Housing column gets it right
Dear Editor:
In September’s issue, Radhika Tabrez’s article, “What is the cost of NOT building?”, is an excellent academic piece, offering easy-to-read summaries of the studies, statistics, and recommendations surrounding a highly complex issue. I applaud her work in an area that is anything but simple.
Her discussion of people who are unhoused is particularly important. It also made me think about the language we are increasingly hearing during this election season, particularly the term “social disorder.” I believe we need to be careful with language like this. What we see on our streets as “disorder” can actually be the visible effects of poverty, homelessness, untreated health needs, toxic drug supply, trauma and a lack of access to appropriate supports and housing. Calling it “social disorder” risks reducing people and complex circumstances to a problem that needs to be controlled, rather than understood and addressed.
Tabrez’s point that “Housing First produces better outcomes than requiring treatment or sobriety before housing” is well documented and referenced. She further summarizes the Housing First argument by stating: “Homelessness, as a condition of extreme stress and exposure, produces behaviours that lead to police contact, emergency health interventions and institutional cycling. Prevent homelessness and you prevent downstream costs. The research is not ambiguous on this point.”
That is an important point to consider as Kamloops heads into an election year and candidates and voters discuss how best to respond to people experiencing homelessness and what we see as visible poverty in our community.
The research presented by Tabrez suggests that simply increasing enforcement does not address the underlying housing and health needs of people experiencing homelessness. Lack of stable housing can contribute to worsening circumstances and increased use of emergency, health and justice-system resources — costs that ultimately affect the entire community.
I highly recommend that candidates and voters read Tabrez’s three-part series on the BC Housing Crisis. It provides an accessible overview of the research in this area, along with recommendations that have emerged from the findings.
Way to go, Radhika!
Troylana Manson
Kamloops
We must improve voter turnout
Dear Editor:
For years now, ordinary people in Kamloops have been feeling something that nobody in City Hall seems willing to acknowledge: we’re being squeezed to the breaking point. Taxes are climbing, utilities have tripled in 10 years, fees are rising, and the cost of simply existing in this city is becoming unbearable for the middle and lower class.
Meanwhile, the people making the decisions — the council members, the senior managers, the CAO, the directors — seem completely insulated from the consequences of their own choices. They live in a different world than the rest of us. A world where rising costs don’t matter, where endless spending is normal, and where massive capital projects are treated like trophies instead of financial burdens. Unfortunately, everything is 110% legal under Provincial legislation that has removed all checks and balances.
When I look at who’s actually sitting on council, I don’t see a single low‑income person representing us. I don’t see people who have to pinch their pennies to pay bills, or those living on a tight budget, the type of people who should be on council. What I do see is a lineup of people who are well‑off, business owners, or comfortably established. They seem to only represent the people who can absorb inflated taxes without blinking. When I drive around the city and see the election signs, something jumps out at me. More than one incumbent is using words like “care” and “listening.” Honestly, it makes me want to rip those signs out of the ground, because their actions over the last term have been the exact opposite. They don’t care about everyone. If they did, they wouldn’t have banned public question period at council meetings. They wouldn’t have forced the AAP the way they did just to get their way. And they would be considerate of those of us who aren’t made of money and can’t absorb endless tax hikes and fees.
For many years voter turnout has been dismal in Kamloops; I think it’s because, one, people don’t know who to vote for because there is little media coverage, and two, people have lost faith in the system. People don’t see any positive changes such as fiscal responsibility and government accountability, no matter who gets into power.
Having run in past elections, I think I know who does show up to vote without fail; it’s many of those who benefit from huge contracts, including their employees and subcontractors, which add up to big advantage for the hand picked winners. Furthermore, democracy is not lobbying certain candidates to give them an unfair financial advantage, which happens even in municipal elections. Those two advantages can set the stage for a biased election, and an uphill challenge for those lower income candidates to get elected to bring about real change in our community that we need.
I was thinking about this very problem, who to vote for; I personally am going to make a point of only voting for those candidates that are not well off or business people. I am going to vote for the regular people who are less likely to be motivated by an agenda that suits those who fund their elections.
But my one vote is meaningless if the rest of you — the good, regular, caring and loving people of Kamloops — don’t stand up too. If we don’t come together, nothing changes, in fact, things are going to get worse. So please, everyone, let’s improve voter turn-out. Talk to everyone you meet about the election. Lets make the effort to create a wave of positive change in the city, not just for the wealthy, but for everyone.
S. Brian-Athur Alexander
Kamloops