that cited addiction as the primary cause for 30% of those who found themselves living on the streets; a far cry from all the homeless. Labelling all the homeless as addicts, because some are, is no more fair than me labelling you as an unthinking, war mongering, ass-kissing megalomaniac who believes the size of his cojones is dependent on sending others abroad to kill and be killed just because conservative party leader Harper is.
It is totally irresponsible and un-Canadian for any Prime Minister to shove his nose so far up the American president’s derriere. It is beyond irresponsible to abandon our role as peacekeepers and place our soldiers in a situation where they will kill innocent bystanders and they cannot tell who the enemy is. It is insanity to spend our soldiers lives so that a bumper crop of poppies (heroin) can be raised, processed and exported to our streets to kill and addict the very Canadians our troops are pledged to protect. It is incomprehensible that any leader would think that aggressive actions, bullying and going around wrecking death and destruction make you a “player or leader” on the world stage. I cannot in any way comprehend how it is that Harper thinks the size of our military and his willingness to waste their lives and our countries treasures in military adventurism in any way enhances the size of his cojones.
On point 1 - Yes I believe in punishing crime. I do however suspect, based on your statements about “rights and freedoms” that we do have a very different view about our legal system. I believe everyone is entitled to the same “rights and freedoms”. Based on your words, you and your fellow conservatives advocate that some have or should have more “rights and freedoms” than others. Just what are the criteria you use for deciding which rights and freedoms someone should have? Where you were born, skin colour, religious beliefs? Does the amount of money you have and the size of donations to the conservative party entitle one to more “rights and freedoms” than those with less money and who vote Green? My personal beliefs is that our legal system should be as level a playing field as possible and that everyone should have the same “rights and freedoms”.
Your point that jailing pushers would solve addiction is a fallacy. Let us be perfectly clear on one point about the drug trade and that is, in one of those huge ironic twists that the Universe seems to abound in, the drug trade is the ultimate expression of Capitalism. Supply and demand is the foundation upon which the drug trade (legal and illegal) is built. No matter how many pushers you lock up, the lure of big bucks and all the things money buys ensure a ready supply of people willing to sell drugs to make the $$$. Similar to the way in which tobacco companies had and have no trouble finding people to make, distribute and sell a product causing death and suffering. If your approach to this group of issues is throwing pushers in jail, then you are doomed to failure as our society’s worship of the $$$ guaranties an endless supply of those willing to sell harmful products – of any shape or form. The only way to drive pushers out of business is to eliminate demand. This whole area of discussion demonstrates that what sounds good and appeals to ones personal world view often, when viewed rationally and through the lens of reality, will not accomplish your goal – unless your goal is to fill up prisons. We know from the experience of the USA that using incarceration to address drug use only fills up the prisons and makes rich those involved in the building and running of prisons. Yet another of those Universal ironies, another legal way to get rich from the illegal drug trade.
I have nothing against locking up pushers. I just firmly believe that for ethical, moral and spiritual values we should be concentrating our resources and time on helping the addicts as opposed to the conservatives desire to pour unlimited dollars into jailing pushers and then claiming we have no money to build detox beds. Build the detox beds, help the addicts get sober, you eliminate the demand, which eliminates the $$$ and thus the pushers. You and the conservatives may not find this approach nearly as soul satisfying as throwing lots of people in jail, but it has at least the possibility of working and it will help addicts.
Point 2: Another illustration of differing viewpoints. You see “down-and-outers” were I see my fellow human beings in pain and in need of help. As to your compassion and willingness to “give time, money and your home” – this is an important piece of what is needed to help those suffering with or from such challenges as addictions, mental health, homelessness or pure bad luck to get back on their feet. If some of the badly needed changes can be brought into being, I will be calling upon you to help execute those changes. Although there will be need of monies, properly spent, it is personal time and caring that will be the deciding factors in how successful we as a community will be in reclaiming lost lives.
This belief, that the soul of a community is determined by the involvement of citizens in volunteering, is why I also volunteer my time with organizations and activities that have nothing to do with poverty and homeless issues.
I think I will just pass on the issue of who gives more; it would be entering a pointless snake pit of definitions. Any decent accountant can build support for either side of your statement. There is far to much that needs doing and far to many who need help to waste time in semantically debates. I do not care where the giving comes from. What I do care about is that all the resources are used to take actions that efficiently and effectively produce positive results.
Point 3. I apologize for the following verbal jab but while I am much healthier mentally I do fail sometimes and this jab is just to good to pass up. Apologies. I bow to your working prowess. While I have, in a factory setting, occasionally worked 2 eight hour shifts I found that by the end of the second week I had to cut back the hours and get some more sleep and rest. As for your having “worked two eight hour jobs and sometimes three” there is nothing I can say as I always had to get some sleep and as I said by the end of the second week of 16 hour days I had to cut-back to get more rest. I could not, I would not even be willing to try, work three eight hour jobs as I have always had to get some sleep each day. No, going 24 (3 X 8) hours a day without rest is beyond me.
I must also apologize as I must have misunderstood your politics as I had thought you supported the conservative party. I must be mistaken about your supporting the conservatives since you want your taxes to go to a responsible government. On top of this you want a government to “re-steer the homeless addict through rehab into a self fulfilling job in society”. I think I will also apologize for stealing your words because, although I will drop the re- in re-steer, the goal of “steering the homeless addict through rehab into a self fulfilling job in society” is an expression of a goal I can get behind and support. So with you demanding both responsible government and sound social policy it is obvious you cannot be a conservative supporter. To be truthful, I do not see how you can support any of our current political parties using your stated criteria.
Point 4. This point forces me to take my tongue “out of my cheek”. I am not sure whether the current conservative government fooled you (and many others) completely or if you were so desperate for a responsible government that you became self-delusional. It does not matter. Let us be clear on one important fiscal point – this current conservative government does not behave in a fiscally responsible manner. Actually, they do not behave in a responsible manner in most of their actions. That aside, I base my judgement of their fiscal idiocy and irresponsibility upon my education and background – Bachelor of Commerce, Chartered Accountancy and wide experience in accounting and business. A fiscally responsible government does not cut taxes, it does not even promise to cut taxes during an election campaign. A fiscally responsible government takes every cent it can muster and applies it to reducing the government debt levels you cited. A fiscally responsible government does not tout a surplus when that surplus is an illusion. The so-called surplus exists only as long as interest rates remain low. Currently they are rising and are going to continue to rise, eventually reaching and surpassing the point where increased interest costs turn the “surplus” into debt. To increase the recklessness of this, the conservative government has committed to pour out of our coffers hundreds of billions of dollars, in following their ideology, on programs or assets that will add nothing of economic benefit to our country or its citizens.
Worse, in the pursuit of their ideology the conservative government fails to think. For example, in the area of their ideological based childcare program they failed miserably to consider what effect the additional $200 would have on the working poor. I recently heard, and agreed with, the indignation someone was feeling over hardships this unthinking, ideological policy making had. She was trying to come up with someway to overcome the disaster looming for a family in jeopardy of going hungry because the $200 placed the family over the income limits for accessing the food bank. Apparently the conservatives only worry about helping the working person who is able to donate to their party. The working poor who, needing every dollar just to survive, cannot afford to waste a dollar supporting any political party appear, in the conservative world view, to be unworthy of sparing a thought about. The conservatives are so busy pursuing their ideology they have no time to behave responsibly.
I have to admit to having no understanding of your comment citing our debt having gone to pay for a rich sheik in Asia. Should you choose to clarify what you are speaking of I would be glad to address this point. Currently that statement seems incongruous to being linked to paying for roads, hospitals or helping the homeless.
Point 5. I agree people need to be engaged in their community, province and country an a daily basis. The true problem with voting is that so many fail to vote and so many of those who do vote fail to expend the effort to actually think. They would rather just hear something they like, something they want to believe is true or promises of easy, fast fixes for difficult problems thus it is you have our current political situation. If people actually took the trouble to think and apply common sense to the issues and challenges that face us, they would ignore the existing parties and forming a new political collaboration based on acting in a responsible manner based on reality – not ideologies or world view.
As to your analogy of the bridge and ambulances: I think you are viewing the situation completely wrong. I would say that in pointing out what actually results from current policies and practices, then calling for the changes necessary to act in the manner required to help steer people into fulfilling places in society, I am standing on your imaginary bridge attempting to change the direction of travel from the disastrous path over the edge. In seeking to perpetuate the current policies and actions, to remain on the same old path onto the bridge and over the edge into the abyss, thus adding to the carnage of the pileup at the bottom of the gorge (or society), you are standing at the bottom of the gorge beside the river. Perhaps you would care to join me in switching from the old path over the edge onto a new path leading upwards and outwards.
Of course I will respond, for two major reasons. First, because I believe the only way to make any true headway on issues such as poverty or homelessness requires the entire community to be involved. We are speaking of very complex issues that need many new, innovative ideas so we can tease apart the separate threads making up the Gordian knot we currently have. In order to generate these ideas we must have discussion, debate and conversation. The second is that as part of the examination of these problems, issues and ideas it is a fair question to ask about my personal frame of reference. Having an understanding of my background and life experience should help readers understand what I am saying and not have misunderstandings occur, such as happened in the first paragraph of your letter.
Blame is a fool’s game. It accomplishes nothing and gets in the way of change. It would have been most beneficial to course of my life to have dealt with my mental health issues at a much earlier point in my life. I did not or could not get it together then and there is nothing I can do to change that past. I could blame myself for not having been able to act before and constantly beat myself up over that, but that behaviour accomplishes nothing. I have to let it go and accept it as one of the realities of my life I cannot change. While I cannot change what went before, I am responsible for my future mental health. I could be incredibly stupid and go back to the old behaviours that left me vulnerable to having my life trashed by mental illness. Alternatively I could choose to act in a rational and intelligent manner, accepting the reality that I suffer from mental illness. I can, by acting responsibly, choose to walk a path more to my liking. I have medication to put a bottom I can deal with on what was a bottomless pit of mental hell, tools to get me through the bad days, knowledge about my own mental health, awareness of and access to mental health resources to deal with unusual stress or problems, friends and groups for understanding and support, I have regained joy and found passion to pursue interests, issues and causes. Most importantly I have regained my ability to make choices. Hanging onto blame would only serve to anchor me in the unhealthy mental state of my past. I choose to let go and live well.
In a similar manner it is a pointless waste of time to attempt to assign blame for poverty, homelessness, addiction, mental health issues, injustices and the uncivil, selfish behaviour rampant in our society these days. There is plenty of blame to go around and absolutely no point in getting into a pointless argument about who, what, where, why or how we got into this mess. We are in it and I do not really care about blame. What I am concerned about is the future and that we as a community behave rationally and intelligently in the choices we make and the actions we take.
It is clear to me that the actions currently being untaken in regards to dealing with these issues have accomplished pretty well nothing positive while serving to add to the rolls of the poor, homeless, addicted, untreated mentally ill, victims of crime and a host of others ill-fated enough to need support. To continue current policies and behaviours expecting different results is to me behaving in a manner as insane as the insanity of an addict. What I in fact advocate, is that if we want to attain positive results (for example: cause the number of the working poor who depend on the food bank for enough food to live to go down or to reduce the number of homeless living on the streets), we must change policies and behaviours to reflect what is real as opposed to the current practice of seeing what one wants to see or believing what one wants to believe. Reality does not care what you want to see or believe it just IS. Ignoring or denying reality because you do not like, want to believe or want to acknowledge that particular reality is as pointless a waste as blaming. Refusing to face reality perpetuates current behaviours, wasting large amounts of money, resources and time to no purpose. When what you are doing only serves to increase the problems and challenges faced – it is time to change your behaviour.
Before we proceed to your points 1 thru 5 there is a question I need an answer to be able to more accurately understand the points you raise. Since I do not know you I have no real way to determine if you are narrow-minded, wilfully blind or merely uninformed. Your statements equate being homeless with being an addict which is erroneous. Before continuing to read I would suggest you familiarize with the reality of homelessness. Yes those with addictions make up a significant percentage of the homeless but they are far from all the homeless. The last figure I read, sent by another fellow citizen less than pleased with my words, was from a Toronto Star article on a study that cited addiction as the primary cause for 30% of those who found themselves living on the streets; a far cry from all the homeless. Labelling all the homeless as addicts, because some are, is no more fair than me labelling you as an unthinking, war mongering, ass-kissing megalomaniac who believes the size of his cojones is dependent on sending others abroad to kill and be killed just because conservative party leader Harper is.
It is totally irresponsible and un-Canadian for any Prime Minister to shove his nose so far up the American president’s derriere. It is beyond irresponsible to abandon our role as peacekeepers and place our soldiers in a situation where they will kill innocent bystanders and they cannot tell who the enemy is. It is insanity to spend our soldiers lives so that a bumper crop of poppies (heroin) can be raised, processed and exported to our streets to kill and addict the very Canadians our troops are pledged to protect. It is incomprehensible that any leader would think that aggressive actions, bullying and going around wrecking death and destruction make you a “player or leader” on the world stage. I cannot in any way comprehend how it is that Harper thinks the size of our military and his willingness to waste their lives and our countries treasures in military adventurism in any way enhances the size of his cojones.
On point 1 - Yes I believe in punishing crime. I do however suspect, based on your statements about “rights and freedoms” that we do have a very different view about our legal system. I believe everyone is entitled to the same “rights and freedoms”. Based on your words, you and your fellow conservatives advocate that some have or should have more “rights and freedoms” than others. Just what are the criteria you use for deciding which rights and freedoms someone should have? Where you were born, skin colour, religious beliefs? Does the amount of money you have and the size of donations to the conservative party entitle one to more “rights and freedoms” than those with less money and who vote Green? My personal beliefs is that our legal system should be as level a playing field as possible and that everyone should have the same “rights and freedoms”.
Your point that jailing pushers would solve addiction is a fallacy. Let us be perfectly clear on one point about the drug trade and that is, in one of those huge ironic twists that the Universe seems to abound in, the drug trade is the ultimate expression of Capitalism. Supply and demand is the foundation upon which the drug trade (legal and illegal) is built. No matter how many pushers you lock up, the lure of big bucks and all the things money buys ensure a ready supply of people willing to sell drugs to make the $$$. Similar to the way in which tobacco companies had and have no trouble finding people to make, distribute and sell a product causing death and suffering. If your approach to this group of issues is throwing pushers in jail, then you are doomed to failure as our society’s worship of the $$$ guaranties an endless supply of those willing to sell harmful products – of any shape or form. The only way to drive pushers out of business is to eliminate demand. This whole area of discussion demonstrates that what sounds good and appeals to ones personal world view often, when viewed rationally and through the lens of reality, will not accomplish your goal – unless your goal is to fill up prisons. We know from the experience of the USA that using incarceration to address drug use only fills up the prisons and makes rich those involved in the building and running of prisons. Yet another of those Universal ironies, another legal way to get rich from the illegal drug trade.
I have nothing against locking up pushers. I just firmly believe that for ethical, moral and spiritual values we should be concentrating our resources and time on helping the addicts as opposed to the conservatives desire to pour unlimited dollars into jailing pushers and then claiming we have no money to build detox beds. Build the detox beds, help the addicts get sober, you eliminate the demand, which eliminates the $$$ and thus the pushers. You and the conservatives may not find this approach nearly as soul satisfying as throwing lots of people in jail, but it has at least the possibility of working and it will help addicts.
Point 2: Another illustration of differing viewpoints. You see “down-and-outers” were I see my fellow human beings in pain and in need of help. As to your compassion and willingness to “give time, money and your home” – this is an important piece of what is needed to help those suffering with or from such challenges as addictions, mental health, homelessness or pure bad luck to get back on their feet. If some of the badly needed changes can be brought into being, I will be calling upon you to help execute those changes. Although there will be need of monies, properly spent, it is personal time and caring that will be the deciding factors in how successful we as a community will be in reclaiming lost lives.
This belief, that the soul of a community is determined by the involvement of citizens in volunteering, is why I also volunteer my time with organizations and activities that have nothing to do with poverty and homeless issues.
I think I will just pass on the issue of who gives more; it would be entering a pointless snake pit of definitions. Any decent accountant can build support for either side of your statement. There is far to much that needs doing and far to many who need help to waste time in semantically debates. I do not care where the giving comes from. What I do care about is that all the resources are used to take actions that efficiently and effectively produce positive results.
Point 3. I apologize for the following verbal jab but while I am much healthier mentally I do fail sometimes and this jab is just to good to pass up. Apologies. I bow to your working prowess. While I have, in a factory setting, occasionally worked 2 eight hour shifts I found that by the end of the second week I had to cut back the hours and get some more sleep and rest. As for your having “worked two eight hour jobs and sometimes three” there is nothing I can say as I always had to get some sleep and as I said by the end of the second week of 16 hour days I had to cut-back to get more rest. I could not, I would not even be willing to try, work three eight hour jobs as I have always had to get some sleep each day. No, going 24 (3 X 8) hours a day without rest is beyond me.
I must also apologize as I must have misunderstood your politics as I had thought you supported the conservative party. I must be mistaken about your supporting the conservatives since you want your taxes to go to a responsible government. On top of this you want a government to “re-steer the homeless addict through rehab into a self fulfilling job in society”. I think I will also apologize for stealing your words because, although I will drop the re- in re-steer, the goal of “steering the homeless addict through rehab into a self fulfilling job in society” is an expression of a goal I can get behind and support. So with you demanding both responsible government and sound social policy it is obvious you cannot be a conservative supporter. To be truthful, I do not see how you can support any of our current political parties using your stated criteria.
Point 4. This point forces me to take my tongue “out of my cheek”. I am not sure whether the current conservative government fooled you (and many others) completely or if you were so desperate for a responsible government that you became self-delusional. It does not matter. Let us be clear on one important fiscal point – this current conservative government does not behave in a fiscally responsible manner. Actually, they do not behave in a responsible manner in most of their actions. That aside, I base my judgement of their fiscal idiocy and irresponsibility upon my education and background – Bachelor of Commerce, Chartered Accountancy and wide experience in accounting and business. A fiscally responsible government does not cut taxes, it does not even promise to cut taxes during an election campaign. A fiscally responsible government takes every cent it can muster and applies it to reducing the government debt levels you cited. A fiscally responsible government does not tout a surplus when that surplus is an illusion. The so-called surplus exists only as long as interest rates remain low. Currently they are rising and are going to continue to rise, eventually reaching and surpassing the point where increased interest costs turn the “surplus” into debt. To increase the recklessness of this, the conservative government has committed to pour out of our coffers hundreds of billions of dollars, in following their ideology, on programs or assets that will add nothing of economic benefit to our country or its citizens.
Worse, in the pursuit of their ideology the conservative government fails to think. For example, in the area of their ideological based childcare program they failed miserably to consider what effect the additional $200 would have on the working poor. I recently heard, and agreed with, the indignation someone was feeling over hardships this unthinking, ideological policy making had. She was trying to come up with someway to overcome the disaster looming for a family in jeopardy of going hungry because the $200 placed the family over the income limits for accessing the food bank. Apparently the conservatives only worry about helping the working person who is able to donate to their party. The working poor who, needing every dollar just to survive, cannot afford to waste a dollar supporting any political party appear, in the conservative world view, to be unworthy of sparing a thought about. The conservatives are so busy pursuing their ideology they have no time to behave responsibly.
I have to admit to having no understanding of your comment citing our debt having gone to pay for a rich sheik in Asia. Should you choose to clarify what you are speaking of I would be glad to address this point. Currently that statement seems incongruous to being linked to paying for roads, hospitals or helping the homeless.
Point 5. I agree people need to be engaged in their community, province and country an a daily basis. The true problem with voting is that so many fail to vote and so many of those who do vote fail to expend the effort to actually think. They would rather just hear something they like, something they want to believe is true or promises of easy, fast fixes for difficult problems thus it is you have our current political situation. If people actually took the trouble to think and apply common sense to the issues and challenges that face us, they would ignore the existing parties and forming a new political collaboration based on acting in a responsible manner based on reality – not ideologies or world view.
As to your analogy of the bridge and ambulances: I think you are viewing the situation completely wrong. I would say that in pointing out what actually results from current policies and practices, then calling for the changes necessary to act in the manner required to help steer people into fulfilling places in society, I am standing on your imaginary bridge attempting to change the direction of travel from the disastrous path over the edge. In seeking to perpetuate the current policies and actions, to remain on the same old path onto the bridge and over the edge into the abyss, thus adding to the carnage of the pileup at the bottom of the gorge (or society), you are standing at the bottom of the gorge beside the river. Perhaps you would care to join me in switching from the old path over the edge onto a new path leading upwards and outwards.
My Linked Homeless Pages
Alternative Perspectives Views & News
Information & Reference
Lastest Posts
- Think. Think. Think. There are good reasons that ...
- Rules? What Rules? I was at a meeting focusing on...
- Budget Realities Establish Shelter Realities. I wa...
- Canadian Society Metaphorically Speaking
- From the 'We're Doomed File' Given that the defini...
- The Bare Facts December 15, 2011
- P3 - What's really going on? Participating in th...
- P3 - What's really going on?
- I draw your attention to how careful George Pear...
- Concerned about Council's P3 NOT Citizen's Pocketb...
Archives
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- January 2012
- February 2012
ATOM 0.3