Downtown Eastside - DTES Issues

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're quite correct. The mayor was standing next to the City Manager when he clarified that there weren't actually enough shelter beds available. That was because journalists were questioning the Mayor's statement that "Shelter space is available to those currently residing on Hastings St." Which turned out to be misleading - some shelter space was available, but not enough.

In fact, the City Manager was wrong when he said there wasn't enough. See below for the number of shelter beds available in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, updated today.

http://shelters.bc211.ca/bc211shelters

Perhaps there just isn't enough beds to cater to hardcore addicts that need a whole slew of tax-funded services, but that's just splurging.

[Migrant_Coconut]

One more time: "... some shelter space was available, but not enough."

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Vin

Shelter or jail: pick one. It is really simple, actually.

I detect a pointed tone, and my question did not call for one.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

tl;dr: There's a 99.9% chance there'll be another tent city somewhere else in the next few weeks, so ABC'll either cut their losses now, or waste a lot of time and resources playing whack-a-mole for the next three and a half years.

This.

This was what I was going to get at.

As much as I do take a tougher stance on homelessness and drug use, at least East Hastings was somewhat contained and confined to one area.

Strathcona Park round 2 anyone? Perhaps it could be Stanley Park? Let the whack-a-mole begin :popcorn: .

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by scryer

As much as I do take a tougher stance one homelessness and drug use, at least East Hastings was somewhat contained and confined to one area.

Strathcona Park round 2 anyone? Perhaps it could be Stanley Park?

Between the lesser of two evils, I'd rather it be in a public park which can be avoided and doesn't have inherent safety risks than on a crowded street next to shitty old dilapidated fire hazard buildings and crowding out businesses, residents, and transit users who cannot avoid the area.

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're right that housing and homeless is not the responsibility of the City. That's why ABC could close the Renter's Office that the previous Council had established. But the City (and other municipalities) end up paying the bill for the policing, and first responder calls, and all the other costs that come from having inadequate numbers of shelter beds and SRO rooms that are so awful that some people would rather live in a tent on the street. That's why the City started finding ways to increase the number of shelter beds and increase provision of non-market housing - it's not their responsibility, but it is their problem.

I agree with you 100%

[scryer]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Between the lesser of two evils, I'd rather it be in a public park which can be avoided and doesn't have inherent safety risks than on a crowded street next to shitty old dilapidated fire hazard buildings and crowding out businesses, residents, and transit users who cannot avoid the area.

Aren't we suppose to be protecting the environment or something?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by scryer

Aren't we suppose to be protecting the environment or something?

I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Strathcona park isn't exactly what I'd call the "natural environment". I never said it was good, in fact I think I explicitly called it an "evil", but I don't think encampments in Strathcona are harming the environment.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Strathcona park isn't exactly what I'd call the "natural environment". I never said it was good, in fact I think I explicitly called it an "evil", but I don't think encampments in Strathcona are harming the environment.

What?

Do you need Merriam Webster to define what a park is for you?

Do you really need centuries of environmental studies on the effects of littering quoted and linked for you?

This is actually hilarious. Please, by all means, continue making your point that parks with grass and trees aren't natural .

Now where is that popcorn emoji at?

Moving on...

I would argue that evacuating the homeless population (and read this carefully, boo boo..) WITHOUT A THOUGHT-OUT LONG TERM PLAN, is the greater of two evils because you potentially endanger law-abiding citizens since those populations have to relocate to somewhere. At least with East Hastings, a law abiding citizen could avoid the dangers.

My criticism is that this move wasn't thought out.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I spend a lot of time in the Brentwood area and I honestly cannot remember ever seeing a homeless person in the area. Perhaps I'm blind but in my more limited time around Metrotown or Lougheed I don't remember ever seeing any there either. Now it's entirely possible that I'm wrong about that and they've found hiding places outside of the public realm or they pack up early in the morning and setup again late at night, but if either of those are true then that kind of feeds into my thesis that there doesn't have to be tent cities. Can't speak towards Edmonds though, not my stomping grounds.

Edit: Actually finally one came to my mind, for a while last year there was someone permanently encamped at the intersection of the Willingdon and Hwy 1 westbound offramp inside the cloverleaf on the sidewalk. I don't think he made it a year before he got kicked out. Not exactly Brentwood though and only a single individual though. Hope they're not in the DTES now.

Edit2: And there was also the man encamped in Broadview Park who killed that RCMP officer, I suppose.

Either way, relative to the downtown core the amount of homelessness in the Lower Mainland still appears to me to be extremely sparse.

That's attributable to the complete lack of shelter spaces and zero injection sites, there's more shelter beds in New West than there are in much larger neighbouring Burnaby. When you don't provide these facilities but neighbouring municipalities do then surprise surprise you don't have anywhere near as large of an issue as municipalities like Vancouver and New West do.

https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/newslet...rs/2022-08-12/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

In fact, the City Manager was wrong when he said there wasn't enough. See below for the number of shelter beds available in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, updated today.

http://shelters.bc211.ca/bc211shelters

Perhaps there just isn't enough beds to cater to hardcore addicts that need a whole slew of tax-funded services, but that's just splurging.

No, he was right - there just aren't enough beds for the current number of homeless. That list of shelters is where all the temporarily housed are already living. The shelters are almost full - there weren't enough beds available in the city for the number of people who had been living in tents along Hastings, that were displaced. (It seems like about 100, but I'm pretty certain they didn't do an accurate count, they just cleared the street). There won't be enough tonight either, or even when the new temporary Main Street building is finished - although it'll be more than we have now. Shelters all have a limit on the number of people they can house, based on the fire officer's number that can safely be accommodated. When they're full, they turn people away.

"We don't have enough spaces. That's why people are sleeping on the street," said Sarah Goldvine, B.C. Housing's vice president of communications and public affairs.

The organization funds more than 4,000 permanent and temporary shelter spaces across the province, with an occupancy rate of 91 per cent. It is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in affordable housing projects, but the supply is not keeping up with demand."

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by scryer

What?

Do you need Merriam Webster to define what a park is for you?

Do you really need centuries of environmental studies on the effects of littering quoted and linked for you?

This is actually hilarious. Please, by all means, continue making your point that parks with grass and trees aren't natural .

Now where is that popcorn emoji at?

Ooookay if this is a troll response it's too much to even get a rouse out of me. Let's pretend to agree that littering in Strathcona Park is worse for the environment than littering 10 blocks away.

Originally Posted by mcj

That's attributable to the complete lack of shelter spaces and zero injection sites, there's more shelter beds in New West than there are in much larger neighbouring Burnaby. When you don't provide these facilities but neighbouring municipalities do then surprise surprise you don't have anywhere near as large of an issue as municipalities like Vancouver and New West do.

https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/newslet...rs/2022-08-12/

Yes I didn't explicitly say this but this is of course part of the reason, it's a bit of a feedback loop now though, you provide social services where there are homeless people, and homeless people are going to be naturally drawn to where there are social services. In general the West Side gets flak for resisting social housing, but the rest of the Lower Mainland has gone under the radar for too long.

Justin McElroy visualizes it pretty well.

https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status...Ah_ZJZEBuW7wdw



Unironically, this tweet and article are from the last time the encampments were cleared out.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Without picking a side, I think we can all agree that if some of the East Hastings campers end up moving to Stanley Park or Robson Square, it's Mission Failed.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Without picking a side, I think we can all agree that if some of the East Hastings campers end up moving to Stanley Park or Robson Square, it's Mission Failed.

Depends what the mission is I suppose. If some number can be housed and the encampments can be spread out a bit I don't necessarily think that would be an outright failure.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Depends what the mission is I suppose. If some number can be housed and the encampments can be spread out a bit I don't necessarily think that would be an outright failure.

I don't see how having several moderately unsafe areas (many of which were relatively safe beforehand) is any better than one very unsafe area. Tent cities are conspicuously more hazardous than social housing.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I don't see how having several moderately unsafe areas (many of which were relatively safe beforehand) is any better than one very unsafe area. Tent cities are conspicuously more hazardous than social housing.

I'm of the opinion that there is strength in numbers, and it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that tent cities are also strictly much more hazardous than the same aggregate population of smaller encampments of one to a few individuals. Populous tent cities make law enforcement by police difficult and when non-campers are outnumbered in an area by campers it makes for an extremely unwelcoming environment. I don't think most people are bothered walking past a single homeless individual sheltering in front of an unused door, but plenty of people consider walking down Hastings a complete "no-go" area regardless of the actual threat of any danger.

With these tent cities I'm not just concerned about non-campers but also homeless people within the camps. It's again my layman understanding that these larger camps truly are inherently unsafe environments, but primarily for the individuals staying within them. Without any fire safety they seem extremely prone to fires that can easily spread to structures or other campers nearby, and violence between homeless individuals is apparently quite bad, especially for women.

In the absence of quality housing for these individuals, I think it's at least a better alternative to try to get them to spread out a little bit and away from fire hazards. Believe me, I'm a big four pillars person and I don't think any tough love gets people off the streets, but pragmatically tent cities against rickety old wood structures seem like the bigger evil.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Without picking a side, I think we can all agree that if some of the East Hastings campers end up moving to Stanley Park or Robson Square, it's Mission Failed.

Photos to show some proof here? I think your mission to mislead failed here.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No, he was right - there just aren't enough beds for the current number of homeless. That list of shelters is where all the temporarily housed are already living. The shelters are almost full - there weren't enough beds available in the city for the number of people who had been living in tents along Hastings, that were displaced. (It seems like about 100, but I'm pretty certain they didn't do an accurate count, they just cleared the street). There won't be enough tonight either, or even when the new temporary Main Street building is finished - although it'll be more than we have now. Shelters all have a limit on the number of people they can house, based on the fire officer's number that can safely be accommodated. When they're full, they turn people away.

"We don't have enough spaces. That's why people are sleeping on the street," said Sarah Goldvine, B.C. Housing's vice president of communications and public affairs.

The organization funds more than 4,000 permanent and temporary shelter spaces across the province, with an occupancy rate of 91 per cent. It is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in affordable housing projects, but the supply is not keeping up with demand."

All just conjecture on your part. I showed you the number of beds available. If you are so sure, the least you can do is to show us the total number of people decamped. If we let people just sleep anywhere they want, the beds in the shelter will never be enough for those who choose to end up in the streets.

[Vin]

Another victim of street chaos in this city:

Festal Paleo Cafe has permanently closed in downtown Vancouver
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/fest...o-cafe-closure

Who wants to hang out in a place with such vile energy outside?

[Migrant_Coconut]

The better question is who wants to hang out in a paleo cafe in the least busy part of Granville Mall? That's a bad business model all around.

Originally Posted by chowhou

... In the absence of quality housing for these individuals, I think it's at least a better alternative to try to get them to spread out a little bit and away from fire hazards. Believe me, I'm a big four pillars person and I don't think any tough love gets people off the streets, but pragmatically tent cities against rickety old wood structures seem like the bigger evil.

Perhaps. If there's a general uptick in assaults or other crimes in the rest of downtown, that could be as much of a problem as fire hazards; at least East Hastings was already a slum to begin with.

Originally Posted by Vin

Photos to show some proof here? I think your mission to mislead failed here.

No, scryer was suggesting that clearing the tent city might cause other smaller tent cities where we don't want them, and I was saying yes, that could be a problem. I think your mission to mislead failed here.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Perhaps. If there's a general uptick in assaults or other crimes in the rest of downtown, that could be as much of a problem as fire hazards; at least East Hastings was already a slum to begin with.

If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but bear in mind that just because they were encamped on Hastings doesn't mean they were confined there. The more unhinged homeless people were always allowed to go anywhere they wanted in Vancouver; I wouldn't expect being in Strathcona Park, on Robson, or in Yaletown would change crime rates that much.

I'm also not a huge fan of the "East Hastings is a slum, so let it rot" mentality, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I don't think we should condemn a part of our city as a permanent "slum district". Yaletown used to be a "slum district", but look at how it has changed.