Just How Many Homeless People Do We Have

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 03:45 AM

Even Deputy Premier and Education Minister Shirley Bond says that the units at the old Backpacker Motel, (now re-built and called the Friendship Lodge at a cost of between $270,000 and $280,000 a unit) are worth much more than the assessed value of her own home.

That is not sitting well with the public at large, who started out by not wanting the facility on the site, but with some quick shifting of the cards they got it anyway, to a facility that far exceeds the value of the home of an average person in this region.

The new initiative announced by the province last week, hopes to deal with the plight of the homeless and Prince George has been singled out as one area to receive special attention.

That is all fair and well as long as we don’t build facilities like the Friendship lodge and dot them around the downtown area, because there are many people out there who are trying to hang on by their nails in the present economy .Those people living on the edge include seniors, who have found that their savings have dropped through the ground, people who are faced with no job and are trying to survive and the working poor, who look at what some are receiving and ask ” why not me?”

There is no doubt that the people who have mental health problems require special treatment.

Back many years ago the province closed the larger facilities in B.C. and put these people onto the street. We have been fighting the problem ever since. They need our help; they did not get to their present state on their own initiative. Those with drug addictions on the other hand are a different matter and they should demonstrate that they want help, if we are to extend a hand.

Finally until someone can actually say just how people we have on the street that have mental health issues, how many drug dependent people we are dealing with, and just how many seniors need our help , the whole issue is nothing but a miss match of ideas with no conclusion .

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: winnie on March 10 2009 8:34 AM

you are right Ben, until we know the reason people are homeless, we cannot fix the problem.
It makes me crazy to hear do-gooder groups says we can end homelessness - I don't see how, there will always be new homeless people and I don't think my tax dollars can support them all, present ones and future ones.
There are some that choose to be homeless - they want no rules or restrictions put on them and have no desire for any kind of structure (ie going to work every day). I don't want to help someone that doesn't want to change.

Posted by: winnie on March 10 2009 8:36 AM

Posted by: beesknees on March 10 2009 11:50 AM

Well of course its easy to pick out one or two numbers from the whole budget, and make a (weak) argument based on that.

Ben, if you looked further than that, you would see that there is a construction budget, and also an operating budget. And to use an old saying, penny wise but pound foolish, is what would happen if we were just looking at construction costs. Something that takes one year to build, but remains in operation for let's say 50 years, well, I think the number we should look at in that case is operations.

So we put 30 people under one roof, managed by a small staff. Then install a state-of-the-art mechanical and electrical system so that part of the operation is also cheaper to run. Use green building technologies to minimize impact on the environment, both current and future (less impact = less cost). And while they're at it, build in a neighbourhood that will benefit from a new structure in its midst (add value to buildings in the area).

All positive things, and the reader should see that the cost from an operational viewpoint is far smaller, than had there been an effort to place homeless individuals all over the place, in less expensive locations, but costing more to manage.

Ben, I know you've harped on this issue many times, and I know you're not one to beat a dead horse. Perhaps it's time for you to get behind this homeless issue, and be a constructive force to add to the efforts of others. Complaints such as yours may raise public awareness somewhat, but aren't helpful. If you have a complaint about this, perhaps provide a constructive solution as well.

Otherwise you're just another windbag like the rest of us are, from time to time :-)

Posted by: kagee on March 10 2009 12:26 PM

Beesknees, no one knows the full operating costs of these units. I was talking to an engineer who designs these buildings and he says the costs 10 years down the line will be shocking.

Posted by: Harbinger on March 10 2009 2:30 PM

Questions. questions and more questions. Who is going to be one of the lucky ones to move into these posh digs at the "Friendship Lodge" on Queensway?

Is it who you know?
"Residentiary requirement?
How long do you have to be homeless to qualify?
Chosen by lottery?
Balance of First nations/white occupancy?
Or best and convincing hard luck story?
Submit a resume of your hard life?
A reasonable mental illness?
Under the residential tenancy act will it be powerless to evict anyone for mischief?
Just ask some landlords in this town.
Are the people responsible for this shelter gonna ask if these potential tenants are "known to police?"
And on and on.
Is there one person I can ask? Or is it like everything else in this world? No one is responsible for anything or anybody.

Posted by: Harbinger on March 10 2009 2:32 PM

One more question. I drive by the new building frequently. I can't help but notice that the building sits close to the curb. I thought there was a planning rule about setbacks. I don't see any other buildings that close to the road. Were they given an exemption?

Posted by: Andyfreeze on March 10 2009 8:02 PM

Good post Ben!

Posted by: Lamb on March 10 2009 8:56 PM

33 below and homeless. Who cares who they are let us have some compassion.

Posted by: gus on March 10 2009 9:47 PM

"I don't see any other buildings that close to the road."

Walk downtown sometime. Everything is zero setback on all sides of the property.

The Backpacker Motel was a U shaped building with the open part of the U towards Queensway. It was set back about 4 feet on all property lines.

The Queensway Court Motel two building to the north has no setback at the Queensway property line.

The apartments on the west side have 10 foot as well as 15+ ft setbacks.

There are several building to the south that have zero or very small setbacks including the building on the northeast corner of queensway and 18th and the one kitty corner from it.

Why is building setback a concern?

Posted by: bitter on March 10 2009 9:49 PM

I would like to know how many of these so called homeless are from Prince George ? We are rolling out the red carpet. People should remember the new building has been built between two schools , they should be careful who they house there , have compassion for the CHILDREN. WHO is going to be responsible?

Posted by: gus on March 11 2009 12:37 AM

Between two schools? Ron Brent and South Fort? And Carney Hill?

Can you name a place in Prince George where a facility would not be built "close to a school", "between two schools", in the "middle of three schools"?

An impossibility.

Who exactly do you think these "so called" homeless are? Are they any worse than those who are not homeless, live in various parts of the city near some of these same schools as well as others, and are gang members, dealers, crack house residents, grow op keepers, streetworkers, etc. etc.?

Maybe it should be built at 105 Patricia Blvd, at the very end of the upper part of that street. No school children would then have to pass by it.