Starting point:

To be honest, I wasn't able to get into the discussion on this SRO etc and related topics the last time around...( ie approx. a whole (2)+ Weeks ago ) but, as predicted, this topic will come forward rather frequently if one is patient .

First QUESTION :

If one goes down to any BC Land Titles Office, and performs a Title Search on these SRO etc. buildings ,...WHO does one expect or predict to be the actual LEGAL OWNER of this " Burns Block " or any other similar SRO building, and thus who does one NOT expect to see on Title as the Legal Owner of these same buildings ?

I think that ANSWER would be the genesis of any related discussion and hence any practical, viable (aka non - ideological) solution.

Hello? Anyone out there?

It's very interesting that this article only attracted two comments in 9 hours.

Says a lot about Vancouverites.

You must all be busy counting your new found paper-millionaire real estate riches.

Here's a question for everyone - two questions actually;

First, many people who live in SRO hotels have casual jobs. They make minimum wage doing menial labour in downtown restaurants, warehouses, etc.

If they have nowhere to live, how will they keep their jobs that no one else wants? Employers do not hire homeless people.

A person on minimum part-time wage can't afford to skytrain it to the burbs every day. When they lose their home, the employer is forced to higher someone else at a higher rate, which means they pass the cost on to the consumer - you. Either that or they close their businesses and downtown eventually turns into a ghost town.

Second question; When this person loses their job they WILL NOT move to the burbs. Instead, they will go on WELFARE.

Who do you think pays for welfare?

OK, one last question;

Now that you know that that closing SRO hotels raises your taxes and cost of living, do you care?

Part of the problem

Part of the problem with trying to raise peoples' consciousness about the plight of the homeless and the fate of the few places they can afford to live - at least for the usual suspects who post here is, I think, two fold:

First, it's a subject that has been covered here recently and often, and;
Second, there is a kind of ennui in the air about these issues because of the kinds of things the Campbell Government and the Mayor's Office always say about homelessness - or don't say about it as the case may be - the cynicism of the recent budget and its way of 'addressing' housing issues does not help. Obviously - (as has been observed at the story below here with Carole Taylor's picture appended).

There's an additional, more general third reason as well, the general working class and middle class population of the city is simply too preoccupied with their own fate on the treadmill to have the time or the emotional resources to 'connect' with this issue in a meaningful way. For most of us, we're busy and the old adage about out of sight, out of mind, just about covers it.

I agree with your other observations – about final costs and social outcomes. We live in an age of ad hockery unfortunately. Instead of looking ahead and planning - the only solution we have these days is crisis management. And when the Olympics leave the area with a huge bill things are going to get really interesting.

Imagine

Imagine if the Pivot Legal Society were to find that the City was allowing people to inhabit a building that was an unsafe fire risk.

Under what law would owners of property be unable to sell property that they were the legal owners of?

Has anyone done a demographic study of the homeless in Vancouver? Who are these people? Almost every time we see a homeless person profiled they are from somewhere outside Vancouver. Do the truly needy from Vancouver complain about the quasi-immigrants from other parts of the province or country taking over their cheap hotels? Should this make it an international or national issue, rather than a Vancouver City Hall or a B.C. government issue?

definition of resident

Canada Health Act/British Columbia version.

That would seem to indicate to me that, at least for medical services, when someone moves to BC - at the end of 3 months (at the latest), they become a BC problem. It's probably a lot cheaper to house them in reasonable SRO accommodation than on the streets - as Working Memory points out above, if we put them in hospital or jail, the public costs are going to be - making all the necessary adjustments - a lot greater.

They are canadians brothers and sisters.

Good Lord
Lets now create a fitness test of whos who and where did they come from.

This same rhetoric claimed and defamed the good people of New Oleans as "refugees."

The hypocracy and cold heartedness is chilling.

Thousands of people are homeless on the streets because of low paying jobs, ill health, high rents, inadequate medical care, uncaring citizens, greedy landlords, heartless governments, Olympic prioritys, Olympic lies, Olympic legacys, big business, rhoided-up glorified ego-sports,
3 week corporate arcade games for the rich, civil city projects, SAM FRIPPEN SULLIVANS 4 wheeled pity da fool lying machine.

Your water is being sold put from under your feet, your hospitals are being underfunded to make you think there is a crisis so you'll buy into 2 tier health, your homes are leaky so developers and builders can cash in on your agony and bankruptcys, your tree filled parks are being paved over for 30 foot limos parking spaces filled with foreign tourists, your 10 yr old daughters are being marketed as sex objects, your great grandmothers are being sent to jail and murdered by the judiciary for protesting eco destruction, your children are left alone too long becoming insecure and lonely systemically rebellious and diseased because both parents are compelled to work 60 hr weeks to afford some KD and an SUV, wages are being cut, corporate profits soar through the roof, your content with the mind numbing 20 hours of the same old news weather and sports day in and day out for decades while you still pay $100 to rah rah at a hockey game and tell yourself how good life is while your best friend gets a bullet in his brain while walking home and your girlfriend retches her guts out the side window of your trendy little car while your gorging on a slimy macburger on the way to work fingering the dude who cut you off while you crawl at 15km per hour along with 467,000 others on the road that morning.

k0ff

Aint life grand in a civil society where we take the concerns and needs of each other as our own burden.

why doncha

just kill yourself already

SRO

The new "action word" for miscreants like 'gordon'. What a tool.

Gordon's comments...

... I mean was that for real? They just sum up everything that is wrong with the loser left. Get a job Gordon and move out of your Mom's basement - she wants to get laid without you around.

Well done

Gordon; your rant was well done, topical and I agree. Heh, heh, you even got bcneocon to raise it's snout from it's slime to bombast you with some deep South Demagoguery.

Ok: WHO actually owns SRO Buildings?

So,back to my original point on this topic : WHO actually owns these SRO buildings?

Unless I am mistaken , the Gov't does NOT own them, with the exception of some buildings taken over by Non -Profit groups whose goal is to provide housing to those in need of something resembling affordable accomodation . Global TV did a series on the DTES recently and mentioned one of these groups and the SRO buildings they run.

However, back to reality, and excludng these Non Profit groups AND Gov't,and via the process of elimination, these buildings are owned by Private Individuals/Groups...correct?

Without getting into the usual Leftie bleeding heart lathering up (maybe later), if the Private Sector has purchased them, that is LEGAL correct? It will have a certain Zoning/ Allowable Use...correct ? By simple default logic, WHERE on the Land Title (ownership)documents does it state that this must be social and subsidized housing, and that they are legally obligated to provide it?

This goes back to my argument that the WoodWards NON-deal for the DTES deal was a bad NON move to not acquire social housing. This further supports my view that there is a Devil's Bargain "unwritten agreement" between Gov't and Private Owners of SRO's.

SRO's buildings are a business,pure and simple, and the owners charge the market price, pure and simple. Why is this so hard to understand? Where are they obligated to do otherwise, give or take the Residential Tenancy Act rules and regulations on rent increases?

When the owner of an SRO decides that they must spend millions to upgrade, or the status quo is no longer viable, the business venture looks at other options.

Effectively, there was an equilibrium with the building they OWN, it is Private Property, and there was an informal social housing relationship with the various Gov'ts. The SRO market rent and the SRO clientele had a coincidental yet overlapping symbiotic business relationship....correct? Again, this involves Private Property, not Public Property.

This was clearly laid out, or exposed, in the local news when the Vancouver Fire Inspector was interviewed , and stated they did not go by the book on many SRO buildings , and basically said their number one priority is to NOT exacerbate the homeless situation with applying the fire code etc. to the letter, only in extreme situations. See,..."Give and Take" pragmatism by Gov't, while more likley non SRO's would be nailed for any/all even minor violations.

However, these SRO building owners STILL own the building, and this informal relationship with Gov't is showing cracks. The SRO owners feel a transition of the SRO's is the way to go with their investment, and then the City slaps rather large conversion fees aka FINES and downloads other regulations on what is still people's Private Property.

When the TYEE discussed this previously, I was shocked at the price of some of these SRO buildings sale prices. Why? I thought the selling prices would have been a lot more. WHY Gov't didn't snap them up , or begin negotiations to do so is beyond me. However, when one analyzes this further, what has evolved is evidence of this sub -culture...this Devil's Bargain,..Gov't downloads what should be its social responsibilities onto the Private Sector, and then ultimately expropriates more rights when the sh!te hits the fan yet comes out looking good.

I really don't see why it is the obligation of a Private Property owner to morph into a social service Gov't agency, and have Gov't make gutless backdoor and backroom moves that demonize one side (Private Owners)of this informal relationship. The Lefties "supposed protectors and advocates for basic rights" just lap it up and cheer,the old social engineering by the state and punish the private sector.

Using this logic, perhaps we should all leave our vehicles unlocked with the key in the ignition, we really don't own it, society at large does....even if we must pay the taxes, insurance, gas etc. How about lawn mower, golf clubs, computer, etc. ?

This is why the DTES situation exists...this informal " Private -Sector- subsidized" - social- housing relationship existed and is now showing cracks. Gov't never wanted to admit the sweet deal it was getting with this Private sector subsidy, but is covering its ass with ...drum roll..even MORE formally expropriated private property rights.

Low income people can be some of the best tenants, and Gov't could have partnered with SRO owners in a big picture view, ie joint -ventured upgrades...after seeing a cost vs. benefit analysis vs other options.

I surmise that one reason Gov'ts never buy up and secure these SRO's etc. is that Gov't following its OWN rules and regulations would be embarrasing, it always costs a lot and Gov't often go over budget...and of course sets precedent.

The current status quo works much better to Gov't's advantage, it gets a subsidy to allow it a dereliction of Gov'ts' societal duty YET at the proper time find a ready scapegoat(SRO owners) when the sh!re hits the fan. How can Gov't lose in THIS status quo ?

Regardless if something is owned, it has an owner, who then controls it...If the formal legal owner is Gov't /Public Sector , then its future use is secured via a non -profit basis. If it is owned be the Private Sector,then that owner has the freedon to choose as well...thats what "ownership" is all about correct?..the OWNER has choice and chooses ?

I guess not in these SRO cases.

For those of you who disagree with these comments, may I suggest that you open up that spare bedroom or closet in your residence to Low Income groups...ie on YOUR Private Property.I can't see that NOT being a seemless and consistent argument with what I have just laid out.

It's like the old "being a little bit pregnant" analogy , either it is Private Property across the board.... or it is NOT. If NOT, which appears to be the case in these situations...Who's next?...whoever is feeling a little bit pregnant ???

so what's your solution?

If one concedes the sanctity of private property, which forecloses the option of mandating affordable housing in private buildings, then let's have another solution.

The government should create social housing buy buying it on the market, just as private developers do. This of course would be very expensive and would require large tax-revenue outlays. The property-rights advocates will also oppose this.

Their approach seems to consist of accepting the escalation of homelessness and wishing this problem would go away. Some seem to delude themselves into believing homelessness is a "choice," or is even criminal. This stance is justified by blaming the poor for their plight, thereby abrogating any societal responsibilty for amerliorating it. Each individual has, however, a variety of circumstances that have led to poverty and homelessness. It's never simple.

Furthermore, property-rights advocates ignore the fact that cities are created by public expenditures and planning. Vancouver is a desirable and hence expensve place because of the infrastructure built by tax revenues. The streets, bridges, ports, transit, sewer, water, and electricity that make uban life possible are government services. The value of property downtown would collapse without them. Property-rights advocates don't seem to condemn this government investment.

Our society created a city that allows a few people to make millions on speculation and investment. People who aren't wealthy also have to live here because of the avaialble jobs and services. Their work helps make urban life possible. They pay taxes. A few end up, for a variety of reasons, homeless. Why don't they deserve to continue to live with dignity until their situation improves? Otherwise, they are likely to enter a downward spiral that ultimatley costs society more in welfare, health-care, and disabilty costs.

Let's have debate here. Name callers, go away!

avandoc

I have posted ad nauseum many times on this and related topics as to what I see as both the root of THE PROBLEM and what I also see as THE SOLUTION .

This social housing for the less fortunate is a situation involving CANADIANS, not say a sub group DTES residents who live in Vancouver BC or certain areas of Winnipeg....or displaced Maritimers who can't fish.

Thus, it IS a FEDERAL matter.

My premise is that this status- quo turns this SRO and Social Housing etc. into a quasi -political volleyball game where the Gov'ts' goal is to keep moving the goalposts, keep the ball moving, but ultimately keep it suspended in the air and ever- moving and ever -shifting . This benefits the Gov't while unfortunate people are still being affected and used as pawns.

Hence for any Gov't to actually assume responsibility and actually sit down and formulate a course and plan of action seems to be actively avoided...in my view there is no suggestion or evidence to the contrary.

For years Gov'ts railed on about Illegal suites...now they, Gov'ts' have sure shut -up...because they now realize these suites are a form of social housing that actually works. Tenant and Landlord BOTH benefit. Hence my Private Sector comments, and is it agreed that these Illegal suites are a quasi - SRO and fulfill a societal need?

The OTHER SRO's , these old multi - suite buildings, are part of the same old political volleyball game. Gov't avoids what should be its duty...Gov't does not own it...and the owner is not legally obligated to continue in its SRO "social housing" manifestation. However, Gov't plays the middle and effectively turns these SRO's into de facto Public Property, with current and future punitive measures should the owners decide to actually "dare" exercise their legal rights consistent with Private Property Ownership.

If one took say Single Family Houses...they could easily be rooming houses, (FYI : Hi -Brow Shaugnessy is littered with them). Even some local Gov't Bylaws allow for this rooming house "rented bedrooms" scenario, all else is shared communally, as opposed to self contained suites.

Why doesn't the Cities "fine" single family home owners for demolishing older homes that could have been used as SRO's. What is inconsistent with this argument?

Unfortunately certain socialist facets of society cling onto these basic issues as an excuse to "eat the so-called rich" ...the relish the ideology of punishing someone for actually having the sheer gall of exercising legal , I repeat, legal rights, and the Gov't is only happy to oblige them , as the Gov't again plays the middle.

Two WRONGS do apparently make a "right" in Leftie Land .

We have to start with these BASICS ie " Legal Ownership = ___" in this discussion, unless there is some paperwork attached to the SRO buildings' purchase of these same SRO buildngs with a Legal Covenant that states these buildings must maintain some sort of social housing use, which I highly doubt it would.

As I say, I see no reason otherwise to not extrapolate this version of Private Ownership (?) to pass out crowbars to people so they can break in and sleep in your car and perhaps allow them the borrowed use for transportation.

We cannot get into self serving hybrid Private vs Public ownership designations. One either owns something or one doesn't.

If you "own" something, then it also comes with a combination of rights responsibilities, duties and privileges. If the liabilities of ownership outweigh the benefits, why go through the effort,and risk whatever else one supposedly owns, and be another part of the ownership facade?

If you don't own it " 100%" , it is de facto owned by Public ie communal. Back to the little bit pregnant analogy. If that is the case...the Public should take charge, thus Gov't as the Public's official repesentative, we are ALL CANADIANS, hence this issue is a FEDERAL matter.

Perhaps this is also why Gov't is averse to establishing the actual formal legal entrenchment of Property Rights in the Charter etc...for various self- serving and ass -covering reasons.

That's why this issue has been in a state of suspended animation , and will continue to be in the foreseeable future, unless the Band Aid-ish status - quo modus operandi changes. In the meantime, the situation will in all likelihood get worse.

revolution may be the answer!

The whole point of automation was that machines should do the work and humans be able to not work as much!
What happened was, that those who could afford to buy those automatic machines make a lot ot money while the rest simply have to work in whatever job, in order to survive.
Sure there has been created many new jobs over the ages, and most of them have to do with how to cater to the ones who have the money!
The idea that maybe people would only have to work a few hours a week in order to produce the necessities, never materialized.
Again I see our capitalism so well represented in the board game "monopoly" where in the end only one person has all the valuables and the rest have to just drop out!
Our homeless are exactly that portion of people who already have lost in the real MONOPOLY!
They are not part of the game and just a nusciance to the remaining players.
I advice everyone to realize that they too will wind up being out of the game ....sooner or later!
It is time to scrap that capitalistic system and if a revolution is the answer, so be it!

I seem to recall that years

I seem to recall that years ago DERA basicaly forced and shamed the city to make the building owners put in sprinkler systems to improve the fleabed buildings. a lot of people living in those places have been residents for many years. I recall one such place on hastings where the eleevator quit a numbe ro fyears earlier. did it get fixed? you got to be kidding.

I do beleive it was in the Harcourt years that the residents got to vote on city issues. So now we are back to the old "its about private property. The places are licensed to rent to citizens. The standards are supposed to be in place. Many were owned for the profits they could make from bars on the main floor. The intent was that nobody would get evicted due to greedy landlords prior to and during the "Big Show" in 2010. A similar deal was supposed to be in place during Expo. Some of those buildings are dumps inside, but poor folks live there as a better spot than in the streets. We used to live in the Four Sisters Co-op on Alexander. We saw lots of dumps in the area, some so rought the locals simply didn't enter or even walk that way if possible. The folks in those places do pay rent, they are citizens too and by God, those landlords treat them poorly if given a chance. Some guys made it a habit of collecting the rent in cash one day, and next day telling the renter he hadn't paid his rent and was to get booted. a bank was opened for the foks to get an account and maybe pay the rent by cheque, proeving the scams, and the threat of getting beaten up on" MadriGraw" day for their bits of money. A careing society simply shouldn't turn their backs on the working poor, the ones who can't work, or the ones who simple havn't got the skills to do so. A large number of public Insitutions were closed over the last twenty year resulting in people unable to cope with reality to end up either in a fleabag place or in a doorway. The Co-Ops don't get build because governments don't want to fund them. Yes we paid market rent but most of the folks were subsidized to some extent.The Lousy hotels are the only place for those folks to go. DERA actually bought at least one to set up clean affordable housing. It works.

Good points

Good points, but again, on the same wavelength of my points...this ends up the dog chasing its tail.

The so -called flea bag hotels/SRO's etc should,"in theory", be closed down for Health and Fire and Building Code violations, .....which means " Unsafe for Human Habitation ".... hence eviction of all Human Beings, which ultimately means the Low Income SRO tenants.

In essence, our collective representatives, ie Gov't , turn a blind eye to "certain" situations (which is itself discriminatory) , and plays this cat -and -mouse game with SRO owners... knowing that the SRO owners have more of the cards... but then who ultimately loses ?

Gov't will often indict and hang itself in various ways when it tries to "enforce" its own rules.

There are solutions in this game, and Gov't has to be the one to blink first. Gov't in my view is often worse that the worst slum land lord. This is a dereliction of Gov'ts' duty to its own citizens ....and these SRO landlords are simply following the Gov'ts own rules, both written and unwritten ones .

Quote:bcneocon 10 hours

And your mom ,no doubt neocon ,still has guilt at not having an abortion,every time she sees you .

That these SH!THOLES were even allowed to make monies for the SLUMLORDS shows how the NEOCONS think...

LEFT...RIGHT...RICH ...POOR...NO ONE,should have let those RUN DOWN,FILTHY,SH!THOLES STAND and make MONIES OFF THE BACKS OF THE WEAK .

Vancouver Rents

You know SROs are in the worst situation, but I keep hearing from small store owners, who provide very valuble services, like shoe repair stores and used book store owners that they are getting run out of town.

They can't afford Vancouver rents when their profit margin is modest. So we in Vancouver lose our small book stores and shoe repair (Only buy NEW shoes!).

What else are we losing that we may not be aware of because of these crazy rents.

It IS crazy. I think there should be a sanity cap to rents. The GVRD should set guidelines or ranges of prices for what buildings can sell for and rent for. If you haven't done any improvements (keep your paperwork developers) then you don't get to sell above a set ceiling.

That should slow things down, in a good way.

Yes I said it. We should slow down this BC economy.

thomas49

Like I said...

I was suprised the Vancouver Fire Dept. Inspector had the jam to admit the unwritten rule on TV...ie that enforcing the Fire Code etc. in certain types of buildings , ie SRO's , would create major displacement, therefore a blind eye.

Let's be blunt, the SRO owners are not a charity, its a business, and they have a certain clientele willing to pay $" X " dollars for " Y " quality of accomodation.

The City going " by -the- book " in these SRO's forces the owner to upgrade, which then makes it unfeasible economically, hence a greater excuse to perhaps evict people(ie residential tenancy act etc.).

Then the SRO owners really go to town in renovations, then really jack up the rents, if not in fact demolish and build new expensive buildings(ie condos etc.) The City would then be the bad guy, and then have all these people out on the streets, its now the City's problem. The City does NOT even remotely want this.

Again, remember the subtleties and idiosyncracies of how many things like rules, laws, regulations etc. integrate and overlap, such as the Residential Tenancy Act, and how they apply to Landlords and Tenants .

Seems some buildings have indeed gotten to the point of no return, conditions are beyond a blind eye, they are closed and many residents evicted.

Back to my cat and mouse game...there is a quantum level of reality, another quasi universe that this situation exists on that doesn't apply elsewhere up the socio- economic ladder.

Thus, there is this legal sub culture that maintians this status-quo, however we want to view it as a sleazy landlord vs the poor ,.....and the typically useless Gov't playing both sides and yet not doing its job to mediate, if not intervene , with a viable solution.

Back to my Gov't MUST take charge...quit this cat and mouse "download" game ....or "same old" turns more and M-O-R-E into worse and W-O-R-S-E.

Through the Roof

Ask the small store owners if the rents include property taxes, or, if high property taxes also are also a factor that's running them out of town.

Read this:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=2ca47a6b-4f22-4aac-b057-3747d2ab4bdb&k=30948&p=5

Vancouver business property taxes are way out of proportion to low residential taxes and this is a substantial factor that causes small shop keepers and local services to close down. As long as successive administrations at City Hall persist in punishing businesses with an uncommonly high tax ratio the city streetscapes will continue to change into condo blocks and only high-end stores. The old neighbourhood is disappearing due to this imbalance.

Barnie momo and realisticman:

Good points...this is the OTHER issue that will come to the forefront...the displacement of the small business owner.

Given their rent is often TRIPLE NET, and with low profit margins and much competition, watch this displacement grow. Maybe they will be added to the ranks of the poor and homeless.

We need another version of the DTES In-Site clinic for these C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S "nucking futs" politicians and bureaucrats who are addicted to $$$$ Cash Grabs like it's crack , ecstasy, or crystal meth. "Planning" is becoming an oxyMORON.

The Civic Elections are less than 2 years way ......tick -tock tick - tock tick -tock......

Municipal commercial tax rates

That, realisticman, is an excellent point and is a big factor in the high rents being demanded by property owners in the human scale street environments that are left. It's not just a property tax issue though. I had hoped that Harper might actually carry forward on some of the previous government's tiny steps toward addressing the disconnect between what cities contribute to the provincial and national exchequer and what they get back.

It clearly isn't just an issue of a few cents on each litre of gas.

That said, I think the inaction relative to the 'human' needs of our poorest citizens is still a bigger problem and one that's been ignored even longer than the situation you are addressing. Still, they aren't unrelated either.

However, as Maurice Cardinal points out beside us here on the 'Olympic' story, conventional 'protest' and threatened violence is worse than nothing as a way to actually address the problem.

tick-tock

maestro, they're not supid. This policy has been driven by an ideology of soaking the imagined rich 'businesses'. This mindset comes from simple-minded people that probably think it's also OK to cheat insurance companies because they have lots of money; without giving a smidgen of consideration that they are really stealing from all of us since insurance rates are based on insurance company outlays.

If the next civic election returns a COPE or COPE-like administration then we shouldn't expect business property taxes to decline. We should expect small shops to continue to close and businesses to continue to move their offices out of the City of Vancouver.

Starved Cities

No question, Garth, the cities are taking the brunt of many problems and should have better controls to tackle them. The previous federal government, The Liberals, made squeaking noises about redressing this issue but, as was their wont, they just promised a maybe while dangling the carrots. Dithers was a humongous tease. In fact, I think that all Martin did was tease, there was virtually no action on anything.

It will be interesting to see what the Conservatives come up with in the budget. They know that they were weak in the urban areas so I'm crossing my fingers that there might be some substantial action in the housing and gas-taxes areas.

Chantal Hebert

Seems to be suggesting that we may not just be looking at one Conservative Government.

I guess you noticed that too.

If the opposition doesn't soon get their act together she may well prove to be correct.

Pretty much, and I say this sadly, what I've been predicting all along - as you know.

What can they do?

After what the Liberals did for so long, it had to stop for a while, at least.

None of them will want an election after the budget. Harper doesn't really need one, unless he has some hidden agenda that only a majority can implement - ha! ha! The Bloc will be spent from the propping up Boisclair and Jack's wearing out his nails clinging to double-digit numbers, just. Even if Harper wants an election they may well vote for the budget even if they don't like it, although I expect that it will be a budget most people will like.

If the US economy goes into the tank then Canada will follow and that will be a problem, in a couple of years.

The whackos have been quiet and I don't have any fears of more Conservative government. Contemplate the cup being at least half full.

Courage!

Have you been following the CPC nomination process in

Newton-North Delta?

You might want to pay a visit to Sean Holman's Public Eye On-line if you're sanguine about what various shades of Yahoo (or Whacko) are up to.

Nothing yet to take much comfort it. (I won't call you 'friend' or you'll have nightbloom down your neck - if you've been reading round here, you'll understand.) There's a hierarchy of criticism here apparently. Did you ever get to see Barry’s house? My time for here is nearly done so I’ll ask now.

realisticman

Well, I agree, they are not stupid,per se...in the short term at least,.... but then again they are not all that smart depending on their perception of the Big Picture.

Leadership makes tough decisions , but in the end good decisions. The buck is continually passed. It is de-evolving to the Roman Circus , simply focussed on aesthetics,and all else out of sight- out of mind.

My view is that there was a conscience-like concern at the start, but it got into the "usual" political - bureaucratic gridlock and the pawns got ignored and tossed around.

In my view ...Woodwards site (which should have been snapped up and converted )was the fulcrum in the scales. Now the tipping point is happening. The SRO owners are at the crucial point now,in their building's lifespan and history...reno or not....RIP...now the dominos are falling.

Also, re Property Assessments, many likely have increased in the hot property market ,hence higher taxes, and this would impact the financial viability of the current owners.

In the end.....Its no sweat off the City's back nor the owners..perhaps it was either inevitable, or maybe the game plan all along. A crisis point is reached, then they throw up their hands. All the cards have been dealt.

They have outright shut down a few SRO's buildings....that's all it takes...now precedent is set.

Now the gentrification juggernaut. Problem solved...again , displacement,out of sight out of mind. Typical...yet the sad thing is the powers that be , whoever they are, are all ending up the same.

Off subject- sorry-re: House

Haven't seen Barry's house, hoping to tomorrow.

"Screaming for somebody to hear": 1 developer buys 6 SRO hotels

Rundown hotels bought cheap, forum hears

Volunteer says protesters at Olympic events are angry at developers

Damian Inwood, The Province
Published: Thursday, March 15, 2007

VANCOUVER - The 2010 Olympics has sparked developers into buying up rundown hotels in the Downtown Eastside and evicting impoverished tenants, a daylong public discussion session heard yesterday.

And Bharbara Gudmundson, a volunteer for 24 years at the Carnegie Centre, said that's what is igniting angry protests at Olympic events.

"People get so filled with anxiety because people are being evicted that they no longer speak in a calm, clear manner," she told 130 registrants at a Simon Fraser University forum on the 2010 Games and its legacies.

"The young people get filled with anxiety and their voices raise and they get what looks like aggressive. What's actually happening is they're screaming out for somebody to hear and do something about what they are experiencing."

Gudmundson said that although she disagrees with the protesters' tactics, she can understand them.

She said that a single developer has recently bought up six single-room-occupancy hotels. "In this particular case, there's a community that's been forgotten and it's been allowed to disintegrate and developers are using that and buying up these places nice and cheap," she added. "I saw it happen with Expo and now again with the Olympics."

Wheelchair athlete Jeff Adams, who won two gold medals at the 2000 Sydney Paralympics, said Gudmundson's comment was valid. "There's a need to look at how we can improve everyone's situation," he said.

Adams said that he saw first-hand how street people were cleared out of the city for the period of the 1992 Barcelona Summer Games .

"The cleaning up stops happening once the Olympics leave," he said. "As a participant at the Paralympics, you get a much more honest perspective of the city because they let the hookers and the junkies back in."

Vancouver 2010 has an allocation of 250 social-housing units at the Southeast False Creek Athlete's Village, said Ann Duffy, senior director of sustainability for the 2010 Olympics.

Games organizers are also part of community discussions on inner-city issues, she said.

"It's not unusual for organizing committees to be the lightning rod for a very complex issue," she said.

Duffy said that it's important to consider what Vancouver 2010 can actually influence and control. "Creative efforts are under way on what else we can do to help contribute to these solutions," she added.

dinwood@png.canwest.com

© The Vancouver Province 2007