DRUG RECOVERY HOUSE TURNS NEIGHBOURS AGAINST NEIGHBOURS

The Editor,

Re: "Recovery house warmly welcomed," the News letters, Aug. 31.

It is a shame that once again, Turning Point Recovery Society has
placed our city and its citizens in an ideological conflict. Add to
this the resulting consequence of neighbours turning against neighbours.

Most will recall the turmoil that was caused by the society's
nine-bed Odlin facility plan many years ago that resulted in the city
commissioning a group home task force to provide guidance to city
council so that a similar occurrence is prevented in the future. In
October 2001, after seven months working in the community, the task
force submitted its recommendations reflecting the voices and spirit
of the citizens of Richmond to council.

The dilemma to which the people of Richmond are again exposed has
little to do with drug addiction, affliction or treatment aspirations
of Turning Point. It has to do with placing the city and the
community within 8180 Ash St. in an untenable situation that no one,
including the society, has ever had any experience dealing with. That
happens to be the establishment of multiple structures to house an
abstinent-contingent group home with 40 transitory residents. Should
this succeed, Turning Point will have a total of two facilities with
49 beds. Based on their own projections, this will bring in more than
210 drug- and substance-dependent transitory residents to our city.
This large crowd would congregate at Ash Street -- a residential area
of single family homes with a liquor store, a pub, a drug store and
three schools where children walk often unaccompanied. The resulting
parking, vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion would be grossly
disproportionate to the design and dynamics of the area as it was
originally conceived.

What is most challenging, not only for neighbors of Ash Street, but
also for the entire city of Richmond, is the incredible lack of
expertise and experience, and possibly knowledge of calculated risks
about the strain and anxiety this entire project would place upon
citizens, law enforcement, emergency and medical services, and the
city management team. Richmond, through its well-managed operations,
has been adequately successful within its means to manage the
problems associated with addiction and drug-related crimes --with
what it now has.

Just as Richmond would not consider building a mini-Eiffel Tower
anywhere in the city (because it looks good), it is illogical to
contemplate that it would allow this plan to proceed just because it
appears to be good. It must, first and foremost respect the will and
spirit of our citizens in matters like this as recommended by the
task force it commissioned in 2001.

Again, we strongly emphasize that we are not against the people who
have suffered from the unfortunate lifetime exposure of drugs and
alcohol addiction. There is just no place for such a project within a
development of single family homes with thousands kids attending the
three nearest elementary schools.

It is a reasonable decision not to jeopardise the safety of thousands
of children in order to attempt to change few unfortunate people's
quality of life.

Dr. Nataliya Vostretsova

Stepan Vostretsov

Irina Tabakman

Monique Wang

Dr. Brad Wang

Dr. Zhan Xu

Richmond