AN INDEPENDENT VOICE

The Strength of Local Government

   Democracy has its roots in Ancient Greece, dating back approximately 2500 years. One of the distinguishing features of Athenian democracy was a legislative assenbly consisting of all Athenian citizens. They practiced direct democracy; their individual voices were heard and not subject to the directives or control of a body of individuals. They may not have had their "rights" secured by the Athenian constitution, but enjoyed their liberties nonetheless. These liberties were exercised and enjoyed by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another body or person.

   Canadians have become increasingly cynical about the political process and about politics in general. This growing mood has become evident in the shrinking turnout at election time. Many citizens don't feel and experience that same level of direct democracy that Athenian society once exercised. Party politics, so evident at the federal and provincial levels, is to a great extent, responsible for this pessimistic mood. Individuals elected by their constituencies find it difficult, at best, to represent the views of their constituents.

   Local government has for the most part, been able to avoid the pitfalls of party politics. That individuals elected to office can exercise independence of mind and reflect the values of a body of citizens without restraint from a party leader, remains one of the greatest strengths of local government. Furthermore, I have come to appreciate that through the process of testing my ideas against the challenges of eight other Council members, I have become more thorough and confident in my decision-making. Instead of two or three contending viewpoints, we may each be faced by as many as eight views on any given issue, and in the back and forth discussions that ensue, better decisions are more likely to be made.

   Last week I heard Rex Murphy refer to communities as the "texture of the nation". I would then add that diversity of independent thought and opinion in local government represents the diversity of the community, which defines that texture.

  When nine men and women exercise independent decision-making in what each believes to be in the best interests of the community, the "texture" of that community can only be enriched and strengthened.

Cycling4Diversity, May 20 - 23

Given the choice of drinking polluted water or filtered water, who wouldn’t choose the latter? Unfortunately, there are those sharing this earth (“neighbours”) with us who don’t have a choice because of circumstances beyond their control.  Would we not share our filter with our neighbour, should the opportunity present itself? I think so.

This is the simple analogy I will share with school-age children next week, in 22 schools, as part of Ken Herar’s 2014 Cycling4Diversity trip. Our four-day cycling journey will start in Mission and make its way west towards North and West Vancouver, Vancouver, Richmond, and returning through Surrey, Langley, and Abbotsford, back to Mission.

Our purpose is to challenge young people to embrace diversity in their lives as something that will enrich them; to tolerate those among us who are different; to speak out against discrimination whenever they encounter it; and to be advocates for those who are weak and oppressed.

Applying my analogy, my point is that each one of us is a product of our environment and the input of significant adults in our lives. We develop “filters” from an early age, and depending on their strength, we are able to filter what we see, hear, and experience, to prevent us from succumbing to any negative effects.

Not all of us have had the opportunities that others may have had, to develop a sound filtration system.  We may be disadvantaged due to circumstances beyond our control. It falls on those among us who have a well-developed system of values to help our friends and our classmates to make good decisions as they relate to those around us. When some would make fun of others or ridicule them because they are different, it falls on those of us who know better, whose filters are telling us that a particular action or attitude is incorrect, to gently urge and encourage more appropriate social behaviour. It is those of us with well-developed filters to model inclusion and acceptance; to be intolerant of discrimination in whatever form it takes.

Similar to my opening analogy of offering a water filter to someone in need of one, why would we not offer our “thought” filters to our friends and classmates? When we are all conscious of this and become engaged in accepting everyone, regardless of our diverse backgrounds, we will begin to experience real community and see the emergence of a healthier and stronger society.

You can follow our progress at the following site: http://cycling4diversity.ca/

You can also follow my tweets: @DaveFLoewen

Dignity Village - Solution, Or?

A “Dignity Village” a la Portland, has been proposed and championed by some individuals for the better part of a year, as one solution for addressing the physical needs of Abbotsford’s homeless. Most recently, the ADBA has approved the designation of $10,000.00 towards addressing a solution, along with the genesis of a separate society to move the agenda forward. It appears that this society is promoting the “Dignity Village” concept, which leads me to pose a number of questions, emanating primarily from Portland’s experience and model.

With respect to the identified parcel of land proposed, are there zoning challenges ahead, and if so, are significant variances involved? If so, what would make the variances more palatable than those recently objected to (the C7 zoning variance)? If this hurdle is overcome, is a set lifespan for such a site being contemplated? Given the necessity of access to public transportation and some specific amenities, how convenient is this location in relation to the Downtown? It has been suggested that regular bus service already exists to service this location. Have the advocates for this village consulted with the Mission-Abbotsford Transit Committee to confirm if indeed, such service is available. It is a fact that the slightest alteration to any given route can result in significant costs.

What about operational and financial considerations? How will the physical layout of this community be determined? What will be the anticipated maximum population and how will it be controlled? Will there be an admissions process? Who will preside over such a process? What will be the maximum duration of residency? How will the movement of residents, in and out of the “village”, be monitored? What level of tolerance will be exercised in matters such as drug use, violence, or alcoholism? Will such a community have an internal mechanism for setting rules and enforcing (much like a strata council)? How would such a body be chosen and to whom or what would it be accountable? 

We often hear that homeless avoid those places where they might be more vulnerable to physical threat, both to their person and to their property. How will the question of personal security be managed, and by whom or what? Certainly our local police are always available, but they wouldn’t have a presence within the village on a 24-7 basis. These concerns also raise questions around liability and insurance.

Who will pick up the costs of providing the infrastructure as well as the services – water, electricity, sewer, and garbage pick-up? How will tidiness and cleanliness of the premises be addressed and monitored? What role will Fraser Health have to play in this village, and how will that be facilitated?

Assuming all these questions have acceptable and workable answers, I’m left with three last questions: What expectation will be placed on the taxpayers of Abbotsford to carry any of the financial costs of such a village, and if so, how great might that cost be? In short, does this idea have a “master plan” and “business case” to lend its support. Why did Seattle decide against a "Portland-style" Dignity Village? Is there something we should know and learn from?