Public Disorder & the Decline of Vancouver's Livability

[rofina]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I honestly don't understand. I understand that people feel like there's a massive crimewave in downtown Vancouver, and I also understand that people are under-reporting crimes, and that this has been building gradually for some time.

But how do you explain the extreme drop over a two month period between February and April of 2020? Like, as people "get used" to crimes and stop reporting them, if that was the actual cause of the stats showing what they currently do, then the stats would gradually be going down over time, wouldn't they? They wouldn't have a massive and sudden drop like that. People in the downtown core all of a sudden decided to stop reporting crimes all at the same time?

I'm not saying "ah just look at the stats", I'm saying "explain the stats in a way that makes sense", because "people underreport crimes" doesn't make sense as a way of explaining the apparent dichotomy between the statistics and the anecdotes.

February 2020-April 2020 is roughly the timeline for our actual lockdowns.

Downtown was a boarded up zombie zone for 6-8 weeks.

The day time population dropped, and with that a precipitous drop in reporting.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I live near Olympic Village and visit downtown on a semi-regular basis. I do find it difficult to separate fact from social media panic on this issue.

That's your judgement, if you find the state of the City acceptable

Are things bad? yes.

Are they getting worse? unclear.

This is where I get a little confused, how one wouldn't see a marked deterioration over the last 7ish years is a little confusing to me.

I think there is some historical bias in pretending that say, 10 years ago, things were great. There has always been a homeless problem, a drug problem.

From roughly middle to late 90's up until 2011 the Downtown core was on a relentless improvement streak. Of course problems persisted, but the improvements YoY were noticeable, and welcome. Just as I think that 15 year-ish period was a major noticeable improvement, I think the last 8 years have been a remarkably noticeable degradation.

I have dealt with numerous security issues with my building management and other local buildings in the area. It's been very steady over the past ~5 years. Not better, not worse.

The only thing I would say that does disappoint me about views like your own is that I'm not sure how far things have to degrade before folks like yourself would start to be more alarmed?

Its not clear to me what would convince you to see the degradation through my eyes, if its not obvious already?

But; we all vote with our feet and wallets in the end. I suspect as business continue to struggle and owners go public in larger numbers we will start to see the sentiment shift.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Skook

Shellenberger was on Rogan. Makes a solid case that the 'housing first' approach we've been using in Vancouver has been a disaster everywhere.

This is logical though.

Housing is one critical component, but throwing someone with severe mental health and addiction issues into a housing unit does little beyond remove them from the street.

These people need to be helped to navigate a reality in a way that provides for a future.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Skook

Shellenberger was on Rogan. Makes a solid case that the 'housing first' approach we've been using in Vancouver has been a disaster everywhere.

He must have been reading very selectively then. He also probably didn't understand that Housing First is a program to end homelessness - not to reduce substance abuse, (though research indicates it is more effective than traditional approaches in this regard as well).

Suggesting Vancouver has the same problem of homelessness as other West Coast cities is wrong. And San Francisco has one of the worst records of meeting housing demand (for anyone, not just low income people), so it's no surprise that their problems with homelessness are far worse than here.

Vancouver's Housing First experiment, funded by the Federal Government, offering housing to stabilize the lives of homeless is generally viewed as a success. It was very limited (2009-2013, although the Province took over the former Downtown hotel that it was run in), so it's not enough to meet the overall need for more housing for the homeless or those at imminent risk of homelessness. The participants saw fewer days hospitalized, less time in emergency rooms, fewer EMS events, fewer days in jail and fewer police interactions. In Calgary, part of the same program, less than 1% of existing clients returned to shelters or rough sleeping; clients spend 76% fewer days in jail and had a 35% decline in police interactions.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

@MIPS

Here's an interesting one the CBC posted. Seems these problems aren't just in the big city.

I think this example is central to the frustration people feel.

Why does the victimhood of the homeless and addicted supersede the ability of this woman to operate a business, earn a living for herself, and presumably create income streams for others in the community?

Our priorities are getting muddled; its precisely the taxes on profits from enterprises like hers that are needed to fund programs for those unable to fend for themselves.

[GenWhy?]

I think in the last 8 years rents have grown much faster than wages. Forgetting where my data came from this morning (migt be old 2016) Might be a contributing factor.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

That's your judgement, if you find the state of the City acceptable

I just said things are bad, why do you interpret that as acceptable? Trying to build a strawman?

Originally Posted by rofina

This is where I get a little confused, how one wouldn't see a marked deterioration over the last 7ish years is a little confusing to me.

It's anecdotal. I've actually seen a number of Temporary Modular Home structures be built nearby. I've heard from both sides how this will make the area better or worse. Guess what? No real change either way.

Originally Posted by rofina

The only thing I would say that does disappoint me about views like your own is that I'm not sure how far things have to degrade before folks like yourself would start to be more alarmed?

Alarmed? I lived downtown for years. I moved to the OV area 5 years ago. I knew exactly what I was getting into, good and bad. Of course I want things to improve. My point is, the change over that time with respect to the issues we are discussing has been minimal.

Originally Posted by rofina

But; we all vote with our feet and wallets in the end. I suspect as business continue to struggle and owners go public in larger numbers we will start to see the sentiment shift.

Yeah, I've heard this for years. I'm continually shocked at the rents charged for places like Gastown, but there is no shortage of willing renters (retail and residential).

I guess we'll see if anything changes. I'm not betting on it.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I just said things are bad, why do you interpret that as acceptable? Trying to build a strawman?

Strawman around what? My dismay has been clear, and reality is rough enough, so fortunately for me no strawmen needed!

It's anecdotal. I've actually seen a number of Temporary Modular Home structures be built nearby. I've heard from both sides how this will make the area better or worse. Guess what? No real change either way.

I think the issue will come in 10 years when temporary is permanent and not built to last. Not to say this isn't a good solution, its most certainly better then doing nothing.

Alarmed? I lived downtown for years. I moved to the OV area 5 years ago. I knew exactly what I was getting into, good and bad. Of course I want things to improve. My point is, the change over that time with respect to the issues we are discussing has been minimal.

We can agree to disagree on the change being minimal.

Yeah, I've heard this for years. I'm continually shocked at the rents charged for places like Gastown, but there is no shortage of willing renters (retail and residential)

I guess we'll see if anything changes. I'm not betting on it.

I think this is hitting the boiling point now. San Francisco is leading the charge in urban realm deterioration. When chain business start closing up in the Downtown core like they are now in San Fran leaderships hand will finally be forced.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

Strawman around what? My dismay has been clear, and reality is rough enough, so fortunately for me no strawmen needed!

You indicated I was happy with the current situation. Read your own posts.

Originally Posted by rofina

I think the issue will come in 10 years when temporary is permanent and not built to last. Not to say this isn't a good solution, its most certainly better then doing nothing.

What will the issue be then that doesn't exist now? Everything ages.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You indicated I was happy with the current situation. Read your own posts.

My apologies, my bad.

What will the issue be then that doesn't exist now? Everything ages.

Sure.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

I think the issue will come in 10 years when temporary is permanent and not built to last. Not to say this isn't a good solution, its most certainly better then doing nothing.

If the Temporary Modular buildings are still in the same locations in 10 years there will have been because there have been several policy failures. They're almost all on sites owned or acquired recently by the City, where larger, more permanent buildings are planned. It'll be a problem if something more permanent hasn't replaced most of them. The building on Little Mountain is already being relocated to build permanent housing. The recent plans for South False Creek would see another building relocated. It's unlikely the Main and Terminal site, or the one on the western SEFC lands will be undeveloped in 10 years. There are plans for at least one of the DTES sites being drawn up. The locations that seem likely to be longer term are those in industrial zoning, where larger permanent residential buildings aren't allowed.

Whether the buildings are still needed from a housing the homeless perspective will depend on how many more low income and welfare rate homes get built, and how many more people end up needing them. That's down to poitical choices by all three levels of government, and a whole range of economic and other factors. The scenarios are limitless, and even those will no doubt miss hugely disruptive events like covid.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Yes, I manage a business downtown and while there were a few times during the pandemic that I felt like things were getting worse, that has levelled off. We basically have one individual who accounts for 95% of our problems.

Ever wondered why authorities do not deal with that one individual? If every business has that one or two individual troublemakers, then you are seeing a lot of problems downtown.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I just said things are bad, why do you interpret that as acceptable? Trying to build a strawman?

Just a couple of months ago you actually made smirk remarks and dismissed the crime situation downtown. You are just quick to adjust to majority sentiments: a mere follower, but also a hypocrite no doubt.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Vin

Ever wondered why authorities do not deal with that one individual? If every business has that one or two individual troublemakers, then you are seeing a lot of problems downtown.

Because you have to be able to identify him in a police line-up in order for pressing charges to have any effect whatsoever. When they come in with a hoodie every day and their face downcast that becomes impossible.

Do you live or work downtown? Don't summarize my experiences with your incessantly limited perspective.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just a couple of months ago you actually made smirk remarks and dismissed the crime situation downtown. You are just quick to adjust to majority sentiments: a mere follower, but also a hypocrite no doubt.

You have no idea who I am or what I think, kindly fuck yourself.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

If the Temporary Modular buildings are still in the same locations in 10 years there will have been because there have been several policy failures. They're almost all on sites owned or acquired recently by the City, where larger, more permanent buildings are planned. It'll be a problem if something more permanent hasn't replaced most of them. The building on Little Mountain is already being relocated to build permanent housing. The recent plans for South False Creek would see another building relocated. It's unlikely the Main and Terminal site, or the one on the western SEFC lands will be undeveloped in 10 years. There are plans for at least one of the DTES sites being drawn up. The locations that seem likely to be longer term are those in industrial zoning, where larger permanent residential buildings aren't allowed.

Whether the buildings are still needed from a housing the homeless perspective will depend on how many more low income and welfare rate homes get built, and how many more people end up needing them. That's down to poitical choices by all three levels of government, and a whole range of economic and other factors. The scenarios are limitless, and even those will no doubt miss hugely disruptive events like covid.

Here's to talking about the policy failures in 10 years that still have Temporary Modular Housing sprinkled around Vancouver.

It will be a fun time loop to live through.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Because you have to be able to identify him in a police line-up in order for pressing charges to have any effect whatsoever. When they come in with a hoodie every day and their face downcast that becomes impossible.

Do you live or work downtown? Don't summarize my experiences with your incessantly limited perspective.

Right.

And so vigilantes are born. At this rate, its an inevitable outcome.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

Right.

And so vigilantes are born. At this rate, its an inevitable outcome.

That's on the police. What are we paying them for?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by rofina

Here's to talking about the policy failures in 10 years that still have Temporary Modular Housing sprinkled around Vancouver.

It will be a fun time loop to live through.

Again, what is the failure? Housing people for 10 years?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's on the police. What are we paying them for?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I presume to address some high level crime, homicides, home invasions, etc.

Mostly anytime I hear anything from the VPD lately about the current state of things the refrain is the same; were under funded and cannot patrol or commit additional resources.

Perhaps they are underfunded, perhaps things are so bad we need double the police on the streets, I dont know what the answer is.

What I do know is that its rather unanimous from Vancouverites, be it a car break in, be it bike theft, be it break and enter, be it shoplifting, be it any of the crime that generally happens daily the view is that the VPD is pretty well non responsive to the calls.