Originally Posted by Skook
Hi folks, a while back there was some discussion on this thread about Michael Shellenberger and his new book San Fransicko. I have now read Shellenberger’s book and recommend it. Although the book is focused on the situation in the USA, much of the content is also relevant to Vancouver, as we have enthusiastically adopted many of the same policy ideas as west coast American cities. I especially recommend this book to the supporters of our current policies, as many of the critiques are valid and, if they were addressed, might moderate the inevitable swing of the pendulum back in a more reactionary direction, which is inevitable if the disorder in our city continues to get worse. The backlash has already started in California, with the very-lefty mayor of very-lefty San Francisco declaring a state of emergency to help deal with their drug crisis.
I am not a policy expert, or even a policy amateur, on these topics. My sole expertise is having lived in the International Village area since 2006, just around the corner from Pigeon Park, where I’ve watched the conditions on the street deteriorate year after year (to be fair, the area had initially been improving as more people moved in, but that stopped a few years back and, since covid, the neighbourhood has gone into a tailspin). I also have some personal familiarity with addiction, having addicts in my family.
Here is a super quick summary of the book (it contains a lot more than this, so please read it yourself if this interests you):
The problem is not homelessness, it is addiction and mental health. But if the problem is described as homelessness, then the cause is primarily economic, and the people on the streets can be considered victims of cruel capitalists/governments/housing markets etc. This is an appealing idea to activists, who are often far to the left of the public politically, but do have the ear of civic authorities. And, of course, if the “homeless” are victims, then they are blameless for their situation and therefore eligible for special treatment (he stole my bike to buy drugs, but he’s a victim, so he’s not responsible for his actions, so we’re not going to arrest him). So not only have we mis-identified the actual problem, we have also created new problems, because now we have a legal system that has decided to turn a blind eye to petty crime and disorder, which inevitably leads to more petty crime and disorder. It’s the broken window theory in reverse. Furthermore, since we’re trying to fix the wrong problem, we’re not developing realistic solutions. This is how we end up with policies like “housing first.”
Housing first would make sense if those who lacked homes were, for example, primarily single mothers and forestry workers who have been laid off. But the people shooting heroin in my kid’s schoolyard, setting up tents in the park, and taking dumps outside my building are addicts, not single mothers. And they will die before they ever see any of this “housing first” because we simply can’t build apartments for thousands of people quickly enough or cheaply enough. In the meantime, street disorder will continue to lower the quality of life in this city. Addicts do need shelter, of course, but they need a roof – any roof – over their heads right now, not a phantom apartment maybe someday if they're lucky, and they need vastly expanded treatment options.
Instead of trying to build apartments for all, we should build or repurpose existing buildings as group shelters, which could be done very quickly (and in the case of repurposing existing buildings, almost immediately). And once shelter is definitely available for all, we need to insist people use it. No more setting up encampments or sleeping on the sidewalks (yes, the police would have to enforce this, and yes, it would be whack-a-mole for a while, but if done consistently, it would eventually result in much less street homelessness, although not eradicate it). People on the streets would be sheltered, but would not be entitled to a publicly provided free apartment, that would need to be earned. This is because getting out of shelter and into your own apartment can be excellent motivation for addicts to make the necessary changes in their lives – i.e. getting into treatment and, once in treatment, continuing to abstain from drugs and alcohol. I know this can work because this is how my brother quit drinking – he drank his way into a shelter in Edmonton, really wanted to get out of the group shelter and into his own place, and eventually did earn his own apartment by sticking with his treatment. It has now been 10 years since he last had a drink. It’s not fashionable to say this, but sometimes people need a kick in the ass.
Shellenberger advocates using the criminal justice system as a last resort – incarceration is not the first or the preferred option, but when someone has repeated violations, they will eventually end up in front of a judge, where they will have a choice between treatment and jail. This is apparently what is done in Portugal, Amsterdam and some other places in Europe that have had success in shutting down large open air drug scenes, like the one we have here in the DTES. The police also work closely with social workers throughout the process, with treatment always the preferred option. But continuing to do drugs openly and shit in the streets is absolutely not permitted. We have this idea that drugs are basically legal in Portugal, but apparently this is not the case – shooting heroin in the playground at the elementary school would result in your arrest in Portugal, unlike in my neighbourhood.
Of course, treatment won’t be effective for all, but the expectation should be that we are dealing with human beings who could, given the right opportunities, turn their lives around. So the goal is always to get people into treatment. In the meantime, however, those people will be expected to conduct themselves in public according to the same rules of civility that allow millions of us to live together peaceably in urban environments. And, since that won't be possible for everyone, we're going to need to re-open or vastly expand mental health facilities and reconsider if, how and when it might be appropriate to insist that people receive treatment.
Anyhow, I’m trying to summarize a few hundred pages in a couple of paragraphs and have surely gotten some things wrong, so if you are interested in different approaches to dealing with the addiction problems currently plaguing North America in general – and Vancouver in particular – then please read the book. It also talks about safe supply, harm reduction, tent cities, safe injection facilities, whether the contracting out of social services to non-profits is actually effective, and most of the other hot topics we see here in Vancouver.
I don’t know enough about this stuff to suggest what might or might not work legally or politically in Vancouver, but in light of the appalling death toll we’re currently seeing due to fentanyl, we should at least be open to re-evaluating our current approach (does harm reduction make sense in the era of fentanyl, for example, or are we just enabling people to stay stoned until they meet their fatal dose? Are there people who would be alive today if we had pressured them into treatment instead of focusing on harm reduction? Or even put them in jail instead of watching them die in the streets?). The Vancouver approach right now seems to be all carrot and no stick. And because some really people need the stick, we might be literally killing people with kindness.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
