Dear editor,

I find the current suggestion that we should spend around $1.5 million for a shelter to house 10 persons, in apparent luxury, ludicrous in the extreme.

When I joined the army I found myself in a 20x50-foot hut in which there were 16 double-tier bunks, eight a side with a double locker in between each one, there was a door between bunks four and five and a window opposite.

A six-foot wide space ran the length of the hut with twin widows at each end and about  a quarter of the way from them was an iron coke stove.

The remaining area had two six foot tables and seating forms for general use. The bunks were wooden framed with a strong type of chicken wire stapled across. The mattresses were paillasses, strong canvas bags stuffed with straw, (the more straw you stuffed in the more comfort and warmth), pillows?

We placed our boots under the end of the paillasses. Three blankets in the summer, four in the winter. Thirty-two men lived in one of these huts in reasonable comfort for many months.

Three such huts on the present property would house 96 persons. Now this would be helping the homeless situation in the Valley.

I suppose being homeless and jobless they would also need feeding, then a fourth hut could be set up with a kitchen area around 480 square feet. Many commercial establishments have less.

The remaining area set up with six-foot tables as an eating room should seat about 72 at a time, (two shifts). I am quite sure this could be carried out for less than the almost $1 million proposed to build a construction for 10 persons and the Valley homeless would be far better served.

I would even agree to a small tax increase to erect a second setup somewhere in the valley. One hundred and 92 persons — now this would make a dent in the homeless population.

John Butler,

Courtenay