Downtown Eastside - DTES Issues

[SeymourDrake]

scryer, you have an astute command of the obvious.

[Sheba]

Vancouver to consider tiny house villages and RV parks to deal with homeless crisis

Vancouver city staff will examine establishing “temporary tiny house villages” and low-income RV parks as part of council’s temporary disaster relief shelter framework.

On Monday, council added those two options to an existing three options in motion presented by Mayor Kennedy Stewart.

The existing options were to lease or buy housing units (including hotels and single-room occupancy hotels), establish a temporary emergency relief camp on vacant public or private land and to temporarily convert city-owned buildings into emergency housing.

It was councillor and longtime housing advocate Jean Swanson who asked to add to the options establishing temporary tiny house villages on vacant public or private land and providing a serviced space or spaces for low-income RV residents.

Swanson’s amendment to the motion was supported by all councillors except Melissa De Genova. City staff have until Oct. 2 to report back to council on all the options.

Stewart told council that the city’s homelessness crisis had worsened due to COVID-19, and was most obvious in Strathcona Park south of the Strathcona neighbourhood where at least 300 tents have been put up.

“Shelter capacity has gone down, there is a no-guest policy (in single-room occupancy hotels) and this has caused ripple effects,” he said.

Stewart added that residents were noticing increases in homelessness in their neighbourhoods and that was in turn adding to the stress of COVID-19.

Councillor Pete Fry, who has lived in Strathcona for the past 30 years, said he had spoken to an eight-year-old who had recurring nightmares that their family would be killed by campers.

Fry said residents were being bullied for speaking out against the encampment.

Swanson said that people who were homeless needed to have options for change.

“This is an emergency motion, hopefully we will have some options for all people,” she said.

Seattle has eight city-funded “tiny house villages” that have opened in the past three years in response to that city’s homelessness crisis.

One of those villages — Second Chance — evolved from un-permitted squat, to sanctioned tent city, to city-funded tiny house village.

Vancouver does not allow overnight camping in RVs on city streets, but is also not issuing any tickets to RV dwellers for overnight parking during COVID-19.

[Skook]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are three separate but inter-related problems. Posters here confuse, combine and mix and match them.

I would argue that there is a fourth problem, albeit caused by the other three - the ongoing civic disorder that we have somehow come to tolerate. We can't wait thirty years for the root causes to be addressed, we need to start doing something about the disorder now. We can care deeply about the plight of homeless people, addicts and the mentally ill, but it does not follow from that that we have to let them do whatever the hell they want on public property, whatever the consequences to their neighbours.

There are plenty of conversations to be had about how to go about restoring order to our streets and we should start talking about the best and fairest ways to accomplish that. Instead, all I ever hear about is homelessness and addiction, which are important, of course, but the solutions to those problems aren't coming anytime soon. In the meantime, my kids step over human feces and discarded needles on the way to school every day. I wish I was exaggerating.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Skook

I would argue that there is a fourth problem, albeit caused by the other three - the ongoing civic disorder that we have somehow come to tolerate. We can't wait thirty years for the root causes to be addressed, we need to start doing something about the disorder now. We can care deeply about the plight of homeless people, addicts and the mentally ill, but it does not follow from that that we have to let them do whatever the hell they want on public property, whatever the consequences to their neighbours.

There are plenty of conversations to be had about how to go about restoring order to our streets and we should start talking about the best and fairest ways to accomplish that. Instead, all I ever hear about is homelessness and addiction, which are important, of course, but the solutions to those problems aren't coming anytime soon. In the meantime, my kids step over human feces and discarded needles on the way to school every day. I wish I was exaggerating.

Yes, I agree, that's an added aspect of the situation. I have to avoid things like that too - usually in the lane rather than the street. The needles are part of the drug problem, obviously, and the shouting and swearing I see and hear are part of the mental health problem. I don't know what we expect differently about the faeces though, if we have a homeless population, and a street based daytime population, and no public toilets. The Park Board seem to have closed a lot (or aren't maintaining them at present), there are none in transit stations, and the Decaux ones are often out of order. When it's safe to breathe, and I'm walking round Downtown, I have to plan carefully for the few places with a washroom open. There's far fewer opportunities in other parts of the city, including the DTES. It's something I've always though ought not be the problem it clearly is.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't know what we expect differently about the faeces though, if we have a homeless population, and a street based daytime population, and no public toilets.

I've wondered why we don't seem to have any pissoirs (aka public urinals). Sure it wouldn't help women (and if you haven't figured out by my user name... ) or do much about feces - but it's a start and wouldn't be horribly expensive.

[logan5]

Unless there are public washrooms every 2 blocks, I don't think homeless people that are crapping outside are going to use them. They are not going to walk a long distance to use a public washroom.

To these guys, taking a crap outside is as natural to them as it is a dog. Seriously. The guy I saw out front of Pacific Central just pulled his pants down right in the open in broad daylight. Didn't even look around or anything, just squatted and did his business.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

scryer, you have an astute command of the obvious.

That's interesting.

If his points were so obvious you figure they would also be obvious to political leadership?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Skook

I would argue that there is a fourth problem, albeit caused by the other three - the ongoing civic disorder that we have somehow come to tolerate. We can't wait thirty years for the root causes to be addressed, we need to start doing something about the disorder now. We can care deeply about the plight of homeless people, addicts and the mentally ill, but it does not follow from that that we have to let them do whatever the hell they want on public property, whatever the consequences to their neighbours.

There are plenty of conversations to be had about how to go about restoring order to our streets and we should start talking about the best and fairest ways to accomplish that. Instead, all I ever hear about is homelessness and addiction, which are important, of course, but the solutions to those problems aren't coming anytime soon. In the meantime, my kids step over human feces and discarded needles on the way to school every day. I wish I was exaggerating.

Well put.

We are still in the conversation stages of this.

At best, we have 2 more years to discuss a plan, couple more years to secure financing from Feds or elsewhere. Then design. Then zoning. Then permits. Then build.

Best case scenario were living in this disorder for the next decade. Best case!

That's an honestly depressing thought. I don't want this to be the civic reality for the next decade. Its inhumane for the most vulnerable, and depressing for the rest of us.

[SeymourDrake]

Originally Posted by rofina

That's interesting.

If his points were so obvious you figure they would also be obvious to political leadership?

sarcasm, but i wouldn't expect you to get it, nor was it directed at you. But you seem to want to speak for him. You seem to enjoy attempting to verbally attack me. Not going to happen.

It's all a bit awkward to be honest.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Skook

I would argue that there is a fourth problem, albeit caused by the other three - the ongoing civic disorder that we have somehow come to tolerate. We can't wait thirty years for the root causes to be addressed, we need to start doing something about the disorder now. We can care deeply about the plight of homeless people, addicts and the mentally ill, but it does not follow from that that we have to let them do whatever the hell they want on public property, whatever the consequences to their neighbours.

There are plenty of conversations to be had about how to go about restoring order to our streets and we should start talking about the best and fairest ways to accomplish that. Instead, all I ever hear about is homelessness and addiction, which are important, of course, but the solutions to those problems aren't coming anytime soon. In the meantime, my kids step over human feces and discarded needles on the way to school every day. I wish I was exaggerating.

Exactly. Punish those who misbehave, and others would not follow suit. It's a very very simple formula. The City needs to DO THEIR JOB and enforce the laws. No excuses.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

he has been treated, you can see he has hospital bracelets on. People I know talk to him often when they see him, he is a fixture on Davie street. They all feel bad for him but he doesn't seem to want the help. Clearly there are some mental issues that he chooses to stay on the street.

I think you miss my point. He needs to be forced to get help. He does not have a say in this, and clearly he is not functioning well in society. How can we let his legs rot away? If he doesn't want the treatment, we need to detain him in the hospital until he heals, and then release him. We tend to stop people from attempting suicide, yet we let slow painful deaths happen right in front of our eyes. That doesn't make any cow sense at all.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by rofina

I dont want to have this direct at you, but some of you guys are so damn close to seeing the point, but miss it so completely.

In the same post you say the solution to homelessness is homes for everyone. Seems a pretty logical statement on the surface.

Until you yourself give the reasons why people choose to refuse housing, be it mental health, "overbearing" rules to abide by, etc.

This is the epitome of have your cake and eat it too;

- Have mental health issues, unaddressed, and expect the public to deal with your sh*t on the daily.
- Refuse expensive tax dollar funded housing, because of "rules". Rules that all of us follow as a simple means of living in a society.
- Get to defecate and urinate on the streets, shoot up, indefinitely because freedoms or something.
- Complain that not enough is done for the homeless.

ENOUGH.

This is such a ridiculous circular logic.

If you're not in the state of mind to treat yourself in a healthy way and continually demonstrate an inability to adhere to the most basic requirements of society then at some point there must be a line drawn where you forfeit your ability to make decisions for self.

I concur. It is beyond me why people would rather the problems fester and get out of hand, while at the same time sugarcoating the situation that it isn't all that bad.

[casper]

Originally Posted by rofina

Well put.

We are still in the conversation stages of this.

At best, we have 2 more years to discuss a plan, couple more years to secure financing from Feds or elsewhere. Then design. Then zoning. Then permits. Then build.

Best case scenario were living in this disorder for the next decade. Best case!

That's an honestly depressing thought. I don't want this to be the civic reality for the next decade. Its inhumane for the most vulnerable, and depressing for the rest of us.

We are left with the option of locking people up in Jail or finding some other type of housing or facility more suited to addressing the route cause of the problem.

I don't think having the police lock people up is going to solve this problem. Perhaps we need different paths for those with a drug problem, those needing medical attention or those who in prince could be successful without if they had some a place to call home that was safe.

[SeymourDrake]

I think most of you have lived a sheltered life and find it difficult to relate to these people in crisis. It seems so simple, build them a home and everything will be fine. Nope not that easy.

There is no end to homelessness. The count varies depending on the criteria.

The cycle will continue. But it can be managed better.

[dreambrother808]

Yes, this problem will never disappear.

People don’t want them concentrated in the DTES but also don’t want them in their neighbourhoods. Oftentimes people don’t realize they are actually asking for the impossible.

All levels of government haven’t put the time and effort into coming up with real solutions as well. This needs a pandemic level of attention. The answers should be varied and they should displease all sides of the argument in some way.

[kaitoe]

Originally Posted by rofina

I dont want to have this direct at you, but some of you guys are so damn close to seeing the point, but miss it so completely.

In the same post you say the solution to homelessness is homes for everyone. Seems a pretty logical statement on the surface.

Until you yourself give the reasons why people choose to refuse housing, be it mental health, "overbearing" rules to abide by, etc.

This is the epitome of have your cake and eat it too;

- Have mental health issues, unaddressed, and expect the public to deal with your sh*t on the daily.
- Refuse expensive tax dollar funded housing, because of "rules". Rules that all of us follow as a simple means of living in a society.
- Get to defecate and urinate on the streets, shoot up, indefinitely because freedoms or something.
- Complain that not enough is done for the homeless.

ENOUGH.

This is such a ridiculous circular logic.

If you're not in the state of mind to treat yourself in a healthy way and continually demonstrate an inability to adhere to the most basic requirements of society then at some point there must be a line drawn where you forfeit your ability to make decisions for self.

The conclusion isn't as neat and tidy if you draw it out a little further, though. While it's easy to say "there must be a line drawn where you forfeit your ability to make decisions for self," what happens after that? With respect to those with substance use disorders, the evidence is murky as to whether involuntary treatment actually works.

Do we jail them? If so, what is the justification that we do so for a long period of time? And what happens when they get out, especially since they could have a criminal record on top of a substance use disorder?

Do you send them away? And if so, to where and under what is the legal justification? And what if they return?

We are reckoning with a system that has been able to push homeless people out of sight and mind one way (mental instituions) or another (DTES), and I do agree that the status quo is not working, but the perspective we use to examine the issue should change. For example, the "rules that all of us follow as a simple means of living in a society" eliminates any form of compassion and empathy afforded towards those who are homeless and those who have substance-use disorders.

[s211]

Originally Posted by kaitoe

The conclusion isn't as neat and tidy if you draw it out a little further, though. While it's easy to say "there must be a line drawn where you forfeit your ability to make decisions for self," what happens after that? With respect to those with substance use disorders, the evidence is murky as to whether involuntary treatment actually works.

Do we jail them? If so, what is the justification that we do so for a long period of time? And what happens when they get out, especially since they could have a criminal record on top of a substance use disorder?

Do you send them away? And if so, to where and under what is the legal justification? And what if they return?

We are reckoning with a system that has been able to push homeless people out of sight and mind one way (mental instituions) or another (DTES), and I do agree that the status quo is not working, but the perspective we use to examine the issue should change. For example, the "rules that all of us follow as a simple means of living in a society" eliminates any form of compassion and empathy afforded towards those who are homeless and those who have substance-use disorders.

And your line of endless soft questions is exactly why we are where we are. We're living the results of supposed "compassion" without consequences. Rights and no responsibilities. And guess how well that's working for us. Enough of the SJW platitudes, thank you very much.

[Sheba]

I'm sure some here are content with just venting about the DTES - but if you want actual change send an e-mail to the premier's office and the mayor's office. Both of them are the main e-mail 'drop zone' and then will be forwarded to whoever is most appropriate.

Remember "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". They're not going to know about people venting on here, but going to the effort of e-mailing them will get their attention (esp if enough people e-mail them about the same things). You'll have to include your first and last name plus address if you want them to take you seriously.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

sarcasm, but i wouldn't expect you to get it, nor was it directed at you. But you seem to want to speak for him. You seem to enjoy attempting to verbally attack me. Not going to happen.

It's all a bit awkward to be honest.

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

I think most of you have lived a sheltered life and find it difficult to relate to these people in crisis. It seems so simple, build them a home and everything will be fine. Nope not that easy.

There is no end to homelessness. The count varies depending on the criteria.

The cycle will continue. But it can be managed better.

I call trolling . If you are not going to contribute to the conversation in a mature way then I suggest taking a back seat and reading what other posters have to say. You are just producing unnecessary digital noise at this point and there are others who are posting quality content that share your views.

Back on topic....

Originally Posted by Sheba

... but if you want actual change send an e-mail to the premier's office and the mayor's office. Both of them are the main e-mail 'drop zone' and then will be forwarded to whoever is most appropriate.

Remember "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". They're not going to know about people venting on here, but going to the effort of e-mailing them will get their attention (esp if enough people e-mail them about the same things). You'll have to include your first and last name plus address if you want them to take you seriously.

Thank you for grounding this discussion with some clear actions to take . Or for those folks like myself, that believe that the emails go no where with politicians then feel free to independently organize a protest with like-minded individuals. After all, according to Dr. Tam and our political Health Ministers, if you aren't shouting then you should be okay from contracting the virus.

Vancouver city staff will examine establishing “temporary tiny house villages” and low-income RV parks as part of council’s temporary disaster relief shelter framework.

Vancouver Sun Article



They'll examine the option alright although I doubt that we'll see any action any time soon. The homeless situation has never inspired any quick political actions in the last 15 years.

If they were to do a village of tiny homes, I have to wonder where they suggest building these villages?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by scryer

Vancouver Sun Article



They'll examine the option alright although I doubt that we'll see any action any time soon. The homeless situation has never inspired any quick political actions in the last 15 years.

If they were to do a village of tiny homes, I have to wonder where they suggest building these villages?

Vancouver (City and Metro) have been more successful at providing new housing for the homeless than many other places [for example Winnipeg and Calgary]. Now the city's trying to move on some short-term ideas while more permanent accommodation is built. The covid pandemic has increased the problem in the past few months.

I guess the story was hard to follow? Staff have to report back on October 2nd (so time soon) on how any of the five ideas can be pursued urgently. Tiny homes have been suggested by a number of people, including Bryn Davidson at Lanefab, who can build them. The RV idea was Jean Swanson's, acknowledging that it's already happening around the city, but really campers need showers and toilets.

The report back is to identify what public or private land is available that might allow a sanctioned canvas camp, tinyhome cluster or RV cluster to be located. It will also inform on any available hotels or vacant private apartments that could be used to house the homeless in the immediate future.