Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Internal conflict arises over First United shelter

December 12th, 2011 · 18 Comments

For those who missed it in the paper, here in my late link to the story in last Friday’s paper, detailing concerns from the within the board of First United and the executive of the Vancouver-Burrard presbytery about the shelter at First United.

Rev. Ric Matthews did not return a couple of calls I made to him during the week for some reason, but he did call me the next day and issue this statement.

It’s not clear what the outcome of all of this is, except to say that the situation at First United is a reminder of how careful people need to be as they try to do good work.

If anyone has any more information to shed on this unfortunate situation, I’d be happy to hear it.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Chris Keam

    I can see how this issue would be problematic for a pastor. One is reminded of the ‘render unto Caesar’ passage of the Bible (Matthew 22:21). Which should he obey, the laws of Man, or the teachings of Jesus Christ? It’s hard to imagine the Son of God refusing one of his flock shelter from the cold because a gov’t forbade it, but does the plight of the homeless fall under the category of that which belongs to Caesar?

  • Silly Season

    Which came first: the warning from the City, or the decision to play this as a political card?

    And who were the players?

  • brilliant

    Just out of curiosity, anyone know the actual size of First United’s congregation? People who actually use it as a church?

  • Max

    All shelters are political: internally and externally.

    I volunteered at a shelter in the DTES for roughly 3 years – and the internal crap that goes on is mind boggling and wearing. (and I was not just there once or twice a month or a week – I was there 3 – 6 nights a week)

    Factor in a funding fight and well – it becomes a free for all.

  • JamieLee

    @Brilliant when Rev Ric Matthews came to the Church he recommended that the Church congregation be disbanded in favour of the Church just being a mission. My late Mother was a member of the congregation and it was sad that the Church chose to do this especially since Mr Matthews was wiping out a 100 year history of the Church. I suspect there is more money in being a shelter and since many residents of the DTES were the church congregation and therefore without lots of money the congregation was discared. That is church politics for you.

  • Derek W

    I can’t speak for First United, but here are a few things I’ve observed as someone who works in, attends church in, and used to live a few blocks from, the same neighbourhood:

    1. First United opens their doors to anyone, including people who have worn out their welcome at other shelters. Many are mentally ill (and in other provinces would be in government care) and many are extremely difficult to work with, and extremely difficult to live alongside.

    2. This actually makes life much easier at other shelters in the neighbourhood that require and/or expect more from their guests. So if you shut down First United and gave funding of equal beds to other service providers, the problems being experienced by First United may well show up at those providers.

    3. Just as the Downtown Eastside has unwittingly become a gathering point for the most troubled folks in the City of Vancouver (where else does someone rent for 375/month?), so too First United has unwittingly become a gathering point for the most troubled folks in the Downtown Eastside. And you could go farther: there are some corners of First United where there are more troubled folks than other corners (and some corners where there is amazing community too, I should mention).

    This is not to defend anything they’ve said or done, or to attack them either. But let’s look at this as a systemic problem. Let’s look at First United’s part in the system. Individual accountability is very important, but if, for a thought experiment, we back off our individual blame-game for a moment, we might ask what other parts in the system of our city create the need for a place such as First United, the only place left for the most troubled folks in the most troubled part of the city?

  • JamieLee

    @Derek W I think you completely miss the point here. While it is noble for First United to tend to the most troubled as you state what also needs to be looked at here is that overcrowding besides being a major safety concern will also create conflict. You can’t pack people into a structure like sardines and than not expect there to be trouble. Sadly this trouble results in acts of violence. I thought Churches were supposed to be safe places of sanctuary? Surely Derek you are not suggesting we just overlook that six women were sexually assaulted in this supposed safe place? It seems to me that the Church is not equipped to handle the most troubled in society and this is why we need to discuss who looks after those most troubled and no offense to First Unted but the facts speak for themselves. First is not equipped to handle the problems erupting there and to just turn a blind eye to the goings-on there is frightening and very scary.

  • Bill McCreery

    Jamie, Derek says:

    “But let’s look at this as a systemic problem. Let’s look at First United’s part in the system. Individual accountability is very important, but if, for a thought experiment, we back off our individual blame-game for a moment, we might ask what other parts in the system of our city create the need for a place such as First United, the only place left for the most troubled folks in the most troubled part of the city?”

    He’s not claiming right nor wrong. He’s suggesting a dispassionate assessment of all the components of what has created and makes up the DTES is long overdue. He’s right. We’re spending $1m / day and getting nowhere. Let’s finally face the many aspects of this human tragedy.

  • JamieLee

    @ Bill McCreery yes I get it when you say that we’re spending one million a day and getting nowhere. When these shelters first opened right after the Mayor was elected in 2008, I toured them and stayed in them. I raised the alarm bell back then that these were not appropriate places for our most vulnerable to reside. Everyone though went along with these HEAT shelters and what I feared the most was that they would become an industry unto themselves and this has proven to be true. First United, the one on National and the one under the Granville bridge are all indoor ghettos. In all this time I never heard Rev Ric Matthews or RainCity housing raising the alarm regarding the squalid conditions that those warehoused in the shelters were experiencing. All I heard from Rev Ric Matthews was the call for further funding and so yes I think it is ok to call a spade a spade here. Let’s be real here. There are those in society who can not handle or cope with living normally and they must be taken care. They are really sick people. These shelters do not provide the necessary resources so that the most troubled can be taken care of properly. I ask people to join me in calling for these shelters to be closed down and the provincial government must re-open Riverview Hospital so that our fellow citizens can be properly cared for by the people who have the medical and health expertise. They are the only ones who can provide adequate medical care.

  • Max

    @JamieLee:

    I agree with you whole heartedly; however, how do you mandate those that do need to be ‘institutionalized’ for lack of any better word – when just about every ‘advocacy’ group in the DTES fights for the just the opposite?

    And I include VANDU, Pivot, BC Civl Libs amoung those groups.

    For years they have been telling these people, there is nothing wrong with their ‘lifestyles’ – they are fine the way they are and the rest of us are wrong in our assessments.

    Hence the reason nothing will change.

    Unless a very firm hand steps in – we will all be talking about this same issue 10 years down the road. But then it won’t be 7,000 people, it will be 15,000 people and growing.

    First United recently stated they had over 300 – 911 calls in under 4 months to their shelter. No, they are no equipped to deal with all personalities.

    The HEAT shelters and many others that are run by various groups do not have the trained personel to do so. Anyone with a high-school diploma and a first aid course can get hired in – starting at $18 – $21 per hour.

    These shelters are all about money and politics.

    All Shelters should not be low barrier – it is not fair to those that are trying to stay safe and clean.

    I find it very interesting that PHS has been left out of recent appointments for manning new operations.

    On another note – the Province just opened up new social housing units for Aboriginal mothers and children on Dundas. The program looks interesting as it is all inclusive in ammenities in order to help up, not hand out.

  • George

    Max,
    Just a thought, but did you ever consider that PHS has been left out…for the moment. Perhaps the plan all along has been to have them take over after all other organizations fail…think about it.

    Jamie Lee, bless your heart…you have hit the nail on the head!!

  • JamieLee

    @ Max the groups you mention are advocates and not health professionals. I think we all agree that many of our homeless are unwell. When one is sick one goes to a health professional for treatment. We must leave it up to the health professionals to determine appropriate treatment and not advocates. Advocates need to do what they do best which is to advocate for people in areas which they have expertise.

  • Bill McCreery

    Thank you Jamie for your clearly articulated position. I agree with much of what you’ve said, especially regarding providing real help rather than band-aids for those who need it. Hopefully that is what the too slowly coming on-stream supportive housing will do. But, I also agree that there will be some who will still need a more ‘institutional’ care, perhaps for a time or perhaps permanently.

    I do not have the expertise to more than make generalized comments in this area. Going from there, it does seem that for those who will benefit from supportive housing that allows them to be part of a larger community, then that is a good thing. They should have an improved quality of life, and a better one than if they are institutionalized.

    But as above, there are also those who need a higher level of care. In addition to the proposed 3,000 or so supportive housing units that’ve been promised, the missing but essential facility is some sort of community based institutional care facility. Are such higher-level care facilities being planned as part of what hopefully will be a continuum of care? It seems to me that perhaps such community based facilities would be preferable to sending people back to Crease Clinic unless that is necessary.
    And if done right, they might even be cost effective.

  • JamieLee

    @ Bill McCreery I agree with you. A community institutional facility is needed but I’m not sure if we need to fear a Riverview type facility. Lush grounds, lots of good programming, clean and safe residental rooms and appropriate level of health care are pluses. Perhaps something along the likes of a Dr Peter Centre but just not sure where we put it if not the empty buildings at Riverview? Any suggestions?

  • George

    Jamie Lee and Bill McCreery are my hero’s today…they get it!!

  • Derek W

    @JamieLee – I agree with what you say. I think the concerns you bring up should be at the forefront of our thinking, and I was in no way saying we should turn a blind eye to accountability among shelters or others. Absolutely.

    I think that there is also a time to step back and look at the entire system. That was what my comment was about.

  • Derek W

    BTW, as a case in point of the kind of systems thinking I was trying to promote, you guys dove right in with the talk of a community institutional facility.

  • Bill McCreery

    Actually Derek, going back to 1st United, are they not, as the lowest barrier shelter by default, performing as they can the function of the “community based institutional care facility”, but with a different definition of the word “institutional”, and with a different capability to assist and deliver services?