And what do we all have to say about this one??

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby Darkre » Sep 23rd, 2018, 7:57 am

southy wrote:Speaking of FOI reports … here is one more. Whether you agree or disagree with weather or not this project should have been moved forward, the fact of the matter is council didn't share the entire story on this one. Why must media and individuals go to FOI to obtain what should be public information from the get go. Here is link to story: https://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/ne ... -decision/

Mayor Jak, Councillor Judy and Councillor Watt were all involved in this.

I fail to see anything in the article, besides the memorandum of understanding about the location, that wasn't known at the time this project was proposed. It's pretty standard for anyone seeking a rezoning of their property to put in a lot of work planning the project so that council knows exactly what is intended for the property once it is rezoned. The MOU may have been agreed to for more low income housing but once more information came out about how "supportive" this housing would be the public came out against the project and council decided to listen to the public. Southy, please show where the lack of transparency is in this story. Here's a link to the official press release from BC Housing https://www.bchousing.org/news?newsId=1479151091207

Fluffy, as to the guess at 50/50 support/against I think that was amongst council at the time not the public. So even in advance of the council decision to turn the project down BC Housing knew they only had a 50/50 chance of this proceeding.
Darkre
Board Meister
 
Posts: 529
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 10:27 am

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby XT225 » Sep 23rd, 2018, 9:40 am

Darkre wrote: Southy, please show where the lack of transparency is in this story. Here's a link to the official press release from BC Housing https://www.bchousing.org/news?newsId=1479151091207

Fluffy, as to the guess at 50/50 support/against I think that was amongst council at the time not the public. So even in advance of the council decision to turn the project down BC Housing knew they only had a 50/50 chance of this proceeding.


From the link: The proposed location for the facility is on the property at the Skaha Sunrise Motel on Skaha Lake Road at Green Avenue, which is provincially owned land. The new homes will be built by Penticton’s own Metric Modular, which will support the growth of the region’s economy. The housing will feature 52 new homes with 24/7 support services.

ASK Wellness has been selected to operate the building, which is anticipated to be complete by December 2018. Each home will include a private bathroom and kitchen and there will be a shared amenity space for programming and laundry facilities. Residents will also have access to support services such as meal programs, life and employment skills training, and health and wellness supports.


My beef is that the lack of transparency is in what the Govt did NOT tell us what will be included in the "access to support services". Now it has been announced that Drugs will be allowed on site and even with supervision. That's complete garbage. One of the qualifications for residency should be that NO drugs will be allowed, period and that tenants who have been on them should have to sign a declaration that they are abstaining from any and all useage. Had the neighbours on Winnipeg Street known that drugs will be allowed, what do you think their reactions would then be? Where are these people getting the funds to buy their drugs? Any chance that its from funding from local crimes? :-X
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2607
Likes: 863 posts
Liked in: 704 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby fluffy » Sep 23rd, 2018, 10:11 am

Exactly. There is no shortage of "gray" information coming down through provincial channels here, any vitriol aimed at city council over this is just electioneering at this point. You have provincial agencies saying that drug addiction is recognized as a disability and thus qualifies welfare recipients to a "raise", allowing drug use in gov't sponsored housing while the other hand closes treatment centers and cuts back on support and rehab. Is the system broken? You bet it is.
Okey dokey doggie daddy.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19403
Likes: 346 posts
Liked in: 4385 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby XT225 » Sep 23rd, 2018, 10:28 am

fluffy wrote:Exactly. There is no shortage of "gray" information coming down through provincial channels here, any vitriol aimed at city council over this is just electioneering at this point. You have provincial agencies saying that drug addiction is recognized as a disability and thus qualifies welfare recipients to a "raise", allowing drug use in gov't sponsored housing while the other hand closes treatment centers and cuts back on support and rehab. Is the system broken? You bet it is.


Right on, Fluffy. Transparency before any major projects are developed is critical to acceptance or rejection. I am definitely not opposed to Govt funded drug treatment facilities (I believe there is one West of Keremeos) but they do not belong in the middle of our city and residential area. I have seen first hand what people who have just "shot up" are like and don't want them wandering around town. Saw one yesterday; obviously high, walked right across the street, at Main and Duncan against the red light; oblivious to traffic and his safety; spaced out like a zombie. Sad but true.
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2607
Likes: 863 posts
Liked in: 704 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby Darkre » Sep 23rd, 2018, 10:31 am

XT225 wrote:
Darkre wrote: Southy, please show where the lack of transparency is in this story. Here's a link to the official press release from BC Housing https://www.bchousing.org/news?newsId=1479151091207

Fluffy, as to the guess at 50/50 support/against I think that was amongst council at the time not the public. So even in advance of the council decision to turn the project down BC Housing knew they only had a 50/50 chance of this proceeding.


From the link: The proposed location for the facility is on the property at the Skaha Sunrise Motel on Skaha Lake Road at Green Avenue, which is provincially owned land. The new homes will be built by Penticton’s own Metric Modular, which will support the growth of the region’s economy. The housing will feature 52 new homes with 24/7 support services.

ASK Wellness has been selected to operate the building, which is anticipated to be complete by December 2018. Each home will include a private bathroom and kitchen and there will be a shared amenity space for programming and laundry facilities. Residents will also have access to support services such as meal programs, life and employment skills training, and health and wellness supports.


My beef is that the lack of transparency is in what the Govt did NOT tell us what will be included in the "access to support services". Now it has been announced that Drugs will be allowed on site and even with supervision. That's complete garbage. One of the qualifications for residency should be that NO drugs will be allowed, period and that tenants who have been on them should have to sign a declaration that they are abstaining from any and all useage. Had the neighbours on Winnipeg Street known that drugs will be allowed, what do you think their reactions would then be? Where are these people getting the funds to buy their drugs? Any chance that its from funding from local crimes? :-X

What exactly do you consider to be "health and wellness supports"? The very concept of supportive housing is to help those that are most in need of help. Generally speaking that is the homeless drug users. Please note that I did not say most deserving of help. While in an ideal world we could just say no housing if you use drugs it simply wouldn't work. These people wouldn't leave the streets then and nothing would improve. The thought behind supportive housing is if you have a roof over your head and start to feel safe, maybe you will start to access the services available on site to improve your lot in life.

The information about the drug support services at Green Ave. became clear during the open house mentioned in the press release. It's why the public came out against the project being built so close to schools. It has also always been a part of the Winnipeg project from the beginning. Winnipeg is the provinces response to the project on green ave failing. The difference with the Winnipeg project is that no re-zoning had to be done for the properties so the city had very little ability to control what was built there if it met the zoning requirements for the site.
Darkre
Board Meister
 
Posts: 529
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 10:27 am

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby XT225 » Sep 23rd, 2018, 10:44 am

Darkre wrote:
What exactly do you consider to be "health and wellness supports"? The very concept of supportive housing is to help those that are most in need of help. Generally speaking that is the homeless drug users. Please note that I did not say most deserving of help. While in an ideal world we could just say no housing if you use drugs it simply wouldn't work. These people wouldn't leave the streets then and nothing would improve. The thought behind supportive housing is if you have a roof over your head and start to feel safe, maybe you will start to access the services available on site to improve your lot in life.

The information about the drug support services at Green Ave. became clear during the open house mentioned in the press release. It's why the public came out against the project being built so close to schools. It has also always been a part of the Winnipeg project from the beginning. Winnipeg is the provinces response to the project on green ave failing. The difference with the Winnipeg project is that no re-zoning had to be done for the properties so the city had very little ability to control what was built there if it met the zoning requirements for the site.


There still was little to no mention of drug useage on Winnipeg Street; its hidden behind the "health and wellness support" name. I imagine that there are enough homeless people on the streets who do NOT do drugs, period to fill the building. Drug rehab centres belong outside the town as in the one West of Keremeos. There are reasons why the residents of properly placed rehab centres don't wander the streets when still on the habit and where are these druggies getting their money to buy their drugs? Legitimate jobs or relying on funds from crime?
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2607
Likes: 863 posts
Liked in: 704 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby fluffy » Sep 23rd, 2018, 10:45 am

There is always a bit of a chasm between the ideal and the real. I would like to think that "health and wellness" services would include some manner of security and monitoring for those bad apples that see supportive housing as a means to support their continuing along the path they have become accustomed to. The Hansel & Gretel project became headquarters for a number of people who didn't care for the help available, it was more of a good cover story. The real challenge is recognizing those who would use such a facility as this to a less than noble purpose. It's hard not to generalize, but many of these are people who have come to see abusing the system as essential survival skills.
Okey dokey doggie daddy.
User avatar
fluffy
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19403
Likes: 346 posts
Liked in: 4385 posts
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm
Location: Ogo

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby Darkre » Sep 23rd, 2018, 10:56 am

XT225 wrote:There still was little to no mention of drug useage on Winnipeg Street; its hidden behind the "health and wellness support" name. I imagine that there are enough homeless people on the streets who do NOT do drugs, period to fill the building. Drug rehab centres belong outside the town as in the one West of Keremeos. There are reasons why the residents of properly placed rehab centres don't wander the streets when still on the habit and where are these druggies getting their money to buy their drugs? Legitimate jobs or relying on funds from crime?

As the direct replacement to the Green Ave project, where drug use was the defining factor in the public coming out against the project, drug use and support services at the Winnipeg project should have been obvious. There wasn't as much discussion on the project because there was really nothing that could be done to stop it as the property is already zoned for the intended use.

As to rehab centres, that is not what this is. Supportive housing is considered a step towards rehab. By providing the housing to make them feel safer and having access to services on site, hopefully some of these people will take the next step. Unfortunately you can't force people to go to rehab. It's one of the first things I'd change if I was in a position of power, anyone caught using or who OD's get's 30 days in rehab minimum.
Darkre
Board Meister
 
Posts: 529
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 85 posts
Joined: Nov 5th, 2008, 10:27 am

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby XT225 » Sep 23rd, 2018, 11:02 am

Darkre wrote:As the direct replacement to the Green Ave project, where drug use was the defining factor in the public coming out against the project, drug use and support services at the Winnipeg project should have been obvious. There wasn't as much discussion on the project because there was really nothing that could be done to stop it as the property is already zoned for the intended use.

As to rehab centres, that is not what this is. Supportive housing is considered a step towards rehab. By providing the housing to make them feel safer and having access to services on site, hopefully some of these people will take the next step. Unfortunately you can't force people to go to rehab. It's one of the first things I'd change if I was in a position of power, anyone caught using or who OD's get's 30 days in rehab minimum.


Now you're talkin! Agree with that completely. An illegal drug is illegal and possessing and using same should be swiftly dealt with!
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2607
Likes: 863 posts
Liked in: 704 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby twobits » Sep 23rd, 2018, 4:02 pm

Of the 25 people that spoke at the Public Hearing for the rezoning of the Green ave property, only 8 spoke against the proposal. The devil in the details omitted here is the other 17 people who spoke in favor of the project were social justice warriors that didn't live anywhere near the facility. The 8 opposed were actual neighbors. People who are already stressed to the max from property crime since the conversion of the Hansel and Gretel and Bel Air motels to this junkie housing. This neighbourhood is already pulling more than their weight of the social burden.
Sentes was the only one to vote in favor of it. Maybe it could be located in her neighborhood on Kendal Cres. Oh wait.....she voted against Carriage homes in her neighborhood as being something that is detrimental and changes the character too much. Even after she has already built one lol. Guess she doesn't think housing 60 drug addicts in a residential area 300 ft from a school is not detrimental to the neighborhood.
This old cow needs to be put out to pasture now.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.

XT225 likes this post.
twobits
Guru
 
Posts: 7223
Likes: 1092 posts
Liked in: 3852 posts
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 9:44 am
Location: GPS says Dead Elbow Utah. Think I'm lost

Re: And what do we all have to say about this one??

Postby XT225 » Sep 23rd, 2018, 6:11 pm

twobits wrote:Of the 25 people that spoke at the Public Hearing for the rezoning of the Green ave property, only 8 spoke against the proposal. The devil in the details omitted here is the other 17 people who spoke in favor of the project were social justice warriors that didn't live anywhere near the facility. The 8 opposed were actual neighbors. People who are already stressed to the max from property crime since the conversion of the Hansel and Gretel and Bel Air motels to this junkie housing. This neighbourhood is already pulling more than their weight of the social burden.
Sentes was the only one to vote in favor of it. Maybe it could be located in her neighborhood on Kendal Cres. Oh wait.....she voted against Carriage homes in her neighborhood as being something that is detrimental and changes the character too much. Even after she has already built one lol. Guess she doesn't think housing 60 drug addicts in a residential area 300 ft from a school is not detrimental to the neighborhood.
This old cow needs to be put out to pasture now.


I couldn't agree with you more and your last sentence has me rolling on the floor, but its SO true! :up: :up:
XT225
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2607
Likes: 863 posts
Liked in: 704 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 4:37 pm

Previous

Return to South Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests