Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Low Barrier Shelters are Nothing to be Happy About



Someone wrote into the Vancouver Province and said low barrier shelters and nothing to be happy about. "The media reports the opening of the new low-barrier shelter in Guildford like it’s a wonderful resort for which we should all be proud. 'Low barrier' means they can do drugs, bring and store stolen property, and even sell it without interference — even sell drugs. It really means there are no rules." They are absolutely right.

A low barrier homeless shelter means it is a tax funded drug house like the Lookout and the Front Room. I'm all for a homeless shelter in Guildford but anyone who approved a low barrier shelter in Guildford should go to jail. This is how corrupt politicians use tax dollars to promote the drug trade. People need homes not drugs.

When Doug McCallum was mayor of Surrey he evicted crack houses onto the street. I saw it. When Dianne Watts and Surrey First were elected they did the exact opposite. Now the Surrey's Worst legacy is building crack houses with tax dollars. I'll see you in hell.

2 comments:

  1. if the only shelter is a "low barrier" shelter, who ever thought that one up ought to go back to the drawing board. Yes, every one needs a roof over their head but many people will not want to stay in a "low barrier" shelter given the conditions.

    First we need affordable housing so people don't need to live in shelters.

    Two if we need shelters than one ought to be for people who are not substance abusers.

    Three, substance abusers need their own shelter and that ought to exclude drug dealers. if they are high, fine, they need a place to be safe. If they need to inject, fine, in a specific place within the shelter with medical supervision.

    four, no shelter ought to be a place to conduct business. If you can conduct business you're making enough money to rent a place.

    When the former mayor of Portland was asked how they worked on homelessness he responded, they just started building. He went on to say they built all sorts of shelters and housing. those shelters included different levels of care and what people ingested.

    Putting everyone in the same shelter with the lowest common denominator as the base line, won't help any one especially those who may still be able to get out of the life or aren't in it.

    Oh, well this is Surrey so what can one expect. They can now say they have a shelter and that will full fill their "political" obligations. They can use it as their publicity event. The people of Surrey voted for her and her council so they can only blame themselves when this goes sideways,.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. All the shelters we have are low barrier drug houses. We need one that isn't. Not another one that is. I have spoken with many homeless who will not stay at the Front room because of the drug related violence. It's safer for them on the street then at that shelter.

      Delete