OUR INDIFFERENCE TO HOMELESSNESS

The Addict And The Angry Property Owner Agree; We're Failing On
Addiction And Street Problems

The first article on Victoria's downtown street problems came from a
lawyer and property owner fed up with the mess and danger caused by a
band of hardcore addicts roaming the streets around his office.

The second piece, published the next day in the same space on the
Comment page, came from a heroin addict, now serving time in
Wilkinson Road jail.

It's easy to focus on the differences.

Stewart Johnston, the lawyer, is angry that "a lawless band of
junkies" roams the Cormorant Street neighbourhood near his office,
committing vandalism and petty thefts and leaving needles and waste
in their wake.

Oliver Petersen, the addict, is sad and nearly broken by a system
that fails to provide the most basic help for people who want to
change their lives. It is foolish to pay for drug treatment -- as the
government did for him -- and then drop people back onto the streets
without housing or support, he argues. Too many will return to their old lives.

But in fact these two excellent contributions to the debate on
homelessness and addiction problems found important common ground.

Both men agree absolutely that we are not doing enough and that much
of what we are doing is ineffective and wasteful.

Both advocate more treatment and more support -- housing,
counselling, life and work skills training -- to help people shake
the poverty, addiction and mental illness that are at the root of the
downtown problem.

And both argue the need is urgent and highlight governments' records
of inaction.

None of those observations are new. We know what needs to be done to
tackle the problems; we have so far simply lacked the will.

The articles were also a useful reminder that we can't talk about
"the homeless problem."

Petersen wrote about people who need and want help, a significant
portion of the some 700 homeless people living on the streets and in shelters.

Johnston's focus was on "the pack of 45 hard-core intravenous users
who live in a homeless tribal culture, migrating from the blue bridge
to the needle exchange and onward to my backyard to shoot up,
defecate, vandalize my property and disturb my residential neighbours."

Dealing with those people will be more difficult and expensive than
simply providing adequate housing allowances to welfare recipients.

Keeping the hardcore addicts off the street and out of trouble will
mean housing with intensive security, support workers, counselling
and perhaps prescribed drugs. And even then, things will go wrong.

But targeting the few dozen people creating the most serious problem
will also produce the most dramatic benefit in protecting the
livability and economic base of our downtown.

The most important message from both commentaries is that governments
- -- federal, provincial, municipal -- are failing.

Despite the talk of improved mental-health and addiction services and
the need for affordable housing, despite the planning sessions and
the task forces, the problems are getting worse.

That failure hurts people like Petersen, keeping them on the street.
It hurts people like Johnston, who deal with the daily fallout.

And it hurts our community -- damaging the economy, driving up police
and health-care costs and demonstrating our unwillingness to help
people who need it.