Downtown Eastside - DTES Issues

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

Fair enough, and yeah, looks like we'll have to wait and see. There's a fairly good chance the same campers just pop back up on Hastings sometime this year, in which case both arguments are wrong.

I'm not saying let East Hastings rot, I'm saying it was already rotting to begin with, and maybe moving the rot around downtown isn't the best idea.
It's the old "concentrate it" vs "spread it out" argument; social housing somewhat favours the latter, but tent cities don't really have a good answer on any end of the spectrum.

Worth noting that Yaletown's negative elements (heavy industry) moved out; the DTES' ones have not.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

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.

If you want to argue there were sufficient available shelter beds for the people decamped, then you have to show how many there were who had their tents trashed, and list the available shelter spaces. You didn't show me the 'number of beds available', you showed me the number of beds. Now you have to prove they weren't almost completely full already. Otherwise it's just conjecture on your part. Bear in mind I've got the City Manager, with the Mayor standing next to him, saying there weren't enough shelter beds to house everybody.

[Tysonbrown]

The problem existed prior to Kennedy Stewart but...talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burns! I am, so far, happy with Ken Sim. The proof of his mettle will be in how the folks that were moved off of Hastings are treated. That will be crucial to others following. DON'T SCREW THIS UP like your predecessor did.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Tysonbrown

The problem existed prior to Kennedy Stewart but...talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burns! I am, so far, happy with Ken Sim. The proof of his mettle will be in how the folks that were moved off of Hastings are treated. That will be crucial to others following. DON'T SCREW THIS UP like your predecessor did.

What would constitute not screwing the situation up? There were encampments removed by the City every year in the past 10 years. There are too many unhoused, unwilling to move to shelters or SROs, and not enough decent homes and support services to even offer everyone a safe, decent quality bed, let alone a room.

It's possible that with a Premier who worked in the area and understands the problems, and extra resources things can be built faster, but it probably won't be in the next week or two.

Global TV showed people moving into the alley (so they're still against buildings, until they get moved again). Some of them slept on the street, but without a tent or their belongings. 36 people were moved, only 8 went into shelters. There were plenty of new tents appearing in the area - although only a few on Hastings this morning.

Very few people think the camp should have been allowed to stay as it was, or even at all, but not having a plan, or even living spaces, for the people who are being 'decamped' seems short sighted and unreasonable. 'Out of sight, out of mind' is not a solution.

[Sheba]

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.

Apparently some people camp in Byrne Creek Marine Park (source: neighbours out walking their dogs in the morning and smelling coffee coming from the greenbelt).

From a couple weeks ago - Fire in forested Burnaby area leads to one death. Now that doesn't directly say 'homeless person sheltering in the greenbelt' but it sure sounds like that's what it is...

[WarrenC12]

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.

Yes. Tents on the sidewalk of a busy street is probably the worst spot.

[WarrenC12]

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 have news for you, there are tents dispersed throughout the lower mainland in parks and other areas. They have been there for decades. A few people tenting here and there has never been much of an issue.

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Apparently some people camp in Byrne Creek Marine Park (source: neighbours out walking their dogs in the morning and smelling coffee coming from the greenbelt).

From a couple weeks ago - Fire in forested Burnaby area leads to one death. Now that doesn't directly say 'homeless person sheltering in the greenbelt' but it sure sounds like that's what it is...

That was a well known guy that lived there for a long time. Individual build a 2 storey structure and after it burned a rifle was discovered with a bunch of knives and machetes as well as crossbow. Byrne Creek ravine have has encampments steadily for the last several year.
In general most of encampments in Burnaby are in the wooded areas. A big chunk of fired was cut down to make room for Trans Mountain Pipeline that was located south of Government road between Gaglardi and North Road. That removal of vegetation dispersed significant number of fold throughout the area. I can see more coming to Lake City Way and other areas near Skytrain Stations.
I predict that Burnaby will have a huge homeless problem in the coming years.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

I actually don't troll on these forums... but when you say something blatantly stupid, I'm not holding back and that includes the sarcasm.

Besides I could care less about getting a rouse out of you or anyone on these forums - you're just a digital stranger that still ignored my other points trying to gaslight the other readers into thinking (or convincing yourself) that I'm trolling, and that you didn't just try to seriously convince me that parks aren't natural greenspaces .

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.

Agreed, easily. And time will tell on that one.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Fair enough, and yeah, looks like we'll have to wait and see. There's a fairly good chance the same campers just pop back up on Hastings sometime this year, in which case both arguments are wrong.

I'm not saying let East Hastings rot, I'm saying it was already rotting to begin with, and maybe moving the rot around downtown isn't the best idea.
It's the old "concentrate it" vs "spread it out" argument; social housing somewhat favours the latter, but tent cities don't really have a good answer on any end of the spectrum.

Exactly.

At the end of the day, on one hand, I'm happy to see some different action being taken but on the other-hand I feel like the timing and logistics were completely off. It's like the city decided that it needed to take dramatic action to show the voters that it's doing something, when in reality they just trickled a really bad problem into the rest of the metro region.

I'm gonna leave the discussion here because I am more curious to see how the rest of year is going to pan out and which parks become the new tent cities. The homeless population didn't disappear overnight and I'm wondering where they went off to next ?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by scryer

Please, by all means, continue making your point that parks with grass and trees aren't natural

Wait, you think baseball fields and playgrounds and wide swaths of open fields where there used to be a rainforest is natural?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Wait, you think baseball fields and playgrounds and wide swaths of open fields where there used to be a rainforest is natural?

Lol, not another one .

They're green spaces. Do you think that all publicly maintained greenspaces are unnatural? What does that make Stanley Park (spoilers: it's a combo of both)? I'm reluctant to ask these questions because this totally detracts from the topic this thread intends to explore.

Are some greenspaces made by mother nature? No, and don't put words in my mouth. But they are an area maintained in its natural state as a public property. More importantly they are green spaces that we should be protecting because they lower Co2 emissions, etc in cities. Do you really need me to quote those sources for you as well or are you good with this?

Park

park
1 of 2
noun
ˈpärk

1a
: an enclosed piece of ground stocked with game and held by royal prescription or grant

b
: a tract of land that often includes lawns, woodland, and pasture attached to a country house and is used as a game preserve and for recreation

2a
: a piece of ground in or near a city or town kept for ornament and recreation

b
: an area maintained in its natural state as a public property

Source: Merriam Webster


Green Space

green space
noun

: community space consisting of land (such as parks) rather than buildings

Source: Merriam Webster

If you're confused, please do your research.

I think that preserving our natural environments whether they be publicly maintained greenspaces or wild natural rainforests is a human responsibility. Tent cities destroy these environments whether they pop up in a rainforest or in Strathcona park. At least on E. Hastings, it was somewhat contained to an area where there's minimal damage to the natural environment (whether those are publicly maintained greenspaces or rainforests).

Again, my criticism still stands that I feel like the clearing of E. Hastings wasn't thought out since those homeless populations have to go somewhere. Our natural greenspaces are the easiest to set up camp. It's not like the problem was eliminated, it just moved somewhere else.

[lio45]

Genuine question: am I the only one whose sense of logic and rationality is rubbed the wrong way by the fact the point where streets (such as Hastings) change from "West" to "East" is NOT the street called Main Street?!?!?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by lio45

Genuine question: am I the only one whose sense of logic and rationality is rubbed the wrong way by the fact the point where streets (such as Hastings) change from "West" to "East" is NOT the street called Main Street?!?!?

The east/west split dates back to when the roads were named differently. In 1886 it was Westminster Avenue, crossing the Westminster Bridge over False Creek and joining up to the south with the Westminster Road at Broadway. In 1910 it was renamed to Main Street - reflecting the name the adjoining municipality of South Vancouver had given the road within their jurisdiction. Westminster Road became Kingsway in 1906.

The break between east and west, in Downtown, was Carrall Street, which in the 1890s was an inportant north/south street that ran north from a wharf on Burrard Inlet to wharves on False Creek. It passed through Maple Treet Square, the centre of town in the 1870s and early 1880s before Vancouver was created in 1886 from the town of Granville. Former river captain turned saloon owner 'Gassy' Jack Deighton built his first (squatted) bar there, that founded the township.

False Creek was filled in to the east of Main Street in the 1910s, and became the Canadian National and Great Northern railway terminals. The bridge became a road, with new land created by infill on the western side as well. That's where the Citygate condo towers and Quebec Street are located today.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes. Tents on the sidewalk of a busy street is probably the worst spot.

Yes, they were literally blocking firefighter access to buildings.

I watched Pete Fry, a Green council member, on CBC and even he said that the tents needed to be removed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I have news for you, there are tents dispersed throughout the lower mainland in parks and other areas. They have been there for decades. A few people tenting here and there has never been much of an issue.

A Mountie got knifed in Burnaby by one of those tent occupants just a few months ago - we can argue about the safety of one big tent city or several smaller ones all day, but "never been much of an issue" is a pretty hot take.

[jollyburger]

Vancouver readies 'quick response teams' in case tents return to East Hastings

City of Vancouver officials say they plan to deploy “quick response teams” if people try to set up tents again on East Hastings Street, even as scrutiny of their enforcement actions intensifies.

...

“To prevent re-establishment of structures in the short-term, VPD and crews will deploy quick response teams (QRTs) to remove structures at a smaller scale under the authority of the Street and Traffic bylaw and the Fire Chief’s Order,” the city wrote in an email.

“In the longer term, we are looking at different integrated models for encampment response.”

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...rn-to-hastings

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Wait, you think baseball fields and playgrounds and wide swaths of open fields where there used to be a rainforest is natural?

If you’re saying it’s ironic to call a park a “natural space” let me point out the irony of SSPers who bemoan the fact we don’t do enough for the homeless yet cheer on the demolition of boring three story walkups and rooming houses for the latest highrise. Do people think all the homeless are coming straight from SROs? A lot had long term rental housing in those postwar walkups at cheap rents. When those were demolished they find deprived of their home of many years and the community they built up there. Often their next stop is in a tent somewhere.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If you’re saying it’s ironic to call a park a “natural space” let me point out the irony of SSPers who bemoan the fact we don’t do enough for the homeless yet cheer on the demolition of boring three story walkups and rooming houses for the latest highrise. Do people think all the homeless are coming straight from SROs? A lot had long term rental housing in those postwar walkups at cheap rents. When those were demolished they find deprived of their home of many years and the community they built up there. Often their next stop is in a tent somewhere.

As this is the DTES thread, it's pretty safe to say that any walk-ups or rooming houses that are redeveloped there come with replacement of the units that are lost with more, better quality ones that are subsidized and protected in future.

That's also true for any developments associated with most of the City of Vancouver or Burnaby rental projects, where tenant protection has been introduced that is far better than in the past.

As there aren't many vacant sites sitting undeveloped, it's inevitable that older lower density housing gets replaced. What's your preferred solution to adding the additional homes we need?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A Mountie got knifed in Burnaby by one of those tent occupants just a few months ago - we can argue about the safety of one big tent city or several smaller ones all day, but "never been much of an issue" is a pretty hot take.

The exception that proves the rule.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The exception that proves the rule.

I mean they've recovered guns, knives, axes and swords from tents down there so a few more exceptions for you.