Public Disorder & the Decline of Vancouver's Livability

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We'll see what a hundred more cops (if that's even possible) does. The VPD is already roughly a quarter of Vancouver's budget; seems to be working about as well as Swanson's free drugs.



It was. And how has that sentiment changed over the years?

Same question as always: why settle for being just a bit better than other places that are worse and even deteriorating?

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

They only exist in your mind. You and Vin just create straw men constantly.

Haha. Last night must have been absolutely heart-wrenching for the bleeding hearts to watch the results unfold. It was a COMPLETE and TOTAL destruction and downvote by the silent majority on the previous Council and their policies. There are no ifs or buts about a result that handed one single party a historic super-majority on every single Council, Trust and Board being voted.

Last night showed that the majority does NOT and never has supported crazy social policies and total proliferation of drugs and crime. There is no wide support for justifying everything under proclaimed injustice and playing victim at every turn. People know it's all BS and they shoved it last night.

Sim and ABC have been handed all the tools to do what must be done. Hopefully they are brave enough and completely ignore all social media outcry while doing right by the majority. It is time to end the dictatorship of the minority think.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Haha. Last night must have been absolutely heart-wrenching for the bleeding hearts to watch the results unfold. It was a COMPLETE and TOTAL destruction and downvote by the silent majority on the previous Council and their policies. There are no ifs or buts about a result that handed one single party a historic super-majority on every single Council, Trust and Board being voted.

Last night showed that the majority does NOT and never has supported crazy social policies and total proliferation of drugs and crime. There is no wide support for justifying everything under proclaimed injustice and playing victim at every turn. People know it's all BS and they shoved it last night.

Sim and ABC have been handed all the tools to do what must be done. Hopefully they are brave enough and completely ignore all social media outcry while doing right by the majority. It is time to end the dictatorship of the minority think.

I've seen no evidence ABC was voted in entire off of this at all.

In fact ABC Vancouver ran under a very ambitious centrist platform that appeals to many urban progressives and conservatives.

You're way out tp lunch if you think this is a complete backlash to so called progressive social policies which Sim himself doesn't even oppose.

Nowhere in his platform does he advocates locking people or up or hardcore tough on crime ridiculousness. If you expect a complete change on council you're delusional, he'll govern not much different from the way Stewart did.

I've been calling many out on this very thread for WAY exaggerating crime problems and i'm 100% cool with hiring 100 more police officers so I don't know where you get the idea that the people in this thread were even opposed. I'm a centre-leftist and I love a LOT of ABC's platform.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Same question as always: why settle for being just a bit better than other places that are worse and even deteriorating?

Same response: there's hardly anywhere that's "best." Overseas Asians have had a fairly bad time all over the Western world since 2016. 2020 only made it worse.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I've seen no evidence ABC was voted in entire off of this at all.

In fact ABC Vancouver ran under a very ambitious centrist platform that appeals to many urban progressives and conservatives.

You're way out tp lunch if you think this is a complete backlash to so called progressive social policies which Sim himself doesn't even oppose.

Nowhere in his platform does he advocates locking people or up or hardcore tough on crime ridiculousness. If you expect a complete change on council you're delusional, he'll govern not much different from the way Stewart did.

I've been calling many out on this very thread for WAY exaggerating crime problems and i'm 100% cool with hiring 100 more police officers so I don't know where you get the idea that the people in this thread were even opposed. I'm a centre-leftist and I love a LOT of ABC's platform.

Nonsense. Jean Swanson and her poverty pimp groupies were sent packing. Stewart and his pandering to drug organizations like VANDU were given the boot.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nonsense. Jean Swanson and her poverty pimp groupies were sent packing. Stewart and his pandering to drug organizations like VANDU were given the boot.

In which case, shouldn't Fred Harding and the NPA have done better? COPE and Forward outperformed them in all four categories.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nonsense. Jean Swanson and her poverty pimp groupies were sent packing. Stewart and his pandering to drug organizations like VANDU were given the boot.

Replaced by a centrist party that basically unified the Centre and Centre-right vote from 2018.

Stewart won the same number of votes as 2018. This wasn't a crime backlash, only 14% of Vancouver residents considered crime a top issue according to polls on this. The number 1 issue remained housing.

People didn't like Stewart, thats really it.

I mean again, ABC Vancouver doesn't have a very tough on crime agenda beyond hiring more police, he doesn't oppose the social policies Vancouver has become known for, he's shown no inclination towards opposing harm reduction services like insite.

[Skook]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In which case, shouldn't Fred Harding and the NPA have done better? COPE and Forward outperformed them in all four categories.

No, because it was clear that the NPA could not defeat Stewart, so people who are concerned with drugs and crime put their votes with ABC, where they would be most effective.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I've seen no evidence ABC was voted in entire off of this at all.

In fact ABC Vancouver ran under a very ambitious centrist platform that appeals to many urban progressives and conservatives.

You're way out tp lunch if you think this is a complete backlash to so called progressive social policies which Sim himself doesn't even oppose.

Nowhere in his platform does he advocates locking people or up or hardcore tough on crime ridiculousness. If you expect a complete change on council you're delusional, he'll govern not much different from the way Stewart did.

I've been calling many out on this very thread for WAY exaggerating crime problems and i'm 100% cool with hiring 100 more police officers so I don't know where you get the idea that the people in this thread were even opposed. I'm a centre-leftist and I love a LOT of ABC's platform.

Urbanity is not shit (literally and figuratively) all over the streets and alarmingly escalating crime.

US TV and movies give many of us the impression that these worsening conditions are part and parcel of urbanity but this is not the view in most of the world.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Replaced by a centrist party that basically unified the Centre and Centre-right vote from 2018.

Stewart won the same number of votes as 2018. This wasn't a crime backlash, only 14% of Vancouver residents considered crime a top issue according to polls on this. The number 1 issue remained housing.

People didn't like Stewart, thats really it.

I mean again, ABC Vancouver doesn't have a very tough on crime agenda beyond hiring more police, he doesn't oppose the social policies Vancouver has become known for, he's shown no inclination towards opposing harm reduction services like insite.

As I said previously, people are projecting their own fantasies onto the results of this election.

It was a win because the ABC platform appealed to centrists, some more to the right and some more to the left (like myself). It was not a sign that Vancouver has a majority of rabid, empathy-deficient, doom and gloomers.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Zepfancouver

A new mayor Ken Sim and a new day in Vancouver. We can now close and archive this thread

Originally Posted by Vin

Love to prove you wrong when change really happens and Vancouver is going on the right path once again.

I am somewhat doubtful that Sim will be as centrist as the ABC platform indicates he will be. I am skeptical that ABC will allow dense development in SFH neighbourhoods when every house on Point Grey Road had an ABC lawnsign.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe ABC will build bike infrastructure, support Translink's expansion plans, and allow towers and six story apartments on the West Side, and maybe the only reason ABC successfully built a coalition between right and centre-right voters is the "tough on crime" persona. But in that case, I am even more doubtful about the party's ability to follow through.

The individuals who are committing the most serious crimes in the DTES and across the city tend to be repeat offenders. We are reminded constantly by Vin's and whatnext's posts that some violent assaults have been perpetrated by individuals who were let out weeks or even days earlier on parole. From this we can assume that the threat of arrest does little to dissuade these people from committing violent crimes. I don't think ABC allocating more funds to the police budget will make a dent in the violent crime statistics because sentencing is done by Provincial judges, and the municipal council has no control over sentencing guidelines.

What spending more on police may do is reduce petty crime such as vandalism, public disorderliness, etc. Essentially, the VPD may have more capacity to engage in "broken windows policing". While these crimes certainly have a financial impact on store owners when insurance doesn't cover a window or local residents when their building's entryway smells of ammonia, the crimes that cause people to perceive the DTES as unsafe are the unprovoked stranger assaults and not seeing someone peeing in an alley. The latter is gross, not frightening.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Last night showed that the majority does NOT and never has supported crazy social policies and total proliferation of drugs and crime. There is no wide support for justifying everything under proclaimed injustice and playing victim at every turn. People know it's all BS and they shoved it last night.

Sim and ABC have been handed all the tools to do what must be done. Hopefully they are brave enough and completely ignore all social media outcry while doing right by the majority. It is time to end the dictatorship of the minority think.

None of this is surprising. ABC had all the momentum and we had a lame duck mayor.

I do agree the excuses are gone and Ken/ABC will have to deliver. I hope they do, I voted for him.

Maybe shipping the DTES to Burnaby will be his plan.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The individuals who are committing the most serious crimes in the DTES and across the city tend to be repeat offenders. We are reminded constantly by Vin's and whatnext's posts that some violent assaults have been perpetrated by individuals who were let out weeks or even days earlier on parole. From this we can assume that the threat of arrest does little to dissuade these people from committing violent crimes. I don't think ABC allocating more funds to the police budget will make a dent in the violent crime statistics because sentencing is done by Provincial judges, and the municipal council has no control over sentencing guidelines.

What spending more on police may do is reduce petty crime such as vandalism, public disorderliness, etc. Essentially, the VPD may have more capacity to engage in "broken windows policing". While these crimes certainly have a financial impact on store owners when insurance doesn't cover a window or local residents when their building's entryway smells of ammonia, the crimes that cause people to perceive the DTES as unsafe are the unprovoked stranger assaults and not seeing someone peeing in an alley. The latter is gross, not frightening.

Maybe the new City Council will fund some alternative to peeing in an alley. Many businesses understandably only allow customers to use bathrooms, or don't allow access at all. There are almost no public conveniences in the city, and an increasing street population during the day (even if they have homes to go to), and while there have been a few porta potties stationed in the DTES, there's really very poor coverage and a consequential problem.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

None of this is surprising. ABC had all the momentum and we had a lame duck mayor.

I do agree the excuses are gone and Ken/ABC will have to deliver. I hope they do, I voted for him.

Maybe shipping the DTES to Burnaby will be his plan.

I mean... Burnaby is practically a woke city state now.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Maybe the new City Council will fund some alternative to peeing in an alley. Many businesses understandably only allow customers to use bathrooms, or don't allow access at all. There are almost no public conveniences in the city, and an increasing street population during the day (even if they have homes to go to), and while there have been a few porta potties stationed in the DTES, there's really very poor coverage and a consequential problem.

Maybe you missed my point?

People (at least partly) elected Sim because they believe he will make Vancouver safer. When people talk about public safety, they are usually referring to violent, and not petty, crimes. Sim may make a dent in petty crimes, but it is hard to see how a municipal government can reduce violent crimes when the perpetrators are not afraid of jail time, are virtually guaranteed parole, and Provincial judges follow Provincial sentencing guidelines. If in four years fewer windows in Chinatown are smashed but we still have "four stranger assaults" per day as Sim claims, will voters think Sim met his campaign promises?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I mean... Burnaby is practically a woke city state now.

Don't tell Klazu, he lives there and thinks the opposite.

[Vin]

Funny that so many individuals who deny about the serious social and crime problems in Vancouver also "voted" for a mayor and party who think that there are major City issues left over by previous administrations, and then these folks are also doubtful that this mayor can make positive changes to this City (since they think the status quo isn't all that bad). My question is, why not vote for the incumbent if Vancouver has been doing so well all along as per your logic?

Hypocrisy at its best I reckon.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Skook

No, because it was clear that the NPA could not defeat Stewart, so people who are concerned with drugs and crime put their votes with ABC, where they would be most effective.

Correct analysis! Smart voters lean towards ABC because nobody wants split votes to allow the lousy incumbent to continue holding on to power. ABC has a pretty good platform, and so does NPA, but it just happens that Ken Sim and his party are a lot more popular.

Another thing I want to point out is that both Forward Together and NPA continuously ran negative ad campaigns against Ken Sim and ABC, which are totally uncalled for. We all want to listen to positive platforms from political parties, not smearing campaigns. This probably p*ssed off many here, including myself.

All the very best to the newly elected mayor and city council!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Maybe you missed my point?

People (at least partly) elected Sim because they believe he will make Vancouver safer. When people talk about public safety, they are usually referring to violent, and not petty, crimes. Sim may make a dent in petty crimes, but it is hard to see how a municipal government can reduce violent crimes when the perpetrators are not afraid of jail time, are virtually guaranteed parole, and Provincial judges follow Provincial sentencing guidelines. If in four years fewer windows in Chinatown are smashed but we still have "four stranger assaults" per day as Sim claims, will voters think Sim met his campaign promises?

No, I took your point, and I agree with you. It seems unlikely that more police, or mental health support workers will change things like random attacks by people with a psychosis, and acting aggressively, whatever the cause of that psychosis might be.

I was picking up on your last comment about the state of the city, and was pointing out that the gross behavior has an explanation, and potentially a solution.

I've also thought the best thing the Chinatown and Gastown BIAs could do for graffiti would be to fund a cart with a couple of Mission Possible employees to go around every day, and cover it up with the appropriate colour. Goodbye Graffiti obviously do a more thorough job, but it takes longer and no doubt costs more. With tagging, removing it as soon as it appears is arguably the best way of making it less effective as a way of drawing attention. It's much more difficult to stop it by catching the taggers, which seems to be what ABC think they can do. The taggers might move elsewhere, obviously, so it's not necessarily going to clean up the city, but it might help the areas which have the greatest problem right now.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No, I took your point, and I agree with you. It seems unlikely that more police, or mental health support workers will change things like random attacks by people with a psychosis, and acting aggressively, whatever the cause of that psychosis might be.

I was picking up on your last comment about the state of the city, and was pointing out that the gross behavior has an explanation, and potentially a solution.

I've also thought the best thing the Chinatown and Gastown BIAs could do for graffiti would be to fund a cart with a couple of Mission Possible employees to go around every day, and cover it up with the appropriate colour. Goodbye Graffiti obviously do a more thorough job, but it takes longer and no doubt costs more. With tagging, removing it as soon as it appears is arguably the best way of making it less effective as a way of drawing attention. It's much more difficult to stop it by catching the taggers, which seems to be what ABC think they can do. The taggers might move elsewhere, obviously, so it's not necessarily going to clean up the city, but it might help the areas which have the greatest problem right now.

I saw a tagger once in my neighbourhood and called the police. He got arrested. I don't care if he is released, but he now has a record with VPD and may think twice before vandalizing stuff again. Ever heard of deterrence?