Scott Radley: Councillor’s encampment idea is no magical elixir — but it’s better than waiting around for one

When Coun. Matt Francis recently suggested a volunteer registry to help with the encampment situation, the reaction wasn't universally positive. In fact, some around council and others online essentially - or directly - suggested it was faulty.

Asking residents to sign up to give a person in a tent somewhere to live, even if in their backyard? Asking someone living in an encampment to sign up to connect with a homeowner? Really? Is the rookie councillor even being serious at this point?

Yes. And he should get roses for this, not thorns.

Everyone would acknowledge that there are all manner of complex mental-health and addiction issues at play with many folks living in the encampments. Maybe most. Those dealing with these challenges surely require professional involvement that's far beyond the capacity of the average kind-hearted host.

However, we often hear that there are some people living rough simply because they're down on their luck. The world has dealt them a rough hand. They're in a tent because they have nowhere else to go. They have challenges, to be sure, but not those incredibly impossible personal issues others do.

If that's not true, perhaps we should stop using that line.

But if it is and a number of those folks are desperately looking to step away from the problems and the dangers that exist in the encampments and if they would feel safer in a more-private space with a boost from someone who's able to make a difference, how is this idea a bad one? How is this worth rejecting?

You may have noticed we don't have a lot of other great ideas to fix this right now. City staff came forward with a plan last week and it was disliked by nearly everyone around the table. Those in favour of enforcement criticized it. Those who lean toward the live-and-let-live model didn't love it either.

That debate showed that the gap between the two sides is chasmic. They're miles apart. Finding common ground is going to be incredibly difficult. If we have to wait for a perfect solution that satisfies everyone, we'll probably be waiting a long time.

Further, if we want to cling to the belief that government is uniquely capable of solving this, we might be waiting even longer. It sure hasn't shown that ability so far.

So if a small, incremental, out-of-the-box step can be adopted that might make a bit of a difference - even if on a fractional scale - we should consider it rather than pooh-poohing the idea simply because it doesn't solve everything all at once.

Honestly, we should be clamouring for more creative ideas like this from our councillors instead of the traditional let's-send-it-back-to-staff-for-more-study approach that's so often the fallback but too commonly gets us nowhere.

Um, tiny houses, anyone?

During a radio interview the day after introducing his idea, Francis made a potent point.

If the noise is any indication," Francis says of all the people clamouring for an answer to the city's encampment issue, there should be people lined up for this."

You'd think. Surely some of those who have been pleading for something to be done would be interested in being part of that solution. A chance to turn arm's-length compassion into hands-on action.

To be clear, nobody's suggesting this is a magical elixir that will cause the encampment issue to vanish. Francis certainly isn't. Maybe it won't work at all. Maybe nobody will sign up to help. That's possible.

But if even 10 or 20 hurting people who really want a way out could find it this way - which would also mean 10 or 20 fewer tents in public places - is this not a worthwhile first step while we work on figuring out the bigger answers?

Scott Radley is a Hamilton-based columnist at The Spectator. Reach him via email: sradley@thespec.com