Newsmaker of the Year: Finding solutions for city’s homeless
By Ry Clarke - Lethbridge Herald Local Journalism Initiative Reporter on December 31, 2022.
Herald photo by Al Beeber
The Civic Centre field and the empty lot where the former YMCA stood was home to dozens of tents as people experiencing homelessness set up encampments throughout the city this summer and fall.Throughout the year of 2022 Lethbridge residents have seen a lot, from new electric scooters racing down the streets, hostage situations, and protests blocking off the downtown area.
But during it all one group kept coming to the forefront of our minds when consuming news day-in and day-out: Lethbridge’s homeless. From issues of housing and encampments, to opioids and death, the tear jerkers and the jerks, the homeless crisis has been seen across the media in various portrayals.
On Dec. 7 the City of Lethbridge published the results of its Lethbridge 2022 Point-in-Time (PiT Count, which indicated at least 454 individuals were experiencing homelessness in September 2022). The “snapshot” of homelessness in Lethbridge indicated numbers doubling from the previous year’s PiT count, where 233 individuals experienced homelessness.
Throughout February and March, many of the issues surrounding housing and the vulnerable were hidden among other events, including the Coutts blockade and the U of L strike.
With rising concerns on affordability and more people requiring aid services, the homeless crisis began to build traction. Spring weather created a “window” of visibility, with those living on the streets now out in the open, instead of bundled up out of sight. Tents and encampments started to appear around Lethbridge, with the term “tent city” being dubbed for the gathering accumulating near the Civic Centre.
The City of Lethbridge would issue a statement on the homeless camps in the beginning of July, highlighting an increase in encampments in the community and how they posed a safety risk for individuals living within them, and for the community.
“The City of Lethbridge continues to work with stakeholders on a collective impact approach to improve the encampment response process while protecting the dignity of the most vulnerable in our city,” reads an excerpt from the statement. “A coordinated encampment removal is triggered when there is an immediate safety concern, illegal activity, or violation that requires it to be removed… if necessary, the Lethbridge Police Service may provide enforcement.”
This would be the kick off for rising concerns about homelessness in Lethbridge, with many residents feeling there was not enough being done, while others felt the matter needed more enforcement. Lethbridge City Council would add homeless encampments to its meetings, hoping to address the growing situation. In late July, council would hear from Mayor Blaine Hyggen regarding a motion to allocate up to $470,000 in one-time funding from corporate budget contingencies to move forward with more suitable solutions for camp concerns.
Following this, the city would see a ramp up of homeless “cleanups” sparking arguments with residents advocating for either compassion or enforcement.
Beginning in August, the City of Lethbridge served those occupying the Civic Centre encampment a 24-hour notice to vacate the premises.
“This isn’t the first time that we’ve tried to encourage people to move on. The only difference on this one is (it’s) on the Civic site, it is under a Petty Trespass Act, instead of being under the park’s bylaw, or streets bylaw. There’s a little bit of a different process. That’s why the notifications were put out. We have been dropping by the site as often as possible. The site did become unsafe and our service providers couldn’t do outreach in the encampment anymore,” said Mike Fox, director of community services.
Leading into the fall, the homeless became the topic of conversation with reports showing insights into the issues surrounding how the problem was being handled.
One report presented to council said the city needed to create both short-and long-term solutions to mitigate health and safety risks.
During the timeframe of June to September the City of Lethbridge would report that the Clean Sweep Program had cleaned 13,080 kilograms of debris, 852 needles and 44 pipes from the Civic Centre track area. Issues with the encampment would lead the city to fence off the area in the Civic Centre, saying administration had decided the location presented a heightened risk to people living in the area.
With winter weather came a push for action and supports. Colder conditions created an immediate need for more services to help those on the streets. Food banks across the city received donations, while still providing to those in need. Holiday campaigns ramped up their callouts for aid during the season.
But when all was said and done in 2022, are those that have influenced our news for the year any better off?
Groups like Alvin Mills’ Kii Maa Pii Pii Tsin (Kindness to Others) Healing and Recovery Camp started pilot programs to help with homelessness and addictions during August to October.
“We are seeing our numbers go up as high as 14. We can currently accommodate 16, and we take in anybody, Indigenous or non-Indigenous. We have gone through around 30 to 35 individuals. With the camp, recoveries are based on Blackfoot tradition and beliefs. We accept anyone, as Blackfoot people, we are very accommodating to others in the neighbouring communities,” said Mills.
While other proposals, like the sober shelter near the old Civic Centre, were put up to debate and many among the public had issues with the use of the space.
“What we heard is pros and cons to the shelter location. There wasn’t a matter of a majority of people saying we don’t want it there and all that. But what we did is we had a greater community conversation when we had those open houses regarding the issue itself,” said Ryan Parker, who at the time was the Deputy Mayor, commenting on the outcome of the open houses.
The issue of homelessness was a hot topic for the year of 2022. With factors in play that affected our risk for affordability, the fear of homelessness loomed on many shoulders. With some unable to escape, with increasing demand for solutions, will time be the factor that sparks change, or will the issue need a unified front?
Homelessness is not a one-person problem, it is a collective issue that calls for unity. It is easy to call on another to make the change, but harder to accept the roll we play as bystanders to a social issue. In 2023 these issues on homelessness and the vulnerable will continue, but perhaps with a unified front we can help make positive change.
23-22
If the unified front is composed of what the city calls stakeholders and stakeholders only, then it will be a failure. The stakeholders are only those who provide services. It never is a committee of Businesses, or Residential committees exclusively. So the conclusions are always the same for good reason, it is the same reason that failure occurs in every city thus far. The stakeholders as they are referred to, have conflicts that cannot be avoided.
So every decision is colored by conflict. If you head in a slightly different direction then the stakeholder who has lost his/her part of the pie, objects and quotes from the “document of city destruction”. They then bring in the “experts” who have destroyed other cities with their stupidity and use them to justify the continued destruction of your society and city.
If you object or, if you show any sign you do not believe the process is the right approach, then you are a “Godless person who knows not what he does”.
So you must remove those that are conflicted and create a conflict free committee who then can get around the Golden Rule of the Religious” which is to embed in every cities downtown from “San Francisco to Norway”. There logic is rather ridiculous and is carried on from the days of the “true homeless”. We treat them where they are, no longer applies because it assumes that a city is stupid enough to give up its society, its downtown and its businesses because Drug Addicts (not homeless) get the final choice!
Time to separate Church from State in these matters or the pious once again will guide you to destroying your own society, on the premise, that its all just the pie consumers performing “God’s Work”.
That said, once you actually come up with a plan without stakeholders present, that protects society, its taxpaying Residents and its businesses, you then have to have the testicular fortitude to stick to your guns. That is the part we are missing!
We have an opportunity here, and opportunity to work with the Blackfoot and solve their problem, work with the police and solve their problem, and work with the homeless and solve their problem. Without creating a City Destroying Problem.
Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that is presently being done. Which includes Blood Tribe Health taking over Alpha House, the setting up of services throughout the City deals with 5% of the problem. You are probably shocked but it is true unless you have drank the koolaid. A continual 95% of your drug population will never Rehab, never! That means that after XX die, and XX rehab and XX move from Group 2 to Group 1 and XX are shuttled in from surrounding communities, you have a net gain of addicts every year. So at best 5% are positively affected in some way in the rehab process, out of that 5% less than 1% actually complete rehab and remain dry. This is why when questioned the pious say “if it results in only one person becoming clean its all worth it”. Really? Destroy a City to save one person? Is that the line of performance we demand?
So stakeholders sit around a table with the city and the city thinks its dealing with 100% of the homeless and negotiates in good faith, while, the stakeholders are really only negotiating on 5%. The other 95%? Well 10% of those organize all the crimes and the other 85% commit them to feed their habit. So it never gets better for a City, so the City watches as more and more “nonprofits” form to fight the problem. The City takes comfort the fight is on, when it is not. The nonprofits see an ever increasing problem and come rushing in because they see an ever increasing pie and want a slice of it. Hence DTES Vancouver now has 1200 nonprofits and the biggest Drug Problem in the history of DTES as of today. This is a direct result of assuming the conflicted have the same interest as the City has, they do not! Some may, but they are in the minority!
Nonprofits are always part of the stakeholders in every committee, they all seem obsessed with the idea of carrying on with the failures of the past. Repeating the same thing expecting different results is the definition of Insanity. Yet we allow it to happen in hopes we are not called Godless!
So rather then be forced into a clueless and misguided decision remove the conflicted and then after the decision is made on how to preserve the City, you call them in and ask which part of the pie they want, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
The committee’s mandate has to be, in this order:
1) Preserve the infrastructure at all costs
2) Preserve the City and its Downtown at all costs
3) Preserve our society
4) Provide Shelter
5) Provide supportive services
What the nonprofits decide is this agenda
1a) Pick the Downtown because that’s what everyone else does
2a) Provide Shelter
3a) Provide supportive services
4a) Golden Rule- NEVER, and I mean NEVER ask for an impact study! Its the old,– never ask the question if you do not want to hear the answer!(if you have not guessed, the answer is destruction of our downtown/society)
So, has ANYONE and I mean ANYONE in this Province/city either issued a contract or done a study of “Impact on Businesses and Residents”? Remember now, this is politics and politicians love doing “studies” so has their been an impact study by CSD-City of Lethbridge (CSD is the Cities Social Services department)? Did Phillips and the NDP order one up before dumping the SCS into the downtown? Did theNDP/ UCP do one before deciding to dump a 42 Bed High Acuity facility on Stafford and 5th North? Has the City hired a Consultants of any sort so they could determine impact? Did the SSIG demand as part of their mandate to deploy a list of services and suggesting a specific area then demand an impact study on their own to ensure they were not destroying the downtown? Let me answer that for you, the answer is NO! Why?
“Pie preservation is far more important to the nonprofits then a society, its residents and its businesses. ”
You may be outraged at this point, so I ask a simple question. Why was their no impact study done on such a major downtown destroying decision? If the Province, City, City-CSD, SSIG or ANYONE wanted an answer, would you not think they would immediately have ordered one up? Yes/No?
So why was there no impact study done on any of these non decision- decisions?
Keep reading number 4a above until it sinks in! Once it does sink in, do something about it, call your Councilors/Mayor MP, MLA because the road we are heading down has darkness at the end!
Signed- Doomsday Dennis
We do not have 454 Homeless. We have 156 Homeless/Recovering and 298 Addicted. Lets start calling a spade a spade and not get wound up in deception from the getgo!
Using the term “experiencing homelessness” is what allowed us to bridge into the word homeless with ease.
There is a difference, if a drug user lost his home because he is a drug user, then suggesting he/she is the same as someone who lost their home because they lost their job, is an insult to the homeless.
A homeless person rarely contributes significantly to your crime index.
A Drug Addict/Drug Dealer in all cases does contribute significantly to your crime index.
Again some will object, but it has been proven long ago, if you remain an addict long enough your increasing dependency leads to crime. So, object all you wish, it does not change the statistics.