When solving your problem doesn’t solve THE PROBLEM … What would you do?

The scope can be an issue.

Many situations call for most than just meeting legal responsibilities.  To make a difference some situations call for more to be done.  What you would normally do isn’t enough.  Societal responsibilities reach beyond the scope of what is normally required. 

Most successful organizations engage in role-playing, use case studies, and practice handling difficult scenarios to hone the skills of their people.    

The following real scenario isn’t practiced enough, although the situation is increasingly occurring in many parts of North America.    

“You are the owner of a growing and successful business.  Your organization has just moved into a brand new facility.  The new space is almost twice as large and is in a much better location.   Your old location is only a few miles away; so moving, while disruptive, was manageable.  The move is now complete but the old location is surplus and empty.  You suspect it may take months to find the right buyer.   

You have posted “No Trespassing” signs and made the building as secure as possible.  The doors and windows are covered with plywood and the heat and water have been turned off.

After several weeks, the building is still empty.  Winter is approaching and one of your employees has noticed some people who seem to be “camping” in some of the protected entrances.

What should you do?”

From an organizational perspective, the actual business owner had several concerns.    

• The potential for vandalism and damage to the building.
• Accidental damage occurring when those people “camping” might build fires to cook or keep warm. 
• The potential difficulty of removing “squatters” should they decide to occupy the empty building. 
• The fact the “No Trespassing” signs were being ignored.
• The possible negative impacts on selling the property.
• With several individuals and at least one family using the old entrances for shelter, human waste was going to be a problem. 

All of these were valid concerns.  What did they do?

• The owner sent an employee to verify the situation.  The employee did not see anyone but saw that people were sheltering in protected entrances.  The entrances offered protection on three sides from the wind and other elements.
• The owner called the police.  They felt this was a legal issue and wanted the trespassers removed as quickly as possible believing this wasn’t their problem. 
• The police visited the site and did not find anyone at the building.  They did agree more than one group of people was “camping” at the site.  There were signs of belongings at all four of the entrances and at least one contained children’s toys and clothes. 
• The owner asked what could be done.  The police said that there wasn’t a lot they could do, they were happy to patrol the area more and if they saw anyone, they could talk to them and ask them to leave. 
• The owner asked if the belongings could be removed and the police responded by saying, “It’s your property, you can remove what you want.” 
• The owner sent staff to “clean up” the site. 
• The instructions were to remove any items that did not belong to the business.
• The employees collected everything into one pile, not separating anything.  Included in the debris were food items, clothing, tents, sleeping bags, and things that belonged to children.  Throughout the entire exercise, none of the people who were “camping” was present.  Late in the day, a truck took everything to the local landfill.

The police did patrol the site more often and eventually did talk to some of the people who had sought shelter and they were encouraged to “move on.”  Over the next several weeks as the weather turned more inclement on one or two occasions another “dump run” was required; however, the disposal crews never saw anyone.

When the snow arrived, the problem seemed to have been “fixed” and within a few months, the building was sold.  No one complained to the police and the owner moved on to other issues.    

So is that what you would do?

I hope not.  The incident had a profound effect on those people suffering from homelessness as well as some of the employees of the owner.  The callousness and lack of compassion deeply resonated with them; however, the owner was with their legal rights.

What could have been done differently?

Increased Awareness of Community Issues.  We should all recognize those people were not “camping” they were experiencing homelessness. 

Business organizations that pride themselves on being part of a community are more aware of the real social issues that exist in their communities.  Poverty and the lack of affordable and safe housing are at epidemic proportions in Canada including in the community where this happened. 

Some business owners believe that the government should be responsible for solving these problems.   They argue that there are welfare programs for the homeless.  Many believe people experiencing poverty should pull themselves up and “just get a job” to solve their issues.  Others believe many vulnerable people want to “live rough.”  The reality is few of these statements apply and certainly not universally. 

There are government supports but they are woefully inadequate.  Housing costs have skyrocketed in the past two years, making what was already a big problem even worse.  Food Banks and Meal Programs have seen their use soar.   Increasingly even people with homes and jobs are struggling, much less, those individuals and families who find themselves experiencing homelessness.  Obtaining a job and providing for a family while “living rough” is virtually impossible.

• Taking action as a responsible corporate citizen.  As an organization,
• The owners of businesses should support living wages
• Supporting “geared to income housing” allows people to actually be able to afford to live and work in the community
• Businesses should reverse the trend of the past twenty years by hiring more full-time people.
• Businesses and governments should help provide adequate daycare resources, pensions, and benefit plans.

Both of these action steps could begin today.

The fear-mongering that certain lobby organizations use as an excuse to stop these initiatives must be illuminated, debunked, and overcome.  Our social responsibilities are part of successfully operating any business.  

For this particular scenario, there is a different approach, and all of the tools were in place to be used.    If you were the business owner, you could:

CALL 211.  211 is to social services what 911 is to fire, police, and ambulances situations.  Operated 24/7 365 days/year this organization connects answers to questions about which government departments and charitable organizations are available to help in virtually every possible situation.  Available online or via telephone, 211 provides the necessary connections to help those people experiencing homelessness with dignity and respect. 

Filling the gap.   Using the information from 211, the owner could have contacted the local emergency housing resources.  The housing representatives could have reached out to these people, helped provide temporary housing, and started them on the path to finding safe and secure places for them to live. 

The emergency housing resource would have helped connect with emergency resources for food and medical needs.  In addition, this action would help to break down the stigma and fears for the owner, their employees, and for the people experiencing homelessness.  In addition, by taking this course of action it is unlikely those vulnerable people would have lost all of their possessions.

Sharing information.  Many business owners and those people experiencing poverty are unaware of the available resources. 

In a broader scope, the business owner didn’t solve anything except their problem.  They simply moved the problem to someone else in the community.  The vulnerable people and families affected were much worse off because of this business owner’s “solution.”

Legally the business owner was within their rights; however, from a societal perspective and moral perspective it was a lost opportunity. 

Ironically, the second option would likely have cost less financially and would have helped everyone move forward with much less trauma.

Please comment and offer other solutions.  Poverty, homelessness, and all of their associated issues affect our entire community.

Your help is needed, thank you.

Paul.