Dear Editor, Seeing the June 30 "Sproink" cartoon about the Indwell lawn signs in The Journal makes me wonder if the cartoonist misunderstands the 200 or so signs appearing around the George Street neighbourhood. Their purpose is NOT to criticize the Indwell model of supportive housing, nor to suggest that our fellow citizens who are […]
Dear Editor,
Seeing the June 30 "Sproink" cartoon about the Indwell lawn signs in The Journal makes me wonder if the cartoonist misunderstands the 200 or so signs appearing around the George Street neighbourhood.
Their purpose is NOT to criticize the Indwell model of supportive housing, nor to suggest that our fellow citizens who are homeless might not benefit from Indwell institutions being built and operated in Lambton County.
Rather the purpose is to convey the message that the George Street neighbourhood has already been "doing its part" to help the homeless – for decades now – by hosting the River City Vineyard's sanctuary: a different model of supportive housing for the homeless.
Since this has been to the benefit of the entire County, it seems ungrateful and unjust that the County is now forcing that same neighbourhood to do even more, and without offering any prior opportunity for consultation. It also seems unjustified and cruel that the "Sproink" cartoon would cast the George Street residents as "villains" in such a circumstance.
Chris Beausoleil
