Books

100 Years of Homelessness

Sympathizing with the homeless (while doing nothing) is a Vancouver tradition.

By N. Newman and M. Barnholden, 9 Jan 2008, TheTyee.ca

Homeless man near train tracks, on all fours

Richard Smith, now 41, on streets since a teenager. Photo by Lindsay Mearns.

  • Street Stories: 100 Years of Homelessness in Vancouver
  • Michael Barnholden and Nancy Newman
  • Anvil Press (2007)

While homelessness may seem like a relatively new issue for Vancouver, homeless people have long been a part of Vancouver's history.

Local First Nations were the first homeless. By the late 1860s, nearly 100 years of smallpox epidemics had reduced the native population of B.C. from an estimated 155,000 to only 20,000. Approximately 700 indigenous people lived on Burrard Inlet along with 500 non-Aboriginals.

In the late summer of 1886, a great fire swept through the city, destroying almost all wooden structures. Mayor MacLean sent a telegram to federal authorities saying: "Our city is ashes. Three thousand people homeless. Can you send us any government help?" For a short while, Vancouver was a tent city while new buildings were erected.

False Creek Flats flooded with squatters

The boom times following World War I ended abruptly in the autumn of 1929. While the wealthy struggled in tough times to maintain a semblance of former grandeur, workers were being evicted in droves. Approximately 12,000 properties were forfeited for non-payment of taxes in one year of the Great Depression alone.

Single men were ineligible for benefits; the families of men who refused to be voluntarily incarcerated in work camps -- and even some union organizers -- were similarly disqualified from relief benefits.

In 1931, 500 men, because they had no fixed address and were therefore ineligible for relief, were encamped in shacks and hovels on the recently filled False Creek flats north of the CNR train station. There was one tap for water and no sanitary services in the cramped quarters.

Conditions were ripe for disease, and when one man was diagnosed with diphtheria, the camp was closed down and dismantled overnight. Most of the men went to work camps in the Interior where they toiled for a dollar a day. The communist-influenced Relief Camp Workers Union led over 100 strikes and walk-outs trying to win better conditions.

In April of 1938, when the relief camps were closed, some 1,600 workers occupied the post office on Hastings Street, the art gallery, and the Hotel Georgia, demanding better treatment, including housing. The occupation of the post office lasted a month and was ended by an early morning police raid, which resulted in much damage and injury to the sit-down strikers.

WWII veterans seize the Hotel Vancouver

Returning World War II veterans also had a difficult time finding housing and could not afford hotels. Tired of living in substandard conditions, a small group of veterans took over the old Hotel Vancouver at Granville and Georgia streets. The hotel had been recently replaced by a new building and the old facility was slated for demolition.

In early January 1946, one veteran, who had camped out with three others in a tent on the lawn of the provincial court house (now the Vancouver Art Gallery) to protest the lack of decent housing, was ordered by police to move on. He ended up at a meeting of veterans at the Legion Hall on Seymour Street. The 35 men at the meeting decided to occupy the old hotel and open it up for others in their position. The guards on duty did not even try to stop them. They hung a banner outside reading "Action at Last Veterans! Rooms for You. Come and Get Them." Soon they were 700 men registered in the old hotel and nobody wanted to tell them to leave. In fact, many local businesses and the public supplied meals.

The economic boom of the '50s and '60s minimized homelessness, but did not eliminate it. Hobos and vagabonds, many of them war vets who could not reintegrate into a changing society due to what was then called "shell-shock," often lived in shacks down by the river, shot pigeons for food, and wandered the streets.

Summer of Love badge of honour: NFA

The counter-culture of the late '60s had its roots in the Beat movement of the '50s and the glorification of hobos and Wobbly bindlestiffs by writers such as Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg and Gary Snyder. Home was seen as a bourgeois, decadent indulgence hampering transcendence to new planes of existence. Add a dash of mind-altering substances, and you could shift shape from suburban to urban or rural commune or NFA -- no fucking address.

NFA became a membership badge for the Summer of Love, and governments provided financial support, funding organizations such as Cool Aid and The Pine Street Free Clinic, as well as various hostels. (Some of those hostels were set up in armouries -- what a shock to recently arrived American draft-dodgers or deserters. They must have thought they were in paradise once they got over their paranoia.) It was the time of the Battle of Jericho, when squatters took over the Jericho Beach Hostel, and All Seasons Park, when hippies fought police for, of all things, housing.

Squatting along the foreshore also continued. Finn's Slough, where Finnish fisherman established homes and docks on the tidal flats in Richmond, is one of the oldest and last remaining squats. The Maplewood mudflats in North Vancouver, perhaps the best known and most notorious -- memorialized in Livin' on the Mud, a 1972 documentary film -- was bulldozed in the early 1970s.

Expo 86 spawns era of revanchist gentrification

The run-up to Expo 86, and the eviction of people living in Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels to provide rental accommodation for the World's Fair visitors, led to an ongoing revanchist form of gentrification. Simple redevelopment of the Downtown East Side (DTES) would not be enough; it would happen in concert with a war on the poor.

With Premier Bill Vander Zalm's "give 'em a shovel" populism on the right, NDP Premier Mike Harcourt's characterization of welfare recipients as "varmints," and culminating in Gordon Campbell's far-right doctrine of "winners and losers" -- while all three cut services to the mentally ill -- it was inevitable that the poor would fight back.

From the Frances Street Squats and related actions protesting unregulated development and evictions in the 1990s, homelessness was front-page news. The most recent and memorable of these actions was the massive Woodsquat on September 14, 2002, in which a group of homeless and activists "popped" the 656,000 square foot Woodward's Department Store building, which had sat empty for 9 years. Remarkably, the occupation garnered widespread support.

The 2002 Vancouver civic election, fought during the time of the Woodward's squat, centred on housing issues and the 2010 Winter Olympic bid, based on fears of an Expo-86-style remake of the city as a "world-class" destination with no room for the poor or even the middle class.

Despite promises to the contrary from all levels of government and the Vancouver Olympic Committee, very little real action towards alleviating homelessness has actually occurred.

Vancouver offers sympathy, but not homes

Homelessness and poverty continue to plague the poorest people of Vancouver, despite British Columbia having one of the most prosperous economies in Canada, and despite Canada being one of the richest countries in the world.

Homelessness is the symptom, not the problem. Eliminating the poverty at the root of homelessness requires that those who are better off examine their lifestyle habits. It also stirs fear and anxiety as people buy into the perception that there isn't -- or soon won't be -- enough to go around. In Vancouver, where competition for homes is fierce, sympathy is all many feel they can afford to help the homeless on our streets.

 [Tyee]

28  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • snert

    4 years ago

    Anybody done a study

    to try and figure out just how many of the "homeless" would actually accept reasonable accommodation and keep it that way?

    Which comes first, the poverty or the anti-social behaviour?

  • realisticman

    4 years ago

    Snery

    Agreed. Good point.

    Interesting excerpt, except for this silly statement:

    Quote:
    Eliminating the poverty at the root of homelessness requires that those who are better off examine their lifestyle habits.

    Examine their lifestyle habits? Well, perhaps they worked at two jobs and saved their money and compromised their aspirations by living modestly and therefore expect others to do the same.

    Reasonably priced rental dwellings will only be built if there is a financial benefit that is in keeping with other investments. Therefore, taxes at the municipal, provincial and federal levels for rental housing owners have to make sense. Alternatively, governments have to build and own dwellings to house those that cannot afford the market.

  • Luke Skywalker

    4 years ago

    With Premier Bill Vander

    With Premier Bill Vander Zalm's "give 'em a shovel" populism on the right, NDP Premier Mike Harcourt's characterization of welfare recipients as "varmints," and culminating in Gordon Campbell's far-right doctrine of "winners and losers" -- while all three cut services to the mentally ill

    That attitude, from all sides of the political spectrum, certainly wasn't conducive to assisting society's less fortunate.

    Furthermore, releasing the mentally ill into the community, who were unable to look after themselves, was also a disaster in public policy.

    Nevertheless, government funding and development of reasonable low-cost housing is an obvious solution for homelessness.

  • Frank

    4 years ago

    Homeless

    Homelessness is proof the system doesn't work and that's why the homeless are treated like scum. Everybody wants them to just go away and not block people's view of themselves.

  • Maurice Cardinal

    4 years ago

    Riviera

    Local politicians and mainstream news media are actually proud that the 2010 Olympics has provided the catalyst to turn Vancouver into a North American Riviera or Geneva.

    I know the following is easy to say and hard to deliver, but ... BC lacks politicians sophisticated enough to deliver effective solutions. We need better people to step up.

    BC politicians use manufactured complexity as a scapegoat.

    Federal politicians live by the motto, "You don't get what you deserve. You get what you negotiate."

    Hard nosed negotiating and slick schmoozing may seem distasteful for many BC residents, but it's a fact of national and global life. We can't keep refusing to learn or play by the rules set by the status quo regardless of how much we disagree with the dynamics. You can't score unless you get in the game. And you can't change the rules of the game from the penalty box or sidelines.

    This neurotic constant questioning of our self worth is destructive and it has to stop. We're more than capable, just not willing.

    The authors, Nancy and Michael are demonstrating clearly that we are repeating history. It's in the friggin title!!!! 100 years of homelessness.

    It's time to change our strategy.

    Many contemporary homeless are mentally ill.

    Help them first, and work outwards.

  • brianhayes

    4 years ago

    Damn judgmentalists

    Harping about a lack of character in the poor, of so many similar preconceptions, reveals a deep misunderstanding of how society can become successful for everyone.

    We will be a better people top to bottom when we insist that both top and bottom are living in justice, fairness, and are not diluting our better purpose.

    We fail ourselves when we fail the poor or damaged. Every detail we ignore accumulates to make us worse.

    I look forward to a day when our culture steps where it counts rather than upon each other.

  • monty

    4 years ago

    Harcourt/Clark

    To correct some history as noted above: in 1995 I canvassed the gov't to open housing for the homeless on the west side of Vancouver. An unused jail on Marine Drive was selected. A proposal was written,taken
    to Darlene Marzari's office. She took it to Harcourt and Lookout South opened and ran for 6 years under Harcourt/Clark gov'ts.
    It was supported by the Real Estate Foundation. Al Mitchell ran it. In 2002 with a change in gov't. it was shut down. The buildings demolished and tiny condo units stand in its place. At least that gov't tried to do something tangible and they did it quickly without all the nonsense that is going on now. Cheers.

  • Skywalker

    4 years ago

    Thanks Monty

    for that bit of history. I have some difficulty accepting the comment about Harcourt describing people on welfare collectively as "varmints". That requires some proof because I don't recall any such thing and believe me I would have if it had been said.

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    All I can say is.........

    .......Canada's returning vets from Afghanistan ought to take a look at how they can expect to be treated..........

  • G West

    4 years ago

    skywalker

    It's meant to be a Wikipedia quote - most recently referenced in a babble 'blog':

    Quote:
    "government took a dramatic turn to the right in 1993 with Harcourt's famous province-wide televised address in which he lashed out against "welfare cheats, deadbeats and varmints".

    "This speech inaugurated a set of draconian welfare reforms enacted between 1993 and 1995 similar to those adopted by new Progressive Conservative governments elected in Alberta and Ontario in the same time period."

    I have no idea whether it's accurate or not.

    It certainly doesn't qualify as a remark intended, as you point out, to apply to all people on welfare and it's use, in this context, is entirely mischievous, in my view.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    errata

    that's 'its', not it's, in the last sentence

  • snert

    4 years ago

    brianhayes

    Noble words. What's your plan?

  • Skywalker

    4 years ago

    "Deadbeats, cheats and varmints"

    Thanks G. West! I don't have much faith in Wikipedia so maybe someone else can add something to the discourse. If the term was used and if that single classification of deadbeats and welfare cheats, and God knows we have them, deny resources to those legitimately on welfare then I too might be inclined to call them varmints, maybe worse. I hope Newman and Barnholden are not condoning that type of dishonesty as it hurts those legitimately on welfare and needing assistance.

    The federal government had also walked away from low income housing in the 90's and it was up to the province under the NDP to pick up the slack. In many places they did just that.

    The NDP were certainly not perfect on the homeless issue but compared to the Campbell crew they still look pretty good. Unfortunately it isn't the poor and homeless that provide the votes and fund elections as all this proves again.

  • Bobby Peru

    4 years ago

    More hate the rich propaganda

    'Homelessness is the symptom, not the problem. Eliminating the poverty at the root of homelessness requires that those who are better off examine their lifestyle habits.'

    Now we get to see the authors true intentions: to blame the homelessness problem on the so called 'rich'- the eternal boogeyman of the BC left. Just exactly who are the rich who have to expatiate themselves of the lifestyle sins? And what are those sins?

    You mean those of us who are better off have to examine our lifestyle habits- habits such as staying off narcotics, working hard (at two jobs) and just generally having are shit together? So we're supposed to buy these homeless people homes in Canada's most expensive city?

    The homelessness aren't a symptom of a greater moral malaise. It's just a problem that we have to throw money at according to what we can afford.

    I remember three years ago when some of the DTES homeless were temporarily housed in a hotel and they went on a rampage and trashed the rooms. And I remember when poverty pimp Jim Green played dumb and said he wasn't aware of the incident. Look, there are plenty of deadbeats in the homeless crowd who are emboldened by Vancouver's left wing politicians, who think we owe them a living. Most of them wouldn't live in a home if you gave it to them.

    It's time honest, hard working Vancouver citizens said no, we do not owe you a living.

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    G West

    Quote:
    "This speech inaugurated a set of draconian welfare reforms enacted between 1993 and 1995

    Possibly because the NDP discovered the Great Hole the Socreds left in the province...?

    PS Good stereotypical description, Bobby Peru. Only trouble is finding someone who fits.....

  • G West

    4 years ago

    Rick W

    The quote - as posted by Monty (unattributed) appears to be a Wikipedia creation...I'm not at all convinced that:
    a) it's accurate, or
    b) it isn't the creation of another troll.

    I remember a little over a year ago how hard Skookum1 had to work to prevent Erik Bornmann and his sock puppets from whitewashing certain Wiki entries associated with the Campbell Liberals and the Basi Virk case.

    I don't find it too hard to imagine that certain parties would apply the same revisionist tactics to Mike Harcourt's record.

    The problem with a lot of knuckle dragging reactionaries who think that the homeless, the poor and the disabled 'deserve' to be that way is that they have too much power and influence (and often money) and they buy the government.

    It's not surprising they'd also try to create the impression that social problems have nothing to do with them.

    The good thing about most of them is that they're not very smart and pointing out the holes in their analysis is simple.

    On CBC radio's THE HOUSE the other weekend I heard a competition between representatives of the Federal political parties - a number of quiz questions about how parliament works, who are the political movers and shakers and other details about political life in Canada.

    Peter Julian, the NDP representative in the contest, outscored the Liberal and Conservative (Raheem Jaffer I think) contestants at a rate of better than 3 to 1.

    It wasn't even close. Most of the time it's just best to ignore them.

  • dorothy

    4 years ago

    Awwww...!

    "...a deep misunderstanding of how society can become successful for everyone."

    I believe the key to be, that how some people define success can only come about by the failure of others. Some people understand the scout concept of everybody shines, or nobody shines, but that would be this sophisticated minority, which a poster above were sighing for. Maurice Cardinal, who is pretty sophisticated himself, cannot offer anything better that 'getting with the program'.

    As always, there is something wrong with the basic concepts. In order to have 'everybody' successful, we need to never have anyone born, who will not, according to the markers, have a decent chance of being successful. No crack-babies, no babies who will themselves have children for parents, no marginal people, who will be up against tall odds at all, not to mention being supernumerary. But 'they' do not want this, for then we could not uphold the myth of ever expanding economies, and there would be no bonanaza for those who live high on keeping others in the muck, and the rest so scared of getting there, that they will swallow crap in order to be 'respectable', or even shabby-genteel. If the stallion knew his strength, and the peasant knew the laws of the land, it would take the devil to be a knight (Sigrid Unset).

    The best and most sophisticated people wouldn't touch politics with a ten-foot pole. They know it for the dirty crap-game it is. They also know it will never be 'their turn', and that the meek shall inherit the Earth - again. They always have, and so, yes, history repeats itself. If that is a problem for anyone individual, I would suggest the Buddhist path, which is reputed to get you out of the cycle eventually, by hard work.

  • Frank

    4 years ago

    Whatever

    Read the comments and as usual not only did the Rightees not put forward any ideas on reducing poverty/homelessness, they also pushed the view that things don't need to be done.

    Using 1999 figures, the poorest 20% of the population owned 0% of the wealth while the top 20% owned 70% of the wealth in the country.

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    G West

    I know I shouldn't rely to heavily on Wiki - but it serves it's purpose in very general sense.
    Re:

    Quote:
    The good thing about most of them is that they're not very smart and pointing out the holes in their analysis is simple.

    The real problem though, is there are so many of them.............

  • G West

    4 years ago

    In the general sense I agree

    For dates and facts I think it's wonderful - but for contemporary events, particularly ones that have a political angle, Wiki if full of minefields.

    Have a look at this page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erik_Bornmann&action=history

    You're right about 'them' being pretty thick on the ground.....

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    Pretty thick....

    ....as well as being thick on the ground.
    As well, "they" like to jump with both feet whenever a "leftie" in power feels it necessary to institute some kind (any kind) of (perceived)cutback, and their mental "thickness" insists that moves of this nature is evidence that social democracy simply doesn't work. Yet "they" ignore the other shoe, when their political ilk adopts such things as Medicare, Canada Pension, Old Age Security to score points at election time. So (for instance) Romanow had to do some fairly drastic retrenchment in Saskatchenwan to repair the holes Devine's Conservatives punched in the dam. Consequently though, (16 years later) the NDP government there created conditions to very nearly make that province a "have" in the scale of things.

    So Wiki is good (as long as it doesn't become a bible)

  • realisticman

    4 years ago

    RickW

    Very nearly a Have. Party's over now that Lorne's out. Thank god for the heavy crude in Lloydminster and the uranium, eh?

    It's so cute when you get thick too and knoodle in a huddle then speak in tongues.

  • Frank

    4 years ago

    History of Sask

    I'm sure Alberta thanks their lucky stars every day for all the oil laying within their borders. They weren't a "have" province before the oil flowed were they?

    Whereas the Sask Conservatives under Grant Devine and Colin Thatcher took a province with a Heritage Fund and ran up massive deficits. Guess there were no buyers for that wheat, potash, oil and uranium when they were in power.

    Fortunately Sask had Romanow to clean up the mess.

    Will be fun to see if Brad Wall has learned from the mistakes made by his old boss.

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    Frank

    I won't address UNrealisticman as he (with his last post) has again verified the "thickness" referred to by GWest and myself.......

    However, you say that Brad Wall's old boss made mistakes. I would like to dispute that by saying they weren't mistakes at all. He intended to defraud that province, the same as Campbell's full intent is to defraud this province.

    And Brad Wall sat at his knee while he was doing it..........

  • Frank

    4 years ago

    RickW

    True, there was a book on Devine called "Privatizing a Province" written by a couple of U of S profs if I recall correctly. Read it years ago.

    Anyway, you're right, it was ideology.

    I'm not expecting Wall to be any different as he was a Devine supporter.

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    Brad Wall.....

    .....is lusting after "opening up" the Tar Sands oil. Or rather his handlers are. They want to cash in, and ruin Sask in the same way the Cons are ruining Alberta.

    Saskatchewan pulled itself back from the brink without any special windfalls, thanks entirely to the NDP.

    But every so often the people (and this is not the exclusive domain of the otherwise sensible folks of Sask) need a reminder that sizzle might smell good, but it's the steak that fills the gut.

  • OneWomanArmy

    4 years ago

    Thank you Brian Hayes

    You summed up my sentiments precisely.

    Until British Columbia starts treating its people on the margins as worthy people, we will continue to have this problem.

    I walk the streets of the DTES every day, since it is my home. I see people lying on the cold, wet pavement and I think to myself 'why isn't anyone doing anything about this who can?'

    I also work at a very busy NGO that deals with the mentally ill in the DTES and every day there are people who come into the office just to try and catch some sleep in a safe, warm place.

    Of course there will be some who won't want to come in but the point is to get to the root of the problem: the impoverishment of persons who have disabilities and the extremely low welfare payments made that you can't even think of living decently on.

    That's the shame of it and that's where a lot of it begins.

  • RickW

    4 years ago

    Civilization begins when the

    Civilization begins when the people have food, shelter, and clothing security.........

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.