Here's the problem, a person doesn't need first hand experience in order to have empathy for others who are not in their community. In fact our council members seem to have an abundance of empathy and a willingness to go above and beyond for the homeless and addicted in our community, and yet, I do not believe any member on council has actually been homeless or addicted. Which is probably part of the reason why they're unable to see that many of their actions, while well intentioned, only enable rather than truly help.
All a person really has to do is listen to those who aren't in their "community" - listen to those whose experiences aren't the same as theirs. Understand that there isn't a singular right answer to a problem, although there can be very wrong approaches to solving problems.
In making policy there are always going to be winners and losers - very rarely will a policy be such where everyone is made better off and no body is made worse off (whenever that happens, the policy should be pursued). However, unless the gains of the winners outweigh the losses of the losers, the policy is a step in the wrong direction. The people who are gaining in this case really aren't gaining much - they already had plenty of options to "socially distance", and likely are younger and healthier - so really aren't even at elevated risk from the virus. The people who are losing though, already have their opportunities to enjoy this city diminished due to lack of accessibility, and sadly many are at an elevated risk from this virus. To lose what little one may have had is a great loss indeed - and this falls into that category.
Once again, via the by-election, I'm hoping we're able to get a more balanced voice to the table. Somebody who is thoughtful and pragmatic in their approach to the policies put forward.