Bruce Oake Recovery Centre (St.James)

[Jammon]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I live across the street from two group homes and the biggest problem I have is my next door neighbour who is coming and going at all hours of the day with his buddies. The group homes would be perceived as a death knell for the street much like the recovery centre is. However it's just the locals causing trouble. The group homes are so quiet you wouldn't know they were there.

I can't fathom how the recovery centre would cause much of a problem. But as was mentioned, it's perception.

I live in the area. There was a petition that was circulated to have the project stopped. It was a lot of fear-mongering and myths about what will happen if the project goes ahead- "crime will go up in the area because addicts will be breaking in to cars and homes looking to pay for their next fix."

They picked the wrong guy to say that to as I am very well versed in addictions and treatment. I blasted her six ways from Sunday. I would also like to say that I live in the area and I am all for the centre. I have no reservations whatsoever about it being turned into a treatment facility. It's badly needed.

[Hecate]

Speaking of petitions, I live in Springfield and I remember several years ago a man went around my neighbourhood asking for signatures, some organization was buying a house next to him and supposedly turning it into a halfway home for convicted sex offenders. Everyone signed!, turns out he was a liar, the organization was new directions and they wanted to build a group home for two disabled adults who were originally from the community, but had to move to the city because there is no housing for disabled people in our area. I still feel ashamed for signing.

Sometimes people need help and when people need help they need a place to go. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that the community that you are getting help and treatment in is supportive of you. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that while your getting the help you need you aren’t being looked down on, or being petitioned against. Imagine being treated like you don’t deserve to be there because some assholes property value might lower. I shake my head. So many selfish people.

[CoryB]

Just wanted to point out that all the people on the P&M thread saying only the downtown area should have a say on that issue that only the residents (who seeming mostly oppose BORC) should have a say on this issue.

BTW I don't agree with either position, aka both are wider issues for all of Winnipeg.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Have you ever been to Calgary? It's a city in Western Canada that has over a dozen treatment centres in close proximity, or even in residential communities. The centres have been there for decades, and property values never have significantly decreased. Here is one study done by the US National Institute of Health:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3205983/

You have to look at how much less they may have increased relative to other neighbourhoods. Also, depending on buyer awareness, it would also affect time spent on the market. Real estate has pretty much gone uppppp throughout history. Point is, it's a potential hindrance for a homeowner's or homebuyer's perceived value of a home, which has effects. Period.

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

I think it is obvious most people in St.James support this initiative. You cannot look at 50 NIMBY's protesting, and call them the "majority of residents."]

Swap out "majority" with "strong opposition". It's not a stretch of the imagination so you can stop pretending it is.

It's obvious to anyone that it offers zero upward push to someone's home value. Positively no one thinks "I hope my neighbourhood has an addictions treatment centre. Schools, playgrounds, parks, perhaps retail or stransit, sure.

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

NIMBYism 101. Can you provide any proof neighborhoods with a treatment centre have had an increase in crime, or a decrease in property value?

You can stop trying to catchphrase this. We usually discuss NIMBYism in regards to property and urban development, not social matters. Still Nimby, but noticeably different.

Some studies decry a correlation to crime. Good! But a strong contingent of people living near DTC's tell a completely different story.

Point is, even perception has an affect.

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

...and there are equal amounts of addicts in your area of Winnipeg. The addicts in North Main/Downtown just happen to do it out in the open. Meanwhile, there is probably someone you know a couple of houses down engaging in cocaine or meth. Perhaps even opiates. Many are not getting checked into treatment either, but as long as they do it indoors, you can always pretend it does not happen on your street.

One last note I should make. Were you aware that putting a liquor store up at the corner strip mall is far more damaging to a residential neighborhood than any proposed treatment centre, especially when it comes to criminal activity? However, when is the last time the community was up in arms, when a new liquor store was constructed by the local strip mall.

Source: https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2016/sp...ament-centers/

I highly doubt there are equal numbers in my area of town. More than the common person assumes, sure. Also, an addict who can keep their shit together is a probably different thing than an addict that requires treatment and lives in poverty. It makes a big difference that they do it in their house and not out and about.

Literally the opening line on google (conducted a prelim search) was "Drug treatment centres aren't always welcome neighbours" in the tagline. It was that very article.

Secondly, what liqour stores are we talking about?

Private ones in Baltimore, the shittiest city in the continent. No kidding those mom and pops booze joints have more crime! Those places are DUMPS! While I'm sure the Ellice LC has some struggles, by and large it's a quality tenant in Winnipeg that pays good rent. Not even remotely comparable.

Furthermore, it's like the pro-weed crowd saying "well, alcohol's more dangerous, so..." Well no kidding! But it's here to stay! By comparing a DTC to a poor neighbourhood liquor store you're hurting its case. We all know shitty liquor stores are bad, and the mere comparison validates concern for an addictions centre.


Again, I'm for the centre, but also because it's no on my street. I can understand the opposition, although I hope they stand down.

[youngregina]

Ugh. Before people go off on someone voting "no", I selected "no" by accident when I meant to select "YES". Stupid phone. Can a mod change it for me?

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Some studies decry a correlation to crime. Good! But a strong contingent of people living near DTC's tell a completely different story.

Can you provide proof?

Here is yet another study, that makes the argument that not only do treatment centres fail to increase crime rates, within the immediate area of where they are placed, but they greatly benefit the community by reducing crime overall for the community, and reduce drug-related fatalities. The study also concludes that opening treatment centres actually saves the community money by being less of a burden on our health care, and justice systems.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp10208.pdf


I checked the "friends of Sturgeon Creek" sites, and some arguments residents have been using to oppose the BORC. The predominant argument is not the effect on property values, but an increase in crime in the area. The group obviously has not done it's homework.

Secondly, what liqour stores are we talking about?

Private ones in Baltimore, the shittiest city in the continent. No kidding those mom and pops booze joints have more crime! Those places are DUMPS! While I'm sure the Ellice LC has some struggles, by and large it's a quality tenant in Winnipeg that pays good rent. Not even remotely comparable.

It's news to me that Baltimore is the "shittiest city on the continent."

Here is a study that was conducted in Los Angeles, that links higher crime rates and a decrease of property value, within 200m of liquor stores:

http://www.colgate.edu/portaldata/im...obmktpaper.pdf

If you are still not satisfied with LA as an example, perhaps you can make a list of "good cities" I can use as an example....

[optimusREIM]

That's a bad example to submit as evidence because #1 the author makes distinctions between stores and does not treat all as equal but more importantly this looks as though it were prepared by an undergrad student using data collected for other purposes. Certainly not representative of the opinions of a great number of experts.

Edit: LA happens to contain some of the worst crime ridden neighborhoods in north America. I don't think it can be made into an analog for a typical community because nothing about LA is normal.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

That's a bad example to submit as evidence because #1 the author makes distinctions between stores and does not treat all as equal but more importantly this looks as though it were prepared by an undergrad student using data collected for other purposes. Certainly not representative of the opinions of a great number of experts.

Edit: LA happens to contain some of the worst crime ridden neighborhoods in north America. I don't think it can be made into an analog for a typical community because nothing about LA is normal.

Why are you being so condescending?. Since Baltimore and Los Angeles are not "typical communities," name a large US city without crime ridden areas, Einstein.

[Danny D Oh]

I don't really care where it goes. Care more about whether or not government money is involved.

We have a Crown addictions agency which has repeatedly had it's budget cut in recent years by both the NDP and PC's. The Oake Centre will be following more of a peer recovery, 12-step model than a program run by professionals governed by best practice, which is harm reduction. That's fine, but our tax dollars shouldn't be funding that. They also will not take anyone with a history of violence and will have no capability to deal with mental health and trauma issues, nearly universal in residential treatment.

They also will not provide detox and require their clients to be detoxed on admission. This is what our addictions system needs, detox beds. The government can't justify any money put into this. The only reason for government money here is publicity, yes we need treatment beds but they need to be effective and follow best practice. Some money needs to flow to AFM and detox beds.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by CoryB

Residents of Winnipeg: "We need to do something about this meth and opioid crisis in your community."

Province: "We have a plan to build a long term treatment centre to help people recover from drug (aka meth and opiod) addiction."

NIMBY Residents: "Instead of the Vimy site you should build it where the drug users area now."

This proposed facility won't be equipped to handle anyone who has used meth recently.

Alcohol and opiates will be their wheelhouse. Limited medical treatment, limited psych support. Not equipped for meth and benzos, which are the real huge problems in our province right now, the ones causing the largest social harms per user. You need specialized care to deal with that. This facility will be useful, but shouldn't be government sponsored.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

I don't really care where it goes. Care more about whether or not government money is involved.

We have a Crown addictions agency which has repeatedly had it's budget cut in recent years by both the NDP and PC's. The Oake Centre will be following more of a peer recovery, 12-step model than a program run by professionals governed by best practice, which is harm reduction. That's fine, but our tax dollars shouldn't be funding that. They also will not take anyone with a history of violence and will have no capability to deal with mental health and trauma issues, nearly universal in residential treatment.

With all due respect, can you please provide sources for your claims. I can't name any mental or physical health facility in Manitoba that does not receive some form of Government Assistance.

Having said that, the BORC will be operated and modeled after Fresh Start Recovery Centre, which has won several awards for being the best treatment facility for Men in Alberta. If you want to look at what to expect from the facility, I ahve provided the website, as well as articles about the Calgary treatment centre:

https://www.freshstartrecovery.ca/About-Us


https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...nd-fresh-start

https://threebestrated.ca/addiction-...-in-calgary-ab

They also will not provide detox and require their clients to be detoxed on admission. This is what our addictions system needs, detox beds. The government can't justify any money put into this. The only reason for government money here is publicity, yes we need treatment beds but they need to be effective and follow best practice. Some money needs to flow to AFM and detox beds.

I fail to see any good spending the money on more detox beds will do, as opposed to funding a treatment centre. Detox is for people who have more or less hit rock bottom, and need a few days to clean their system, without suffering adverse health effects. It gives them a safe place to sleep for a couple of weeks, then discharges them, but provides no help for their addictions, or underlying issues as to what causes them to use in the first place.

Requiring clients to be clean of any mind-altering substance for several days has always been SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

This proposed facility won't be equipped to handle anyone who has used meth recently.

Alcohol and opiates will be their wheelhouse. Limited medical treatment, limited psych support. Not equipped for meth and benzos, which are the real huge problems in our province right now, the ones causing the largest social harms per user. You need specialized care to deal with that. This facility will be useful, but shouldn't be government sponsored.

Incorrect.

These facilities deal with all addiction issues. I don't believe you know much about the current substance abuse epidemics in Western Canada. If you believe benzodiazpines are the "real" problems, and opiates are not, then you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Benzodiazepines: Use and abuse of these medications has been decreasing or remained stable since the 80s. Prescriptions for benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, etc) peaked in the late 70s, and has been dropping since. Doctors are phasing them out. There is no credible evidence to suggest this is an epidemic in Manitoba. Unless you have a source that can disprove this, I have a feeling you are misled.

Meth: There is a meth crisis in all Western Canadian provinces. However, treatment for meth is no different than treatment for crack cocaine (epidemic started in mid 90s in Winnipeg). It is foolish to believe the BORC is not equipped to deal with meth addicts.

Opiates: Opiates are indeed a crisis in Western Canada. Do you have any idea how many people are dying of drug overdoses, especially from fentanyl in BC and Alberta? It's a nation wide crisis. Opiates, not meth, cause more social harm per user. Benzodiazepines are relatively far down the list in terms of causing social harm. I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but suggesting benzodiazepines are a bigger problem than opiate is absurd:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/opioi...2017-1.4455518

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Why are you being so condescending?. Since Baltimore and Los Angeles are not "typical communities," name a large US city without crime ridden areas, Einstein.

Pot, meet kettle...

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Incorrect.

These facilities deal with all addiction issues. I don't believe you know much about the current substance abuse epidemics in Western Canada. If you believe benzodiazpines are the "real" problems, and opiates are not, then you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Benzodiazepines: Use and abuse of these medications has been decreasing since the 80s. Prescriptions for benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, etc) peaked in the late 70s, and has been dropping since. Doctors are phasing them out. There is no credible evidence to suggest this is an epidemic in Manitoba. Unless you have a source that can disprove this, I have a feeling you are misled.

Meth: There is a meth crisis in all Western Canadian provinces. However, treatment for meth is no different than treatment for crack cocaine (epidemic started in mid 90s in Winnipeg). It is foolish to believe the BORC is not equipped to deal with meth addicts.

Opiates: Opiates are indeed a crisis in Western Canada. Do you have any idea how many people are dying of drug overdoses, especially from fentanyl in BC and Alberta? It's a nation wide crisis. Opiates, not meth, cause more social harm per user. Benzodiazepines are relatively far down the list in terms of causing social harm. I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but suggesting benzodiazepines are a bigger problem than opiate is absurd:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/opioi...2017-1.4455518

I work on the frontline. Centres like the Oake Centre and Aurora aren't equipped to handle the mental health concerns, cognitive difficulties and violence that comes with a significant population of those who need treatment in Manitoba.

Alcohol will always be #1 and we are pretty good at treating that issue when people are ready for help. That's bread and butter.

What we are seeing now is extreme behaviour and psychosis related to trauma and untreated mental health conditions. These are significantly worsened by meth use. These centres aren't equipped for that. Read their plan. They don't have professional staff. It's very straight ahead addiction treatment. That doesn't fit the issue here, but it will fit for some and there is value in it. I have significant doubts that they will allow a lot of the people I work with who are court/CFS mandated into treatment. They will be a great option for people who can afford it, but won't be dealing with the same clientele that the government typically pays for. Ideally we'd start working towards treatment which is less AOD focused and more focused on the needs of the clients, which is more trauma-informed and focused on the whole person, meeting needs around mental health and addiction.

Western Canada =/= Manitoba

And we don't have good stats because AFM is being cut to the bone and there literally isn't staff to collect good data. Looking at stats from data gathered in 2015 has no meaning today. Lumping Manitoba and Saskatchewan in with Alberta and BC is useless.

I can tell you where I work for the last 18 months meth use is almost universal and that when the data was gathered for your chart crack would have been huge, it was here about 3-5 years ago. It was the most accessible street drug, and the cheapest longest lasting high. Meth has replaced it. Benzos are a huge street drug in rural Manitoba, but these aren't pills that a doctor has prescribed, most of them are counterfeit and irregular doses. Mixed with alcohol these are killing people.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

Benzos are a huge street drug in rural Manitoba, but these aren't pills that a doctor has prescribed, most of them are counterfeit and irregular doses. Mixed with alcohol these are killing people.

Big time behind Portage Place. Go have a look.Any day of the week.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

Big time behind Portage Place. Go have a look.Any day of the week.

AFAIK, it has always been like that. Ditto for North Main, around where all the pharmacies are located.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Danny D Oh

What we are seeing now is extreme behaviour and psychosis related to trauma and untreated mental health conditions. These are significantly worsened by meth use.

That's always been the case. We have had drugs like alcohol, cocaine, and opiates for decades. We also have seen people with meth problems for decades. It just has not reached epidemic levels until the past few years. All drugs, to some extent, cause these symptoms. This is certainly not exclusively a methamphetamine based issue.

These centres aren't equipped for that. Read their plan. They don't have professional staff.

And that is why the patient will be given access and resources to get professional help for their issues. If you take a visit to your family doctor, and he discloses you have a heart ailment, he can't operate on you in his office. He will send you to a specialist that will treat you, and eventually to a hospital. Recovery Centers were not made to double as places to diagnose and treat violent behavior, or psychosis. They are meant to give one the tools to conquer their addictions and reintegrate into society.

They will be a great option for people who can afford it, but won't be dealing with the same clientele that the government typically pays for.

In the most of the cases, it will be covered by Social Assistance, or in the cases where the client has an employer, it will be covered under their work insurance plan. At least that is what it is like in other provinces.

Western Canada =/= Manitoba

Last time I checked, Manitoba was included in Western Canada.

And we don't have good stats because AFM is being cut to the bone and there literally isn't staff to collect good data. Looking at stats from data gathered in 2015 has no meaning today. Lumping Manitoba and Saskatchewan in with Alberta and BC is useless.

1. There has been an opiate and meth crisis in Western Canada that started around five years ago. Manitoba has the longest wait times for clients wanting to get into treatment in Canada. An individual who waits 17 days for treatment in Alberta, waits an average of 52 days in Manitoba.

2. The stats I provided were from 2017, not 2015.

3. Can you elaborate why lumping Manitoba in the other Western Canadian provinces is useless?

I can tell you where I work for the last 18 months meth use is almost universal and that when the data was gathered for your chart crack would have been huge, it was here about 3-5 years ago.

Where do you work? If you are going to insinuate to be some expert, you should at least tell us in what capacity. It's the internet, anyone can make that claim.

Benzos are a huge street drug in rural Manitoba, but these aren't pills that a doctor has prescribed, most of them are counterfeit and irregular doses. Mixed with alcohol these are killing people.

I call bullshit on that one. Benzodiazepines are incredibly cheap to purchase in their current prescription form and sell. There is no money to be made for dealers to set up labs to make counterfeit valium, xanax, etc, or import them. Can you please provide proof of dealers either importing or creating "counterfeit" benzodiazepines, or any type of news or links about this? At any rate, benzodiazepines are not killing people in record numbers. What is killing people is opiates - mainly taking fentanyl alone, or taking hard drugs that are laced with fentanyl. If you do not know this fact, you obviously don't work "on the frontline."



At any rate, I'm done arguing about the benefits of the treatment centre. The detractors of the BORC cannot provide any certifiable proof that building this treatment centre is a bad idea, so I'll bow out now.