Public Disorder & the Decline of Vancouver's Livability

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

I was in Downtown on Sunday, probably half year since last time. Took the SkyTrain to Waterfront and was immediately greeted by a syringe on the platform elevator floor and a random crazy shouting outside of the station. No biggie but it was interesting to see how little business activity there was around Canada Place even with two cruise ships docked and there being a fair bit of foot traffic.

What was also clearly noticeable was the increased amount of tags and graffiti around Downtown. I moved here from Berlin which is filled with vandalism and I always proudly regarded Vancouver a very clean cuty. Well, that sentiment is starting to change and I can only guess the reason for increased vandalism is the lack of any consequences for destroying or damaging property these days. I think the broken windows theory will once again prove itself real, as less and less is being done to address the problem. It's a sad to see a clear trend, especially around the entire peninsula.

You are so right!

To see the buzz of activities, one just needs to take the seabus across Burrard Inlet to the former not-so-vibrant Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver. Today it is a hub of activities with a traditional market, lots of retail shops, water parks, seawall broadwalk, recreational pier, ice skating rink, a spanking new museum, boutique hotels and many many cafes and restaurants. More than half of the businesses here and establishments are new thanks to the foresight of the City of North Vancouver. Many nice joints like 49th Parallel and Ernest Ice Cream also decided to set up shop at or near Lonsdale Avenue further up the slope. I have to say the City of North Van has heck of a lot better City planners. Best of all, the city is tag-free!

I just wish they can continue this momentum and expand the commercial area of Lonsdale to adjoining streets. One of the biggest mistakes is to rest on their laurels when there is so much going for them.

Coming back downtown, one usually feels rather depressed despite being in the downtown core. Visitors just don't come here in droves unless there are special events going on. Too many crazies, slumped over "zombies" and disorderliness here.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Klazu

What is most furiating was to read that the incident had FOUR ambulances directed to Crab Park. All of this while regular people and elderly will have to wait hours upon hours for an ambulance even in urgent emergencies.

The other day when I was taking the seabus, I think I saw a new colony of tents that popped up just west of Crab Park. I'm quite sure the craziness going on there is because authority did not forcefully remove this new tent city.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Those repeat-offender articles about vandalism, sexual assault, murder and attempted murder that you love to post? Every single time, the perps come from tent cities, shelters or random street corners. Feel free to show me one that has a stable job and a fixed address in a rental, co-op or owned home. I’ll wait here.

And they turn to hard drugs because they’re homeless. Plenty of self-confessed users from stable backgrounds (and many from unstable ones) have turned their lives around using resources such as what's available in the DTES; long-time unsheltered street-dwellers only get worse, so better to put them into shelters before they're beyond that kind of help. You’re also proving my point.

What about those who refuse getting into shelters but rather roam the streets of sleep in tents? Should they be forced into the shelter then? In this thread we are talking about people who create problems for other good folks here, so there is absolutely no need for you to bring in hardworking folks who intend to turn their lives around. These people don't make lives miserable for anyone else, so what's the point of mentioning them?

[hollywoodnorth]

Editorial: Time to deal with decay of downtown core
May 11, 2022, 10:50am

https://biv.com/article/2022/05/editorial-time-deal-decay-downtown-core

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

What about those who refuse getting into shelters but rather roam the streets of sleep in tents? Should they be forced into the shelter then? In this thread we are talking about people who create problems for other good folks here, so there is absolutely no need for you to bring in hardworking folks who intend to turn their lives around. These people don't make lives miserable for anyone else, so what's the point of mentioning them?

I see you skimmed over the previous post. No, because those are too far gone and need other kinds of help like Riverview; shelters are to house functional homeless or soon-to-be-homeless before they get to that stage, because as per the original argument, hard drugs and PTSD are only part of the problem, and "hardworking folks who intend to turn their lives around" aren't adding to the rot despite being users. Try and keep up.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Editorial: Time to deal with decay of downtown core
May 11, 2022, 10:50am

https://biv.com/article/2022/05/editorial-time-deal-decay-downtown-core

Why can't the people who write these editorials put their name on them? I have anonymous articles. There's obviously something they are hiding.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why can't the people who write these editorials put their name on them? I have anonymous articles. There's obviously something they are hiding.

Isn't Kirk LaPointe still the editor there? Ergo, it would be from him.

[GenWhy?]

"And this year’s municipal elections will give you and your businesses the opportunity to push for the kind of substantive changes that could make a real difference in the state of your downtown."

Good to know they're encouraging folks to vote to end poverty and improve supports.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I see you skimmed over the previous post. No, because those are too far gone and need other kinds of help like Riverview; shelters are to house functional homeless or soon-to-be-homeless before they get to that stage, because as per the original argument, hard drugs and PTSD are only part of the problem, and "hardworking folks who intend to turn their lives around" aren't adding to the rot despite being users. Try and keep up.

So what should we do with people who are "too far gone": let them rot on the streets, or get them packing for treatment? I opt for the latter.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why can't the people who write these editorials put their name on them? I have anonymous articles. There's obviously something they are hiding.

I care more about the content of the article: that our downtown is in a state of decay, and it is getting much worse:

From the article:

What is the state of your downtown? All good? If that’s your answer, you are easily pleased or have set a low bar for what makes a downtown all good or even partially good.

The truth is the state of downtown in Metro Vancouver is not all good at all. It is by and large shabby and getting shabbier, and that is not good for business, let alone the quality of community that is at the bedrock of any downtown worth living and working in.

In its State of Downtown 2022 report, the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association (DVBIA) provides a detailed overview of the area’s many attributes and opportunities.


Nolan Marshall III, the DVBIA’s president and CEO, optimistically states in his introduction to the report that he believes Vancouver “is in a position to rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic faster than most.”


It might be, but as Marshall concedes, “the next few years will not be free from challenges.”

Atop that list of challenges is the continued erosion of public safety and the civic pride that it goes hand in hand with.

As BIV’s report on small-business survival underscored in last week’s print edition, the increased tolerance of petty crime and open drug use and the proliferation of graffiti and garbage are major impediments to that survival.

Aside from a wholesale community-wide decision to stop tolerating that downtown degradation, a retooling of the institutions charged with making that happen is needed.

Enforcement of civic standards is a good place to start. The report from the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act provides detailed insights and recommendations on that front and how to unify what is a fragmented and inefficient policing system in the province’s urban centres.

And this year’s municipal elections will give you and your businesses the opportunity to push for the kind of substantive changes that could make a real difference in the state of your downtown.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

So what should we do with people who are "too far gone": let them rot on the streets, or get them packing for treatment? I opt for the latter.

The entire forum wants some form of the latter. Some just realize that labour camps and hostile environments are both vicious and ineffective.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The entire forum wants some form of the latter. Some just realize that labour camps are both vicious and ineffective.

Yeah I know you would rather they rot then die on the streets or in their little nooks and cranies. Always an excuse for inaction I see.

By the way, the labour camps are meant for the hardcore criminals, but your appeal to anger of the masses is simply a poor attempt on your part.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yeah I know you would rather they rot then die on the streets or in their little nooks and cranies.

By the way, the labour camps are meant for the hardcore criminals, but your appeal to anger of the masses is simply a poor attempt on your part.

If anybody wanted them to die, we can just shut down all the shelters and let the winter finish them off - that's "letting them rot." Or we can find a middle ground that allows them to get help.

We've been talking about the hardcore criminals this entire time: quote, "we are talking about people who create problems for other good folks here." Non-offenders only need a safe place to live and get back on their feet.

[SpongeG]

this is a disturbing trend. Teens beating up people and posting the footage on social media. A 15 year old girl out in Langley was recently lured to an elementary school and had the crap beat out of her by a group of kids from her school. Apparently some of the kids parents turned their own kids in, which is a good sign.

Vancouver police raise alarm on ‘troubling and violent’ swarmings, robberies, attacks on teens

By Elizabeth McSheffrey Global News
Posted May 10, 2022 6:02 pm
Updated May 10, 2022

Vancouver police are urging young people who feel unsafe to call them after a series of “troubling and violent” incidents involving teens in the past few weeks.


Investigations have been opened into several recent swarmings, robberies and reports of humiliating and demeaning rituals involving youth, said Sgt. Steve Addison on Tuesday.

“A number of teens have already been hurt,” he told reporters.

“We’re worried this violence could escalate and although there are a number of investigations that are taking place, we do believe there are a number of incidents that have gone unreported.”

READ MORE: Grief and anger at vigil honouring 24-year-old woman found dead at vacant Vancouver home

On April 24, police said a 13-year-old boy was lured from West Vancouver to Stanley Park through someone he befriended online. At the park, he was swarmed by a group of intoxicated teens, who kicked, pepper-sprayed and robbed him of his phone, according to police.


...

https://globalnews.ca/news/8825101/vancouver-police-raise-alarm-attacks-teens/


In this video there appears to be someone approached by a teen with a gun and themtwo start to fight, it looks like the law courts' stairs downtown?

‘We have to do more’: Vancouver mayor responds to disturbing spree of teen violence

By Elizabeth McSheffrey Global News
Posted May 11, 2022

As Vancouver grapples with a disturbing spree of teen violence, its mayor says the municipality, police and provincial government must all do more to prevent future attacks.


Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Kennedy Stewart called the rash of swarmings, robberies and demeaning rituals “heartbreaking” for the victims and their families.

“Early incidents can have a very long-term impact on their mental health and development,” he said. “Everybody has to feel safe in this city and we have to do more, especially for young people.”

...

https://globalnews.ca/news/8827131/vancouver-mayor-responds-teen-violence/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If anybody wanted them to die, we can just shut down all the shelters and let the winter finish them off - that's "letting them rot." Or we can find a middle ground that allows them to get help.

We've been talking about the hardcore criminals this entire time: quote, "we are talking about people who create problems for other good folks here." Non-offenders only need a safe place to live and get back on their feet.

I'm not sure that's true. There's no agreement here (just as there's no agreement in society) about what constitutes 'the problem' and what 'the solution' looks like.

As far as I know, nobody has expressed an opinion that people who are violent, or causing property damage shouldn't be 'dealt with'. (Although that accusation has been thrown around at times).

The opinions about how they should be dealt with differ from 'locking them up' in a punitive system, through to providing housing (if they're homeless) and appropriate support services to help them get back on their feet (with some acknowledging that might not be achievable for some of the people).

There are thousands of unemployed and probably unemployable people in the Lower Mainland. Many of them concentrate in certain areas (not just in the DTES, but certainly in a higher concentration there). Some of them sit on the sidewalk and chat. Some of them sit on the sidewalk and try to sell things (which may be from binning, or may have been stolen, although not necessarily by the people selling them). Some of them are using drugs. Those drugs may have been obtained from a dealer, but they may also have been supplied to them in a pharmacy, as recognition of a 'clean supply' has led to a limited public supply to some habituated users.

The opinions expressed here go from hardline zero tolerance for any infraction, to recognition that many of these people have a legitimate right to be where they are, and that the nature of addiction means supplying some of them with a safe supply of drugs will limit further adverse health outcomes and deaths.

Some try to explain the causes of the problems we see - the nature of mental illness, childhood trauma, adult trauma, the changing impact of artificial opioids and newly invented drugs. Some offer real-world examples of friends, or relatives who have ended up addicted, or homeless, or both. Others seem to be disinterested in why the world is changing the way it is; they just want it to go away.

I'm not sure there's ever likely to be a consensus position here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Council did approve that detox centre on Clark a few years ago; if there's people who genuinely want to quit and get better, they'll be covered.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

if there's people who genuinely want to quit and get better, they'll be covered.

I think this sums up the main point of divergence: some people believe getting help is the choice of the patient, while some believe it's in the public's interest that addicts get help and that they should be required to do so.

But I think everyone should remember that some of the issues may be corelated but not causal, and that some may be unrelated entirely. Not all homeless are addicts, and not all violent offenders are addicts, and not all thieves are homeless, etc.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The fact that not every user becomes a DTES head case is my argument. Proof? How about practically every article about his high school years? It's hardly a secret after fourteen years of coverage.

So just another one of your unsubstantiated claims with no links or proof huh?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

So just another one of your unsubstantiated claims with no links or proof huh?

Google “obama cocaine” if you don’t believe me, it takes about three minutes. Him being a user was a pretty big thing back in the ‘08 campaign, I’m not going to hold your hand just because you somehow missed it.

Can I expect a source for how church attendance lowers the chance of drugs or violence? Yeah, didn’t think so.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Google “obama cocaine” if you don’t believe me, it takes about three minutes. Him being a user was a pretty big thing back in the ‘08 campaign, I’m not going to hold your hand just because you somehow missed it.

Can I expect a source for how church attendance lowers the chance of drugs or violence? Yeah, didn’t think so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html

I expected you to be difficult and uncooperative and of course I was right so I tracked down a NY Times article on just this subject and it seems Obama greatly exagerrated his alcohol and drug use in college to his own political benefit or at least that's what everyone who knew him in college said so just as I figured he was never even close to being addicted to cocaine as you claimed. This explains why you didn't want to go looking for proof of Obama's rampant drug use either-because you knew it was bullshit

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html

I expected you to be difficult and uncooperative and of course I was right so I tracked down a NY Times article on just this subject and it seems Obama greatly exagerrated his alcohol and drug use in college to his own political benefit or at least that's what everyone who knew him in college said so just as I figured he was never even close to being addicted to cocaine as you claimed. This explains why you didn't want to go looking for proof of Obama's rampant drug use either-because you knew it was bullshit

Funny, because other friends say he was the ringleader. I'll check out the NYT one once I have a free article.

If I post links, you start nitpicking over tiny minutiae because the source itself proves my point. If I don't post links, that means I'm uncooperative. Face it - you're just looking to continue a fight that you can't win; by your own logic, you've already conceded to me long ago that the DTES is the result of a housing shortage and not PTSD or lack of church, which is what everybody's already been saying.