Stop order revoked for Streets Alive
Jeannette Rocher- 0
- 5 minutes read
A Lethbridge non-profit organization is breathing a huge sigh of relief today. Up until late Friday, a “stop order” was hanging over the operations of Streets Alive Mission. It was implemented by the City of Lethbridge in November following a complaint by the Downtown BRZ.
The complaint accused Streets Alive of carrying out some of their services without proper permits. The city investigated and found that the organization had a permit only for religious assembly, so they put a “stop order” in place until Streets Alive applied for at least three separate land use permits, including; a Personal Service permit for the haircuts and foot care Streets Alive offers its clients free of charge; a Medical and Health Office (outpatient) permit for the weekly attendance of paramedics to attend to their clients wounds and medical needs; and a permit for Resource Centre as the mission has a free clothing bank and allows their clients to use their mailing address for personal use.
But on January 5, the Development and Appeal Board made the decision to revoke the stop order. The board says it came to its decision after reviewing an appeal made by Streets Alive, along with presentations at a December 21 public hearing.
After reviewing and weighing the evidence, the board says it found Streets Alive’s current operation does in fact have the proper permits and allowed their appeal to stand, while revoking the “stop order”.
The co-founder of Streets Alive, Ken Kissick, says he is happy with the result and believes the City’s Development Authority (which issued the “stop order”) had erred in its interpretation of the land use definition of religious assembly, which he says “includes worship activities and social and philanthropic activities”.
“Worship activities go beyond singing and preaching, right?” explains Kissick, “worship activities include service and everything else. And in the end the appeal board agreed that the activities that we did were well within the philantrophic and social activities and saw no reason for any new permits to be required. So basically we were vindicated in our position and it brings a lot of relief because the decision can’t be challenged.”
