I could not believe the headline on the front page of The Now Newspaper this morning – “Residents oppose temporary shelter”. Not only is it wrong but it could be used to fan the flames of “anti shelter” sentiments outside of Port Coquitlam.

Below is the Letter to the Editor I sent off:

The headline of your piece “Residents oppose temporary shelter” on the front page of your Wednesday edition is inaccurate and misleading.

In short, your headline should have read “Residents support temporary shelter” with a supplemental line, “Other municipalities in the Tri-Cities should take PoCo’s lead and move forward on similar programs – quickly”.

Here is the actual news piece, which is not too bad – just the headline (the only piece some people will read) is wrong:

As the season’s first snow began to fall on the city’s higher elevations Monday night, Port Coquitlam city council approved third reading for the proposed temporary, cold weather emergency shelter at Trinity United Church on Prairie Avenue.

The shelter was unopposed by council, but concerns expressed by some residents [sic.] drew the ire of councillors and the mayor.

Coun. Michael Wright tried to acknowledge concerns.

“They’re aware council can giveth and council can taketh away,” he said.

And Coun. Mike Forrest said it would be “a good idea to hold a meeting after this season,” to address concerns.

“Police are actually in favour of this,” he said, before chiding a submission that claimed the shelter had a high proportion of incidents during its 2006-2007 operations.

But in two e-mails to council, Carl Severson [a resident of Coquitlam, 5kms from the proposed temporary shelter site] wrote that the two reported incidents constituted a 1.4-per-cent incident ratio that could be extrapolated into “almost 11 incidents over 60 operational nights” between both Trinity United Church and the Foursquare Church’s emergency shelters for the homeless.

“It’s an interesting use of math to extrapolate numbers,” Forrest said in response. “That’s good for them; it shows statistics can be twisted any way.”

Severson’s submission also noted that a report on the church’s own website indicates the shelter was open 11 nights last winter and that there were two reported incidents.

“Apparently, one was drug related and the other violence related,” he wrote.

But Trinity United Church’s program liaison, Joyce Lissimore, told council the drug-related incident resulted in the removal of a person who violated the shelter’s no-drug-use policy.

The other incident, she said, involved an argument over bacon that was served at the shelter.

Lissimore said the five calls she received about the shelter’s 2006-2007 operation were from neighbours and congregation members who were concerned that the facility did not appear to be open during some cold nights.

Ultimately, Lissimore said, “We had no impact on the neighbourhood or the church.”

According to Coun. Mike Bowen, the key words to Trinity United’s proposal were “temporary” and “extreme.”

Doreen Carter, who identified herself as homeless, said, “All we want is a warm, safe, dry place to put our heads at night.”

Nevertheless, Frank Roberts, who noted he owns buildings at 2228 and 2232 Prairie Ave., said his tenants do not want the shelter in the area.

“I don’t think this is the right way to go,” he said. “Not in a residential area.”

Under the proposal, the 20-bed shelter would only open on nights when the local health department determines the weather poses a health risk to the homeless, notably during temperatures below -4 C.

It was open last winter under council’s approval, and is not part of a Tri-Cities-wide attempt to find permanent shelters.

Mayor Scott Young called the temporary shelter “a humanitarian issue.”

“It’s a step in the right direction,” Coun. Darrell Penner said.

“I’m sure most of us wouldn’t leave our animals out in cold and wet weather,” Young added.

Hopefully the Now will do a better job of put accurate headlines on their front pages as opposed to shocking, tabloid style drivel.