Connect with us

Community

Should the city allow 8 foot fences?

Published

5 minute read

Do we have to build 8 foot fences around our homes? Do our children need to lock up their toys and bicycles in our backyards when they need to use the bathroom?

Recently, it was 7 a.m. in a quiet suburban neighbourhood, and a man on a bicycle slowly pedals down the street, stops at a house 3 doors down, goes in the backyard, looks in the mailbox then leaves. I mentioned this to my neighbours and I hear about the accumulated losses from thefts. Bicycles, gas cans, weed whacker, lawn furniture cushions, pop cans etc.

Why would a supposed homeless person steal a weed whacker? To raise money for drugs was suggested.

I talked to a homeless person and he told me that was probably true, and he added it was our fault because it takes months to get into rehab. Jail just means warmth, 3 meals and a bed, but it does nothing to help the drug problem.

The homeless person, also suggested that if a homeless man wants your lawnmower, you might as well give it to him. If you tried to stop him he would say you assaulted him. He would get free legal aid, and it would cost us dearly. He said that insurance would just buy us a new one. I guess he never heard of deductibles and increasing premiums. The suggestion arose that the only thing law abiding home owners can do is barricade our homes. Wow!

One neighbour had their child’s bicycle stolen from their backyard, and the new replacement bicycle was stolen out of their backyard and he has 6 foot fencing. So should the city change the rules and allow 8 foot fencing around our homes? Do children need to lock up everything in their backyard before going in the house to use the bathroom or get a drink? Or should children be kept inside?

It is not only the homeless that is prowling the neighbour hood looking for easy pickings, due to the economy, and I was told it will only get worse. What are we to do?

Several neighbours including myself have invested in security measures, one neighbour got a German Shepherd dog, another neighbour invested in more secure storage, and other options explored. All these at cost to the law abiding home owners.

I got the impression by this homeless person is that home owners who leave items out are fools and just asking for their things to get stolen.

We spend a hundred dollars on a bicycle or a weed whacker, deal with upset family, feel violated and what does the theif get at a pawn shop $20.

Which begs the question. Wouldn’t the pawn shop be suspicious if a possible homeless person pawns a weed whacker or children’s bicycles? Should there be more checks and balances there?

How the underbelly of society operates is out of my comfort zone. I have given blankets and coffee to homeless people and I think that it is appreciated by some but I wonder if we are sometimes being taken for fools.

There is a sense of helplessness, and there is the usual comments about how the police cannot do anything. Anger shows it’s ugly head immediately after a theft. Emotions are high especially involving children’s things. The burden lies heavy on law abiding citizens and children.

The latest poll shows that 50% of people currently live paycheque to paycheque, so the costs of thefts can go well beyond the cost of the item. Cutting back on life’s expenses can be truly hard on people and children, to compensate for the loss of a few items.

The homeless person, reiterated that the system was designed to protect the criminal and not the victims, and the criminals know it.

The children cannot seem to hold it, long enough to lock up all their things before high tailing it to the bathroom, so should I talk to the city about an 8 foot fence? Perhaps get one of those photo radar trucks to multi task and do neighbourhood watch while ticketing speeders.

Looking for suggestions.

 

Follow Author

Community

SPARC Red Deer – Caring Adult Nominations open now!

Published on

Red Deer community let’s give a round of applause to the incredible adults shaping the future of our kids. Whether they’re a coach, neighbour, teacher, mentor, instructor, or someone special, we want to know about them!

Tell us the inspiring story of how your nominee is helping kids grow up great. We will honour the first 100 local nominees for their outstanding contributions to youth development. It’s time to highlight those who consistently go above and beyond!

To nominate, visit Events (sparcreddeer.ca)

Continue Reading

Addictions

‘Harm Reduction’ is killing B.C.’s addicts. There’s got to be a better way

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Susan Martinuk 

B.C. recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. The resulting explosion of addicts using drugs in public spaces, including parks and playgrounds, recently led the province’s NDP government to attempt to backtrack on this policy

Since 2016, more than 40,000 Canadians have died from opioid drug overdoses — almost as many as died during the Second World War.
Governments, health care professionals and addiction experts all acknowledge that widespread use of opioids has created a public health crisis in Canada. Yet they agree on virtually nothing else about this crisis, including its causes, possible remedies and whether addicts should be regarded as passive victims or accountable moral agents.

Fuelled by the deadly manufactured opioid fentanyl, Canada’s national drug overdose rate stood at 19.3 people per 100,000 in 2022, a shockingly high number when compared to the European Union’s rate of just 1.8. But national statistics hide considerable geographic variation. British Columbia and Alberta together account for only a quarter of Canada’s population yet nearly half of all opioid deaths. B.C.’s 2022 death rate of 45.2/100,000 is more than double the national average, with Alberta close behind at 33.3/100,00.

In response to the drug crisis, Canada’s two western-most provinces have taken markedly divergent approaches, and in doing so have created a natural experiment with national implications.

B.C. has emphasized harm reduction, which seeks to eliminate the damaging effects of illicit drugs without actually removing them from the equation. The strategy focuses on creating access to clean drugs and includes such measures as “safe” injection sites, needle exchange programs, crack-pipe giveaways and even drug-dispensing vending machines. The approach goes so far as to distribute drugs like heroin and cocaine free of charge in the hope addicts will no longer be tempted by potentially tainted street drugs and may eventually seek help.

But safe-supply policies create many unexpected consequences. A National Post investigation found, for example, that government-supplied hydromorphone pills handed out to addicts in Vancouver are often re-sold on the street to other addicts. The sellers then use the money to purchase a street drug that provides a better high — namely, fentanyl.

Doubling down on safe supply, B.C. recently decriminalized the possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. The resulting explosion of addicts using drugs in public spaces, including parks and playgrounds, recently led the province’s NDP government to attempt to backtrack on this policy — though for now that effort has been stymied by the courts.

According to Vancouver city councillor Brian Montague, “The stats tell us that harm reduction isn’t working.” In an interview, he calls decriminalization “a disaster” and proposes a policy shift that recognizes the connection between mental illness and addiction. The province, he says, needs “massive numbers of beds in treatment facilities that deal with both addictions and long-term mental health problems (plus) access to free counselling and housing.”

In fact, Montague’s wish is coming true — one province east, in Alberta. Since the United Conservative Party was elected in 2019, Alberta has been transforming its drug addiction policy away from harm reduction and towards publicly-funded treatment and recovery efforts.

Instead of offering safe-injection sites and free drugs, Alberta is building a network of 10 therapeutic communities across the province where patients can stay for up to a year, receiving therapy and medical treatment and developing skills that will enable them to build a life outside the drug culture. All for free. The province’s first two new recovery centres opened last year in Lethbridge and Red Deer. There are currently over 29,000 addiction treatment spaces in the province.

This treatment-based strategy is in large part the work of Marshall Smith, current chief of staff to Alberta’s premier and a former addict himself, whose life story is a testament to the importance of treatment and recovery.

The sharply contrasting policies of B.C. and Alberta allow a comparison of what works and what doesn’t. A first, tentative report card on this natural experiment was produced last year in a study from Stanford University’s network on addiction policy (SNAP). Noting “a lack of policy innovation in B.C.,” where harm reduction has become the dominant policy approach, the report argues that in fact “Alberta is currently experiencing a reduction in key addiction-related harms.” But it concludes that “Canada overall, and B.C. in particular, is not yet showing the progress that the public and those impacted by drug addiction deserve.”

The report is admittedly an early analysis of these two contrasting approaches. Most of Alberta’s recovery homes are still under construction, and B.C.’s decriminalization policy is only a year old. And since the report was published, opioid death rates have inched higher in both provinces.

Still, the early returns do seem to favour Alberta’s approach. That should be regarded as good news. Society certainly has an obligation to try to help drug users. But that duty must involve more than offering addicts free drugs. Addicted people need treatment so they can kick their potentially deadly habit and go on to live healthy, meaningful lives. Dignity comes from a life of purpose and self-control, not a government-funded fix.

Susan Martinuk is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of the 2021 book Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health Care Crisis. A longer version of this article recently appeared at C2CJournal.ca.

Continue Reading

Trending

X