GuelphToday received the following letter to the editor regarding encampments in Guelph and the need for the need for being mindful of negative and reactionary responses regardless of which side of the debate you're on.
It seems that often, when concerns are expressed regarding encampments in Guelph’s downtown and elsewhere in the city, or views favoring measures to address the related issues through such things as bylaws, these perspectives are characterized by some as being: unkind, stemming from anti-poverty biases, examples of seeking to criminalize poverty, or manifestations of NIMBYism.
By extension those expressing such views are deemed by some vocal critics as being insensitive, uncaring, privileged elitists who are indifferent to the suffering of others. When I read or hear such comments made against those expressing legitimate concerns, I find myself having to suppress my own emotional counter-reaction.
If we are to have an informed, thoughtful and respectful discourse we need to step away from such negative and reactionary responses on all sides. The risk of being characterized so negatively discourages many from contributing constructively to the discourse.
The elements of the problems have become so entangled that it seems difficult to unpack them. Providing a perspective on some aspect of the issue is extended and generalized as having taken a position on all aspects of the issue.
However, breaking complex issues down is usually the starting point for consideration of viable solutions. It is indeed rare that any one measure can do it all. Vilifying those expressing a view effectively suppresses the conversation.
For my part, I care deeply about the human condition of the un-housed. I believe that there should be effective programs and supports in place to assist people who are working to improve their situations at every step. I also believe that the issues related to poverty and homelessness are complex – implying the need for a coordinated, multi-faceted response that involves all levels of government, as well as individuals, charitable organizations and the public at large. Certainly municipalities, while being important players, lack the full of range tools, resources and authorities to address all aspects of the issues
I also believe, however, that human caring needs to also extend to business people and Guelph residents that use our downtown, our parks, our libraries and our other public spaces. It is not an anti-poverty view to say that, while we seek to address the issues of poverty and homelessness, we also need to have common-sense controls in place or that some level of personal accountability needs to apply to those that find themselves in such straits.
These two sets of views are not incompatible. I don’t think that expressing such a balance of views is indicative of a hard heart or insensitive nature, although I am sure that some will think this. I remain open to having my perspective informed by thoughtful responses and the balanced views of others.
Solutions that address the most immediate manifestations of the problems, such as encampments in St Georges Square, may reduce the visibility of the problem somewhat. If so, it is up to us as members of the public to continue to elevate the challenges faced and our expectations of action to all levels of government.
Encouraging or defending encampments where they are clearly inappropriate, risks hardening the generous nature of the public and at worst, may be deemed as escalating the problems as a tactic to spur political response.
Thom Hagerty
Guelph
