In response to Nathan Colquhoun's column, "When contempt is the default setting." First of all, I believe that Chris Cooke is entitled to his opinion just like Mr. Colquhoun. He is also entitled to examine an issue from a different perspective just like Mr. Colquhoun, without having his personal motives guessed at and attacked. Public […]
In response to Nathan Colquhoun's column, "When contempt is the default setting."
First of all, I believe that Chris Cooke is entitled to his opinion just like Mr. Colquhoun. He is also entitled to examine an issue from a different perspective just like Mr. Colquhoun, without having his personal motives guessed at and attacked. Public discourse on contentious issues is part of what makes a democracy work.
I agree that ‘the cost of treating contempt like a public service’ and ‘asking questions with disdain already baked in’ is not productive or truthful. I think however, that Mr. Colquhoun may be pointing his finger in the wrong direction.
There are two blatant errors in Mr. Colquhoun’s opinion piece. Firstly, Indwell is not just building ‘deeply affordable housing’. According to the report: At Home in the County of Lambton – Report Update 2025 – pages 4 and 7, Indwell is building on George Street Enhanced Supportive Housing. This is a facility designed to help stabilize persons who struggle with addiction, have acute mental health issues or are coming from incarceration. Indwell itself describes this type of facility primarily as a tool to eliminate encampments (report pages 3 and 9). While Mr. Cooke’s description of this facility as ‘Rainbow park with a roof’ sounds a bit dramatic, it is more accurate than Mr. Colquhoun’s description.
Secondly, Mr. Colquhoun describes Indwell’s proposal for this facility as ‘being built on the site of a long-abandoned hospital that’s already adjacent to River City shelter.’ RCV is actually a ‘sanctuary’ that is a different model of supportive housing. Further, the ‘long-abandoned hospital’ is gone, and the former hospital site now has two new luxury seniors’ apartment buildings, an amenities building, and ten new homes.
Lastly Mr. Colquhoun’s implication that the George Street neighbourhood is not a ‘quite successful neighbourhood’ (whatever that means) is very problematic. In his eyes, if the neighbourhood was ‘successful’ would that qualify it to avoid being saturated with more supportive housing? Is he suggesting that the Heritage District is not worthy of preservation?
I consider myself to be left-leaning liberal thinker and subscribe to many publications in order to be exposed to all sides of an issue. Of late, what I have been reading in the Sarnia Journal has been articles aggressively hostile to people holding opposing opinions. The articles presume to understand people’s personal beliefs, values, and motivations and then to attack them. This is not journalism. Rather, this kind of writing is what is often found on social media posts where people openly attack each other’s character with impunity.
While I can sympathize with Nathan Colquhoun’s frustration that – in Sarnia – it seems ‘hard to build something new,’ in my opinion he is the one trying to ‘shape the mood of the city.’ Unfortunately that mood is one where personal opinions of what the ‘new’ should be are imposed on others with little regard for the consequences.
Kelly O’Connor-Beausoleil
Essex Street, Sarnia
