On the anniversary of Surrey city council’s decision to give the go ahead to John Volken’s Welcome Home Project, I feel compelled to write a letter to keep interest in this topic from dying out.

After reviewing some of the information in the media regarding the Welcome Home project, I have read about the John Volken Foundation investing millions of dollars.

The first amount I read was $20 million, then I read $50 million and then I heard $25 million. I was surprised about the $50 million being announced so recently as I understood they were supposed to be scaling back the size of the facility so it would only house 100 to 200 addicts and offenders instead of 200 to 400.

The city hasn’t an answer as nothing is mentioned in the Planning and Development report. The numbers seem inconsistent, they don’t add up.

This was one of numerous questions due to the many inconsistencies heard over this development proposal. There was confusion at the public hearing over the classification of students.

The Welcome Home representatives presented details contrary to what had been included in the Planning report. The report clearly identified that the community was concerned about adverse impacts but the Surrey First councillors appeared indifferent to those concerns.

It is very worrying to observe elected representatives ignoring the recommendations given by the city’s professional staff, in a report that they had worked on for two years. It was a well-written report that any reasonable person could have expected to give anyone pause for thought. Makes one wonder what the distractions could be for the councillors who supported the proposal?

C. Buettner, Surrey

Nebulous accountability

Re: Welcome Home facility in Newton.

On Monday Oct. 5, Surrey city council approved rezoning to enable the Welcome Home facility to expand to 36 units, housing upwards of 100 people. This significant increase will no doubt impact the surrounding community. Given that, I am curious to know which elected official will ultimately be held accountable for the performance of this facility?

From what I can gather, city council has essentially absolved itself of any liability should something go wrong.

The Provincial Ministry of Housing and Social Development will not be held accountable because they are not providing any funding.

Also, I suspect this ministry will claim this is not simply housing for the homeless due to the level of supervision and care required to deal with recovering addicts and court-ordered offenders.

The Ministry of Education will claim that this is not considered an educational facility although the operators claim it is a training facility. And since they are not providing any funding they could hardly be held accountable.

The Ministry of Health Services has been called upon to provide third party accreditation in compliance with the Community Care and Assisted Living Act.

However, this act has numerous exit clauses for the Ministry. For example, in section 16 (1), “A medical health officer may grant an exemption from a requirement of this Act or the regulations”.

Conceivably, Welcome Home could be in full compliance with this Act yet not be licensed. And I suspect this ministry will argue that this facility does not provide enough “prescribed services” to make it subject to the act regardless what city council insists on. This ministry is on record saying that if a facility is not licensed they hold no responsibility. Mr. Koonar, of Welcome Home stated that any oversight by this ministry through the act cannot proceed under current conditions due to delays in budget approvals. The current minister, Kevin Falcon is hell bent on trimming the health budget such that the Fraser Health Authority will not be in a position to meet increasing demands such as this accreditation.

Consequently required third party accreditation may, by necessity, come from the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF). This is an organization independent of government including our provincial government.

So will Welcome Home only be accountable to themselves? This is a distinct possibility that the City Council seems to have overlooked. Citizens of Surrey demand accountability and I want to know who will be held accountable.

Steve Burke, Surrey

An unconcerned council

I left last Monday’s public hearing very concerned and still puzzled over what I observed.

Mr. Volken’s Welcome Home Society only has experience operating 20 bed facilities. How does one suddenly develop the expertise and capability to operate a facility 10 times the size?

What proof have they offered to us that they can achieve success without adding challenges to the surrounding community?

I certainly haven’t seen any evidence offered in the official planning and development reports made available to the public. They provided numerous testimonials on the benefits to the clients but I would think that is something that would be the concern of the regulating health authorities and accreditation bodies, not the city councillors who have no jurisdiction regarding those outcomes. The councillors should have concerned themselves with what they do have jurisdiction over – safety of the community, building permits, zoning compliances etc. None of that seemed to enter into their consciousness.

I do recall Coun. Hunt asking Mr. Volken to guarantee that he wouldn’t exceed his capability to handle the clients (ie. addicts and offenders) at the facility. I am curious how one would determine the limits of his capability.

Liz Walker, Surrey