News

This Election, Crime Never Sleeps

In Vancouver, public safety is the big, blurry campaign issue.

By Sam Cooper, 8 Nov 2005, TheTyee.ca

arrest

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Interview after interview and candidate after candidate, the NPA has hammered on bolstering the four pillars to attack drugs and crime in their election campaign strategy.

One might think the leader of a conservative party focusing on crime and public safety would be atop a soap box calling for increased police force funding.

But thinking this of Sam Sullivan, one would be wrong.

In fact, put Sullivan and his left of center competitor Jim Green together for a blind taste test on enforcement and crime issues and you might be surprised to find who is boosting the VPD and who is hinting at efforts to reform the department.

Sullivan says with a 25 percent share of the city's total budget, the police force must find ways to make funding go further, while Green seems to support the status quo.

Then there's the fact that public safety crusader Sullivan has admitted to funding the drug habits of a heroin-using prostitute and a crack smoking acquaintance. Sullivan says he did it out of compassion and to educate himself, but Mayor Larry Campbell and Vancouver Police Union president Tom Stamitakis say Sullivan's actions call into doubt whether he is fit to serve as Police Board chair.

No, it's not your usual law and order campaign. But then, Vancouver isn't your usual drugs and crime town.

'Brutal to the police'

The gulf between COPE's Light and Classic factions widened in last spring's budget hearings when the VPD asked council to increase funding in order to add hundreds of new officers. COPE Classic said no thank-you, as Tim Louis accused the VPD of being a "rogue" department with a habit of soaring over budget, much to Mayor Campbell's displeasure.

Campbell, Green, and the Lights moved to fund force increases, with NPA councillor Peter Ladner essentially backing them.

But even though Ladner called his fellow NPA councillor's position "brutal to the police," Sullivan asked the VPD to find a way to hire additional officers without additional funding, by cutting down their overtime costs and looking for internal efficiencies.

In the end, council passed a motion to give the VPD funding for 50 new officers this year and 50 next year, without Sullivan's support.

Green says because of Sullivan's vote last spring, "He has not been there on crime." "He was only prepared to give support to police through efficiencies. In other words, no money," Green said.

But Sullivan says he wasn't hard on the VPD by challenging them to look for internal budgetary savings.

"I think the force is a department like any other. I want value for money," Sullivan said.

'Root of all evil'

How much say does council really have with Vancouver's police force? According to Vancouver's drug policy coordinator Donald MacPherson, "The police are pretty independent. The city funds them but doesn't have a lot of control." But he adds the mayor's seat does have some influence, as chair of the five-member Police Board.

Underlying Sullivan's cost saving philosophy of policing is an intention to examine force allocations and coordination if he becomes mayor -- something the force may not welcome.

Asked for his synopsis of crime in Vancouver over the past three years, Green says problems arose from a relatively understaffed police force and a lack of welfare funding from the province.

"A lot of people in the city have no choice but to create crime. You could say lack of money is the root of all evil."

"The reason we got so far behind (with crime) was a lack of funding," Green said. "But two weeks ago, Chief Graham said the crime rate for the city has gone down 11 percent in the last year."

Not surprisingly, Sullivan's take on the 11 percent crime reduction in downtown Vancouver is different.

"The police did exert some control and restore public order, (but) it has shifted the problems into other neighborhoods, which was entirely predictable," Sullivan said. "We need to be more aggressive about the four pillars and look at innovative approaches."

Sullivan says the Naomi heroin maintenance trial has offered glimmers of hope worth pursuing. Another innovative approach he favours would be installing a new commissioner for public safety to coordinate all agencies relevant in the struggle against drugs and crime.

"It's more than the police involved," Sullivan said. "There are inspectors, non-profits, school and park boards and council, and the federal and provincial government and the Ministry of Health."

"Unless they are all communicating effectively we won't be able to tackle our problems."

Crime by the numbers

Vancouver Board of Trade chief economist Dave Park says generally crime has been decreasing in North America for some time, but when it comes to property crime, Vancouver fares badly.

"In 2002 and 2003, Vancouver was proportionately the worst of all Canadian cities for property crime," Park said in an interview, adding property crime accounts for almost 80 percent of total crime in Vancouver, and is largely driven by underlying drug problems, with addicts stealing and selling goods to illegitimate fencing operations in order to feed their habits.

Park said in 2003 there were 8, 634 reported property crimes per 100, 000 people in Vancouver city, a one percent decline from 2002, compared to 7,310 per 100,000 in greater Vancouver. Within the city, he said the downtown peninsula was particularly hard hit with thefts from vehicles.

"In 2004 the downtown has improved, but it has bumped up in other areas of the city," Park said. "City-wide property crime rates between 2003 and 2004 are almost identical."

Vancouver's drug policy coordinator Donald MacPherson backs up Park's stats, saying VPD enforcement operations worked downtown, but crime squirted into other areas.

"They have crime reductions in the DTES, but it does move around," he said. "Now we see some movement to other districts, like Cambie and Seymour."

While Park concludes more police officers are needed to fight property crime in Vancouver, SFU criminologist Neal Boyd says force additions will improve public confidence, but won't reduce crime.

Does size matter?

"In lived experience, most of the research suggests force size doesn't result in crime reductions," Boyd said.

He explains a huge increase allowing officers to be allocated on every street corner would have a big impact theoretically, but this kind of critical mass addition never happens.

"Police work is reactive not preventative," Boyd said. "If (for example) you increased from 1000 to 1500 officers, you would probably get reductions in crime, but we haven't seen those kind of experiences."

Asked just what kind of force increase would effectively reduce crime in Vancouver, Boyd says, "Nothing that would be politically feasible."

However, VPD media rep Cst. Howard Chow disagreed with Boyd's assessment, citing various studies which suggest force size can reduce crime. According to Chow, additional officers will reduce police response times, thus improving public safety.

Chow said the VPD has, in fact, taken a bite out of property crime, with operations targeting street dealers and illegitimate pawnshops in the DTES. They plan to roll out a major property crime fighting project in December.

"We've made a commitment to reduce property crime 20 percent in the next four years," Chow said. "And on Dec. 5, we will launch an innovative, multi-pronged property crime program. It's the largest of its kind in North America."

In the midst of Vancouver's council elections, Chow refused to say which mayoral candidate might work best with the VPD, but didn't respond favourably to Sullivan's ideas of finding internal cost efficiencies by reducing overtime or installing a new crime commissioner.

"Police work is increasingly complex, so we can have perfect storm scenarios like last year when we had mass retirements and a lot of crime at the time," Chow said. "You can't plan (to avoid overtime) with the hours needed in times like that."

He added from the VPD's perspective, a crime czar would be redundant.

"We already liaise with most of the other agencies," he said.

Myth buster?

Over four years ago, when Sullivan's NPA held the majority on council, Sullivan touted a book called Police for the Future to at least one journalist at The Vancouver Sun. The book, by State University of New York School of Criminal Justice Dean David H. Bayley proclaims the link between police force size and crime rates to be "a myth" and makes other assertions sure to raise the pulse of law and order hardliners. "Police do not prevent crime…repeated analysis has consistently failed to find any connection between the number of police officers and crime rates," Bayley writes.

He offered a "blueprint" that would redefine the role of police, putting them to work reducing "crime and disorder within particular localities by drawing up plans for the utilization of all community resources."

Two of Bayley's essential arguments, that officers must be allocated to more than management and detective roles, and police must be coordinated with outside agencies, are evident in Sullivan's philosophy of policing today.

Sullivan preferred not to talk about the relevance of force sizes during the election, but discussed his understanding of crime in broad terms.

"I don't believe it's the size of the force (that matters)," Sullivan told The Tyee. "It's the size of the force on the streets."

"We have a crime and disorder problem in Vancouver," Sullivan continued. "Can we increase the ratio of police on the streets? Can we get the overtime down? If we can do that, those savings will mean we afford to put more officers on the streets. Jim Green just wants to throw money at the police force and hope that solves the problem."

But Sullivan stops well short of guaranteeing that he won't increase the size of the police force. Unless he becomes mayor and gets to sit on the police board, Sullivan says he won't find out whether his ideas for improving police force performance are well founded.

"I don't know where they (officers) are allocated. I will have to be on the board to find that out. I don't know, the allocations may all be legitimate. If they are, the taxpayers will have to come up with more money."

Asked whether he thinks such close scrutiny of VPD workings might cause conflicts with Chief Graham, Sullivan says no. "I will be fair. I will be reasonable."

Sam Cooper writes is reporting on municipal elections and other issues for The Tyee. [Tyee]

15 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Yammer

    6 years ago

    Comments on "This Election, Crime Never Sleeps"

    The police can't do everything. One wonders what they can do.

    My car was stolen this summer. The cops actually caught someone in it! No conviction -- not even a charge. Just the car back, slightly broken.

    Presumably, this is because there would be too many court cases if the law against stealing cars was enforced.

    Something is not quite right about this scenario.

  • Umslopogaas

    6 years ago

    You just have to look at the Gomery farce to see that it cost the tax payer an initial $80 million to begin to find out what happened to the missing $300 million. The problem is that lawyers are paid way too much. Privatize them all I say.

  • sdgreen

    6 years ago

    Funny, thought most Lawyers are already privatized, but then contracted at huge rates by the government!

    That is the problem with Commissions, Boards and the so called arms length agencies, in that the salary rates are inflated, so that political appointees can make a bundle of taxpayers cash!

  • dangrice.com

    6 years ago

    I like Sam's comments on this issue, and its one of the reason why I personally think he would be a great mayor. (Its not that I think Green would be a bad one, but I think he is a little too stubborn too look for new scenerios.)

    But the whole idea of rethinking the way policing is done makes sense. An expanded police force may clean up the mess or slow down its spread, but it really does little to address the issue in the first place.

    For the value of 100 police office a year, perhaps if we spend it on treatment to get the addicts off drugs, or some homeless shelters in various parts of the city so people would have a place to spend the night, instead of pushing carts through the back allies at 2am in the morning. I got to read the book though. Anyone know what "rethinking Policing" talks about.

  • dangrice.com

    6 years ago

    Oops, sorry, I mean "Police for the Future"

  • murdock

    6 years ago

    Sam Cooper writes:

    Quote:
    Park said in 2003 there were 8, 634 reported property crimes per 100, 000 people in Vancouver city, a one percent decline from 2002, compared to 7,310 per 100,000 in greater Vancouver. Within the city, he said the downtown peninsula was particularly hard hit with thefts from vehicles.

    I suspect that there is a typo in this statement, due to the confusion of numbers, the ones given in the words indicate a decrease in the crime rate, not the increase stated.

    The most complicated part of the problem in the DTES of Vancouver is the overlapping of Federal, Provincial and Municipal resposibilites.

    Federal are the setting of laws and punishments regarding drug use. Then a confused set of funding to assist in solutions (such as support of only 1 pillar of the 4).

    Provincial are the enforcement of court sentencing of the laws, then of mixed actions in support of civic steps (again only partial support of 3 of the 4 pillars).

    Finally the stuck municipal leaders, who are charged with taking the action on the ground. Funding police, funding drug rehab, funding needle programs, funding eductional actions, all without a cent from those whom charge municipal leaders to do these things.

    Until the three levels 'get it together' or municipal leaders tell the other two to 'butt out' and that 'butt out' includes taxing powers; there will be a continuing malaise on the DTES. The problem is like a cancer, it will spread.

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    6 years ago

    November 10, 2005

    ROBBINS Sce Research (1998)
    robbinssceresearch.com

    For immediate release

    (Abridged version)

    Question #1-News reports confirm that Mayoral candidate Sam Sullivan gave an acquaintance money to support her drug habit ‘in the hopes of better understanding her addiction’. Outgoing Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell says, “This makes Sam Sullivan unfit to be Mayor.” Whose position do you support on this?

    Larry Campbell’s-44%
    Sam Sullivan’s-37%
    Neither-19%

    Question #2-NPA Mayoral candidate Sam Sullivan believes the Vancouver Police Department, which takes 25% of the city’s total budget, should find ways to “make city funding go further” while Cope city councillor Tim Louis calls the VPD “a rogue police force”. Yet, COPE dominated city council passed a motion for funding for 50 new police officers this year and 50 more next year. In your opinion which statement best reflects your opinion on this matter?

    a.The Vancouver Police Force should find ways to make funding go further-54%
    b.The Vancouver Police Department needs more police officers-46%

    Question #3-In your opinion which of the following statements best explains why outgoing Mayor Larry Campbell is against NPA Mayoral candidate Sam Sullivan for Mayor?

    a.Larry Campbell is a ‘federal Liberal’ and doesn’t want conservative Sam Sullivan to win the Mayor’s chair-16%
    b.Larry Campbell is loyal to his friend and colleague Jim Green who he believes would be the best Mayor-15%
    c.Larry Campbell is just looking out for the best interests of the city-33%
    d.Larry Campbell is worried that Sam Sullivan might win-36%

    Question #4-Do you prefer to elect a Vancouver School Board which:

    a.Supports smaller class sizes and better considers class composition-50%
    b.Looks at ways to promote a good education and fiscal efficiency-48%
    c.Undecided-02%

    Question #5-Do you most support a Vancouver city council which is:

    a.‘NDP like’ in composition and approach to city politics-51%
    b.‘BC Liberal like’ in composition and approach to city politics-46%
    c.Neither-03%

    Question #6-Who do you most support for Mayor at this time?

    a.Vision Vancouver candidate Jim Green-49.5%
    b.NPA candidate Sam Sullivan-51%

    (Undecided-4.5%)

    Commentary-Although a majority of respondents support outgoing Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell’s position that NPA Mayoral candidate Sam Sullivan is “unfit to be Mayor” over his providing money to a drug addicted person, some respondents who supported this choice, also voiced the opinion that “they don’t know if they would go so far as to say he (Sam Sullivan) was unfit… it was probably an unwise choice.”

    A majority of respondents who are under 45 years of age (57%) support choice (a) in Question #2 that the Vancouver Police Department should make funds go further, while (48%) of respondents over the age of 45 also support this choice.

    Over (42%) of respondents under the age of 45 want a Vancouver School Board that promotes a good education and fiscal efficiency while (54%) of those over the age of 45 select that same choice (b) in Question #4. A similar number from each age group supported a “‘BC Liberal like’ composition and approach to city politics.”

    Insight-It is uncertain whether or not outgoing Mayor Larry Campbell is helping, hurting, or having no affect on the outcome of the Vancouver Mayoral race. NPA candidate Sam Sullivan has not had an endorsement from Christy Clark, but ROBBINS has been told that the former challenger in the NPA race did not actually close the deal on her Vancouver home, and may not want this public during the final days of the election race.

    Glen P. Robbins

  • Elliot

    6 years ago

    another predictable article from the tyee. man you guys are boring.

  • Wallace

    6 years ago

    What is boring Elliot is anyone taking the time to puke up a nothing statement like yours. Like it or not, the issues of crime and enforcement are important in every municipal election in the lower mainland at the least. In this election the crime issue pigeons are coming home to roost. East side Fraser Street residents rallied against a drug treatment centre in their neighbourhood, and lost. West side residents are now rallying against the mere possiblity that the city will put a treatment centre on the west side of the tweed curtain. I have a loonie that says the west side will repel any attempt to have the west side provide for the needy in our society. I believe that west of Main Street there are two social service type enterprises, both for seniors. The west side expects that the east side will take care of the needy in our society, even the needy that grew up on the west side. Or, does anyone want to claim that all the drug addicts and prostitutes in Vancouver were born east of Main? On the central point in the story above, treating drug addiction and prostitution as criminal activity rather than medical issues, creates a culture of and a demand for a reactive police force. Who wants to do traffic, the promotions are in drug busts. But, while busting, rousting and hassling street level drug crime and hooking may make the stats look good, it does nothing to reduce crime. We need a whole new approach to poverty.

  • Elliot

    6 years ago

    wallace; you're a blowhard. i was born in the east end many years ago in a very poor neighbourhood. no money, no car, single working mom, the works. do you think i've used that as an excuse to suck off the hind teat of government for the rest of my life? today i make a very healthy living and support a wonderful family. didn't take help from anyone and felt very good about doing it myself. before you dismiss me think about it b/c it's true and it happens every day. quit making excuses for people, you're doing them no good by spouting your leftist blather. your type spends their time telling people they have every right to fail and as long as they believe that they will.

  • Wallace

    6 years ago

    Congratulations Elliot. Your background sounds pretty much like mine. My old neighbourhood is gone to redevelopment. And I too now manage to keep my family in some comfort. But, you say you didn't take help from anyone? How about your Mom? Seems she managed to instill in you a sense of self. Oh yah, how about the public school system that provided the readin' and writin' and enough of an education to enable you to succeed? But wait, that would mean thanking those lefty teachers. Can't do that. How about health care? I have a suspicion that regular health care had a part in your development. But wait, that means thanking Tommy Douglas. Can't do that either. I don't know your vintage Elliot, but I remember the days when a visit to the Doctor or Dentist meant paying a bill, so that meant few trips to the Doctor or Dentist, even when needed. And, I'm pretty sure that minimum wages laws, health and safety standards in the workplace, paid vacations and statutory holidays have nothing to do with your comfort level. Because hey, ah crap, to accept that would mean having to thank the trade union movement. We surely cannot do that. Mom or Gramma on a pension now Elliot? Old age security? Prescription drug coverage? Perhaps living in assisted care? It really is too easy to point out that none of us, successful or otherwise, has done it, or is doing it alone. What is easy to point out is the evident hypocrisy in knee jerk responses to complex problems.

  • Elliot

    6 years ago

    Like I said before Wallace: You're a blowhard.

  • Wallace

    6 years ago

    Another deep, thoughtful response Elliot. Try engaging the issues for a change, rather than providing your attempts at low-brow humour. You might find exercising your intellect stimulating.

  • DNA

    6 years ago

    I am very confused. Is the crime rate in Vancouver up or down? What are the basic facts. E.g., from the Province, Oct. 18, quoting a Board of Trade story:

    "There's some good news: In Greater Vancouver, the property-crime rate dropped by four per cent last year; and in Vancouver, the rate dropped by 0.1 per cent."

    If this story is correct, there's statistically no difference between this year and last. (The Province doesn't say which year is "this year," etc.)

    Another difficulty. Because Vancouver is a core city with its own police force, it generally is expected that it will have a higher crime rate. If it had a regional police force, as many municipalities do, the crime rate would be lower. So we get the apples vs. oranges problem.

    Has anyone seen a good study which objectively lays out the facts? I haven't.

  • BC Dude

    6 years ago

    Jim Green is the man!
    I would like to see the Judicial system get some real teeth for the repeat offenders Longer sentences!
    Lets get rid of Club Fed, just hard time starting @ 6am to 7pm doing what, I don't know, but not any pleasent work.
    You do a crime you do the full hard time.
    Three strikes is a great way to start, even the Attorney General is wondering which world some of our learned Judges are living in?
    Crack down hard on some of these sponge$ Lawyers!
    Vancouver is a great city!

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.