Plans for Backpacker Should be Sent Packing

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 03:48 AM

The latest spin by those who want the old Back Packer Motel turned into a homeless shelter, touches on the edge of ridiculous.

Who have they put forward as a spokesperson? Well none other than a tenant from the old Jacobs Motel, who says "Gee this is a great idea." It’s about the same as having an inmate from a jail comment about how the guards treated him just before he goes for parole.

As for the suggestions that the old Jacobs Motel was no more than a drug house and a place for prostitutes, people making those statements might want to watch their comments.

The old owner took great pride in ensuring that the motel was a normal operation and he doesn’t take too kindly to comments that suggest he ran that sort of operation. Quite apart from all that however, is the fact the proponents are now saying, well it’s a bad area already and all we are doing is providing some accommodation for these people. That’s the whole reason the people of Miller, Connaught have been screaming about this matter.

Who decided (and when) that the residential area in question is to become an area for flop houses, prostitutes and drug pushers? If they say no, then what other areas in this city have been considered for such a home for the homeless? Well you can argue , that’s where all the activity takes place. Exactly, you put it there, and now you want to add more, that’s what the people of the area are so sore about.

The Mayor (who sits on the Premier's Advisory Council for the Homeless) commented, "if I had a closed up motel with people using it to shoot up and prostitutes using it for various sex acts, I'd want it cleaned up." He added"You’ve already got the problem in the neighborhood why would you not want a solution?" That’s exactly what the people of the area want, for the Mayor, along with the city, to clean up the area, not make it worse.

That, is one man's opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 03:48 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: gypsy on June 21 2005 8:50 AM

Jeez, well seeing as I pride myself on having a marvellous perception of the obvious, I can comment on the reason the "Backpacker" is the motel of choice for the homeless. It is close to downtown, the soup kitchens, the pan handler streets, the needles, and pawn shops. Visitors will be welcomed in rooms for a fee!!! Know what I mean???
I don't think that "closed up motel" belongs to any individual, as the consenting Mayor implies. Does he actually not know who owns that property???? I wonder if that will devalue other properties, like the apartments across the street. Who will want to live there??? Make the entire area a major screw up, and let old Colin and Krause take the fall, and Queensway, the Millar addition, and Connaught area can become a part of that tourist attraction we are building our hopes on. I kind of like "stupid" sometimes. Keeps the old pot boiling and the idiots at City Hall on their tippy toes. Cheers!!!

Posted by: owl on June 21 2005 11:46 AM

The question is: "Do we need a shelter for the homeless in this community?"

I would think that the answer is "yes!"

If not, then please state your case.

The next obvious question then becomes: "If we need a homeless shelter, where should it be?" Certainly, unless we give people in such shelters free bus passes (which may not be a bad idea in itself), it should be near other services for the homeless. It would seem to me that most of them are concentrated near the centre of the city.

Whether the proposed location or another location in the downtown area would be ideal, I do not know.

How is the one at the old liquor store doing? It certainly looks clean enought to me whenever I walk by it. But what do the users think about it and what do those who do business downtown think about it?

At this stage I do not know enough about the location and about alternatives. All I see is a knee-jerk reaction, not a studied rationale for the proposed location or alternate locations.

The main thing I see is a condescending attitude to those who are left homeless. If we maintain such an attitude we will never mitigate the "problems" of our society.

Posted by: Wilbur on June 26 2005 10:12 PM

A certified drooling idiot could not conceive a plan anymore stupid than putting a homeless shelter in a residential neighbourhood.

Does this city even need another shelter? Absolutley not! We already have a nice big one on the hillside east of the river. It's called PGRCC, it's open 24/7, and always finds a warm bed for those who visit. It's just the place for street drunks, drug addicts and pushers, prostitutes and Johns, and other criminals.

Should the city have a bus pass program? Absolutely! We should provide those street people not from PG with a one way bus ticket out of town.

The more services we provide to these people, the more of them we will see migrate here from other parts of the province. Really people, open your eyes and take a look around. Just how much of this city do you want turned into a skid road ghetto?