Aster Place Supportive Housing

Over the past several weeks, this issue has generated passionate opinions throughout our community.

Some have described Aster Place as nothing more than a "drug den." Others suggest that anyone questioning supportive housing lacks compassion. I don't believe either position helps Richmond move forward.

Tonight, I don't want to add more heat to this discussion.

I'd like to add a little more light.

The people living near Aster Place deserve to be heard.

The people living at Aster Place deserve to be treated with dignity.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, they must both be true if we're going to build a stronger community.

The decision before Council tonight is whether to allow the existing 40-unit supportive housing project to continue operating for another three years.

It is not a proposal for a new supportive housing development.

It is not an expansion of the existing building.

And it is not a decision about whether homelessness, addiction or mental illness should exist in Richmond.

The real question is much bigger.

Has the overall system worked, and if not, what needs to change?

Supportive housing was never intended to be the final destination. It was intended to be one step in a continuum—a pathway from homelessness to stability, to treatment where appropriate, to improved health, to employment or community connection, and ultimately to more independent housing whenever possible.

If people remain in supportive housing because there is nowhere appropriate to move next, then we don't simply have a supportive housing issue.

We have a systems issue.

Housing alone cannot solve homelessness.

Housing must be connected to mental health care, addiction treatment, recovery services, employment supports and affordable housing.

When one part of that continuum is missing, pressure builds throughout the entire system.

That brings me to what I believe has been the missing voice in this discussion.

Where is the Province?

Supportive housing is primarily a provincial responsibility.

Mental health care is a provincial responsibility.

Addiction treatment is a provincial responsibility.

Affordable housing is primarily a provincial responsibility.

Yet over the past several weeks, much of the debate has focused almost entirely on Richmond City Council.

I would welcome hearing more directly from Richmond's MLAs, BC Housing and the Province about their long-term plan.

• How will treatment capacity be expanded?

• How will affordable housing be increased?

• How will people transition successfully from supportive housing into more independent living?

• How will success be measured?

Those are questions the Province should be helping answer.

Municipalities should not be left debating provincial service delivery every few years because the broader system has not kept pace.

At the same time, Richmond also has important responsibilities.

Council has a responsibility to ensure accountability and transparency.

Residents deserve to know:

• How many residents have successfully transitioned into permanent housing?

• How many have accessed treatment or recovery services?

• What supports are available today that weren't available four years ago?

• What lessons have been learned?

• How are neighbourhood concerns being addressed?

• What improvements are planned over the next three years?

These are not political questions. They are responsible governance questions.

Leadership is not about finding someone to blame.

It is about bringing people together to solve difficult problems.

It is easy during an election to amplify fear.

It is easy to divide residents into opposing camps.

It is much harder to build trust, find common ground and work collaboratively toward better solutions.

That is the kind of leadership Richmond needs.

If Council chooses to extend this permit, I encourage you to do so with stronger expectations for accountability.

• Strengthen the Memorandum of Understanding with BC Housing.

• Require regular public reporting on measurable outcomes.

• Continue advocating for expanded treatment, mental health services and affordable housing.

• Ensure there is a clear transition strategy well before this permit expires so we are not having the same conversation again in three years.

This issue should not divide our community.

Residents want safe neighbourhoods.

They want vulnerable people treated with dignity.

They want governments working together instead of pointing fingers.

Compassion and accountability are not competing values.

They are complementary values.

Tonight, Council will vote on one temporary-use permit.

But Richmond will not solve homelessness by debating one building every three years.

We need all levels of government pulling in the same direction.

We need the Province to lead where it has primary responsibility.

We need the City to provide strong oversight where it has authority.

We need to stop dividing our community into opposing sides.

Richmond deserves better than politics built on fear.

It deserves leadership built on collaboration, accountability and practical solutions.

One final thought.

I find it disappointing that some candidates and even some current elected officials have already publicly declared their position before this Public Hearing had even begun.

The purpose of a public hearing is to listen—to hear new information, different perspectives and lived experiences before making a decision.

Good leaders should always remain open to learning.

They should be willing to ask difficult questions, weigh the evidence and consider whether there may be a better path forward than the ones currently being debated.

When our minds are already made up before the public has even spoken, we risk missing opportunities to find practical solutions that better serve everyone.

When elected officials or those seeking public office rely on fear instead of facts, or division instead of dialogue, it doesn't strengthen our community—it weakens it.

Richmond deserves leadership that brings people together to solve difficult problems, not leadership that deepens divisions during an election.

Jerome Dickey