To imply that there's any connection between the Savannah Hall case and the proposed affordable housing project on Queensway is ridiculous.

One involves issues of custody and care of a 3 year old child - the other involves issues of housing affordability for grown adults.

This editorial only muddies what should otherwise be a straightforward consideration - should socially disenfranchised adults be given reasonable living conditions?

The left-handed implication (that the development on Queensway will lead to more cases of child abuse) is equally ridiculous and offensive.

Well said, Moses.

Did either Moses or Raparee read the first two paragraphs of Meisner's story? Evidence was presented during the inquest that relates the two subjects.

1. 'Testimony at the inquest into the death of Savannah Hall, combined with the efforts to construct yet another shelter for the homeless on Queensway, speaks to a much larger problem that we fail to deal with.'

The Editor says that 'testimony' and 'efforts' combine in the context of a larger social problem.

Okay, let's wait for the punchline:

2. 'Savannah Hall’s mother testified that her own mother, was "booted off" the Tachie Reserve. A problem existed with violence, drugs and alcohol in the family and so the heads of the reserve opted to have their problem removed. The "problem" moved to Prince George.'

Somebody was disavowed by their own community because the community leaders didn't like that person's behaviour.

So what does this have to do with the Editor's opening comments?

Affordable housing is the basis for any stable lifestyle. I would say the options for low income marginalized people in PG to find affordable housing that allows them an escape from the 'lifestyle' and raise their family is a shame to our city planners and builders.

Its an obvious problem in this city more than any other because this city is the dumping ground for problem people covering over half this province. Yet we act as though we are a Kamloops or Kelowna when it comes to levels of support for these kinds of people.

Another issue is the obvious failure of the Indian Act and the governance of first nations reserves.

That said I give a failing mark for the local RCMP in dealing with people that are in situations driven by fear and poverty. The RCMP are oblivious to the street peoples dire situations in this town and have them at the bottom of their priority list (after coffee breaks and chat time even) for situations that should take top priority.

I actually had a situation the other day where I helped a complete stranger get a bus ticket back to their home town. The person approached me on the street in tears out of desperation and claimed to be scared for her life and claimed the person abusing her were her roommates and she couldn’t go to social services because someone there was also abusing her. She said she had no where to turn but to complete strangers and was even scared of the police. I was naive and thought this was an issue the RCMP should deal with and brought it to their attention. They told me it was not a priority for them and these street people always tell stories like that probably trying to get money for drugs so it was a non issue for them. I tried to arrange a meeting for her with an RCMP officer to help her, but the RCMP said they had no time for issues like this one. I was completely disgusted with their view of what by all indications was a serious situation. I couldn't afford it, but I helped her get her bus ticket back to her home town McBride realizing that not to help would make me no better then the RCMP who are abusing these types of people through ambivalence to their plight. The workers at the RCMP dispatch actually laughed about it and said their priority was figuring out their new computer system at the time. It is no wonder when one tries to help and comes across civil servants like that that this city has people being abused in the way they are.

I think it time the mayor has a serious sit down with the head of the RCMP and gets it across to them that it is a priority for them to deal with these situation in the same manor and urgency that they would deal with any of the more affluent residents of this city. If the RCMP don’t take these kinds of situation seriously then what are we paying them for anyways…..

On a reserve you can get kicked out of your house simply for improving your home to the point where more affluent band members now want your home. There is no home ownership on the reserve, and thus the problem of people up rooted and left for dead at times when they need help the most. Home security for those types of people would go a long way in breaking their distructive lifestyles.

So is this article suggesting that if we have a "problem" person we stop housing them here and ship them back to their communities (e.g. reserves)? This raises some perplexing questions. Who sits on the 'Star Chamber' that will decide which undesireables get shipped back, and which one's are allowed to stay? What will the measurement of "undesireableness" be? If a "problem" wishes to live in Prince George, do we not offer suitable housing anymore? To use the example in the article, what happens to the "problem" when Tachie doesn't want them, but Prince George also turns them away because we no longer offer the "empires" that we currently have... Does the person simply sit in a field inbetween and wait to die? My neighbour's house and property is a pig-stye, and their homelife involves alcohol abuse and personal problems. I'm a nice clean white guy who runs a respectable business. Do I get to vote my neighbour 'back to where they came from'?; rip down their "enclave" and put in a house more suited to my personal standards? This article suggests a slippery and impossible slope to me, because I hope and believe we will continue to be decent to our whole community despite all of our flaws and problems that our "niceness" creates.

It ain't easy in real life to "vote them off the island". Me? I ain't got no answers to please everyone. Why? Cause there ain't no answer. Wring yer hands in woe and keep writing. I know I will.

"Somebody was disavowed by their own community because the community leaders didn't like that person's behaviour."

That would have been impossible if First Nations had adopted the Canadian Human Rights Act which came into being in 1977 and which affords rights and protection to all other Canadians.

The First Nations declined to adopt it 30 years ago, asking for time to examine it to see if it was suitable to their culture. Apparently it wasn't.

The Harper government has given them notice that 30 years have already gone by and the First Nations people still don't have property rights and the other basic rights outlined in the CHRA.

They again asked for more time to think it over.

That's why this can still happen:

"...mother testified that her own mother, was "booted off" the Tachie Reserve."

Perhaps this embarrassing stuff can be fixed first, ahead of installing freedom, democracy and human rights in other countries, like faraway troubled Afghanistan?

It's hard to believe that hundreds of thousands of people living in Canada still suffer from being disenfranchised from these basic human rights.

This seems to be a worthwhile discussion and it is probably helpful that it has been opened.

If it is true that Band members disenfranchise their people then, as suggested, will not adopt the Human Rights charter as it doesn't fit in their culture, perhaps we need to understand "how come" and "why".

What doesn't fit in the culture? I would sure like to know more.

Just making them homeless isn't the answer.

"We have built an empire looking after the homeless..."

If that comment weren't so stupid, I'd laugh.

The Harper government has lately raised the issue of the Canadian Human Rights Act with the First Nations.

I believe that this was also a one of Preston Manning's pet peeves as he wanted each individual native person to have property rights and have any transfer monies from the Indian Affairs Department go directly to each native person instead of to the chiefs.

Preston estimated that the bureaucracy of the federal department swallowed up billions before they ever reached the recipients.

One would think that at least a slightly modified version of the CHRA would be suitable for adoption, but so far it has not happened.

If I were a native living on a reserve and in a house that did not really belong to me I wouldn't put any of my personal money and effort into maintaining it either.

What if I get kicked out all of a sudden?