Is compensating property owners near the supervised consumption site the way to go?

By Medicine Hat News Opinon on February 22, 2019.

Perhaps there is a solution to having the supervised consumption site at 502 S. Railway St. by addressing the concerns of those in close proximity to it.

Most people in the community say they can see a need for the type of services the consumption site is promising.

Most of these people, if they are honest, will tell you that they would rather not have the site near their own home or place of business.

However, many Hatters have been critical of the residents, employers and property owners in the vicinity of the supervised consumption site for voicing their concerns about safety and the potential for their businesses and properties being devalued.

HIV Community Link is convinced this location is where it needs to be in order to attract the clients it wants to serve.

With that said and done we need to adequately compensate the people living and working in the area so that they have an alternative if they so desire.

This is the sort of compensation paid to those in an area where a new highway is going.

The residential properties and business properties could be purchased at fair market value, before the community knew where the supervised consumption site would be located, and also be given a lump sum of money to make a transition to another location feasible. This would have to recognize the fact that none of the people were wanting to move.

Having compensation in place would probably reduce the level of fear about what will happen once the site is operating. Those offered compensation could be given a year or two to accept the offer and move to another part of town if they so desired.

The compensation would have to come from both the province and the federal governments because they are both involved in the decision to establish the consumption site and failed to include any criteria to protect people in the area. There would be a way to recoup that money, though, because it should not be dumped on all taxpayers.

The people who want a supervised consumption site, but are grateful it is not near their own home and place of business, could also make a contribution – it is just money after all and lives will be saved.

If things do not go as planned and businesses and residents take the “buy out,” the city will be left with a sizable chunk of empty buildings and homes in that area.

Don’t forget, though, there are many people in the community who feel the site is in the right place and those complaining at the moment have no right to do so.

To save lives these people would no doubt be ready, willing and able to buy these properties and move in themselves to live and operate businesses.

This could be a win-win-win situation all round.

(Gillian Slade is a News reporter. To comment on this and other editorials, go to https://www.medicinehatnews.com/opinions, email her at gslade@medicinehatnews.com or call her at 403-528-8635.)

­

18
-17