I was disgusted at what occurred at the Surrey City Hall public hearing held on July 13 over a proposed facility for homeless and near-homeless residents.

I literally felt like I was back in time to the 1960s and a person of a “different colour” was moving in the neighbourhood.

The amount of time I heard “our property values will go down” was astounding.

I have never been in a room with so many people who were narrow-minded and self-centred in my life.

One woman who “of course” argued against the proposition made reference to her church. I had always thought the church, no matter what religion, encouraged understanding, empathy and to care for each other: “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

It surprises me how these people just don’t see how close to being homeless we all could be.

Do these people actually want individuals who want to better their lives to continue to live on the street?

The proposed facility will be monitored – it has a waiting list to get in, so why would the individuals want to jeopardize getting themselves kicked out?

Do the individuals who spoke actually think this area will now become a crime zone which police will not do anything about?

This is an ideal place for individuals who are homeless/near homeless. It is close to public transit (they probably don’t have cars) and is a central location for finding work.

It is a quiet area for individuals who want to make something of their lives when up to now it hasn’t been so great for them.

These individuals may have mental health challenges. I got the impression that the people who spoke were thinking psychosis or uncontrolled schizophrenia.

Isn’t the statistic something like one in five people have a mental illness? These range from eating disorders (ie. bulimia) to anxiety disorders (ie. agoraphobia) to mood disorders (ie. bi-polar) to personality disorders (ie. obsessive-compulsive) and the list goes on.

I have an issue with people having to live on the streets begging for money, but I also take issue with people who care so little for fellow human beings that they will not see beyond their own lives to imagine what it might be like for someone who may be disadvantaged.

This will not be a recovery house; there will be other issues and challenges that these individuals will have to face, which will be difficult.

It will be a lot more difficult for them if they have to face them on the streets.

One of the speakers mentioned condoms and needles being found in the area.

Maybe all the individuals that spoke against the proposition should take a good look at what actually happens in that area now.

Barbara Christensen

Surrey