Downtown Eastside - DTES Issues

[djh]

Originally Posted by rofina

Better than nothing.

But this is going to turn into slums for sure.

Taking into account the glacial pace of change at City Hall, these encampments are going to stay there for the long term.

I look forward to see the type of structures that can be engineered out of pallets and tarps. City planners should take note, no need to wait 18 months for a permit approval.

Having an encampment on the lawn on City Hall will surely be a very public "reminder" (read: embarrassment) of the situation. Imagine hosting luminaries from other cities and countries, attempting to state how well the City of Vancouver is doing with various initiatives...then the person leans out the window and asks "What's that all about?"

If anything, allowing an encampment right in the heart of the decision-making should be enough for the politicians to expedite any housing solutions. I would love to say it was a genius 4D chess move by the Major, but so far I've seen little evidence that he's that long-term strategic thinking.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by djh

Having an encampment on the lawn on City Hall will surely be a very public "reminder" (read: embarrassment) of the situation. Imagine hosting luminaries from other cities and countries, attempting to state how well the City of Vancouver is doing with various initiatives...then the person leans out the window and asks "What's that all about?"

If anything, allowing an encampment right in the heart of the decision-making should be enough for the politicians to expedite any housing solutions. I would love to say it was a genius 4D chess move by the Major, but so far I've seen little evidence that he's that long-term strategic thinking.

I think we already covered the grounds for them in SSP. Would love all the tents to move to City Hall. But I think this is just a publicity stunt to show that they care, which they don't. In the end, it won't happen, although it is happening at Victoria's City Hall. However, they had to remove it since they couldn't stand it themselves.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Oh man, maybe life is easier if you can just reduce every complex problem here down to "blame the city of Vancouver".

It forces them to do their job, or even a tiny fraction of it, and we as tax payers or renters should keep doing it. Greg's government did a horrible job and they were booted out. Now we need to hold the Kennedy Stewart administration accountable for what they fail to achieve. So what's your point?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

It forces them to do their job, or even a tiny fraction of it, and we as tax payers or renters should keep doing it. Greg's government did a horrible job and they were booted out. Now we need to hold the Kennedy Stewart administration accountable for what they fail to achieve. So what's your point?

Gregor Robertson was mayor when the party he was a member of, Vision Vancouver, also had a majority of councillors. It was much easier to decide (off camera, in caucus) on a course of action, and then vote for it in Council. From your 'horrible job' comment you didn't appreciate the decisions they made. Kennedy Stewart is an independent - he doesn't have a party, or a caucus, and he's reliant on a majority of the rest of Council to support anything he suggests. Sometimes they do, and sometimes (like trying 6-plex homes as an experiment to get more affordable homes), they don't. No party has a majority, and it appears that neither the NPA or the Green Party members have a caucus with an agreed party line, so every vote, on every topic, is unpredictable. It's not surprising that not every initiative goes forward.

When the topic is people camping in parks, what the mayor, or councillors think doesn't matter anyway. The elected Parks Board control parks. They're the ones who decided not to get an injunction to try to remove the camp. They rejected an offer from Council to get involved with Oppenheim Park camp. In that situation the mayor and Council have no way of intervening. Don't blame the mayor, or his administration for things thay have no jurisdiction over.

[SeymourDrake]

There will always be homeless people in this city. Even if you offer them supported housing where their rent is paid... people will still want that sense of freedom and ability to exist the way they want to.

What is a comfortable level of homelessness? How do you control the constant growth year after year?

Is the end game to spread them all over the city and Clean up the DTES? So they can reclaim the Neighbourhoods?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

There will always be homeless people in this city. Even if you offer them supported housing where their rent is paid... people will still want that sense of freedom and ability to exist the way they want to.

What is a comfortable level of homelessness? How do you control the constant growth year after year?

Is the end game to spread them all over the city and Clean up the DTES? So they can reclaim the Neighbourhoods?

The end game?

- Don't have public spaces taken up by drug users
- Don't have used needles discarded on school grounds, playgrounds, all other public spaces
- Don't have endless tent cities pop up in public spaces
- Don't have people shooting up and defecating in public, on public property
- Don't have people shoot each other and claim VPD has no jurisdiction
- Don't have open air stolen goods markets and pretend like its great for the local economy
- Don't have people living in inhumane conditions spreading disease

And if freedom is what they want, freedom comes with responsibilities. I have freedom to drive as fast as I want. Just the same way a user has freedom to shoot up. I get caught speeding one too many times, I lose my license. Action meet consequence. A user gets caught leaving needles in unacceptable places, shooting up in public, multiple times - precisely ZERO repercussions.

To sum up - allow freedom wanting individuals to face the repercussions of that freedom without subsidizing the consequences. It applies us, but for some reason not them.

[s211]

Am I the only person that sees irony in the phrase "social justice warriors", when in fact they're defending the most anti-societal of behaviours?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Gregor Robertson was mayor when the party he was a member of, Vision Vancouver, also had a majority of councillors. It was much easier to decide (off camera, in caucus) on a course of action, and then vote for it in Council. From your 'horrible job' comment you didn't appreciate the decisions they made. Kennedy Stewart is an independent - he doesn't have a party, or a caucus, and he's reliant on a majority of the rest of Council to support anything he suggests. Sometimes they do, and sometimes (like trying 6-plex homes as an experiment to get more affordable homes), they don't. No party has a majority, and it appears that neither the NPA or the Green Party members have a caucus with an agreed party line, so every vote, on every topic, is unpredictable. It's not surprising that not every initiative goes forward.

When the topic is people camping in parks, what the mayor, or councillors think doesn't matter anyway. The elected Parks Board control parks. They're the ones who decided not to get an injunction to try to remove the camp. They rejected an offer from Council to get involved with Oppenheim Park camp. In that situation the mayor and Council have no way of intervening. Don't blame the mayor, or his administration for things thay have no jurisdiction over.

Thanks for your comment. I think you just admitted to the failure of the system in the City of Vancouver. It may or may not be a leader's failure, but it certainly is a collective failure of this City. Everyone you mentioned is like a lame duck, or people not doing anything but waiting to retire so as to collect a huge retirement paycheque. If the mayor cannot intervene on Oppenheimer or Strathcona Park camp, who can? Also, what do you propose should change to make all the nonsense in the City go away? Any suggestions? If the administration cannot do anything positive for this City, what can the people do?

You should also ask yourself this: If a mayor is ineffective in office, then what is the point of having one? Perhaps a recall is in order.

'Sea change': Vancouver staff proposes billion-dollar SRO acquisition strategy
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ition-strategy

More money going down the drain to encourage lawlessness in this City. Instead of beefing up enforcement, the City and other governments keep providing SROs, or decent buildings that will turn into ghettos in a few months. So much for initiatives for such a large sum of money to be spent. Is the City coming up with conditions for people to live in those places? Will they be given jobs and made to quit their addictions? What sort of plans do the different levels of government have to make this group of people become productive citizens once again? I fear this is another useless move to sweep the dust under the carpet.

Originally Posted by s211

Am I the only person that sees irony in the phrase "social justice warriors", when in fact they're defending the most anti-societal of behaviours?

No kidding! I term them as "the enablers".

[Vin]

https://globalnews.ca/news/7381688/w...aylight-theft/

This is classic. Saw this on the morning news today. A homeless lady and man walked into this boutique on Howe and then walked away with the boutique owner's nice couch, and it was taped on video.

Owner didn't bother giving chase but called VPD. Couch was found, guess where? DTES!

It was subsequently returned to the boutique, and as expected, VPD let the suspects, with charges pending which I don't will ever happen.

Is this not enabling crime? Why were the crime suspects let go?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

More money going down the drain to encourage lawlessness in this City. Instead of beefing up enforcement, the City and other governments keep providing SROs, or decent buildings that will turn into ghettos in a few months. So much for initiatives for such a large sum of money to be spent. Is the City coming up with conditions for people to live in those places? Will they be given jobs and made to quit their addictions? What sort of plans do the different levels of government have to make this group of people become productive citizens once again? I fear this is another useless move to sweep the dust under the carpet.

I think you mis-read the article. The SRO's already exist, and Staff have just devised a possible plan to keep them and try to mitigate the ongoing issue of SRO rents growing faster than folks can pay. They are the last stage before homelessness.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Owner didn't bother giving chase but called VPD. Couch was found, guess where? DTES!

No it wasn't. It was found in a lane "not too far away, in the lane towards Granville". Maybe you should start a thread about anti-social activity in Downtown instead of dumping everything on the DTES. We've got our own crime, thank you, we don't need yours to be associated with the area.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think you mis-read the article. The SRO's already exist, and Staff have just devised a possible plan to keep them and try to mitigate the ongoing issue of SRO rents growing faster than folks can pay. They are the last stage before homelessness.

So they will cost tax payers $1 bil??? Come on. I don't think existing SROs are worth that much.

Originally Posted by Changing City

No it wasn't. It was found in a lane "not too far away, in the lane towards Granville". Maybe you should start a thread about anti-social activity in Downtown instead of dumping everything on the DTES. We've got our own crime, thank you, we don't need yours to be associated with the area.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that DTES and its problems have grown and exported to other parts of town. And why just target me? Other forumers post articles not exactly at DTES and you are mum about them. Bias I sense?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Perhaps you haven't noticed that DTES and its problems have grown and exported to other parts of town. And why just target me? Other forumers post articles not exactly at DTES and you are mum about them. Bias I sense?

No bias; if I spotted anyone else claiming that something was stolen Downtown and abandoned in the DTES, when it had nothing to do with the DTES I'd have called them on it. By posting here you seem to want to have us believe that all the problems are somehow related to the DTES. There have been drug-taking and light-fingered residents Downtown and in the West End for decades, just like there are in the DTES. If you think what they get up to warrants comment, create a thread.

The idea of buying 105 privately owned SROs is very much a DTES related topic, as most, but not all, are in the DTES. As there are now only 77 rooms in all those buildings that rent at the $375 shelter rate, and landlords can ask any rent they can get once tenants change, it's not surprising that homelessness (and tent occupants) are going up. What's your solution to ensuring welfare recipients can find lodgings their welfare payment will cover?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

So they will cost tax payers $1 bil??? Come on. I don't think existing SROs are worth that much.

The buildings definitely are not. Agreed; however:

"The city proposes partnering with senior governments to buy up to 105 privately owned SRO buildings, a potentially massive investment: staff analysis says the “long-term vision” of replacing all SROs with “shelter-rate” social housing — meaning rooms renting for $375-a-month — could cost about $1 billion."

That and renovations.

[officedweller]

They could buy an old cruise ship for housing - they're being scrapped

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/c...key/index.html

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

They could buy an old cruise ship for housing - they're being scrapped

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/c...key/index.html

You know someone would complain about it - 'why do they get better ocean views than we do?'

[SeymourDrake]

Originally Posted by rofina

The end game?

- Don't have public spaces taken up by drug users
- Don't have used needles discarded on school grounds, playgrounds, all other public spaces
- Don't have endless tent cities pop up in public spaces
- Don't have people shooting up and defecating in public, on public property
- Don't have people shoot each other and claim VPD has no jurisdiction
- Don't have open air stolen goods markets and pretend like its great for the local economy
- Don't have people living in inhumane conditions spreading disease

And if freedom is what they want, freedom comes with responsibilities. I have freedom to drive as fast as I want. Just the same way a user has freedom to shoot up. I get caught speeding one too many times, I lose my license. Action meet consequence. A user gets caught leaving needles in unacceptable places, shooting up in public, multiple times - precisely ZERO repercussions.

To sum up - allow freedom wanting individuals to face the repercussions of that freedom without subsidizing the consequences. It applies us, but for some reason not them.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but in my career i've seen the absolute worst in people. People that will look you straight in the face and lie. You have of mix of Mental Illness, Addiction, Unpredictable behaviour and so on. Comparing them to us would be unfair.

I think the real endgame is figuring out if there is ever going to be a solution for keeping the homeless off the street. Is there a middle ground? Is that homeless camps, Govt controlled and funded?

But it takes an organised effort and we have the start of that.

Once the Election is over, winter has passed and covid has a vaccine treatment. Will everything go back to normal or will we still be farther ahead than before?

Flip a Coin

[scryer]

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

I agree with a lot of what you said, but in my career i've seen the absolute worst in people. People that will look you straight in the face and lie. You have of mix of Mental Illness, Addiction, Unpredictable behaviour and so on. Comparing them to us would be unfair.

Comparing them to us is the only benchmark one has when it comes to outing irregular behaviour. There are 2.5 million residents in the metro region and a very small portion of that population has completely destroyed neighbourhoods and parks. The law doesn't apply to them like it applies to us - that's unfair.

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

I think the real endgame is figuring out if there is ever going to be a solution for keeping the homeless off the street.

It can start with the proper employment of the other three pillars that Vancouver refuses to approach with.

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

Is there a middle ground?

The middle ground is already introducing social housing units into quiet neighbourhoods.

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

Is that homeless camps, Govt controlled and funded?

The Strathcona homeless camp/favela is government sanctioned and the government doesn't enforce any laws in this slum - hence why a 15 hour rape could carry on without any law enforcement intervention. So we've already tried that.

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

Once the Election is over, winter has passed and covid has a vaccine treatment. Will everything go back to normal or will we still be farther ahead than before?

Flip a Coin

My prediction is a firm no. After COVID, we are looking at a decimated hospitality, tourism, and retail brick and mortar industries. We have to take care of the people that actually contribute economically to society first.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No bias; if I spotted anyone else claiming that something was stolen Downtown and abandoned in the DTES, when it had nothing to do with the DTES I'd have called them on it. By posting here you seem to want to have us believe that all the problems are somehow related to the DTES. There have been drug-taking and light-fingered residents Downtown and in the West End for decades, just like there are in the DTES. If you think what they get up to warrants comment, create a thread.

The idea of buying 105 privately owned SROs is very much a DTES related topic, as most, but not all, are in the DTES. As there are now only 77 rooms in all those buildings that rent at the $375 shelter rate, and landlords can ask any rent they can get once tenants change, it's not surprising that homelessness (and tent occupants) are going up. What's your solution to ensuring welfare recipients can find lodgings their welfare payment will cover?

I seriously don't know who you are trying to kid here, that the problems at other parts of downtown have nothing to do with DTES, and I will just leave it at that.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The buildings definitely are not. Agreed; however:

"The city proposes partnering with senior governments to buy up to 105 privately owned SRO buildings, a potentially massive investment: staff analysis says the “long-term vision” of replacing all SROs with “shelter-rate” social housing — meaning rooms renting for $375-a-month — could cost about $1 billion."

That and renovations.

It is funny that you take at face value what the article says. So if the run-down SROs are being reno'ed, where would they place all the existing residents, plus all the new ones they are trying to house? Don't they need to build new ones or purchase other buildings to house them too?

My original post highlighting that this could potentially be another waste of taxpayer's funding initiative still stands, as the government still fails to demonstrate how this can solve the homelessness/lawlessness problems of DTES and the Lower Mainland in general. What they are doing is still same'ol, with a lot more money spent in this case. Why should I, as a tax payer, agree to this?

Originally Posted by officedweller

They could buy an old cruise ship for housing - they're being scrapped

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/c...key/index.html

Seeing what they have done to heritage buildings, I wouldn't be surprised that they would manage to sink a few of the SRO cruise ships in a couple of months.

Originally Posted by SeymourDrake

I agree with a lot of what you said, but in my career i've seen the absolute worst in people. People that will look you straight in the face and lie. You have of mix of Mental Illness, Addiction, Unpredictable behaviour and so on. Comparing them to us would be unfair.

I think the real endgame is figuring out if there is ever going to be a solution for keeping the homeless off the street. Is there a middle ground? Is that homeless camps, Govt controlled and funded?

But it takes an organised effort and we have the start of that.

Once the Election is over, winter has passed and covid has a vaccine treatment. Will everything go back to normal or will we still be farther ahead than before?

Flip a Coin

At this stage, I believe in the stick more than the carrot. If strict laws are enforced, many will attempt to straighten up. The criminal elements may even disappear as it is no longer profitable, and perhaps move on to something legit. This is just survival instinct kicking in: you snooze, you perish, you steal, you end up in jail. After weeding out all the criminals, lazy bumps, etc., for the others who are unable to get out of the rut and genuinely do need help from society, such as the hardcore addicts or mentally-challenged individuals, it would be a lot easier to treat them at our existing facilities and institutions.