May I suggest that name-calling is not a productive exercise. It doesn't persuade anyone of the virtue of your position; it almost certainly does the opposite.
If you don't understand a poster's statement/position, sincerely, just ask a question of clarification.
. Basically you are saying that, there is no different opinion allowed when we are talking about this issue. Once the government makes a decision, we have to accept it. You make me feel like I am living in some kind of dictatorial countries.
That's not what he's saying.
What he's asking is........If you don't want this particular thing, in this particular location, BUT, you accept a responsibility to look after society's needy; where, in your community would you like to locate such a building?
If you are saying you're fine w/the current site, subject to certain conditions on type of tenants....'fine'.....I think many would disagree w/the fairness of that........and we can come back to that.......but what's really being said here
Is that people don't believe that the position of the neighbourhood is actually favourable to housing on this site, period.
But to come back to that issue of 'who' can be located in the housing..........
Listen, most people here are actually sympathetic to the notion that a large harm-reduction site full of addicts could be problematic for the community. Many wouldn't say that out loud, but few would want that type of facility as their neighbour
Though, it does have to go somewhere.
But no one is proposing such a facility here. The suggestion on abstinence is problematic. Are you neighbours all abstaining from alcohol? Not one wine or beer drinker in the bunch, never mind weed?
Nah, you know its not so, so why impose on the very poor that which you would not impose on yourself or your neighbours? I get that there is a concern and a need for balance. But abstinence in an extreme ask.
I can certainly understand some people here wanna to build the modular housing unit asap, so do I. That's why I support the modular housing to be abstinence, and for seniors only.
Partly, see my answer above; then lets ask; in what neighbourhood would you like to situate everyone who drinks at all, ever, or does drugs, soft or hard; and in what neighbourhood would you like to place working age adults who are needy?
How do you think that area will feel that they should bear the responsibility that you will not? If every neighbourhood says no, where do these people go?
Reason? Just common sense. The demographics near the site is seniors. I am sure you would agree that neighbors with similar age groups can communicate better, right?
I'm not really sure that's 'common sense' at all. In fact there are specific program in seniors home to have teenagers volunteer to meet with and support seniors in their community, because it engenders respect and understanding
from the former, for the latter and vice versa; and because the energy of the young can lift the spirits of the old.
The seniors have worked hard so many years for Canada and should we be humbled to listen their concerns?
Listening to concerns is a fair ask; however, that does not mean adopting their views un-critically. Seniors of earlier generations (if you go back far enough) thought the world was flat.....young people knew better. Seniors later thought that women should be the property of men; young people knew better. It turns out being old doesn't make you right. Certainly, concerns should be heard and looked at fairly, but not blindly followed.
I agree that the homeless are vulnerable, but so do the seniors. Should we take a balanced approach in addressing the issue these two groups are facing? We have a motion proposed by Lily, and we are so closed to get the project moving. Should we put aside our differences and work together for the interest of the society?
Yes to all of the above. The distinction(s) here are two-fold.
1) Your particular position is something people may take issue with at the level of the details, and whether those are fair, and reasonable.
2) People have asked you about the position of the community as a whole; not your personal position, and asked does it really seem to you like the community wants to do its part?
One of the motions here, the first motion, is clearly to not build the housing here at all. The second motion, which is closer to your position, but not identical, is a fall-back position.
Many here are questioning the sincerity of that, given the first motion. They are asking, we need a place for working-age adults, who are currently homeless to live. Some of them, ought to be able to live in your community.
If you don't want them to live beside the seniors, so be it; but can you identify an alternative location close by, that would be better.
That does not seem like an unreasonable ask to me.
