After reading Tom Fletcher’s piece of hostile article in the Surrey Leader we had to reply.
Tom Fletcher or FLETCH states that taxpayers are supporting crime. However he does not give a clear solution or a conclusion. Is he criminalizing the poor and pontificating the Plutocracy?
Secondly he misrepresents history and recent studies. It is easier to just share with you a very succinct reply from Heather Kauer
First, the Simon Fraser study doesn’t cite the Rich Coleman interventions specifically, which you seem to be implying. Nor does it say that accommodation, food handouts, street outreach and medical supports “resulted” in significant decline. Personal decline happened DESPITE the interventions.
This study also points out that “Despite prevalent mental health needs, the majority of medical encounters [of cohorts within the study period] were associated with non-psychiatric conditions.” There’s very little information on what psychiatric interventions were encountered and mental illness is one of the two biggest factors in the chronically homeless population. To me what all this could mean is that the chronically homeless are not being given the right kind of interventions (i.e. taking their meds consistently). You seem to be implying that drug addiction is really the only thing at work here.
On that note…abstinence-based recovery has not been successful. The philosophy behind Housing First – which has been very successful in the many cities it has been tried – is that people need a warm place to sleep before they can be expected to deal with addictions and mental illness.
Lastly I am not sure if FLETCH is a drug user himself. Did he by accident forget the high rent costs in Vancouver and BC? Can one afford an apartment on the current minimum wage ?
Please ask FLETCH these questions here
http://www.surreyleader.com/opinion/367381011.html
and here
Twitter: @tomfletcherbc , @surreyleader