This is an article I wrote after the last federal election.  In light of this, the $70 million not spent is no surprise. 

It would appear politicians have little understanding of the plight of the homeless.  The homeless and street people are part of their constituency.  Though their votes (and this assumes they feel empowered enough to actually vote) may count as a small percentage in the overall voting scheme their needs and concerns must be understood and addressed.  It is not sufficient to pay these people lip service and it is certainly not acceptable to treat them with disdain and arrogance. 

The question was recently posed whether any candidates had been seen in the shelters.  The answer was of course but through the efforts of a local drop in center people in the community were able to finally bring their concerns forth. 

It soon became apparent that not only is this community overlooked and its frustration and despair not understood, candidates are little prepared for the anger that is a day to day presence here.  When confronted with this unexpected anger, the reaction was expected:  defensive while lashing out.  It should be realized, however, that drop in centers are not the House of Commons. 

The people posing the questions expect more than pat answers that do little more than patronize.  They expect more than "well, that's what you get fop voting in the last government."  There is more intelligence than the politicians give credit for.  They know more shelters are not the answer.  Warehousing the homeless is, at best, a stop gap measure.  It simply provides a bed and roof in cold weather and does little to empower a disenfranchised community.  Rather it forces people to sleep in rooms with several others, some of whom should be in psychiatric institutions or under medical care.  The have no control over the hygiene of their neighbor, the condition of the bedding, the amount of noise to be put with at night, or the safety of their belongings.  They are required to stand in line  and provide a dehumanizing bed number for their meals.  They have little chance of getting a shower in the half hour allotted between wakeup and breakfast.  This should not be interpreted as a lack of thankfulness for these services, just a recognition that is not enough and does little to empower. 

A move toward transitional housing would be a move in the right direction.  (It is recognized that in some areas this has begun, but the pace is too slow and not widespread enough.)  This would allow people to have their own space, take responsibility for their own welfare and day-to-day upkeep and feel they have some semblance of control over their lives.  This could be coupled with more low income cooperatives where people with a guaranteed disability income or social assistance cheque could group together to obtain a mortgage and run the place on their own.  In the short term, the government could guarantee the necessary down payment.  Think how empowering this would be.  Think about how much better these people would feel about their prospects when they are no longer turning over the bulk of their cheque for a room.  These room, by the way, because of affordability are quite often in buildings filled with crack and crystal meth users, alcoholics and violence. 

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of low income/no income people are not lazy, preferring to take their drug of choice and escape responsibility for their lives.  Very few people want to live waiting for their chouse so they can escapte their very painful reality.  Most people would love to be gainfully employed, exploring their talents in the arts and living meaningful lives, lives in which they would look forward to the breaking day - not dreading it. 

So we've moved them from warehouses through transitional housing to a variety of cooperatives.  What next?  Two additional steps need to be taken.   

The fist is rehabilitation for those with addiction or violence issues.  Current rehab programs do not work.  (For sake of this article I will consider violence an addiction since it quite often accompanies other addictions and is generally a response to some underlying cause.)  Instead they simply add to this sense of disempowerment.  The person is considered powerless over their addiction and must turn toward a high power, with little consideration given to harm reduction.  In other words, exchange one crutch for another.  Does a high power take away the pain of sexual and emotional abuse, generational dependency on social assistance, arrested social development brought about by early exposure to the penal system and generations of abuse or an all encompassing lack of self-worth?  So much time is spent in putting out fires that many people are just not being reached. 

The second step is retraining and needs to work hand in hand with rehab.  Many of these people are lacking in high school education.  To the majority they appear lazy and apathetic.  How empowering would it be for them to complete their high school or receive training in a trade.  To be allowed entrance into an art cooperative where they could explore painting and sculpting, writing or perhaps theatre.   

It is not sufficient to simply throw more money at the shelters.  This is throwing good money after bad.  There needs to be accountability on how these shelters spend the money, the services they provide and how they threat their “clients.”  I have chosen to place the word clients in quotation marks because it denotes the power relationship between the homeless and those that would help.  Currently solutions to homelessness and mental instability are top down, leaving the clients disemboweled. I am suggesting we need solutions that come from both the top and the bottom, a cooperative effort as it were. 

I know what I am suggesting is not without its difficulties and may seem a little naïve.  I also realize that homelessness and poor mental health are profit industries (thus the financial success of shelters such as the Salvation Army and the mental health professions.)  I realize that some people re not willing to accept help in any form, that they choose to live a life of homelessness and addiction.  I also recognize the need to balance our many   national and international obligations.  However, the measure of a society is how it treats its poor.  By that standard we measure up poorly.  It is time to improve that measurement.