LAZINESS? Or Doing What We Were Created to Do?

As I was sitting in my favourite reading spot for the first time in my nearly 2 months of retirement yesterday, enjoying simply reading a book, I had the epiphanic (is that a word?) thought – when we struggle to do the so many ‘ought’s that we all face very day, or most of us, and just want to do what we want to do – are we simply lazy and shirking our responsibilities, or are we following a basic good instinct?

Let me explain. Lately, I have been studying a lot in the book of Genesis. Don’t let that turn you off yet – hear me out. One reason is that I began a few weeks back to teach a series in our church’s Sunday morning so-called Adult Education period entitled variously something like “How We Got Here – How The Story of the Bible Became the Story of The [Anabaptist/Mennonite] Church.” That parenthesis is in there because that is who I am, that is who our church is, and there are some significant differences between us and much of Christendom. We have a significant number of newcomers in our church who do not come from a Mennonite background and they often have questions that I hope this series can help answer. I am developing the series as we go, although I already have an outline and a number of ready resources at hand.

The other reason I have been looking at Genesis is because some of our recent Sunday morning worship service messages have been on Genesis and that material is what we base our midweek small group home Bible studies on and I lead one of those groups. As I think about it, I remember that we spent some time in Genesis last year too, as our pastor then led our church through the whole Bible in one year. Actually, I have taught on Genesis in the past, as I led some of these same students through the Bible in past Sunday morning sessions, especially at one time with an emphasis on The Covenant.

Now, as I understand it, God really only left mankind with two tasks after he had created us. The first was to tend the garden, which was expanded into "subduing and having dominion over the earth". However, the earth at that time still being considered "good," it does not seem that this work would have been particularly onerous, but that it would probably have been continuing enjoyably God's creativity. The second command was to replenish the earth, which could refer to the environment again, but also has generally been understood to refer to God's desire for having man to reproduce and populate the earth.

At that time, we understand the climate was obviously pleasant as man was naked. God also appeared to meet and commune regularly with man. Everything was provided for. Therefore, it would appear that's man would have been happy and content in that environment, wanting nothing. Basically, with everything being so good, he could do whatever he wanted and it was acceptable.

Something changed, according to the story in Genesis chapter 3. Mankind apparently made some wrong choices and the beauty and order of creation descended into chaos. One of the consequences of this choice was that work, which would appear to have been a pleasant and possibly even cooperative venture with The Creator became a challenge and no longer necessarily pleasant or enjoyable. What we may long to do, like we may have been doing at the beginning, has been replaced by all kinds of labor that is repetitious, not always easy and often simply a drudgery. This is true whether it is work for ourselves, at home, or work for others, outside the home. And for all you students, this covers homework and studying as well. Unless you are learning about something you really enjoy, which I think would have been an activity we would have engaged in at the beginning as well, and may well do so again in the New World.

We all know that underneath the issues of responsibility that come with work nowadays, we often chafe at it and wish to be doing something else. Like as not, what we wish to be doing is something that is renewing, pleasant, enjoyable and quite often creative. Does this not sound like the kind of activities I described that mankind was probably engaged in before, as we say, things went south? (Actually, according to the Bible, it seems man was first sent east.)

So, when we don't feel like working, but turning to our pastimes and our hobbies instead, simply engaging in activities together with others that we find enjoyable, perhaps we are actually responding to the good instincts that we were created with and that have been suppressed by the consequence of the nature of the work as it turned out after the wrong choices were made. Perhaps those drives are actually good, and not evidence of being lazy and shirking responsibility.

However, we also know that work gives us purpose, meaning, helps provide order and structure in our life and can give us a feeling of competence and satisfactory success. There is some good in work. This is borne out not only by our own experience in life but also the research which shows that work is one of the positive variables in a person's recovery when they are ill. In this I find evidence of the merciful providence of our Creator, that even in what was given to us as a consequence there can be a positive. The Creator is also ever the Redeemer.

Of course, until the New World promised appears, we still have to work in the old way. However, perhaps we need to look at the kind of work we have to do as something that we should ever try to lessen and lighten the load of. After all, when we talk about The Church, or The Kingdom of Heaven on earth, we are always talking about trying to re-create here what was at the beginning or will be in the new heaven and earth. Neither of those included this kind of work. Therefore, perhaps we simply should not feel guilty when we don't feel like working. It might be our basic creative goodness wanting to be expressed. It is just our inner person wanting to get back to “the garden,” which I usually picture as more of a park where we can relax and unwind, than what we sometimes think as a garden with all its images of hard work.

It's All About God - The Beginning of the Story of Abram

IV. God Makes a Covenant with a Faithful Man to Create a New People in Canaan (Abram)

            - faith is rewarded with the promise of a new people

(The Roman numeral  IV  refers to the fact that this entry is actually a good deal of what I will be teaching when I get to this chapter of what we are working through in Richmond, BC, Peace Mennonite Church's Adult Education Class currently, The Story of Our People: How the Story of the Bible Became the Story of the [Anabaptist/Mennonite] Church.)

For some of the larger interpretations, conclusions or applications of this whole story of Abraham, I am indebted to Eugene Roop, writer of the Believers Church Bible Commentary, Genesis, Herald Press: Scottdale, Pennsylvania; Kitchener, Ontario, 1987 Pages 93-164.

Roop first, in some explanatory articles at the back of this volume, tells us that Hebrew stories are, in comparison to our more modern western narratives, actually quite sparse in their content (Characteristics of Hebrew Narrative, Page 313). They tend to only contain two actors and say very little about either of them or the setting, including the timing. The focus is on the dialogue between the two characters and the actions they take.

The story of Abram begins in Genesis 11:26 and ends in Genesis 25:11, apart, of course, from all the subsequent references to Abram throughout the rest of the Old and even New Testament. We first meet Abram, as he was first called, in the account of the descendants of Shem, the eldest son of Noah, in Genesis 11:10-26. The lineage runs Shem, Arpachsad, Shelah, Eber (from which the name and people of the Hebrews is evidently derived), Peleg, Reu, Serug and then Nahor. Nahor was the father of Terah who was the father of Abram, Nahor, you could say the second, and Haran.

In Genesis 11:27-30, where the account shifted to giving us the descendants of Terah, Lot is added in as the son of Haran. As part of this genealogy, which is unusual in the generally patriarchal nature of these lists in the Old Testament, we are told that Abram's wife was Sarai. We also told in verse 30 that she was barren; she had no child. This is typical Hebrew repetition for emphasis.

As Roop explains, in his article Reading Genealogies (page 326), the Hebrews were not so much concerned with accuracy of descendants and dates. They were more concerned with who was in the genealogy and what their importance might be. Therefore, we have to look at this section and note the emphasis on Abram, Lot and even Sarai.

The next part of the story tells us that, again, reflecting paucity of detail in Hebrew tales, Terah took his son Abram and grandson Lot (Lot's father Haran having already died in Ur of the Chaldeans, which was where these people originated), and his daughter-in-law Sarai, and move from there to go to the land of Canaan, but only got as far as Haran, where they settled and died. The name of this place to us sounds the same as the name of Abram's brother, Lot's father, but in Hebrew the "h" is apparently different so we don't know that there is a connection. We are not told either why this family decided to move towards Canaan. Perhaps they simply needed more space for their flocks.

Then, again reflecting the simplicity of the tale, chapter 12 begins simply with God saying to Abram that he was to take his family and “leave his country and his father's house to go to the land that I will show you." We are not even told here where this specifically was. Abram was also told that "I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who curse you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (12:2-4)

Here then, two new elements enter the story of Abram- or three, if you count God giving Abram a command - a promise and a blessing. In any case, verse four tells us that Abram went, and took his nephew Lot with him. Verse five mentions he also took his wife Sarai and all their possessions and the persons they had acquired in Haran and set forth for the land of Canaan. This makes me wonder whether God in fact had already also told Terah to head towards Canaan, or at least put the idea in his head, and was now simply reminding Abram that it was time to continue the journey.

In verses 12: 5B-9, we are told of Abram going to Shechem, Bethel and then the Negev, the South. Again, bringing up these names here tells us of the importance and the overall story, as details are not included in Hebrew stories unless they are noteworthy. This introduces places that were already apparently religiously significant and became even more so as religious centers in the later nation of Israel. At Shechem, God appears again and tells Abram, "To your offspring I will give this land", resulting in Abram building an altar to the Lord there,” no doubt referring to worship, which he also did at Bethel where it says he "invoked the name of the Lord."

12:10-20 is a saga of Abram and Sarai having to move to Egypt with their clan because of famine in the land of Canaan. This is another recurring theme in the story of God's people, as it happened with the whole nation of Israel in Joseph and Jacob's time, and for a different reason, Jesus himself ultimately spent time in Egypt with his parents; that was of course when King Herod wanted to kill him. There is also a recurring theme here of the wife in distress, as it happens again between Abram and a local king Abimelech and later on with Abram's son Isaac and Pharaoh, King of Egypt.

Another element that occurs in this story is that Abram appears to put his own interests first, being afraid that he would be killed so that Pharaoh can have his beautiful wife. Therefore, he tells Sarai to tell the Pharaoh she is his sister, removing the need for Abram to be killed as competition. In some ways, it appears that Abram is prepared to sacrifice Sarai's purity for his own sake. It is almost surprising than in a way, that Abram benefits from this because Pharaoh gives Abram a lot of sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female slaves, female donkeys and camels, simply to have her as part of his harem (12:16). However, God steps in, can we say - for Sarai's sake? - possibly because she is to be the mother of Abram's son, who is to figure importantly in the lineage of his people and so needs her integrity and reputation safeguarded. God sends plagues on Pharaoh and his house. As a result, Pharaoh finds out the truth and sends Abram and Sarai packing, still with all that they had acquired.

13:1 to 13 is the story of Abram and Lot's separation. On the one hand, it appears that Uncle Abram is generous to his nephew Lot by letting him choose whatever land he wants. Perhaps typical of young men, Lot chooses the best, given the opportunity, and moves to the fertile plains of the Jordan River. Abram is left with the rocky hills of the Western part of Canaan. However, just as with the story with Sarai, there could be a negative side here. When Abram allows Lot to leave him, Lot appears to be removed from the sphere of God's blessing on Abram and his family. He becomes associated with the people of Sodom, who are identified in verse 13 as "wicked, great sinners against the Lord." And so Lot is placed in danger or temptation. Actually, this is the consequence of his own choice to move away from Abram rather than work out some other solution to the problem of the conflict between their herdsmen with their large crops and needing room.

As happens between God and humans though, that is a choice Abram and Lot made and a God does not interfere. In fact, in 13:14-18, which is sometimes interpreted as a comfort to Abram being left with poor land after what happened with Lot, God comes to him again. This time he tells him to look over the whole land in all directions and says that, quoting verse 15: “for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring can also be counted. Rise up, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I will give it to you." It seems that God is promising Abram all the land in the future in any case. So Abram does again obediently pick up his tent and move to experience more of the land, as God had suggested, and settles at Hebron, building another altar. Again, Hebron is not just mentioned as a geographical detail, but is a place that figures prominently in subsequent biblical narratives like Shechem and Bethel.

Another element of the stories that Roop brings out here is that these are indeed stories of promise, but there is also delay. Time passes and God's promises are not fulfilled. Indeed, with emphasis on Sarai's bareness, there is tension to this point as to whether such a story or a promise could even be kept. That brings us to chapter 15, which begins again with God coming to Abram, but this time in a vision, telling him not to be afraid for he is his shield and his reward will be very great.

This links us back to Chapter 14, which indeed has been left with the words, “After these things,” at the beginning of chapter 15. In that story, Abram had magnanimously turned down a reward offered by the King of Sodom for Abram's going after an invading army and retrieving Lot and his family and all his possessions. In doing so, there may have also been others of the Sodom area that were saved, are why would the king be concerned. Perhaps the King of Sodom now regarded Lot is one of his subjects and was glad for Abram's role in rescuing him, and perhaps also, of course, in helping drive that army away.

Coming back though, to the idea of unfulfilled promises, Abram now challenges God in 15:2, "Oh Lord God, what will you give me,” - remember, God had just promised a reward – “for I continue childless, and the heir at my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" Abram makes similar complaints more than once in this chapter and the author of the commentary makes the point in this regard that this is not something that cannot happen in the context of a relationship with God. God does not reject us when we question him but is open to our complaints and responds to them, but in his time and way. Again, that may call for us to wait because of a delay in fulfillment of promises.

In 15:5-6 we then have an account of a way in which God deals with doubting humans in a number of instances in the Bible. Abram is questioning God about having one son. God takes him out at night and shows him all of the stars, and asks if he can count them. Then he simply tells him (15: 5C), "So shall your descendants be." It is as if God is saying, if I can create all of this wonder, why do you doubt that I can give you one son. This idea of we mortals not understanding God and ultimately having to admit that he is in control and has all the power, which we can realize when we look at the created world, occurs in the Psalms from time to time, and most notably, ultimately, in the story of Job's complaints towards God. Job wants to know why all the calamities recorded in his story have happened to him. God never gives him an answer but just, if you want to put it bluntly, shuts him up by reminding him of the vastness of the created universe and the power, intelligence and wisdom that it shows and that this all comes from God, so who is Job to question God.

God's tactic is successful, if you want to put it that way. Verse six says "He (meaning Abram) believed the Lord; and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness." The commentary author Roop states that in some ways the word believe is better translated trust. Belief can simply be a matter of accepting the truth of some facts or evidence. Trust means moving forward with somebody or being willing to do what somebody wants you to. In any case, the key point here is that Abram simply took God at his word, and that was enough for God to regard him as righteous. Roop points out that another Old Testament theologian, Gerhard Von Rad, has made the point that the word righteousness in this context does not mean so much the state of a person’s goodness, as we often interpret it. It has more to do with how one is seen in the relationship, and we have already been learning how important relationship is in the Bible.

These two verses have also been key verses in the influential study and thinking of many figures in church history. This begins with the Apostle Paul referring to this in Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6 when he argues that righteousness, being right in relation to God, comes about not by any action, such as being circumcised or obeying the law - he is debating with Jews who say all Christians have to do this - but simply by faith, belief or trust, taking God, and by the New Testament time, Jesus, at their word. This is the beginning of the development of the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith as developed by Martin Luther and also accepted by our own Anabaptist forefathers. In this, they did not differ from other Anabaptist reformers such as the Reformed Church in Switzerland either. Ulrich Zwingli, the Reformed Leader there, apparently also emphasized God's grace being shown here.

Indeed, as already mentioned with respect to God continuing in relationship with Abram in spite of Abram's weak points, what he did with Sarai and perhaps also Lot, and challenging him, it is important to note that God accepted Abram in this righteous relationship in spite of his imperfection. That should be comfort for all of us who might often question our goodness or whether we are worthy. Here, as in so many stories, it all begins with God, and if we follow him, he works it out for our good.

THE BC LOWER MAINLAND HOUSING ISSUE

The preoccupation with the cost of housing in the Lower Mainland of BC, which has been going on for the last possibly 20 years already, has simply been increasing as housing prices continue to rise. I am concerned here more with single family and detached homes/townhomes then condominium stratas, which bring with them their own issues and considerations of somewhat different nature. The media locally and across the country just seems to focus on Vancouver. I have heard comments suggesting that the single-family issue there is no longer as high because there simply are not places to build single-family homes. Of course, what does happen is that older homes, sometimes in perfectly good shape or certainly good candidates for renovation, are simply torn down to replaced by larger more expensive structures. However, in Richmond, there are still plenty of lots that seem to be available for building single family homes. At the same time, it should be noted that many South Asian families, who seem to build the largest residences, often do fill them with three or four generations of family. Chinese owners do this as well, but to a lesser extent.

The issues as I see them are as follows:

1.     Price

             The simple fact is that the price of housing now in Vancouver and some of the adjacent suburbs is simply way beyond the reach of the average working Canadian citizen or new immigrant.

What is driving this?

The main thing is that Canada is seen as a safe haven for those who have made a lot of money elsewhere, often through corrupt means, which means they need to hide their money elsewhere. Indeed, I have heard from a Chinese immigrant that he estimated that 80% of those who were on the run from the Chinese government with their cash were living, or at least had purchased, in Richmond. Canadian real estate has been seen as a good choice in this regard particularly by many buyers from mainland China who made a lot of money, largely through land sales during the years of the economic boom when land was needed for factories and housing for factory workers. Many of these individuals and families come to Canada, literally with briefcases and bags full of cash. Urban legend abounds with stories such as them taking a taxi or limousine straight from the airport to a luxury car dealership, purchasing a car and then going house-hunting, or, like as not, to the house or lot that they have already purchased from overseas. My wife personally spoke to a woman who actually chartered a helicopter to fly over one of Vancouver's suburbs to identify lots she wanted to purchase and develop. Many of these new immigrants, some also from Hong Kong and Taiwan, purchase multiple buildings. Some of these are rented but many sit empty as speculation. Again, I have heard of individuals who have purchased whole floors of new high-rises for resale.

As long as there is this kind of money to be made in China or other, particularly Asian, and sometimes Middle Eastern (Iran) or even Russian, developing economies, and Canada is seen as a place to deposit the money in real estate, these trends will not change. They will only change if our Canadian governmental structures look beyond free enterprise and capitalism and see that there are reasons of ethics, morality and social justice to intervene.

One also observes here that many homes that in the rest of the country would be renovated and brought up to a better standard without giving it a second thought, because of the values of real estate here, I simply torn down. It is simply obscene to see these many very good homes that are dismissed as "teardowns" by these rich new immigrants who just want to build their monster homes on the site.

2.     Affordability

It is one thing to leave the market set the price for those who work and earn reasonable income

that might allow them to consider entering the home-buying arena. However, there are several

classes of individuals and units that this does not cover. Some will flippantly say that no one has a right to live in Vancouver or the lower mainland. This simply speaks to the ignorance of the speakers’ knowledge of the facts. Others say that the prices are going up in neighboring communities such as Abbottsford and Chilliwack just as well. What they are not saying is that this is being driven by individuals and families moving out of Vancouver and adjacent suburbs because the prices here are too high, or there is not enough space.

Many who work in the service and support industry, in sales, in emergency services and even educational and healthcare professions can no longer afford to live in the city where they work. This creates several problems. It means a long and stressful commute (and we know there is enough stress in this world already without this) which is also wasteful of energy and time (which could be better spent with family and in renewal) and further negatively impacts global warming because we do not have adequate and appropriate rapid public transit networks to facilitate their work commutes. That is another whole large issue. It means these workers are not readily available if necessary in a large scale such emergencies such as a flood or earthquake.

It is also simply morally unjust. It causes people to lose their homes and become homeless, even when they are employed. If they are already in such dire straits, we can hardly expect them to pay further for commuting from places where perhaps they could afford to live. So, they couch surf and live out of their cars, whether workers or students. I have seen them and heard their stories.

Two other points need to be made here. The first is that we are now hearing of many senior citizens who have put their equity into their home and hoped to live there until they were unable to any longer. Because of the rising value of the real estate all around them, including the land on which their homes sit, they are now facing tax bills that they cannot afford. This means they either have to move or figure out a way to defer taxes, which will always come back to bite you in the end. And moving is not an easy proposition to consider, because you are probably not going to be able to afford to buy anyway. It is not fair that these individuals who are the backbone of our society and have worked all their lives to make it what it is are punished in this way.

The second has to do with the younger generations. As a psychiatrist, now retired, and even from personal experience, it is my observation that we are already into the third-generation often of families that are fractured by mobility and distance. There is no longer extended family, let alone a village, to raise a child. We live in increasingly sterile neighborhoods where no one knows their neighbor. This is only made worse by many new immigrants who come from backgrounds where this may not be the custom or where neighbors were never to be trusted, e.g. under communism which always encouraged spying on your neighbors and family. Of course, they may also have difficulty integrating with their neighbors because of differences in language and culture. So, just when young people need the support of their parents, their elders, as they move out into the workforce and want to begin having their own families, they have to move elsewhere, robbing them of the support of their families and their parents the joy of having the younger generation (grandkids) grow up among them. Only those whose parents are well off enough to support them, either by letting them live at home, which has its own problems, or because they can help them get into the real estate market, can continue to live near their families of origin and the communities in which they grew up and are familiar with.

3.     Occupancy and impact on the neighborhood

We have heard many stories about empty houses and apartments. I see two main reasons for

this. A certain percentage of these are homes and apartments that are bought for speculation or between renters. Many of these owners are wealthy enough that they do not have to pursue buyers and renters that keenly and so there are periods between ownership and rental where the space is that empty.

The other reason why many of these homes sit empty is that many of these new owners and even immigrants are not really that interested in becoming part of the fabric of our society like many immigrants before them were. Again, I have heard many stories of people who only spend as little time here as possible to meet immigration requirements. And the only reason they want that, at least in the case of many older individuals and seniors is to finally be able to get all the benefits of older age such as Old Age Security and Even Guaranteed Income Supplement. Because many of these people make their money and continue to keep it overseas, the bottom line on their tax information suggests they have no or very low income. Thus, they are eligible for benefits that most hard-working Canadians are not, including free aspects of healthcare, local public transportation costs, subsidized community amenities etc. the worst part of this is that they are also less eligible for so-called low-cost or affordable housing, when really they can afford pretty much anything on the market. Thus they actually take up housing that should really be meant for people who really our poor enough to need that kind of residence. This is entirely unfair, but as long as our governments do not change the taxation rules, of course it will continue. In spite of government and other leaders trying to speak to the contrary, I believe these inflated low income figures also contribute to the impression that we have a high level of child poverty in BC. We do have problems in that area but many of these families who have children in schools also fill out income tax as above, suggesting that they have no or little income here. This then puts their children at the poverty level, which is entirely true as one can see from the size of their homes and the cars they drive.

Indeed, on the one hand these newcomers, who are very well educated on all of this by immigration agents in their countries of origin, or on arrival, brag about the pocket money that they can spend on shopping and eating out every day as these benefits are simply icing on the cake for many of them. On the other hand, they complain about the time they have to spend here as opposed to their country of origin, whether it be, as it is in most cases, China or Taiwan, actually referring to it as a prison.

Now the impact of all of this on the neighborhood, which is often written about in places like Letters to The Editor, is that it detracts from the friendliness of the neighborhood and also from the sense of safety in the neighborhood if you are surrounded by empty and dark homes. This is a concern.

4. Impact on the environment and neighborhood

            Again, many complain about the expensive and large homes that are built in neighborhoods into which they do not really fit by their design and size. Now, housing styles and fashions do change and this has always been somewhat of an issue as time has gone on. However, there are several ways in which the situation now is different. Again, and this is largely I believe the municipal level of government's fault, they're allowed to build a home that takes up too much of the lot. Between that and the fact that so many of them pave or cover with paving stone the rest of the lot, they create situations where water runoff to neighboring yards causes problems. Between these many square meters of brick and pavement and the lack of real trees that many of these new homes exhibit is the fact that this also adds to global warming because of the heat that is reflected off of these surfaces instead of grass or groundcover. Real trees are an important source of oxygen as well as absorption of carbon dioxide, which can help reduce Global warming. Furthermore, they act as a humidifying and therefore cooling force in the environment. The ornamental shrubs that seem to be allowed to "replace" trees do nothing to help these problems. Certainly, I am not advocating for more traditional lawns because that calls for cutting which takes energy and also calls for extra use of water and sometimes pesticides and herbicides. With the also often-spoken about issues arising in food supply and transportation, spaces around houses could be used to grow food.

When it comes to possible solutions I think we have to begin by looking at who can help us solve this crisis beyond the many voices, now becoming organized and therefore more powerful and no longer just crying out in letters to the editor or to call in/talk shows. Who really has the power to bring about change and what are their areas of jurisdiction? This needs to be researched:

1.     Federal government

The federal government does enact some laws around housing and support for housing

historically through agencies such as CMHA. The federal government also has a role to play in taxation that could affect the situations described above in a positive direction.

2.     Provincial government

The provincial government also enacts some laws around housing and support for housing

historically. The provincial government also has a role to play in taxation that could affect the situations described above in a positive direction.

3.     Municipal/city government

This a level of government his responsible for bylaws around things such as lot frontages, house

sizes, house footprint sizes etc. Recently, to help with affordable housing, they have also been able to enact bylaws that do things such as require developers to either include a certain percentage of such housing in their projects or provide an equivalent amount of cash to the city for the city to use to makes it housing.

Perhaps we can also consider speaking to the following directly, which is being done at some level and at times:

1. Real estate agents and their companies and governing or associative bodies

2. Purchasers

3. Builders and developers.

Most of all, we need to unite and work with one another to speak to our governments and possibly the entities mentioned at the last. There are such organizations beginning and we can all look within our neighborhoods and cities to see what they are. Metro Vancouver Alliance is a large consortium of many establishments, agencies and unions that is working on housing among other things. In Richmond we also have, besides the city's own Affordable Housing Strategy, agencies like The Richmond Poverty Response Committee which looks at affordable housing among other things.