It
was with great disappointment when I read this in the October 22
issue of the Daily Herald Tribune “Itwas a blow that hit HIV North like a hammer Tuesday when the City ofGrande Prairie's community growth committee unanimously denied theorganization's application for a discretionary use development permitto redesignate its office as a community outreach facility”. Just
the previous Thursday I had been to their Grand Opening and was very
impressed with the space and how it was set-up. So I read more. And
my disappointment grew.
I
note in the article that
city administration, the RCMP, CMHA and AHS all support the
application and that the Downtown Business Association has no
objection. I realize that
we now live in a culture where the voice of experts is sometimes seen
as suspect, but I think we need to listen to those with a deeper
understanding of the needs of the community.
I also note that (in what I think is a very good thing) the new
office is in close proximity to the Downtown and to the Salvation
Army Outreach Centre. In fact I would suggest that this is an ideal
location for the office as some of the clients served by HIV North
would also be served by the Salvation Army.
And
to be honest I find the arguments against the location far from
convincing. I find it hard to believe that in the short time this
office has been open there has been that dramatic an increase in
loitering and criminal activity in the area. After all the Bear Creek
valley is just across the road and, as already noted, that Salvation
Army was already in the local area.
Here
at St. Paul's we have been partnering with HIV North for several
years now, offering our space to host some of their programming. In
that time I would not say that we have had any greater issues with
loitering or criminal activity. In fact their presence has added to
the list of resources to which we can refer individuals who appear at
our door.
I
suggest that the people are not there because the agency is there.
The agency is there because that is where the people are. And which
is better, to have people needing support in your area and the
support several blocks away or to have people needing support and the
support just around the corner?
These
services need to be offered somewhere. No matter where there will be
some neighbours (residential or commercial) who are uncomfortable
with having an agency associated with HIV close to them. That is a
fact. But the question I want to ask is one of the greater good. Is
the greater good served by granting this request? I believe it is. I
would agree with the editorial by Diana Rinne (also in the October 22
issue of the DHT) who lays out a strong and cogent argument in favour
of this location. I hope
people read Diana's words and take them into
consideration.
I
urge council to overturn the decision of the community growth
committee.
Peace,
Rev
Gord Waldie
No comments:
Post a Comment