Dear Editor,
The debate regarding the supportive housing for the homeless has been a social phenomenon from the get-go. The stage opened with a predominantly non-Chinese group supporting and a predominantly Chinese group opposing the project.
What is also strange is the almost unconditional support from one side and the almost unconditional opposition from the other. While surely there are those with conditional support or opposition, somehow their voices were rarely heard. That is a pity since these two subgroups have much in common and would have made the debate a lot less polarized.
I am not suggesting that supportive housing for the most vulnerable is not worthy of our support. I am merely saying it is strange that a provincial NDP proposal was taken hook and sinker by a predominantly right wing community and council, despite far more citizens among the 80 or so speakers at the May 17 and 18 council meetings expressing concerns.
On the surface, this issue is over. Below the surface, though, those with concerns are unhappy since their questions and suggestions could have been addressed by a proposed time extension. However, that was voted down. So, despite nine community forums, many concerned citizens felt they were talked at rather than talked with. They still cannot understand why the city could vote yes to having Raincity overseeing the management of the housing without first reviewing the agreement between Raincity and local service providers.
Unfortunately, the debate has added sparks to the smoldering tension and suspicions left from a largely un-reconciled relationship between people groups in B.C. history, the more recent anti-Chinese flyers, the anti-immigration banner above a Richmond overpass, etc.
What remains unasked is whether each side’s assumption of possessing a superior culture will lead to compromise; whether on this, on language used in public signs, etc.
As Pentecost is about reversing the confusion of tongues among the biblical chosen people who wanted to reach God by their own ways, we should see the many cultures in Richmond as a chance to reverse and restore relationship in this post-colonial era; the opportunity to use a common language to communicate the common good, to reconcile, and to liberate each other from our respective cultural baggage.
Bill Chu
RICHMOND
