Downtown Eastside - DTES Issues

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Shouldn't we impelment a system that is a little more fool-proof come what may, especially when millions upon millions of tax payer money is sunk into it?

You are admitting that a contagion caused the system to collapse, and yet you are stubbornly hailing its success when other better options, such as isolated treatment, are discussed.

All the excuses you give about why there are way more overdose deaths now won't happen if hardcore addicts were made to go into cold turkey treatment, would they? Therefore blood is in the hands of those who show false sympathy and keep supporting the failing status quo. Many more lives could have been saved, and not only that, but people made to be contributing members to society once again. Instead, they are left to die.

https://604now.com/overdose-deaths-bc-surpass-covid-19/

What "system" has collapsed in the last 4 months?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

What "system" has collapsed in the last 4 months?

Read the article attached to last posting

[GenWhy?]

Government? Sorry it's just super unclear. What I picked up and have been hearing on the radio is the following from the article:

"More than 82% of May’s overdose deaths involved fentanyl."

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

3.6 million visits to inject illicit drugs: 6,440 overdose interventions; no deaths. How does that compare to your statistics if there wasn't a safe injection site?

There are also safe injection sites that aren't in the DTES. There's been one in the West End for nearly as long as Insite in the DTES. There are two in Surrey now, and there's one in Victoria, and in Calgary, and Lethbridge, and three in Toronto, and three more in Montreal.

Vin, I thought the issue you were bringing up was the failure of safe injection sites, when overdose death are prevented by these sites, as per Changing's rebuttal.

Is the "failure of the system" a lack of safe injection sites to prevent deaths as an interim to dealing with the myriad of issues with the city's poverty and cost of living which has be increasing homelessness over the years?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Read the article attached to last posting

Vin; you might want to watch Dr Bonnie Henry's update today (June 11) on Covid 19, which is actually more about the overdose numbers this month. She explains how the toxicity of current street drugs has increased, causing more deaths, and that people using alone has also led to more deaths. She makes the point that the increase in deaths has not been in the Downtown Eastside, or in association with safe injections sites. The people dying are not, for the most part, the people you don't like seeing around the DTES. They're apparently often occasional users of recreational drugs. These days street drugs can be far more dangerous than they were in the past. This isn't just a BC or Vancouver issue; Ontario has seen a 25% increase in overdoses in the past couple of months. Many US cities have reported an increase in overdoses, and fatalities. In Alberta during the pandemic, the number of opioid-related calls to EMS increased from 257 in March to 550 this May.

This is an attempt to explain what the problem is - not 'excuse' it. It's a more complex problem that you acknowledge, and everything I've read on the topic suggests the solutions you want to see adopted don't work. I'm not going to engage you any further because, as with so many times on this site, your mind is made up. The politicians and health authorities and anyone else who tries to understand and solve the problem any other way are wrong.

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by Vin

No more carrots now it's time for sticks.

You first. Bend over.

[trofirhen]

That the DTES seems mired in intractable drug, crime, and attendant major social issues is undeniable.
It would be interesting to get the stats on comparable neighborhoods in Toronto, Montreal, and other major centres in Canada, to compare actions taken to address such.

[Sheba]

Rally planned as deadline looms to clear new Vancouver homeless camp

Supporters of a homeless camp on Vancouver’s downtown waterfront have planned a rally on Saturday, ahead of an impending eviction deadline.

The B.C. Supreme Court granted an injunction on Wednesday, with a 72-hour window to clear the camp. The encampment is on a parking lot belonging to the Port of Vancouver, next to CRAB Park.

More than 180 people are estimated to be living in the camp.

...

Homeless people and their advocates established the camp in mid-May, after the province shut down a long-running encampment in nearby Oppenheimer Park.

Chief Justice Christopher Hinkston ruled on Wednesday that housing options were made available to residents, as they were when 260 people at the Oppenheimer camp were moved to hotels and other temporary accommodations.

BC Housing said it offered options to all residents of the Oppenheimer camp, a statement some at the new camp claim is untrue.

The court heard that there were more than 70 complaints about discarded needles, public urination, defecation, garbage and noise about the camp.

Organizers are demanding that the port recognize the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations as the stewards of the land.

They’re also demanding the province and city house all residents of the camp and former Oppenheimer residents “in places we want to live in and begin construction of 10,000 units of permanent adequate housing renting at welfare/pension rates.”

Organizers are also calling on the city and port authority to follow through on previous support of an Indigenous healing lodge in CRAB Park.

...

[Sheba]

46 arrested during tent city eviction near Vancouver port

Dozens of people ordered out of a tent encampment near CRAB Park on Vancouver's waterfront early Tuesday have moved their community to another park a few kilometres away, changing location for the third time in just over a month.

More than 100 campers brought their tents, bikes and other belongings across the Downtown Eastside to Strathcona Park early in the afternoon, after police enforced an injunction at their previous waterfront site around 6 a.m. PT.

The residents had been on the waterfront property, controlled by the Vancouver Port Authority, since they were ordered out of their long-term encampment at Oppenheimer Park on May 8.

...

The Vancouver Port Authority was granted a 15-day injunction on June 10 against members of the illegal tent city next to CRAB Park. The campers were given three days to move upon receiving notice. They moved to another lot 20 metres to the west on Monday, thinking they were out of the injunction's reach, but that area was also covered by the order.

Dozens of people remained in the parking lot Tuesday evening to protest the eviction, until police officers began arresting those who were still there at around 6 p.m. According to a police press release, 46 people were arrested for civil contempt of court.

...

[MIPS]

From the same article:

Elizabeth Ramsden, a nurse working in the community, said there was no warning police were coming and no support on site to help campers find somewhere else to live.

"They said I had to get up and go, so I woke my uncle up and we left," he said. "Our stuff is still in there and I don't think we're going to get it back."

"This is, I think, abhorrent," Ramsden said Tuesday. "I'm speechless that, during a pandemic, this is the response that people want to demonstrate. We have medics [here], we have food services around the clock, and you want to tear that down with no warning, no housing, no plan?

"During a pandemic in which the province committed to preventing evictions, the VPD seized this opportunity to evict some of the most vulnerable residents of the Downtown Eastside, many of whom are survivors of ongoing Indigenous genocide,"

These people are either actually that stupid, or deliberately hanging around to troll the city and the police. How can there be no way to sanction this?
The fact they could take off and immediately settle in another park is just a middle finger to everyone.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by MIPS

From the same article:





These people are either actually that stupid, or deliberately hanging around to troll the city and the police. How can there be no way to sanction this?
The fact they could take off and immediately settle in another park is just a middle finger to everyone.

Not all, but a significant portion were also offered housing during the initial relocation from Oppenheimer.

I don't like how this is turning into a "us vs them."

Lets get a grip here - the tax payer is paying for everything, a little understanding would be nice.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by MIPS

From the same article:

These people are either actually that stupid, or deliberately hanging around to troll the city and the police. How can there be no way to sanction this?

The fact they could take off and immediately settle in another park is just a middle finger to everyone.

I'm rather upset that they immediately relocated to Strathcona Park with support of other organizations. Oppenheimer was completely trashed following its occupation, and Strathcona Park is a relatively nice park in comparison. I don't look forward to having a second park in my neighbourhood get covered in garbage.

When the Oppenheimer camp was cleared, there was a front end loader clearing the garbage which was left. The pile was easily 100 m³. That was probably over 50 tonnes of crap left behind. Should the campers and their supporters be on the hook for rehabilitating the park after they're gone? I wouldn't be surprised if several hundred thousand dollars worth of work are now required at Oppenheimer.

I understand that the Port was worried about the long term problems of having that land be occupied. Militant activists tend not to be pleasant neighbours. This however has turned into a damage maximization scenario. A seldom used parking lot was not the worst spot for a camp, and a park is an asset to a community that's easily damaged.

I'd be interested to know how many of the people in these camps rejected housing offers from the province following Oppenheimer decampment? I can't imagine that there are over new 100 people that wanted to join the camp again.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Vin; you might want to watch Dr Bonnie Henry's update today (June 11) on Covid 19, which is actually more about the overdose numbers this month. She explains how the toxicity of current street drugs has increased, causing more deaths, and that people using alone has also led to more deaths. She makes the point that the increase in deaths has not been in the Downtown Eastside, or in association with safe injections sites. The people dying are not, for the most part, the people you don't like seeing around the DTES. They're apparently often occasional users of recreational drugs. These days street drugs can be far more dangerous than they were in the past. This isn't just a BC or Vancouver issue; Ontario has seen a 25% increase in overdoses in the past couple of months. Many US cities have reported an increase in overdoses, and fatalities. In Alberta during the pandemic, the number of opioid-related calls to EMS increased from 257 in March to 550 this May.

This is an attempt to explain what the problem is - not 'excuse' it. It's a more complex problem that you acknowledge, and everything I've read on the topic suggests the solutions you want to see adopted don't work. I'm not going to engage you any further because, as with so many times on this site, your mind is made up. The politicians and health authorities and anyone else who tries to understand and solve the problem any other way are wrong.

Bonnie is just trying to explain away the failed system we currently have. Like I said before, better treatment for addicts without the continuation of drug use will not result in the mass number of deaths like we see here.

Originally Posted by rofina

Not all, but a significant portion were also offered housing during the initial relocation from Oppenheimer.

I don't like how this is turning into a "us vs them."

Lets get a grip here - the tax payer is paying for everything, a little understanding would be nice.

Therefore tax payers should be more critical at how our money is being used here. No use propping up a system that causes the drug and homelessness problem to become worse.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Bonnie is just trying to explain away the failed system we currently have. Like I said before, better treatment for addicts without the continuation of drug use will not result in the mass number of deaths like we see here.

Therefore tax payers should be more critical at how our money is being used here. No use propping up a system that causes the drug and homelessness problem to become worse.

If only it were that easy.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If only it were that easy.

In Vin's defense, we have been trying different flavors of the same thing for 3 decades, each time expecting a different result. Maybe if we spend just another 7% this year, that will be the meal ticket.

Much like most Western problems, and ironically something BLM is alluding to - this is a systemic problem. The whole approach needs a rethink - and an uncomfortable one.

In the simplest way possible, we can say beyond doubt what doesn't work. Were all living it.

Now we need someone willing to take the risk, and the heat, for trying a different approach. One that will make the incumbents vastly uncomfortable and likely quite hesitant.

What is there to lose? Were living what seems close to a maximum damage scenario for all stakeholders, the homeless and DTES residents in general, the City, and rest of Vancourities.

Literally no one is winning maintaining status quo, with arguably the exception of the non profits.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

In Vin's defense, we have been trying different flavors of the same thing for 3 decades, each time expecting a different result. Maybe if we spend just another 7% this year, that will be the meal ticket.

Much like most Western problems, and ironically something BLM is alluding to - this is a systemic problem. The whole approach needs a rethink - and an uncomfortable one.

In the simplest way possible, we can say beyond doubt what doesn't work. Were all living it.

Now we need someone willing to take the risk, and the heat, for trying a different approach. One that will make the incumbents vastly uncomfortable and likely quite hesitant.

What is there to lose? Were living what seems close to a maximum damage scenario for all stakeholders, the homeless and DTES residents in general, the City, and rest of Vancourities.

Literally no one is winning maintaining status quo, with arguably the exception of the non profits.

We haven't tried the "free safe drugs for all", which is likely the next step, if anything.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We haven't tried the "free safe drugs for all", which is likely the next step, if anything.

Agreed, I think that's the final step that will be taken in the current direction before a large enough change in a completely opposite one. It will become apparent, quickly, that it wont be the solution advocates are hoping for.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by rofina

Agreed, I think that's the final step that will be taken in the current direction before a large enough change in a completely opposite one. It will become apparent, quickly, that it wont be the solution advocates are hoping for.

Let's not speculate about things we don't know about. I hate to depend on one single case, but Portugal has generally had the solutions that advocates were hoping for.

In a perfect world we'd have absolutely zero drug dependence and no one would ever even think of trying heroin or other physically addictive drugs, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We're going to have to deal with that reality, not dream of a fantasy where we do "something" and all the addicts magically disappear. I mean, people still smoke, and my understanding is that's not even nearly as pleasurable or physiologically as demanding as shooting up.

[Skook]

I don't think anyone believes we can magically get rid of addiction, but we could surely do a better job of limiting the damage, both to the addicts themselves and to the rest of city.

The current approach doesn't work - we've done it for years and things are only getting worse. Sooner or later, even the city will have to admit it! Although you would think 30 years of worsening conditions and increasing death rates would have changed some minds by now...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

Agreed, I think that's the final step that will be taken in the current direction before a large enough change in a completely opposite one. It will become apparent, quickly, that it wont be the solution advocates are hoping for.

What is the completely opposite one though? With free/safe drugs I can see the following:

1. Less deaths
2. More people using (coming from elsewhere, why wouldn't they?)
3. Homeless/street problem gets worse
4. Petty crime down marginally

So then what? The usual advocates will want more. The other side will want the problem cleaned up. But that's the same issue we have today. Charter Rights and an army of enablers will fight anything tooth and nail.