Downtown Eastside - DTES Issues

[Sheba]

I agree that having a tent city somewhere would be a good idea, but where to put it? For that matter do we need only one near downtown Van? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a few across the region, possibly temporarily in empty parking lots before they are redeveloped (I have no doubt the homeless people living there would raise a stink about having to move, but when haven't they). Giving them a place to camp before trying to get them into housing seems a saner idea than letting them randomly picking some public park to take over and potentially destroy.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I agree that having a tent city somewhere would be a good idea, but where to put it? For that matter do we need only one near downtown Van? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a few across the region, possibly temporarily in empty parking lots before they are redeveloped (I have no doubt the homeless people living there would raise a stink about having to move, but when haven't they). Giving them a place to camp before trying to get them into housing seems a saner idea than letting them randomly picking some public park to take over and potentially destroy.

I have to wonder if there are any desolate parkade structures that could accommodate a significant population of them?

I know that shoving the homeless population into unused parkades is a clear reflection of the failures to legitimately address the situation. But right now the city needs to make a quick and effective short term strategy and I am afraid that the majority of the public that pays to upkeep the parks will want to see something measurable on the table outside of the pussy-footing solutions that have been in effect for the last 50 years.

I don't have the right answer as to where they need to go but there has been a generation of people that have grown up with the homeless situation next door that haven't seen any effective measures taken; I am sure that they are frustrated with the murky situation as well. And we have placed ourselves in a situation where we are going to need to start making quick decisions on this "controversial" problem.

[SeymourDrake]

They should open a homeless camp in the unused part of stanley park. Have it run like a regular provincial park but with super strict operational rules. Each week you have to vacate so they can clean the site and then you can come back.

It's not like there isn't homless people in there already. Plus the racoons would not be pleased


They do this in california at one of the popular beaches and it seems to work.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by fredinno

But where? Seriously, where would you put a place like that?

The DTES was pretty much chosen by accident, and pretty much every large parking lot in the DT/ False Creek area is going to be developed in the next decade.
Conceivably they could take a lot out of the Flats, but the City's been trying to gentrify that area.

Not to mention they still have tent cities springing up anyways.

The Flats would be a good area to have a designated zone. Similar to how we use to have red light districts back in the day.

Buy a stretch of industrial properties along one of the streets, and move all the social services that are currently in the DTES to the flats. They can have the whole street to themselves, and not get hit by a car. The city can then restore the DTES to the condition it deserves to be in.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by scryer

I have to wonder if there are any desolate parkade structures that could accommodate a significant population of them?

International Village Mall? The parkade is never full and half of the mall is empty.

The Crosstown Parkade at Beatty is used quite a bit, but it's owned by the city already, and it's one of the few above-ground parkades not being liquidated.

[s211]

A local news outlet is reporting that there are "advocates" who are deciding who can and can't enter the strathcona park site: they're blocking media, etc. Shades of Capitol Park lite?

[logan5]

Lol. Because the City is so soft with them, they feel like they can set up a tent city anywhere they feel like. Now they think that a park they probably didn't contribute a dime for, but was payed for by you and me, is now their private property where they can deny access.

I'm just becoming more and more impatient. There's this red headed guy that sits at Main and Broadway in a doorway, and he spits 4 feet away from him onto the sidewalk when thee are people walking through.

[Nites]

Originally Posted by s211

A local news outlet is reporting that there are "advocates" who are deciding who can and can't enter the strathcona park site: they're blocking media, etc. Shades of Capitol Park lite?

Lord of the Flies?

[SeymourDrake]

like i've said before turn stanley park into a homeless camp site. It's not like tourism will be high on anyones list for the next decade.

Plus it won't be bothering anyone except the ...wait no one because no one users 90% of that park.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

Lol. Because the City is so soft with them, they feel like they can set up a tent city anywhere they feel like. Now they think that a park they probably didn't contribute a dime for, but was payed for by you and me, is now their private property where they can deny access.

I'm just becoming more and more impatient. There's this red headed guy that sits at Main and Broadway in a doorway, and he spits 4 feet away from him onto the sidewalk when thee are people walking through.

Report it as a health risk. With Covid-19 they might actually do something.

[Chikinlittle]

Here's a question to post - with more people dying of overdoses recently than of COVID over the same period, why aren't we doing more do solve this problem and mobilize around it?

Which then leads me to ask - because most things come down to money - who is profiting from the current DTES environment that would want it not to be solved?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

Here's a question to post - with more people dying of overdoses recently than of COVID over the same period, why aren't we doing more do solve this problem and mobilize around it?

Which then leads me to ask - because most things come down to money - who is profiting from the current DTES environment that would want it not to be solved?

Because it's normalized.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Chikinlittle

Which then leads me to ask - because most things come down to money - who is profiting from the current DTES environment that would want it not to be solved?

https://jamesshelley.com/2017/05/14/poverty-industrial-complex/

"Let’s call this phenomenon the “poverty-industrial complex.” Like a military-industrial complex, it appears to be a league of elites devoted to funding one another’s pet projects. From the outside, at least, they might seem more interested in extracting money from one another than actually eradicating poverty itself. It is a system that appears to sustain insiders who are making names themselves on the backs of the impoverished: dissecting and commentating on the lives of their subjects — the poor — like laboratory rats. Many papers and resume-polishing articles are published for other elites to read. It all begins to look conspiratorial: nothing seems to change, but more and more public money is spent on the salaries of highly educated (and comfortably unionized) experts to research why nothing seems to change. The longer nothing changes, the more of them seem to be hired. And when a new political party promises to address poverty, what do they do upon winning office? They hire even more elites to do more studies. Another anti-poverty campaign. Another round of consultations. Another prestigious award for an upstanding in-group do-gooder. Another funding increase announced with fanfare and glossy brochures.

There are significant careers to be had and salaries to be made in professionally studying, talking, and theorizing about poverty. And yet there are still people desperately struggling in our city. I think it is the collision of these two realities where the breakdown of social trust snowballs into outright resentment."

[rofina]

Fence off 1/2 acre in the flats.

One building in the center - washrooms and showers. Very plain, concrete construction. say 10 showers and 15 washrooms.

But with that, we need follow through on enforcement too - no more random camps, and no more random tents. Everyone needs to set up here.

Have cops pick people up and drop them off if that's what it takes to facilitate.

[Alex Mackinnon]

BC Housing just bought the American Hotel.

This seems like kind of a dumb move to me. They paid way over the assessed value and it was already running as an SRO.

They just spent $18M to create zero net new low income houses. I don't see how this is a positive, aside from having some additional support available to residents, and having the government be a landlord.

Why not spend the money on something that was either vacant (to bring it back into the housing supply) or build something new?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

BC Housing just bought the American Hotel.

This seems like kind of a dumb move to me. They paid way over the assessed value and it was already running as an SRO.

They just spent $18M to create zero net new low income houses. I don't see how this is a positive, aside from having some additional support available to residents, and having the government be a landlord.

Why not spend the money on something that was either vacant (to bring it back into the housing supply) or build something new?

Maybe the plan is to tear it down and build something larger eventually? Didn't I hear that the HoJo price was high becuase of the potential to build something of higher density?

There's no reason some sites couldn't be sold later for redevelopment and the windfall used to build more facilities on cheaper land outside of Vancouver. It's time the suburbs start shouldering their fair share on supportive housing, Vancouver shouldn't have to bear the weight of it all.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

BC Housing just bought the American Hotel.

This seems like kind of a dumb move to me. They paid way over the assessed value and it was already running as an SRO.

They just spent $18M to create zero net new low income houses. I don't see how this is a positive, aside from having some additional support available to residents, and having the government be a landlord.

Why not spend the money on something that was either vacant (to bring it back into the housing supply) or build something new?

They bought the vacant site next door as well, which was going to be developed as market rental. The American, when it reopened, was almost all market rentals, so not an SRO in the sense of housing residents on welfare. That appears to be changing with the new ownership, although the article mentions the existing tenants can stay if they want to.

Do you know of something vacant they could buy (except hotels, and presumably those hope to find occupants soon)? The only buildings I can think of are the Regent and Balmoral that have been closed down for safety reasons, and no doubt BC Housing would buy them and renovate them if the owners entertained a sensible price, but as we know, those have been tied up in litigation, and might end up owned by the City eventually.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

They bought the vacant site next door as well, which was going to be developed as market rental. The American, when it reopened, was almost all market rentals, so not an SRO in the sense of housing residents on welfare. That appears to be changing with the new ownership, although the article mentions the existing tenants can stay if they want to.

Do you know of something vacant they could buy (except hotels, and presumably those hope to find occupants soon)? The only buildings I can think of are the Regent and Balmoral that have been closed down for safety reasons, and no doubt BC Housing would buy them and renovate them if the owners entertained a sensible price, but as we know, those have been tied up in litigation, and might end up owned by the City eventually.

The article mentions that they are going to redevelop the two sites together. They also bought the parking lot next to the Howard Johnson for redevelopment.

In 2011 the rooms were renting for $450-750. And all the news articles said it was operating as an SRO.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by rofina

Fence off 1/2 acre in the flats.

One building in the center - washrooms and showers. Very plain, concrete construction. say 10 showers and 15 washrooms.

But with that, we need follow through on enforcement too - no more random camps, and no more random tents. Everyone needs to set up here.

Have cops pick people up and drop them off if that's what it takes to facilitate.

While you're at it why not include solid garbage collection, Staff to do some general cleaning and used needle collection/safe injection center on-site.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

In 2011 the rooms were renting for $450-750. And all the news articles said it was operating as an SRO.

Sort of; but not really. The rents may have been that in 2011 when Stephen Lipman first re-tenanted it, but that's not what new tenants would be paying. Six of the rooms are supposed to be restricted to below-market rents (initially $400 a month, so slightly more than welfare) - the other 36 were straight market rental, and those have gone up a lot since 2011. In 2018 the average rent for a room was $850. The low rent rooms deal only lasted 10 years, so that would have disappeared next year. The SRA designation is because the rooms are less than 320 sq. ft, although the renovations saw most have their own bathroom, which is partly why they attract a higher market rent than some other shared bathroom buildings.