I will start by commending council for now involving discussion and community input with respect to the Oliver United Church and the idea of an emergency homeless shelter. 

I can state unequivocally that the need for this type of service appears to be real. Thanks to the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Oliver and Osoyoos for opening their doors to help those that are less fortunate during last week’s extreme cold weather.

That said, I believe that in placing this emergency shelter in such close proximity to as many homes as exist in this neighbourhood will key up the law of unintended consequences: property values will fall, crime will increase, and children may witness behaviour that is not considered wholesome.

In my opinion the apparent lack of concern from certain members of our council has me concerned. I can state that my own home is not involved in this controversy. I also think that the protestations of others in the community about NIMBY (not in my back yard) may be a bit hasty.

It is my opinion that this action constitutes a partial taking, partial expropriation if you will. Not certain if that term even exists, but the consequences for these homeowners is not up for debate; there will be some.

Government responsibility in this type of case may include: Expropriation legislation and the common law of Canada recognize that property owners who have had their property taken from them are entitled to be made whole through the payment of full and fair compensation. 

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the purpose of compensation in expropriation proceedings is to provide full indemnity for owners who have had their land compulsorily acquired.

 Let’s talk consequences.

 Does being close to a shelter have a negative effect on property values?

“Your home would most likely sell for less if you live within about two blocks of a shelter. The city’s independent Budget Office looked at sales in Manhattan and estimated that in such a situation, a homeowner would get about 24 to 25 per cent less for a house or a condominium than for a residence farther from a shelter with no other shelters nearby.” (New York Times)

So, the answer is yes and a possible solution is: If any further discussion involves any residential location for this shelter we as a community should be willing to indemnify these residents from the risks associated with this type of action. 

Loss due to theft, malicious behaviour, and property values should (among others) not be borne solely by the homeowner. 

The Town of Oliver should be willing to step up and be willing to make these homeowners whole. Our whole civil legal system is based almost entirely upon the notion of making the victims whole. Why should that be any different in Oliver?If we demand a solution then let’s all help pay for it. Maybe if we think and act a bit out of the box we can find a solution that is palatable to all.          

Michael Guthrie, Oliver