Frances Bula header image 2

The behind-the-scenes struggle over how to tackle homelessness

October 20th, 2011 · 35 Comments

A city report and several media stories this week, including mine, offered the public a confusing glimpse of what’s going on with efforts to house the homeless.

The city report left many with the impression that the real homeless are somehow being bypassed as non-profit housing operators choose who is going to live in the new supportive-housing buildings going up all over Vancouver.

Then all the politics started flying. NPA Suzanne Anton accused the Vision Vancouver council of having mismanaged everything, with the result that the homeless weren’t being housed. Non-profit groups felt like they were being accused of being slackers. The city’s former housing director weighed in, saying the buildings were being used exactly as intended.

What’s hard for the general public to get is the fierce battle that’s going on over the fundamental strategy needed to house the homeless.

City manager Penny Ballem called me yesterday to talk about this at length and laid out the philosophy of this administration compared to the last one.

What Ballem said repeatedly is: “You can’t boil the ocean.” In other words, there isn’t enough heat around to raise the temperature overall on a huge problem. So you can’t just throw out some new housing and start putting in just everyone who you think might be someday at risk of homelessness and think that you can solve the problem that way. Not when supportive housing units are at such a premium.

Instead, she says, when those precious units come available, they have to be targeted to the absolutely most needy — not people who are being shifted from a mental-health facility that the provincial government has decided to close down, not people whose are deemed through some fairly broad and vague definition to be “at risk,” but actual homeless people.

As she put it: “I am not going to see 14 buildings with supported housing open up again in my lifetime. So we need to make sure these go to the people who really need them.”

As she and others have said to me, wealthy (and not so wealthy) people in this town are giving money to Streetohome — money that’s being ploughed into eight of the 14 new supportive housing buildings the province is constructing — on the basis that they are helping to house the most needy. It’s a disservice to them if that money is being used to house anyone but those who have had the most difficulty getting housing.

Ballem also told me, as had Councillor Kerry Jang, that this has particularly come to a head with the Dunbar and 16th building, because the city is getting a lot of pressure from church groups in the area who have been feeding and providing help to people living in west-side parks, 48 of them altogether. Ballem and Jang said the church leaders are asking why those people aren’t going into the new building in Dunbar, which is what everyone in the community believes it was intended for.

Again, both of them said that this represents a distinct change from the agreement that the Sam Sullivan council made with the province back in 2007 on how the buildings would be used. Back then, there was much less focus on the actual street homeless and more of a status-quo agreement on how new supportive housing should be used: that it could go to anyone whom various non-profit groups decided might be at risk.

The different attitude in the Vision administration also comes from the underlying tension among housing groups in the Downtown Eastside. There are many who say part of the reason that there is a homelessness problem in this city is because groups that have run social housing in the past have always wanted to cream off the “easy” people. They house the poor, but those who don’t have behaviour, addiction, anger-management, or severe psychiatric problems. Those people ended up getting booted out and on the street, leaving other housing groups to pick up the pieces.

Often, the different kinds of housing groups get similar funding and staffing, which leaves those who have committed to housing the most difficult cases struggling to keep things together on a shoestring while managing much more complex cases. Groups like Atira, Portland Hotel Society, Raincity and Lookout typically get loaded with the most challenging.

But for the non-profits and for those who worked most of their lives in the pre-Vision system, the change has been disconcerting. People like Darrell Burnham at Coast Mental Health and Lorne Epp at More Than A Roof (the Mennonite organization that runs one of the four buildings identified in the city report and whose residents are the ones the city has asked the most questions about) have run buildings for years on the premise that they were doing fine by taking in certain kinds of clients who were likely to have a harder time finding housing than the average person.

Now they’re being told that they can’t take those “easy” clients. They and others are being told by the city that the system has changed and they have to be willing to take in the ones who are actually on the streets.

Burnham feels like the game has been changed without anyone telling him. Back in 2007, when the city and province were working out agreements, his group got the contract to manage the Dunbar building and he was promised 30 beds for the kinds of residents Coast normally houses. Now he’s being told that the city wants that building to go to 48 local homeless people.

Burnham doesn’t think it will work, that you can’t put that many people who have been chronically homeless for years all in one building. He also thinks that it betrays what he told community groups would be happening when he did public consultations several years ago. Then, he said, it was hard to get them to accept that residents with psychiatric problems would be moving in. They finally agreed and he thinks it’s unfair to change the game at this point.

Burnham also said he thinks it’s unrealistic of the city to demand that every one of the 1500 new units coming on be used for the most difficult. “The city needs to develop other strategies” and spread those people out to different kinds of housing.

Jang said that pitch was made to the community back then to appease the NIMBYs who were afraid that they’d have to accept people being shipped in from the Downtown Eastside otherwise. But, he said, people in Dunbar now get that the building should be used to house the local homeless population.

This is a hugely significant battle, with two quite different worldviews on how to solve homelessness. It’s going to be critical to see how the city, BC Housing and housing groups resolve this.

It’s unfortunate the city report was laid out the way it was, as it now has sent a discouraging message to many people, i.e. “You poured your tax or charity dollars into trying to solve homelessness and it’s not doing any good.”

As the city report noted, though far down where no reporters picked it up, 88 per cent of the people housed so far are people coming from the shelters and street. They may have passed through residential hotels, addiction treatment centres or hospitals briefly, but they are going to the people everyone says this housing is designed for.

I also think city people still have work to do in explaining how housing at-risk people doesn’t solve the immediate housing problem. The reality is there’s a homelessness factory out there. There is no way that, once the current crop of 1,600 people in shelters and on the street get housed, there won’t be a homelessness problem. People are constantly falling onto the ground in the game of housing musical chairs in this province. So someone who is at risk today but not actually homeless may very well be homeless tomorrow. What’s the plan for them?

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Everyman

    “City manager Penny Ballem called me yesterday to talk about this at length and laid out the philosophy of this administration compared to the last one.”

    What an incredibly political tack for a public servant to take. So in other words, Vancouver taxpayers will be paying for Dr. Ballem’s golden parachute should the NPA gain control of council this election.

  • rf

    I would have one very direct question about the 16th and Dunbar social housing.

    If this housing is now targeted at 48 local chronic homeless people……why on earth did they build not one, but two (!) levels of underground parking!!!!!

    Even if it was targeted originally for 30 typical Coast residents……who at BC Housing is responsible for the massive incremental cost that was spent to dig a second level of underground parking?

    Can any of the developers on this site confirm that it costs about $40,000 to dig out 1 storey of underground parking, and around $60,000 per spot for the second level.

  • Silly Season

    I was told the building at 16th and Dunbar was built for single mothers!

    What the heck is going on here?

    I agree with housing advocates that the idea to house all homeless street people in one building is ridiculous. Unless it’s a hospital setting that provides drug and/or mental health treatment, this is unworkable.

    And yes, building buildings alone doesn’t mean homelessness will magically disappear.

  • Dan Cooper

    “So someone who is at risk today but not actually homeless may very well be homeless tomorrow.”

    Amen! I’m thinking about a woman I know who has two young children and was living not too many months ago in a transition house after fleeing an abuser. In principle, the transition house has a 30 day stay limit. Why? Because if people don’t move out, then no one can move in, and those others will either have to stay in dangerous abusive situations or – potentially – end up on the street. (Same situation as a mental hospital; if you can’t discharge, you can’t admit and people in crisis don’t get treated.) In the end, the particular woman I’m thinking about was able to go to “second stage” housing. Again, there is a time limit, though a longer one. And why? Because if no one moves out, then the system backs up and SOMEONE ends up homeless or otherwise in danger. Hopefully soon this woman and her children will be able to move into affordable housing where there is no specific time limit. Now, if we say that the only possible way to get into permanent housing without sitting on the waiting list for 5-10 years is to actually be – at this very moment – living on the streets, that street homelessness is the only allowably criteria for prioritization…then we will be taking some people out of homelessness but forcing others into it.

    The fact as I understand it is that street homelessness in Vancouver has fallen, due to decisions made by both NPA and Vision councils and indeed, bless their tiny hearts, by the BC Liberal government at the provincial level. The system isn’t perfect, but it would be very damaging to simply throw it on the trash in a fit of headlines and political recriminations.

  • Dan Cooper

    (Of course, another approach to the problem, as I’ve written before, would be to provide more transition houses for DV survivors, group homes for the developmentally disabled, mental hospitals for the severely mentally ill, and the like instead of cutting their funding and closing them down without replacement as has been the practice over the last decade or so. Social Housing is not the solution to everything, or the only possible solution – though it sure helps.)

  • Bill Lee

    And the retail space on the ground floor of the Dunbar and 16th building is ready.
    Why not add that to housing mix instead of “hiding” them upstairs?
    Course then they couldn’t get the rental income for the lot. No signs of anyone setting up shop yet, just the for-lease sign.

    Dreadful traffic corner though. No redesign of the streets and crossings planned? Right now 16th is having its “annual” lay-down-or-dig-up-pipes grinding. Wow, the city blocks a lane on a bike path!
    Google or Bing maps show the the older retail in their street or birds-views,
    An odd web page lists the controversies
    http://www.dunbar-vancouver.org/htms/Dunbar-16-Dev.htm
    City Caucus readers note the similar controversy of the Fraser and 4oth facility that has blended into the community quite well.

    And what’s happening with the Cambie and Broadway city-owned block. Businesses have moved but no signs of redevelopment. Much of the central block was seemingly reserved for ‘social agencies’.

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought Of The Day

    “What is Ballem, without Penny,
    It’s like Hill, without Benny,
    It’s like Rock, without Punk,
    It’s like Stench, without The Skunk,
    It’s like The Knife, without Mack,
    It’s like Wolf, without The Pack.
    What is RMS, without Titanic,
    It’s like Depressed, without Manic,
    It’s like the MS Plan, without Dr.Penny,
    It’s like the OV, without Rennie.
    It’s like PT Barnum, with The Shmuck,
    It’s like Another Day, without The Buck.”

    Here. My brief description of Dr. Penny, a quick Bio, back and forth from today’s, back to the days when someone else was ripped off instead of the Vancouver taxpayers.
    She may be a fine Lassie to talk to, in secure surroundings… but of course, under respectful surveillance, and only with people of good character and lineage, still…
    Just don’t ask her for prescription medication. Gonner!

    For her to come out of her cuckoo’s nest, at this late hour in the game is IMO a beautiful act of Courageous Desperation, or what she may describe as a “before my morning coffee” act.

    I am quite familiar with the development in question from waay before this group of Visionaries took ” a small step for Man inside the City Hall… a Giant Leach for Vancouver”

    Without going to much into detail I’ll say only this:

    Look at the floor plans.
    Check out the unit layouts.
    Look at the programming, eating and seating arrangements,at the cozy office area.
    Parking stall numbers don’t lie. If they were push cart stalls… maybe.
    Homeless? LOL, oh please, the Humanity!

    This was no “homeless’ sanctuary. Whoever is telling you a different story tell them I said is BS! This was from the very beginning, a small study , a feel good project for a future “retirement type” home, a place where members of the neighboring community could bring in their older and/ or not so healthy relatives, so then they could sell off their Dunbar property and fairly divide the proceeds in between themselves, all while offering their Nana, a nice place to rest her bones, get fed and diaper changed.
    Nothing wrong with that, ok? But please, don’t insult everybody’s intelligence. Start calling it for what it is!

    Tell you what, the fight for the ‘bone’ was fierce, check out the number of ‘care providers involved’, don’t act surprised if you’ll find out there is an ‘arrangement’ for allocating the units based on, listen to this, religious beliefs, instead of … need.
    Yap, that would makes sense if we were living in America, on the Bible belt, perhaps!

    Anyhoo…
    Food for thought. I guess.
    If Larry Campbell was still the Mayor, and in the spirit of Halloween, he would have surely said this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSNyiSetZ8Y

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy, scared…

  • Traysea

    Perhaps Frances could call Penny Ballem and ask her why she has instructed the goons from the Engineering street operations department to drive right into the little local parks of the West End in the mornings and wake up the homeless sleeping on the benches or ground and order them to leave immediately, they are even permitted to threaten to cause bodily harm to these homeless if they don’t get up and leave immediately. How is that helping the homeless problem in the West End??? And again, city hall is using tactics that are illegal and violate people’s rights to do so. The street operations crew enforce the street and traffic bylaw I was told when I called to inquire about this abuse yet nowhere in this bylaw does it authorize these foul mouthed, bullies to remove homeless people sleeping in parks and it certainly doesn’t allow them to committ crimes by threatening to kick the shit out of these homeless if they don’t do get up and move immediately. If the NPA does win this election is Penny Ballem and her selected staffers at city hall all out of jobs, will Malcolm Bromley and Peter Kuran at the parks board also be fired immediately? I surely would think so – does anyone know?

  • Agustin

    Frances, thanks very much for an enlightening piece on the approaches to homelessness. I, for one, have not been able to wrap my head around this subject because most of the writing I’ve seen focuses on the details rather than the overall picture. It is helpful indeed to get an overview like this.

  • Sean Bickerton

    It was Mayor Robertson who chose to turn homelessness into a political football last election.

    Never mind the fact the previous NPA administration created the StreetToHome Foundation, came up with unprecedented $2 million in funding, and donated an unprecedented amount of land in addition to zoning and financing approvals to create 3400 units of new social and supportive housing in partnership with the province.

    Having made homelessness an election issue, this Mayor promptly failed to release his long-promised “Plan To End Homelessness by 2015”, and has failed to create even 1/10th the housing of his predecessor, with the predictable result that homelessness has gone up under his watch.

    Candidate Robertson accused the last Mayor of failing the city when the homeless count was even lower.

    Today, by his own accusation, Mayor Robertson has failed the City of Vancouver.

    And so of course, as Frances points out above, the result is confusion, division within the housing community, strife, and still no comprehensive plan.

    2015 is just around the corner Mr. Mayor and your three years are almost up.

  • George

    @ Glissando @ 7… you do know ;-)… wow your comment amazes me and brings me a great deal of relief.

    I hope we can have a chat one day…Ill bring a friend and some brown envelopes…you amaze me…. but nice to know…someone has been listening..and paying attention..

  • Cameron Gray

    Dr. Ballem would only have the absolutely homeless move in to the 14 social and supportive housing projects and their 1500 units. In otherwords you have to be living on the street or in a shelter before you can be housed, and women coming out of transition houses, young people coming out of the foster system, people with mental illness and addictions living in the old hotels and rooming houses (SROs) in the downtown, who otherwise would have no home, would have to spend time on the street to qualify for housing. So much for preventing homelessness! Presumably those who had been longest on the street would have to be housed first, so I wonder how long one would have to live on the street before one qualifies. The fact is that preventing homelessness is just as important as reducing it. That’s why a rent bank is a good idea. It is not a question of housing the easy versus the difficult – those with addictions and mental illness living in SROs can be just as difficult to house as many of the homeless – it is a question of making the most effective use of the supportive housing in the city, and that can only be by using it to prevent homelessness by housing the at-risk as well as reducing homelessness by housing those living on the street or in shelters.

    It also needs to be remembered that only a third to a half of the units in the 14 projects were to be supportive housing and the rest of the units were to be occupied by those capable of living independently. The design and programming of the buildings proceeded on that basis, and the staffing and operating budgets as well. These are large projects, averaging 100 units, and should be home to those with both lesser and greater needs.

  • George

    The more I read about this subject the more confused I become…very frustrating..

  • Mary

    George and others who are confused by this, I suggest that you read Cameron Gray’s submission again and then ask specific questions that remain. It really isn’t dificult to understand, just new to you. Penny Ballem is clever, and highly political, and she’s spinning this to put the best possible light on this Council’s decisions and promises. It’s very short term thinking and ultimately wasteful. They are to be supported in their desire to do someting about homelessness but need to be reined in on the approach so that the operators can create the most healthful environment and sustain the operation of the buildings and the neighbourhoods can absorb the number of residents.

  • George

    Mary I really wasn’t confused,
    I was testing to see if my post would go through..someone was having trouble having their comments posted, I thought perhaps the site was experiencing issues, but it appears the post is being held for moderation..perhaps for legal reasons.

  • George

    “That decision is not made by the city. B.C. Housing and contractors they hire to run the buildings make it.”

    Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/Anton+Mayor+fail+recall+history+housing/5585492/story.html#ixzz1bPDcGf1i

  • MB

    The debate on homelessness in Vancouver is very healthy.

    Three municipal parties in Vancouver have extensive records in support of doing something about it. The details are obviously being confused by party rhetoric, but the fact remains that several administrations have embedded this issue deeply in its books, reports and action plans.

    It is supremely unfortunate no other city in the 22-member Metro takes homelessness as seriously. That’s not only a bloodly shame, it’s irresponsible. Homelessness is not unique to Vancouver. There should be regional policy and funding on this issue.

    Ideally, there would be a national homelessnes strategy, but this is about municipal elections in BC.

  • rf

    Is it irrational to think that:
    if 16th and Dunbar is filled with street homeless people from the area……wouldn’t those who get in just give their friends access to the underground parking and allowed them to set up camp down there?

  • harry lawson

    i was a board member for a major non profit involved in housing. regretfully poverty is a business, we need to ensure housing providers and goverment do not change the game mid contract. we need to ensure that clients have a fair complaint process. i have seen people bypassed so a favorite person may get housing
    rather than a truly at risk person so sad so true

  • Frances Bula

    @George. You’re right, I can’t post comments that refer to things that individual people have done that refer to human-rights transgressions or possible criminal acts without evidence.

  • George

    Thanks Frances, for the clarification..FYI.. this is a credible source…this person was there for the entire process ..

  • Frances Bula

    @George. I can tell from the way he writes that he’s a very genuine person and I have no doubt what he’s saying is true, but for me to put something like that up without court-worthy evidence is difficult. I’d welcome a call from this person, so you could encourage him to get in touch with me privately.

  • david hadaway

    George, I just want encourage you, as I have before, to speak in detail to a reporter such as Frances about things you know. Abuses anywhere are unacceptable but in a field such as housing the vulnerable, and Harry Lawson hints to the same thing, they become particularly wrong.

    I may not agree with all that you write here and elsewhere but I have always had the impression that you are honest and sincere with a lot of knowledge based on personal experience, which I wish you would share.

  • Glissando Remmy

    George #11,
    I don’t want to go into much detail. I was not privy to the backroom deals between the housing providers/ advocates surrounding this project, but as I was at some point involved in it…
    Now, one can draw conclusions from logically analyzing the data at hand, read between the lines, look for the trapdoors… add to that a bit of common sense and … Voila!
    You see a burnt down house, you find a jerrycan with unburnt gasoline in the smoking remains, you hear later that some dubious characters have made inquires re. the land, price $$$ development returns… arson comes to mind, right? You catch my drift.
    Anyhoo…
    David #23 has advanced a very good suggestion. It’s up to you to follow through, and I don’t think Frances would say ‘No’.
    All the best.
    GR

  • George

    david hadaway,
    “I may not agree with all that you write here and elsewhere”
    thanks, I think 🙂

    I believe Harry Lawson is the voice that is needed to be heard… I can’t speak for him, but I do know he feels an inquiry/audit is necessary, and he awaits the day he can testify in court, as do I.
    He is a man of great integrity, and has a very big heart for those he has served..

    There are many voices that really need to be heard…and many that will try to keep us silenced…it is a tricky position to be in and has effected my life profoundly..to the point that I almost ended it…
    Thanks to three men that I have great respect for, I’m still here to tell my story.

    Harry Lawson is one of those three men.

  • Otis Krayola

    @rf #18,

    Can paranoia be called irrational?

  • Frank Murphy

    The catch-all euphemism “homelessness” really falls short. It’s a health care issue. It’s a poverty issue. It’s a decriminalize possession of addictive drugs issue. Much wisdom and insight in Gabor Maté’s In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts — Close Encounters With Addiction.

  • A Dave

    I think our general approach (the focus on big projects and tallying unit numbers) is really misguided. Building large monoliths like the one at 16th and Dunbar or as proposed at Broadway and Fraser leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy of NIMBY disapproval and big money and land assembly being required.

    We could probably achieve a lot better results for those being housed (and a lot less opposition) by dispersing the units across all neighbourhoods in small buildings or converted houses. These types of places that already do exist seem to blend in well and are accepted by their neighbours with little trouble or opposition. It seems the bigger and more conspicuous these projects get, the more impacts they have on their immediate surroundings (including land/commercial values) and the more difficult and time/resource they consuming they are in getting built and running.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “You can’t boil the ocean…”

    That’s a good one. Also, “…when those precious units come available…”.

    1. How we choose to look at a problem has everything to do with how serious we are about resolving the problem. I don’t see an end to homelessness until we break the municipal-provincial bind—municipalities are acts of provincial assemblies—and get the Feds involved.

    What to a municipal bureaucrat looks like an ocean of money, to a federal counterpart is just another way of creating economic stimulus.

    2. Social housing should not be “precious”— it should be a right for Canadian citizens that need it. We are wealthy enough as a nation to afford it—the compassion button may need a little more action to keep it in running order.

    3. Social housing should be delivered right at the source: in the ‘hood. Not in a specially zoned and set aside area with a long historical record of dubious and failed planning principles. And it should be mixed in with everyone else. We should not be able to walk by a house and say “social housing”. It should be just another building in the ‘hood.

    4. Finally, reiterating a discussion had at a Canadian Institute of Planners conference a few years ago, the way to end homelessness is to build the housing. Full stop. It is not an ocean, it is our civic duty.

  • Frances Bula

    @Lewis. Everything you say here is right, but why slag Penny? She’s just looking at the reality of the situation. She’s not saying that’s the way it should be but it is the way it is.

    An analogy. If you’re delivering food at a refugee camp and you don’t have enough to go around to give everyone a solid meal, do you distribute it absolutely evenly even though you know the kids and sick people will die if you only have a morsel to give each person? Do you say, “The international community should be delivering enough food for everyone so I’m going to distribute it randomly and if some people die, it’s the international community’s fault not mine.” Or do you dole out the precious resources you have on the basis of who needs it most and who can survive a bit longer without?

  • Adam Fitch

    to rf re. post #2

    the retail space is required to make the whole project more financially viable – spread out the risk by diversifiying the product and the revenue streams – and the underground parking is required to support the retail, as well as for the staff of the housing operation. so it cannot just be reallocated for housing now. you cannot play that way with complex projects at the 11th hour.

    as to: “Can any of the developers on this site confirm that it costs about $40,000 to dig out 1 storey of underground parking, and around $60,000 per spot for the second level.” I believe that I have heard that underground or structured parking spaces cost around 15 to $20k per space to build, whether they are on a first level underground or a second, I do not think it makes that much difference.

    Anyway, it does not really matter how much they cost, it is an absolute fact that for any project of such a magnitude to be built, all the aspects of the building design and their costs have been analyzed and scrutinized umpteen times by many different parties, so I would feel comfortable that the ug parking is essential.

  • Adam Fitch

    to Bill Lee re post #6

    you ask: “And what’s happening with the Cambie and Broadway city-owned block. Businesses have moved but no signs of redevelopment. Much of the central block was seemingly reserved for ‘social agencies’”

    I heard a story a while back that the city was saving that site for a new city hall that would survive the big one – current city hall not built to anywhere near current seismic standards.

    You cannot just take every city-owned site and make it an affordable or social housing site. especially such a valauble, central and well-connected site as Broadway and Cambie. that would be a planning travesty, and a political one as well.

    anyway, I would guess that the city will not put social service agency offices in those buildings now because once you put them in, it is hard to get them out. makes redevelopment problematic. I would guess that the city has lots of other options to locate social service agencies. they put a lot into the new woodwards development.

    by the way, I have not heard anything about the woodwards social housing in all this conversation.

  • Adam Fitch

    to rf re. post # 18

    you said: “Is it irrational to think that:
    if 16th and Dunbar is filled with street homeless people from the area……wouldn’t those who get in just give their friends access to the underground parking and allowed them to set up camp down there?”

    If I was managing that complex, I simply would not give keys to the parking garage to residents. If you don’t have a car, why do you need access to the parking garage?

  • RECOVERED ADDICT

    HERE IS A SMALL LOOK AT WHAT LIFE IS LIKE WITH INSITE

    VANCOUVER / ADDICTION / HOMELESS / CHAOS / POVERTY

    THE HARSH REALITY OF ADDICTION
    The producers of this short film are both recovering addicts who have both spent time living and indulging with drug addiction in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Today they are both clean and sober with multiple years of recovery
    Addiction: Chaos in Vancouver

    http://arch1design.com/blog/vancouver-addiction-homelessness-poverty/

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    @Frances 30

    My intention was not entirely to slag the City Administrator, rather to beg for a correction in strategic course of action. Her report of 1 feb this year was about the best clear-cut analysis of the issue I’ve seen. Now, in a corporate culture one is never sure who to attribute authorship too…

    However, it is clear that the person that delivered the information was also the person that approved it for wide release and consumption.

    We have two problems around homelessness. The first is the political will to deliver housing, and the second the popular will to get it done.

    In my books, these problems don’t boil down to an “ocean”. We are really trying to coax two camps at the same time. The political class, on the one hand, and the people who elect them, on the other.

    My intention was to say that, assuming that there is only one source of heat to apply to the problem—let’s call it the voting public—then it matters very much where we chose to apply the flame.

    I’d rather see and hear more discussion about the history of how we got here (the closing of health facilities), and where we are going to get the where-with-all to get the job done (making homelessness a federal-municipal issue? Another option(s)?). I want strategy on par with the 1 feb 2011 analysis.

    This is not an ocean, it is a problem that has been getting no traction—for at least 3 decades.

    The City Manager would do us a better service if she would use her office to draft a program, then peddle it.

    We would fall in behind in support.