Quick..before another death

As most of us were tucked into our beds last night, a woman died-burned to death trying to keep warm in her cart.
Let's get this temp. housing up asap.

Probably best to forget about the Provincial Government's nonsense about waving it's "magic money wand" and buying up Downtown Eastside hotels.
There were never going to be enough beds that way anyways.

Gregor you have your work cut out for you. I hope you are on the streets tonight trying to get the homeless into shelters.

Any shelters/housing has to have a provision for people to be able to lock up their carts.

Sleep well tonight Tyee readers-let's hope the homeless can too.

VANOC spending 18 million for 320 units

Are these guys nuts? Their delusions of grandeur are going to haunt taxpayers for decades to come.

While getting housing for the homeless as quickly as possible is an absolute necessity, perhaps we should all stop caring about what tourists are going to think. Let them see the totally disgusting way Gordo and Silly Sam have "handled" this problem. Blind ignorance of the ever worsening situation and spin doctoring to try to fool the public has been their MO. Then there's that bizarre housing minister who yaks about all the units created but no one has seen them or knows where they are.

Congrats to Gregor for the action on this problem. Lumps of coal to Sullivan, Campbell and Coleman.

Go for it guys!

We've spent far too much time discussing. Now is the time for action. Where do I volunteer to help?

SCG got it right!

" We've spent far too much time discussing. Now is the time for action."

It is heartening to see such a blatant application of common sense!

SuperAdobe

There is also SuperAdobe emergency housing. Check:

http://www.calearth.org/EmergencyShelter/eshelter.html

There are plenty of potential solutions as far as "technology" is concerned. That's never been the problem. The problem has been an utter lack of willingness to investigate and then implement the best solutions.

Temporary shelter is only a temporary solution. We have to look at a comprehensive plan to deal with the problem. And the sooner the better, because homeless numbers are going to increase drastically as the economy worsens.

Yes, but...

while this a worthy and humane step, as a temporary measure, it may end up delaying the real solutions. On balance, however, I support this approach – lets get people housed ASAP.

It now comes down to political will, and as Henriquez alluded to, permits. Will the proponents, including the Mayor, be able to usher this proposal through the City's own red tape (planning, building, engineering, legal departments, etc) and establish the authority to allow these temporary "villages" to be erected on suitable property? And in just whose back yards will they be located? Lets face it, how many of us really want a trailer park (albeit colourful and pretty) of otherwise homeless people next door?

Yes but nothing

The first requirement of any rehabilitation program is housing: After that clothing, nutrition and health.

If this expedient can put roofs over homeless peoples' heads quickly - before any more of them are burnt to death in their shopping carts - I don't think the neighbours will be all that much of a problem.

Burning flesh in the parking lot doesn't do much for the neighbourhood either.

The question is, do you care and are you willing to spend some money on something that doesn't have five rings emblazoned on its side? Billions are being thrown away to rescue investors from their own ponzi scheme investments – a few million to save lives sounds like a bargain to me.

Housing for shopping carts

Shelters' inability to accommodate shopping carts is a barrier to housing the homeless. The death of a woman downtown last night because of this clearly reveals the cost. So why isn't there a secure place for homeless people to leave their carts, so they can access a bed on these cold winter nights? Some homeless would have to be convinced to leave their carts, say, in a secure part of a parking garage. But housing shopping carts can't be so difficult or expensive that we're unable to present them with the option. We don't even have to build it. We just have to create a secure area with some chain-link fencing in a city-owned garage, like the one across from the Sun Tower on Pender Street.

VANOC spending 18 million for 320 units

that's $56,250 each

and then other $22 mill will be spent to make the 320 into 156 units

40 mill / 156 units = $150,000 per unit on temp housing.

i'm sure you can get a better deal buying up existing permanent units in this province.

crisis management

Let us please remember that we already have seen "temporary housing' that wound up sitting there for decades.
This is a good idea only if permanent housing in also going to happen.

There is more than one possible solution.

The construction of these temporary homes is something that should move ahead, while other alternatives are also kept on track.

The location of Vancouver seems to be the one point that doesn't seem up for negotiation. The homeless might be able to find shelter in abandoned mining/forestry towns, but they haven't moved there yet.

Modular housing

On an earlier Tyee thread on the same topic re the provision of cheap housing, a poster suggested the use of retired 40 foot cargo containers to provide the "shells" for temporary housing.

I'd be willing to bet that by mass-producing components for the interiors and with similar savings from repetitive methods of installation, costs should be close to half or a third that of staring from scratch.

The homeless and mentally ill don't want to be segregated

from the rest of society. They need to be in the city so they can access the services and entertain themselves. The kind of people who want to live in forestry and mining towns are different than city people. I don't think that most of them are interested in leaving the city; at least, I know my daughter doesn't want to.

Exactly

...sunshine coast girl.

What part of Vancouver are you going to put these on? The vacant land next to the train station? Ooops, already owned by St Paul's for their expansion. Finning lands? Oops, already owned by private developers with plans for expansion. That vacant 50'x122' lot off Dunbar and 33rd? Oops, private land, owner not willing to serve.

PAcific Spirit park? Thornton park? Queen E park? Charleson Park, Major Matthews Park? Can you imagine the outcry - neighbourhoods losing parks for an indefinite period due to misplanning by senior levels of government?

Exactly where is the land for these projects? Every time another of these silly articles gets written, everybody comes out of the woodwork saying "What a great idea, and here's how you can make it better" but nobody - no real actual landowner actually proposes donating any specific plot of land - serviced, accessible land - to the cause, and comes up with a specific rent for the trouble.

This is all an exercise in mindless navel-scratching until you actually settle the land question. That must come first. Then you can start to talk about cute structures and bold colours and shipping containers.

And as Charles Campbell points out, you'd better make sure that they can truck their carts and bicycles and stuff inside with them or those shelters are going to be vacant. Nobody wants to leave their stuff on the street unattended overnight. And that goes double for the homeless, who have so much less than we do.

What about ...

That land, with perfectly serviceable housing on it now, on Little Mountain?

Perhaps they should talk to Minister Coleman.

Comparison Shopping

Excellent idea for providing shelter to the homeless, but
has anyone thought about doing some comparison shopping on this? ATCO has been been supplying work force housing for over 60 years.

Would it not make economic sense to put this out to tender and let Britco, ATCO, or anyone else for that matter to come up with a deal that would provide taxpayers with the best deal?

And might the best deal be a lease rather than a purchase?

Good point Hughes

Given the TILMA regulations, I'm sure ATCO would have every right to appeal if they didn't get the work and their product was cheaper.

Campbell's government seems to think that the 'cheapest' is always best - keeping well paying jobs in British Columbia is about as big a priority for them as responding to the needs of the poor and the homeless.

dis-enfranchised

We are talking temporary here!
we are talking one step up from sleeping in a cardboardbox!
But as soon as "we" get involved the solution becomes how to create a livingspace that is so much more sophisticated that it no longer is one step up, but rather a quantum leap above what is offered elsewhere.
We are talking about people who are reluctant to step inside any shelter, people who are more concerned about their petdog than themselves.
People who require society to provide shopping-carts and allocate a place to park them.
This is a different clientelle, do not put yourself in their shoes because you have no idea about what counts in their world!
Yes, an IKEA style box-home that protects from the weather and is rugged enough to stand some abuse, is what is needed.
Once you begin to worry about niceties like a kitchen and bathroom, the majority of the defiant homeless, will turn their back!
It is a hard thing to understand, but all your pre-conceived notions go out the window here! We are talking B-A-S-I-C shelter, and like it or not we are going to see basic shelters all over the city.
There is no way you are going to be able to concentrate homeless to some isolated area (if you could find one).
This is how our world has become, you have those who can conform (reluctantly) and the few who are not going to conform.
face it!

taxes and treatment

"Indeed, taxpayers have enough trouble getting their own medical treatment."

Everyone who buys things is a taxpayer. Homeless people actually get hit fairly hard in this regard, since they can't buy and stockpile food the same way people with homes can. Consequently, they end up having to pay GST on things many of us don't. Further, if they could access their own medical treatment, they might stand a chance of getting back on their feet, or at least out of the cold.

A volunteer.

G West

Where's your back yard?

ME2 Here's the link again.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/SmartHome/Story?id=6201752&page=1

And here's some of what I said to Zalm.

"You are right about the land of course. However in the community where I live there are several vacant lots waiting for the right time to be developed. Arrangements could be made to lease these lots on a temporary basis and it's here that the containers come into their own.

They can be used for temporary modular residences that can be moved from place to place with little difficulty. Creative arrangements could be made between land owners and municipal governments to ensure no financial hardship to the landowners."

southdeltawalker

It did serve it's purpose though -- which was mainly how to get yet more public money into the hands of "friends", while at the same time creating the illusion the government is helping.......

I was a homeless refugee

I was a homeless refugee after WW2 and lived in camp conditions for 5 out of 6 years in Austria and England, where we were living in an uninsulated Canadian Army hut for 3 years,with 6 of us sleeping on bags filled with straw.

Living in housing and conditions shown on the drawing would have been a dream come true.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this plan and I hope the naysayers won't win.

Homelessness is caused by politicians and economists, permitting a class of international crooks to steal, expropriate and destitute. In the name of wealth creation, of course.

As long society permits these sickos to rule, must also accept the responsibility for their braindead actions.

Ed Deak.

snert

What about Little Mountain - too close to your backyard?

That's already public land and it is 'vacant' so to speak as well...there was a story about it here at Tyee in the recent past, remember?

http://thetyee.ca/Photo/2008/11/28/GhostWorld/

Reopen the homes in Little

Reopen the homes in Little mountain that our far thinking government closed would be a start.

Schools have had portables for many years. heat included. Got any spare ones stashed away? Modular buildings look like conventional houses because they are conventional houses. Their construction standars are high as they are built inside in a factory.

The 40 foot containers someone spoke about have been modified into living units. If the will is there, the supply will be there as well. How many more have to die outside is a question we can ask the naysayers. The comment about a place to live comes first, then comes everything else is true.
The provincial government is spending tons of money on the 14 day games so they might start to understand the world will be watching the way the poor are looked after and since it will be winter and VANOC will be praying for snow it might actually get cold. Firt off, get that Minister Coleman and King Gordo do a walk about for a few hours to see how the poor manage to survive outside. Any word from the Official Opposition leader on the subject?

Our family lived, first in trailers as we were moved around the country from coast to coast. We lived in a Manufactured Home when we finally retired but did own parts of assorted houses as well during the times we were long term anywhere. Lots of options and Gregor will no doubt be looking at them all, and quickly. A real bed almost anywhere beats a shopping cart.

I'm familiar with the area

You live close by do you or are you just trying to be evasive?

FWIW The homeless in my community go by my back yard in droves. Quite often they will stop along the way to or from a free meal and smash out the occasional car window so they can haul away some new goods in their stolen shopping carts.

As in the past the word 'homeless' is being used to lump chronic social misfits (nest foulers) in with those that genuinely could use help and would show their gratitude by attempting to reintegrate into the community as best they can.

You can't mix the two and all efforts should be directed towards ensuring that doesn't happen or it's ghetto city.

Nimby-ism

The answer to where (I think) is 'everywhere'. Let's not create a giant temporary homeless camp which will only exacerbate many of the current problems, leave one neighbourhood shouldering the burden, and create a ghetto of 'them' in sea of 'us'.

Smaller and more numerous set-ups would have the whole region sharing the problem. If every neighbourhood has a few homeless people in them it may provide and opportunity for those people to feel they are a part of the larger community that surrounds them (esp. if that community can recognize that a sincere welcome and measure of respect would be an effective first step in the program).

Further, if there is an increase in property crime or petty theft, then it's probably easier to find the culprits among a smaller group than a large one.

Good suggestion, Stump

It goes without saying that smaller parcels of land could be used and the likelihood of them being available on a short term basis would be better.

Also a good argument for portable modular housing as optimistically people could be rehabilitated and move on and the need for this housing reduced.

Isn't it ironic?

How sweet. After 20 years of screwing over the poor by selling their jobs to Asian wage slaves, charging them extra for having no spare cash, pushing them here to there and back, paying double or triple to keep them outdoors than it would cost to house them, we now propose to put them in work camps, while nobody is suggesting even remotely that there might be any work on offer.

Must be the Christmas spirit.

May I suggest that a better and maybe even cheaper solution would be to make the modules smaller, if modular is a good idea.

A design could be done with various types of walls, floor panels and roof panels which might interlock and bolt together in countless patterns, small or large. All wiring and plumbing built in, finished both sides.

These could be assembled and disassembled, moved at will on a flat deck truck to whatever rented pad or lot was chosen, expanded and added to as need changed.

The big advantage would be ownership. A family could remain in their house however many moves their lives might take them through, and nobody need feel so disconnected from their own basic needs as to identify as 'homeless'.

They could be built to standard incremental sizes and connectors on any decent framing floor, such as a truss factory, by any competent carpenter. Repaired, upgraded, downgraded, moved and reassembled, all by ordinary workers of average skills.

As to foundation, slab on grade would be nice, but wood skids should work well. Servicing levels about like a trailer pad.

Another big plus would be that they needn't remain concentrated together to become ghettos.

The message would be much more healing this way. A message of inclusion, rather than further setting people apart. Sort of a, 'Hey, bub. C'mon back and play with us again, we've missed you' as opposed to, 'Oh you poor thing, Let me file you in my little box here so I won't have to be so ashamed in front of the company that's coming.

Of course, there would need to be intensive services offered to continue this healing, but the first gesture really ought to say something people might actually want to hear.

Where Do I Sign Up

Finally! With a breath of fresh air sweeping through the corridors of Vancouver City Hall, we're seeing the possibility of change. It began with Obama, and is being followed with Gregor Robertson's election. Canadians want change. Desperately. Where do I sign up.

Define "temporary"

Is that "temporary" in the sense of the "temporary" income tax created to fund WWI? These temporary houses look a lot like slums in the making. Beware cheap solutions. If you, yourself would not want to live in them, why would anyone else?

I guess you could always put a sign up saying "Crack House" on the front lawn to remove any doubt about their eventual use.

The bad part

Building affordable housing for the homeless is certainly a laudable goal but there will always be a portion of the homeless who simply cannot be housed. They need to be institutionalised.

The demons that plague the homeless and cause them to be so are not going to go away by giving them a bungalow filled with similarly ill people, no matter how good it make people feel.

This is the best suggestion

This is the best suggestion I have heard yet. It is a pragmatic and lower capital cost solution for accommodating homeless folks than the current approach of doing nothing, re-institutionalizing, or jailing those with mental health challenges.

Re-institutionalizing is a non-starter because all of the mental health institutions have been down-sized to the point where they can not accommodate additional clients.

If this proposal receives provincial government support and funding, it will also have to cope with the NIMBY barrier. Ironically Gordo, whose personal life experience was tragic, cut funding for social services to help pay for the Olympics. The result of his fiscal strategy, of reducing funding for those less fortunate than himself, was to down-load homelessness costs to municipal governments by forcing them to reallocate their policing and expend monies that were not their responsibility. Gordo’s initial strategy was to ignore the problem. His next step was to buy “fleabag” hotels at the top of the market.

If this type of proposal is to succeed, essential social services must be dove-tailed to this arrangement. Security is also necessity to ensure that these potential residents do not cause harm to themselves or their neighbours.

Having built "temporary Housing"

In a number of countries including my own I need to say that all housing is temporary.
The Giza Pyramids are still there but seriously eroded and Mayan, Zimbabwaian, Roman and numerous Euoropean edifices no longer house people. They are now tourist attractions.
There is an obvious need here in B.C. for shelter especially with the latest weather. If you bothered to think about it your condo investment in Whistler or Mt. Washington is somewhat more "temporary" than affordable housing in urban settings.
Dang! I promised I would only post positive stuff! Why are comments generally so abrasive? (including mine)
We are in uncharted territory and I do not trust the Boneheads at the Helm.......
My next post will be all sweetness and light

My daughter is one of the mentally ill,

on a disability pension and "under-housed" in Vancouver. Doesn't require much to be happy. She would love nothing more than her own little space to keep her cats and her stuff in. She doesn't need to be institutionalized but isn't capable of completely looking after herself. Having a place to call her own with someone to check in on her periodically and make sure she's got food and is paying her bills, seeing the Dr. and cleaning her house would be perfect. A lot of her friends that I have met seem to be in the same boat.

multi-million-dollar condos?

They built "multi-million-dollar condos for 5,000 Olympic athletes"!

So, while we have 10,000 + homeless, we can built multi-million-dollar condos!

How callous can those leaders some people elected and how totally dysfunctional are those people who keep re-electing them!

Good thing the new mayor seems to be of a different breed!

I am totally disgusted at how homeless have been treated! I remember a commercial building owner putting bars outside the building to forebid homeless people to sleep! Even the wealthy owners cannot even lend a hand! Disgusting! I suppose that's how they got there! And I bet women reward them even more for the load of money they carry on the back of the most fragile of people!

Homeless vs mentally ill

There IS a distinction. The old Riverview Hospital and others like it were a form of housing for the mentally ill. But it was closed down to save money. That is the ultimate "downloading". Which reminds me of the old English folk song called "Mad Tom of Bedlam". Google it and you will discover that in pre-Victorian England they turned the mentally ill out to fend for themselves too. The theory was that the good folk of the world would give them food to keep them moving. Sounds just like what we do today, and it is disgraceful. On the other hand one hockey player is worth $10 million because he can skate and hit a puck. Go figure.

We are not in uncharted territory at all and there is nothing new about the homeless in Vancouver. It is new for Vancouver, new for the people who live there today. The fact is that you will see the same phenomenon in London, Paris or Calcutta if you care to look for it. Half the world lives in shanty towns.

There is one difference, I think, and it can be seen in Victoria where some people are homeles by choice rather than by necessity. They are making a political point by camping out in neighbourhood parks, to provoke arrest. Those few would never go into any kind of housing because they want to embarrass the government.

Perhaps the homeless should be offered a totally new option; to live somewhere other than Vancouver or Victoria where they can build their own homes and work for a living.

sunshine coast girl

I hope you didn't misunderstand me. I did not advocate moving them out of Vancouver at all - they're here by choice, and far be it from me to move them on, regardless of what Bobby Peru says. We've already been over the problems of his imbecile suggestion on another thread.

That's not to say that many have not shown up here from elsewhere - they have. Vancouver must prepare for an onslaught of homeless if they start to put up shelters - that's why I think this problem rightly belongs on the shoulders of the provincial government, with close cooperation from the feds. The city has few resources to do it by itself, and none at all to compel Burnaby, North Van, Richmond, New West, Surrey, Langley, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Abbotsford, Anmore, Kent, Mission, Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Chilliwack, Harrison, Hope or that spoiled brat of a municipality, West Van, to do the same.

Yet, that's where many of the problems come from - aye, and further afield.

That said,

I hadn't thought seriously about Queen E park or the Little Mountain Housing grounds either until GWest and Stump suggested uses. They ARE possibilities and meet many of the criteria I would expect would be important.

Snert suggests the only property be used that is available on a temporary basis, and initially I rejected that as unsuitable for investing public funds into a temporary proposition, but on reflection, perhaps it would be a good idea if it didn't become too institutionalized, thus forcing each succeeding government to re-look at the problem. Food banks have become dismal failures because their status is as permanent as their premises and employment contracts. Governments now are required to take NO responsibility for adequately feeding people who haven't the resources to feed themselves and their kids adequately.

Terms of no less than three years would be the minimum I would expect - one can't bear the costs of servicing the land for these shelters every six months or a year - you simply have to give these people access to water, sewer, lighting, power, emergency services, fire separations, standpipes and hydrants, and you need to identify their shelters for medical emergencies, which entails providing at least a Genesis guard on a drive-by every two hours or so. And coordinating all this servicing - even assuming you abandon the zoning and permitting process, which doesn't even exist yet - would take a minimum of two months before you could let people begin to start erecting shelters or parking 40-foot TEUs on the site.

And, frankly, for the past ten years it's been difficult to find a landlord willing to rent a whole house for a year without putting it for sale and ending your tenancy in 60 days. How are you going to guarantee that the landlord of a vacant lot will give you a whole year, never mind three, when the city would issue a building permit at the drop of a hat?

Honestly, this is a pretty complicated business, as most of you would find out if you ever had anything to do with housing people. Every scrap of land in Vancouver is owned by someone - private individuals, corporations, the City, or national and provincial institutions - and every scrap of land considered "public" has multiple uses attached to it, and a large constituency who won't be too thrilled with losing "their" benefit. Witness the weekly fights between dog-lovers and normal people over the use of on-leash parks.

social order

I see an opportunity for Vancouver to demonstrate to the world that we can house our poor and keep social order without removing the dignity of those who are lesser fortunate or marginalized. This of course goes directly against the grain of the developer who wants to maximize it's profit by building designer homes that appeal to and service the more wealthy part of our society. The problem is our Government is not governing this at all, in fact they are encouraging it. What is our current idea of heritage? Don't we already have a heritage committee? What is their agenda? These questions really define who we are as a society.

We need to make sure that only a certain percentage of any community is developed over time. This way we won't be displacing a community that already exists. These developers must build to a pattern as laid out by the community involved.

The way it is now developers can gentrify a whole community displacing those who are already there. Gastown is a prime example, just look at how it is evolving and you will see that the people who have moved into the designer condos are not respecting those who have a place in that community already. When I say designer condos look at
http://www.thesalientgroup.com
This is a perfect example of how we are all being fooled. There is no restoration of a community, because it never really stopped existing in the first place. What is Salient doing to restore the community that already exists?

Now do you all get it?

Govern this so called restoration. Isn't that what Government is supposed to do? Lets see if our new mayor is really superman and actually pull this off. After all isn't that his job description?

oh those homeless....

...they certainly cannot have any type of housing as they most certainly wreck it- according wilfred laurier:
"Creating prefab ghettos would just centralise the market for crack dealers and the places would be trashed in a couple of months anyway."

Gee why are there 'security deposits' for those trying rent even with references?
As a former "landlady" i can tell you many "respectable" middle class folks can do a lot of damage in a home.

The homeless do not deserve to be out in this weather. Any kind of shelter or prefab housing would need to have procedures to deal with those who create problems....just like anywhere else.

Re-read

Madame,

Reread my post and see what it says.

"Any kind of shelter or prefab housing would need to have procedures to deal with those who create problems."

Shelters and low income housing do have these rules. This is why we have homelessness; there is a certain percentage that cannot abide by the rules.

Homeless do not deserve to be outside under any circumstances. However, for many chronically addicted or mentally ill, simply building a ghetto would not make the problem any easier.

hey wilfred..

...that was fast.
yes, my point was that any procedures {procedures not eviction} do need to accommodate and allow for the special circumstances of homeless and the behaviour problems some have...maybe i didn't say it clear enough... surely a solution can be found before a homeless person is left out on the streets in this weather.

i've done volunteer work in the DTES and some would not be problematic...just looking for a warm place on a freezing night with their cart and/or dog.

Stop Gap Housing idea

This definitely works. I set up a donated structure in Yellowknife in 1978 on land provided by the city to use as a home for people in need. It is a quick and initially cheap solution. These places are tough material, but they do require maintenance, so make sure the budget covers that aspect sufficiently. If it can work in -50 weather, it can certainly work in Vancouver. Get it moving !!

Here's a fascinating look at

Here's a fascinating look at the successful situation in Singapore:

http://tcdc.undp.org/Sie/experiences/vol4/Public%20housing.pdf

"The public housing sector is a substantial and dynamic contributor to the
dynamics and growth of the national economy. The public housing programme
has made a noticeable contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of
the country, and has provided employment to those in the construction industry
as well as to those in related industries. For the average Singaporean, ownership
of high-quality affordable public housing has probably been the single
most palpable material benefit of the country’s rapid economic growth."

Agreed

"i've done volunteer work in the DTES and some would not be problematic...just looking for a warm place on a freezing night with their cart and/or dog."

I agree with you. However, as our latest tragedy shows, there has to be the will to take mentally unsound people in danger off the streets and put them in a safe place. The problem is, as our recent tragedy has shown us, there are certain people who do not want to go to a shelter. These people are, in my opinion, in the greatest danger and are therefore not making reasonable decisions. Thus, to protect them, they need to be sectioned and taken to a safe place where their condition can be treated.

Society owes this to people. What is lacking, in my opinion, is the political will from any political leader to do just this. It would involve institutional care for not insignificant numbers of people. I also believe without this kind of care, we are simply trying to solve a problem by tossing money at it.

Finally a plan for housing the homeless?

The time for talking is past…..now it is time for action. Let’s walk the talk!

Try it! Place some modular housing on crown land and then invite some of the homeless and see what happens.

For those concerned about creating ghettos, they already exist.

Been there done that BP

"I'm all for using modular homes- but in large enough areas where we can gain operational scale and reduce the cost of delivering services"

Awesome idea. Let's repeat our mistakes.

Penny-wise and pound-foolish is no way to go through life Bob.

Do we know who "needs help"?

"What is lacking, in my opinion, is the political will from any political leader to do just this. It would involve institutional care for not insignificant numbers of people."

I am sure WL that you mean well!

But can you remember what happened in Germany under Hitler?
He decided (on behalf or all sensible people) that certain groups of people needed to have their behaviour modified.

That was carried out in a more drastic fashion than what you suggest.
However the principle is the same, that "we" know better, and the subjects of our concern are merely..... insert (homeless, communists, jews, gay, etc.)

Homes instead of Death more Humane

As a Humane society the present governments strategy to decrease Homeless is death out of lack of Humane conditions for the desperate and lost and freezing and sick and afraid. Many have mental illiness and are afraid and easy prey along with the elderly and many others who fear a cold and deadly system. Now anything has got to be better than a death sentence and why is there as Vancouver is going to house the World but Vancouver's own people are forced to fend for themselves from life threatening forces such as disease, cold and death? And with the recent report from Policy Alternatives on how BC has worst Child treatment and the hardships on families and their children also places the biggest emphasis on lack of affordable homes and rental supplements or rental assistance. You would think with the millions and millions BC House has spent on the advertising, in the buses, in the bus stations, at the sky trains, local news, pamphlets and brochures, radio station and alike as advertisers tell a tale of affordability. Reports prove otherwise as working families biggest complaint along with single working family households is affordability. Do you think they would lie? http://dgivista.org/labels/Poverty.html

Wilfred Laurier's assertion

"Society owes this to people."

This is a central, maybe definitive concept. It needs serious consideration. Mrs Thatcher vigorously denied any such entity as 'society'. Her philosophical heirs among us still deny any such absolute debt. Or 'inalienable right', if you like that language better.

I think this lack of a sense of duty, inbuilt to the nature of humanity itself, is the reason we find ourselves in this mess without the will to act.

The whole concept of property lies at the center. The world, the universe is a single object. We begin by splitting it into bits and claiming the bits. My food, my clothes, my land, my stuff not yours. The invention of money assists the illusion. Money can be very powerfully addictive, a fetish beyond reason.

All of this is simple cultural construct, convenient for commerce, but in no sense real, beyond our own purposes.

So, the substance of the world, on offer to all creatures for their lives to live out, becomes controlled and rationed and subject to certain political manipulations, power supported by force of arms and law. This enforceable idea allows owners to kill or harm non-owners who intrude on their property, in some circumstances.

Why else would people starve in a neighbourhood with full stores, just because they lack money?

We place property superior to life, in our hierarchy of absolute value.

If this were not true, no part of this conversation would be necessary.

So, what are the boundaries of this game? That seems to be the problem. Some people are entitled to excess, others not even to the requirements of life, let alone decency. The line between is arbitrary and without reason.

How shall we redraw this badly mistaken distinction? If we do it better, we will be far along the road to rationalization. We will have a possibility of approaching so many disasters we now ignore because nobody can get a huge profit from it. Shall we start by declaring that the value of a living being lies in his life, not in his pocket?

The owners will squeal, have been squealing for decades, and they have the power of money to wield.

How would you begin, sir?

And the little piggies squeal

And I do not have a problem with a regulated Market and greed is human in natue along with lust and addiction and booze and all those other longings. The Market will still be there but the little piggies will just have to share and the stock Market will stop lookings so much like XMas as it is continues to light up all red and green like. And that way that big fat egghead humpty dumpty will not need a trillion dollars from all the presidents men as they watch us all come tumbling down.

Sums what up, realisticman?

"They need to be in the city so they can access the services and entertain themselves."

Work? My daughter and many of her friends are not ABLE to hold a job. It's pretty freakin' hard to work when you can't get your shit together enough to even RETURN A PHONE CALL from your parents asking if you have enough food, when you don't. Or keep a Dr.'s appointment. Or even clean your house without extreme encouragement.

You should maybe find out what you're talking about before you start making comments. I find your post extremely offensive.

Wilfred Laurier

I believe the numbers of homeless people who refuse help is actually quite small. Just look at the numbers of people taking advantage of the temporary shelters this week. The people who refuse to come in are few and many of them quote valid reasons such as concern for their belongings, not being allowed to bring their pets, being intimidated or scared by others in the shelter, noisy conditions and/or lack of privacy. That's what I mean by us treating them like cattle in barns. Even the homeless have the right to dignity and privacy.

Alive

Yeah, the danger of splitting folks into groups is that it might help empower collective psychic splitting--where one group--"us"--becomes the good group, and the other--"them"--becomes the bad group (in which we project aspects of ourselves we would disown) in need of modification.

Who are the homeless?

Here are a few I can think of.

The injured worker.
The permanently disabled.
The part-time worker.
The cancer patient.
The MS patient.
The Blind.
The working teen.
The war vet.(shelters/war camps)
The elderly.
The jobless.
The sick.
The infirm.
The mentally ill.
The addicted.
The evicted family.
The husband and wife.
The EI client.
The client cutoff from services.
The ICBC cut off client.
The WCB cut off client.
The client who didn't have enough hours.

The homeless a growing problem as the numbers are ever increasing because of the high cost of living and job loses, foreclosures and the lot, the sad lot.
And the list goes on and on as rental units and the high costs of living leaves many with out homes. And the shelters in place leave you in want of a safer place to sleep and not the feeling you are in a war zone. The Feds need to be on board and forget the Liberals being in charge of Federal housing money as Liberals fill up the heavenly Sky's with the homeless.
The problem is varied and the people are varied and the homes are already there just needs to be federal funding and the plan has sustainability as the little piggies squeal and everybody gets back to living in their country Canada like they had some kind of human rights instead of constantly being stripped of their dignity and self worth as a shopping cart and cardboard boxes become the architecture for their homes.
Alberta takes first place for its first class treatment of its children, and building homes with the Feds and other housing initiatives all part of the horizon for Alberta. None here in BC as apparently they have the heavenly Sky's and card board boxes along with shopping carts as the Liberals Housing Initiative for the homeless in BC.

The Village

What is the objective?

a) Housing for homeless people that are the victims of tragic circumstances.
b) Housing for the mentally incapacitated.
c) Housing for alcoholics and drug addicts.
d) Housing for those that chose to live rough.

Public support for those in groups (a) & (b) is undoubtedly so high that it's virtually unanimous. It's the other two categories that cause the problem. Every time one listens to a reformed addict one hears that getting away from bad influences is paramount and really the only hope for rehabilitation.

As we all know, addiction affects all levels of society. Here's an article on the celebrities. Again, zero contact with bad influences for success is repeated.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/01/081201fa_fact_fortini

If no distinction is made for any plan that is put into action to create a village, then we can be certain that it will become a drugs and booze ghetto and once again the poor people in categories (a) & (b) will be the weak links in that chain and susceptible to more suffering.

Ultra-liberals will have to face the fact that tolerating and open drug market in the centre of the city, no matter how much free housing is offered, will never solve the problems. Governments are going to test the courts and public opinion if forced institutionalization is decided to be the tough love required for some.

The new mayor of Vancouver has said that this institutionalization is under consideration.

A contemporary of the recently deceased woman known as 'Tracey', interviewed on Hornby Street, said that she was a well known 'user'. This was perhaps more than just a tragic death of a homeless person, this was perhaps also the death of a person that was too stoned to save herself.

How far are we prepared to legally go to help?

Realisticman

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what my post sums up.

Take a look at morechatter's list. Only one is listed as the addicted. It could be your son, or your daughter or you yourself who is homeless. Most of us are only one paycheque away from the same circumstances.

Anyway, if we look after all the rest of the people on the list it would sure be a lot easier to then focus on helping the addicted straighten out, wouldn't it?

I grew up in the 70's and I and all of my friends did every drug known to man. Very few of us still do drugs. Most of us outgrew them. I happen to believe that most people become addicted to drugs either as young people experimenting or to forget the shitty circumstances of their lives and if those circumstances are addressed it becomes easier to drop the drugs.

The reason that homelessness is so prevalent is that people spend far too much time arguing why we shouldn't do something about it instead of acting. You're not realistic; you are negative. I'm tired of talk. Let's get going!

Sorry, I don't think so.

This has nothing to do with liberalism of any kind - and everything to do with recognizing shared humanity...we haven't even 'tried' responding to the conundrum yet.

At bottom this is a question of how we spend money – I’d rather spend it on people than Olympic spectacles and I think most Canadians agree with that.

It comes down, at bottom, to priorities. And the priorities being set by people with money and power are not humane priorities – they are selfish ones.

Neither government nor industry nor good works can create personal responsibility and drive in any individual – we can and should create the ‘conditions’ where all our neighbours can live in modest comfort….if they come out of that with a new sense of self worth and some drive so much the better; if they don’t, they won’t be suffering and dying on our streets. And their children and parents and siblings will benefit too.

This is not an insoluble problem – never has been. Just start facing the truth.

Who are the homeless in BC? I forgot

The Child.

we can and should create the ‘conditions’ ...

All glorious ideals and, compared to most of the world, we mostly have already created a very comfortable society.

Rather than go on and on about this or that being a commonly considered truth, the objective at hand has to be considered.

Constantly criticizing the structure of society as a whole is a diversion from the defined task. If the people on the streets tonight are important they cannot wait for some abstract theoretical utopia.

If a village is to be created certain criteria will have to be established. Avoiding these issues will not solve anything.

I disagree

ensuring that everone has the wherewithal to live a modestly decent life is not rocket science - and no one says there can't be a quid pro quo for providing the means to live that life in moderate dignity. Constantly critizing the current phony structure of society is the sine qua non for change - without it nothing will, and nothing has happened - except for conditions to get worse.

Constantly doing the same thing is the mark of an insane society - not a healthy one.

They won't do it at all

Dear realisticman; I'm afraid you may be buying the con. Unless these issues are well aired, the twits have no intention of doing anything worthwhile, and would in fact act to prevent anything worthwhile from ever being done by anyone.

They would create a nice slum, charge the exchequer a mere three or four times what it's worth, build the cheapest crap possible and send the money offshore.

They would lie and lie, pretend and promise, weep crocodile tears until it's far too late, but provide society with good service?

Please.

Never, during anyone's memory have our governments done anything to help or regulate society, except as a way to falsely enrich their accomplices.

This scheme is so far outside their historic interests that I will predict confidently that anything these Liberals do for the homeless will make contributors wealthy and later be found to abuse the actual poor. However many poor there actually come to be.

The only exception I can think of would be if the poor come together in a big march and storm the capitals. That has been the only thing to force action in the past, and it only worked until the march broke up and went home.

Until these issues are a matter of public consciousness, whatever is proposed, nothing effective will be done.

Homelessness in our society is an actual crime. A crime against humanity. Until we have prosecutions, it's a crime that will continue.

Good debate !

Well done all, answers ARE here, let's hope the right mix is implemented.

Great moderation ADMIN!

Ethical vs moral reasonings.

IMO, Bailey, in his post above, has summed it up the best, in suggesting that yes indeed, there ARE "entitlements" to which any and all citizens should be able to lay claim, such as food, clothing and shelter.

In relatively recent times, we have added such things as education and health concerns, human rights, and Democratic process to the list.

To be sure, not one of these goals are yet assured for everyone, in fact most are under constant attack by the same people who have from the start opposed the acceptance of these things as natural rights, as entitlements flowing out of membership in our society.

If we are to succumb to the faux reasonings of Bobby Peru, RMan, and Wilfred laurier, among others, we'd accept that the only reason for us to organize under a common set of laws is to facilitate a "favourable economic climate" for business.

If we do this properly, they hold, "The Market" will automatically provide all the aforementioned goals. But they fail to cite instances of where The Market, in whatever form it has taken from past to present, has ever actually delivered these goods.

In fact, if The Market ever did deliver such things, that would consist of altruistic behaviour, something the neocons say is rarer than hen's teeth.

And it is there the gulf between the Socialist and even the garden variety Conservative becomes an unbridgeable chasm, for the Right-winger believes that it is greed that ultimately drives all our actions, and so it becomes normal and natural that everything can be valued in dollars and cents, and that profit trumps most ethical concerns.

I list myself amongst a probable minority, those who do not believe in an inherited human gene for greed (or any other human failing) - the Christian belief in "Original Sin" notwithstanding. I think this is why Rome hates Socialism so much, and is why authoritarian rule and Christianity (ie US) go hand in hand.

This is why it is sheer futility to argue "entitlement" with people like RMan etc, because if they ever admit that we have a societal RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that everyone enjoys basic minimum standards, their whole "Market Ueber Alles" belief goes down in flames.

And so the neocons are forced to profess that by far the majority of those who are poor are so simply from their OWN FAULT.

Sure, realisticman and

Sure, realisticman and Wilfred Laurier know what I'm saying. The left have to stop expanding the definition of homeless to include anyone who wants affordable housing and druggies. There are the truly homeless, out of luck people who lost jobs, suffer from injuries, senior citizens- who need temporary to permanent assistance. It'd be unfair and punishing to house them along with drug addicts and mental patients. Before we delude ourselves into a prefab solution for all of Vancouver's homeless we ought to categorize the homeless.

The druggies and mentally ill (both almost go hand in hand) need to be treated in institutions. Combine Vancouver's open drug mart and free housing with druggies and the mentally ill and you have hellacious slums. There is no genuine economic or therapeutic need for Vancouver's homeless to be in or near the middle of the city. Sure, it's sentimental, but if you're a druggie and want free treatment at taxpayer's expense it should be delivered at the least expense. And given Vancouver's cost of space, delivering institutionalized detox and psychiatric services is most cheaply done in big setups.

The whole argument for a series of homeless shelters all around Vancouver totally serves the druggies- who wouldn't want free housing in Vancouver? But, it is repugnant and offensive to Vancouver's taxpayers who work hard to pay for their own homes. Our new mayor will be confronted with this repugnance when he tries his social engineering in our neighbourhoods.

And the argument of what do we as a society owe individuals: housing, education, a car, free cable...is better for another time. Homeless advocates want free housing given to druggies in an open drug market- don't any of you see that as a fundamental problem that'll lead to an avalanche of druggies and derelicts from around the country.

You're an addict too Bob

Addicted to your own ideas. Won't give them up no matter how many times it's pointed out to you that they won't work. The solution you propose only feeds the problems it's meant to address and this has been shot so full of holes it could rival Bonnie and Clyde's getaway car for ventilation.

Further, your characterizations are based upon fallacies and stereotypes and because you are starting out with erroneous assumptions it's no wonder you end up proposing solutions doomed to failure.

"The whole argument for a series of homeless shelters all around Vancouver totally serves the druggies- who wouldn't want free housing in Vancouver? But, it is repugnant and offensive to Vancouver's taxpayers who work hard to pay for their own homes."

Oh really? Again, you confuse taxpayer with property owner. Which says everything about your P.O.V. doesn't it? Here's the reality. Are you sitting down? The vast majority of people are where they are because of circumstances beyond their control. This applies to the rich and the poor, those ensconced in mansions and those in shelters. You need to wrap your head around that reality and then you might be able to understand the old saying, 'there but for the grace of God...."

You are actually quite offensive

Bobby Peru, and definitely NOT representative of the silent majority of Vancouver, thank god. Do you even KNOW any of the kinds of people that we're talking about? Most people like you speak from fear as opposed to knowledge, regardless of how you word it.

Intelligent people recognize that drug addicts are addicted for a REASON and not able to help themselves until that reason is addressed. Certaintly not a reason to institutionalize them. Here's a weird concept for you. How about we help them?

And many of the mentally ill on our streets won't hurt anyone. They just want a place to call their own and live their lives in relative peace. But they do make people like you uncomfortable. Yep, that would be really helpful to confine them against their will and force them to adhere to what you deem appropriate.

Jeez...

Failure to take personal responsibility

Sunshine coast girl, I am only offensive to you because my ideas are opposed to yours. Many people in Vancouver believe that every conceivable form of special interest group has infested our society to the point that individuals can always find someone else to blame for their ills.

Drug addicts are people who need treatment as far away from the source of their drugs as possible. Saying that you want to help drug addicts, yet allowing liberal drug use in Vancouver are contradictory ideas.

Leaving the mentally ill on the streets result in deaths like the woman who set herself on fire. Like it or not, many of them need treatment and confinement.

The only fear I have is that our law enforcement no longer enforces the law, but rather plays the role of social workers. Druggies and homeless people run about committing some of the worst property theft in Canada. Who speaks for the average Vancouver citizen and their rights? Certainly none of you.

Liberal Government Forces People to Street

as they drive up the real estate market with speculative prices and close down Residential Tenancy Offices and advertise they are assisting people with homes instead of housing people. First its not about getting new money its about the money that has been gotten and used else where is more like it so get real Realist man. This group would starve a child and steal their endowment fund so give me a break unless obviously children on the streets forced into prostitution is a good thing for you because its not looking good for Vancouver.

Its everything they own

Thats whats in those shopping carts and for some its just to much to have to part with everything, hence the cart. Many of the disablied non drug addicts are forced to the streets along with their kids because they don't receive enough money for food and rent and when they sleep at shelters at night they pay out of their shelter allowance and then forced to the streets for the day. Who is responsible for the high costs of rents and the high costs of mortgages and the high costs of food along with the up and coming rush of foreclosures and the new joblessness,the new homeless?
The Liberals high risk speculative real estate markets and its killer carbon tax and its hosting a world event at a time when many say they are staying home along with stripping Ministries of services while leaving BC most vulnerable to fend for themselves are responsible for the mess we are in. If the shoe fits wear it, and I imagine their are many a shoe that would like to hit a Liberal head on.

so... back to the issue.

Those new-fangled homes for the homeless look a lot like the old 1950's style cheaper-by-the-hour motels. One of the quaint things about living in Canada, and especially in BC, is the presentation of old, tired ideas as if they were something new. We have this incredible facility for repeating our mistakes over and over again.

We are again spending money on an Olympic Games, for the third time since 1976. Look at the learning curve. The Montreal Olympics produced a huge deficit that took 30 years to pay off. The velodrome, with its collapsing concrete, had to be abandoned, last I heard. Someone made a killing by saving on the cement content.

The Calgary Olympics had a legacy, but I am not sure what it was. I truly hope the Vancouver Olympics leaves a sports legacy and a housing legacy we can be proud of.

If anyone has a solution to the hopelessness of the downtown east side, please speak up.

It gets rather tiring to read about "Gordie", "Gordo" and the "neocons". There ought to be an erase button for anyone who uses such trite, facile expressions. Those who use such phrases need a thesaurus. Let's try to take these debates up a notch, please.

Bobby Peru makes a good point

i.e. "Before we delude ourselves into a prefab solution for all of Vancouver's homeless we ought to categorize the homeless."

Well, maybe I would quibble with the idea of someone doing the categorizing, but if the service is not "user pay" then someone is in fact going to have to decide who is applying.

There is quite a bit of difference between people who are homeless because of the lack of employment that suits their skills or lack thereof, and the people who are homeless because they have problems in living, coping, planning, etc.

Co-housing these groups does not strike me as being particularly useful.

Residential care is probably on its way back in regardless of whatever Gregor is going to do with these quite cool-looking mobile homes.

snert

For most of the last century there has been some degree of homelessness in the downtown eastside. The magnitude of this problem has varied depending on forever changing socio-economic conditions and government policies, including the relatively recent down-sizing of mental health institutions.

Prior to the initial gentrification of Gastown, many of those who eeked out an existence lived in boarding houses and run down hotels. When Gastown developed, many less fortunate folks moved east from the old North Van ferry terminal and along the waterfront towards Burnaby; however, but they were not usually homeless.

During the 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, and probably earlier, many of the transient residents moved back and forth between the downtown eastside and employment up and down the coast or in the interior. There was frequently a demand for their labour in mines, sawmills and fishing. For example, at one time the Woodfibre pulpmill regularily hired some of these individuals to perform longshoring work. Now for most of these folks, those opportunities do not exist.

Today’s problem is the sheer number of homeless folks, not just in the downtown eastside, but throughout North America. It has been exacerbated by the lack of employment, drugs, mental health problems, and a less caring society.

Without a doubt property owners along Franklin Street and elsewhare are tired of having homeless people camp in their doorways or use them as latrines.

The suggested “Stop Gap Housing Idea Could Make a Big Dent in Homelessness” has merit. To do nothing about this appalling situation, other than talk improves ziltch. The use of modular housing is an improvement over the current ghetto.

irrelevancies

Where the homeless come from is surely irrelevant...and the suggestion that providing decent homes, proper health care and clothing and a nutritious diet is a 'waste' of money reflects an equally absurd attitude.

In every jurisdiction where the emphasis has been put on providing the necessities of life in order to make it possible for people to begin to 'change' their lives great progress has been made.

Whether we are talking about Portland, Ore. or Calgary, Ab. or even New York City there is clear evidence that:
a) such programs DO work, and;
b) they do not 'attract' hordes of hangers-on dreaming of becoming clients for such housing.
c) after all, the skeptics who suggest that making positive changes in the lives of the poor and homeless would somehow sap the energy of Canadian workers should simply give up their cars and homes and move to the DTES….then they too can qualify for the largess.

In Mexico, a similar kind of program has been extremely successful in reducing poverty and increasing opportunity and outcomes since 1996. In that program, poor families are paid cash on a regular basis in return for certain kinds of participation - keeping their kids in school and getting proper health care for themselves and their children, for example.

The only unfortunate thing about the program described in this article is that it is merely hypothetical and it is designed as a 'stop gap'...but, if it's the best we can do, it is a much better use of resources and money than the current approach. An approach which amounts to doing nothing while blaming the victim.

proof please

Hey Bob:

Since repeated attempts to tell you that your plan won't work doesn't seem to hold any weight with you... can you provide us with some examples of rehab gulags that have had success in re-integrating drug addicted individuals?

Bad Plan...

Look at Paris. Ghettoizing a community leads to downfall, especially for those in the community.

Smart neighbourhoods make sure that wealthy and poor people live side by side. This prevents anything from going to far, anything from being neglected.

Speed is a bad excuse to enact something that will still lead to more deaths and problems. It is misleading.

Don't rush forward to more pain because there is pain right now.

People have to make the sacrifices of accepting these buildings in small doses through the whole city.

Speed is a bad excuse?

Speed.....there has been no speed in resolving the substandard housing for those who live in the downtown eastside. It has continued to get worse, particularily in the last three decades.

Many developers have done extremely well by encouraging gentrification programs for their own benefit. The removal of much of the industrial land, including shifting the rail car ferry terminal did wonders for Marathon.

The proposal of modular accommodation is a modest improvement for what currently exists.

Yammer

"i.e. "Before we delude ourselves into a prefab solution for all of Vancouver's homeless we ought to categorize the homeless." {morechatter}

"Well, maybe I would quibble with the idea of someone doing the categorizing, but if the service is not "user pay" then someone is in fact going to have to decide who is applying."

This isn't the issue, and Bobby Peru is setting up straw men again in order to advance his argument, whatever it is (because it changes with the weather)

Morechatter tried to give us a spectrum of who MIGHT be homeless. But not everyone who loses a WCB appeal or gets kicked out of their apartment or loses his job becomes homeless. Most of us have a healthy dose of luck to go with our pluck, our initiative, and manage to skirt the edge of the pit without falling in. But not everyone has that luck.

And this is the canard that Bobby Peru and realisticman falsely advance at every turn - that if you have initiative and work hard, your success is assured. It isn't. I've a known a few people who couldn't work any harder, but the strangest of coincidences keep them from even treading water, never mind swimming to shore; while others who, with only a modest work ethic, make mistake after mistake - insult the wrong guy, drive drunk, get pregnant - yet come up smelling like roses.

My friend Chris seems to have had his own personal black cloud following around to rain on his day at every turn. He was one of our road statistics three or so years ago - just the latest in a string of bad luck that robbed him of his job and self-respect before he was hit by a car that he probably never saw.

This Calvinist canard can be dealt with on its own, but it belongs on a separate thread, preferably one that also addresses the religious myths that have crept into modern society and remain, hiding, behind the doorposts and shrubbery. This thread deals with housing the homeless, not why they are that way in the first place. Therefore, I regret your comment doesn't really advance the debate too much because they've led you off track. What you say might well be true if we were building a community, but what we're considering is the emergency housing of people in need of shelter to avoid death.

Community comes later - if they want it.

Just for fun

Here's a few other things the
'silent majority' believe with all their blessed little hearts.

Only anti-bacterial soap can get me clean and keep me healthy.

And that goes double for my kids. Asthma is due only to pollution, but probably not car pollution.

I can cross the street even when the red hand is flashing because it's only delaying those cars waiting to turn for a few seconds, and I'll be really quick.

Bottled water is safer and healthier for me than tap water.

My SUV gets just as good gas mileage as your econo-shit-box.

The Chinese people have bootstrapped themselves out of poverty and it's because we buy their shit.

I like Starbucks coffee because it's the best, and besides it's fair trade.

George Bush won the 2005 election.

Bill Good is a left-winger.

______________

This is just two minutes work. I could probably buy a copy of the Tab and find another two dozen in ten minutes. I can't blame the 'silent majority' for being as deluded as they are - it's siren song lured me once too. I just resent the usual advertising copywriters showing up here like Agent Smith and encouraging us to swallow the blue pill once again, rather than living as Neo. Agent Smith's lure is freedom - from worry. Neo's is freedom - to choose.

I know what I'd choose.

Can't you feel the love on this site?

We need a modern day equivalent of Riverview institution to make meaningful process in reducing those homeless who are druggies and mentally unstable. They may represent up to half of Vancouver's homeless. They are people who cannot care for themselves and should not be given housing in the sense of normal housing. They need to be institutionalized and treated in a kind, but gentle hospital.

Oh I know what you're saying- hospitals are impersonal and cold. But the druggie neighbourhoods you want to create are ghettos and profit centers for drug dealers. You will only increase the homeless problem by tolerating open drug use among addicts. Mayor Robertson is naive and faces a hell storm if he thinks Vancouver neighbourhoods will open up to druggies living among us. Think of the crime, gang warfare and insanity. Addicts need to be removed from an enabling environment and the citizens of Vancouver deserve safety.

Now, there are those who are homeless because of disabilities, injuries or just bad personal and economic circumstances. Of course they shouldn't be housed along with druggies and the mentally ill. They should be allocated housing- temporary or permanent, depending on their circumstances. For example, if they are able to work, but need to be close to downtown, maybe they should get downtown housing. If they don't have to or can't work, why should they be located downtown? They can live further out of town. No one is entitled to live in Vancouver.

Life is not fair. We should try help those who cannot help themselves, but let's not try to change the world. Or in other words, we don't have to change the world to do so.

Thanks zalm

As usual you sum it up well and this morning you brought to mind two quotations from the Dean of St.Patrick's that were particular favourites of my mother's:

When a true genius appear in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Happy Christmas!

It’s going to be fascinating to see if, south of the border, Obama can live up to the expectations Americans have for his administration – in all sorts of areas. I came across this statement he made in an interview with Time magazine…God how I wish we had even one politician in a position of power capable of making this kind of statement AND, hopefully, making a real attempt to live up to it.

"Two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, "Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient." Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim,"

If Gregor Roberson has a bulletin board in his office, he should have that statement printed and posted on it. Now. For his administration there’s a chance at least to live up to something.

For a better world

Globalizing this issue will not help your cause. It just tends to make the situation overwhelming to most people. As does lumping all of the people with the above problems into one homeless issue. This happens time and time again.

I was born and raised in Vancouver. I've been on the odd pub crawl into the DTES pre Gastown. Turned down the services of the odd hooker. Worked down there for that matter. I've worked in the camps with some of your temporary labourers.

In order to partly resolve the issue of homelessness the DTES, in it's current state, has to go but the changes must be made in an orderly fashion so as to avoid moving the ghetto from one area to the next.

The VDP proves this every time they go on the warpath against prostitution. They just relocate the problem.

One of the major issues is that people keep treating the homeless as if they have the same basic needs as the rest of us and they don't. Just providing shelter will not make the problems go away.

Realpoitik...

Great idea, but everyone has overlooked the obvious bigger problem: NIMBYs. Yes NIMBYs. Everyone is in favour of housing the homeless as long as it is not "in my backyard".

The city has previously proposed social housing to be constructed on city-owned sites on both the west and east sides but local residents have come out in full force to oppose these social housing developments.

Perhaps shades of things to come?

Next door in Burnaby, good ol' miserable Mayor Corrigan constantly berates both the province and the feds for apparently not doing anything to assist the homeless, yet Corrigan is quick to wash his hands of the homeless issue as it's apparently not Burnaby's problem.

OTOH:

http://www.burnabyhomelesstaskforce.org/all-the-facts/homeless-count-in-burnaby/

Do I hear a ¡Viva Socialismo! anyone? :)

As the vicious circle of Realpolitik swirls around us the homeless continue to be the hapless victims.

NIMBY

"Great idea, but everyone has overlooked the obvious bigger problem: NIMBYs. Yes NIMBYs. Everyone is in favour of housing the homeless as long as it is not "in my backyard"."

I don't think it's unreasonable to say "I don't want 200 homeless people trucked into my neighbourhood, but I will suggest again that if the solution is shared by every neighbourhood it becomes palatable.

Grievous Angel

Instead of seeking the source of the litany of evil, why don't we face up to the obvious obstacles and find solutions around them- no matter how unpalatable and unpolitically correct they appear to be?

Stump: I don't like to use the term rehab gulag- you make it sound like I'm advocating a death or work camp, or at least an environment akin to the one depicted in 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.' But, enforced rehab has worked in Hong Kong and Singapore. Ask some of the Asians you see in Vancouver. And just as Insite is innovative, we shouldn't hesitate to try innovative ideas in the conservative sense. Face it, Vancouverites are more conservative than the activists hope.

Gwest, I was always against the Olympics in Vancouver, but note that NDP and Liberal govts wanted it. Rather than fight the decision, Vancouverites should live with it and use it as an opportunity to promote our great city. Sure, we have a homeless problem, but so do many cities. So we shouldn't make the homeless the prime issue of the Olympics. It seems ridiculous and self serving. Anyways, the TV networks will avoid the homeless and any protests. There's simply too much money involved. No, I don't own a TV network.

Ah, Nimbyism, Vancouver's favourite sport- more than hockey or indoor marijuana cultivation. Ignore me, but face the real power in this town: no one wants druggies and mentally unstable people in their neighbourhood. Unless Shaughnessy, Point Grey and West Van permit homeless mini-cities to be set up in their midst. Can you even imagine that? I'll be seated in the front row to see the waves of scorn Mayor Robertson will face. It's so easy for all of you on this site to talk about compassion and acting as your brother's keeper- wait until the druggies and their dealers run amok in your neighbourhood stealing your bike, car or BBQ for the second or third time. Or what will you do when the crazed homeless person talks up your daughter across from your house?

Will you tell everyone, "That's okay, that crazy stranger means no harm talking to my daughter" or will you shriek, "Get away from me, I don't have any spare change."

Do you seriously believe the elite in Shaughnessy and Point Grey will allow the BC left to rub their face in a homeless camp in their neighbourhood? Only if you can pry the shotguns from their cold, dead hands. So I predict that if this homeless mecca is permitted, it'll be inflicted on East Van in Trout Lake. Plenty of space and opportunity to stick it to the East side again.

I predict that Mayor Robertson will declare a few quick political homeless victories and then go silent. He has little to no authority to change things at his level.

It's time for real and workable solutions.

rehab gulags

"Stump: I don't like to use the term rehab gulag- you make it sound like I'm advocating a death or work camp,"

That has been what you've been advocating... cost-effective, enforced rehab centres far from the city. The term befits the concept. It's not very innovative at all. In keeping with the spirit of Christmas, it sounds like you're just rehashing the old "are there no poorhouses?" routine.

"It's so easy for all of you on this site to talk about compassion and acting as your brother's keeper- wait until the druggies and their dealers run amok in your neighbourhood stealing your bike, car or BBQ for the second or third time."

Conjure the boogeyman all you like, but it just demonstrates your ignorance on the topic. I live in Mt. Pleasant and we have a lot of homeless people hereabouts. I also have a small child. Almost without fail, homeless people are respectful and considerate to us. Perhaps because they are treated in much the same way by me? As you reap, so shall you sow Bob.

"no one wants druggies and mentally unstable people in their neighbourhood. "

Every neighbourhood has those people. Some of them live in tents, some live in mansions. Some drink cheap whiskey, some drink expensive brandy. Some smoke crack, some snort coke. Wealth and mental health do not necessarily walk hand in hand.

"It's time for real and workable solutions."

They have been proffered and found wanting (by you Bob). Please lay off the platitudes. Dealing with homelessness by spreading the solution across the region instead of creating another ghetto is a real and workable solution. The good people of Point Grey and Kerrisdale are the minority and if they don't want to be a part of the solution, then it just shows them up for the parasites they are.

proof?

"But, enforced rehab has worked in Hong Kong and Singapore. Ask some of the Asians you see in Vancouver."

Most of the 'Asians' I know were born in Canada. I doubt they'd be much help.

Anyway, it's your solution... I think the onus is on you to provide some examples of its success. Further, we are talking about finding ways to house homeless people, not treating drug addicts. Of course there's overlap, but clearly the latter can't happen without the former, while it IS possible to supply housing without necessarily demanding sobriety.

Homesteading

Historically, one of the great pressure relief valves that mitigated the despair of the boom and bust cycle was the rule about homesteading.

A worker had the right to claim certain types of parcels of crown land on the outskirts, and if a certain amount of clearing, fencing and house building was done on it, after 5 years you got title.

So, a person caught up in a downturn could make a home for himself, that would sustain his family into the future by providing a stable focus for their hopes and efforts.

We have nothing like that since they abolished it 30 or 40 years ago. A person caught up in a downturn now has noplace to turn, no way to turn personal work and commitment into the possibility of a stable future.

In short, they fall into despair.

This scheme is in a way, a pale shadow of that same kind of hope. It's a chance to have a home when you're in a bad way. But unless some secure type of equity goes with it, and a place to put the thing, it doesn't act on the future at all.

It just trades abuse by the cops and shopkeepers for abuse by some bureaucrat landlord. Completely insecure tenure.

Hope is the goal. To infuse hope into a part of our country that is in trouble. Hope is a way of projecting oneself into the future. If we want this thing to work, we absolutely have to attach a way out of that trouble to it. A future. It doesn't have to be easy, better really if it isn't too easy.

But it has to be doable by anyone. Achievable by becoming, over time, reliable and self reliant to some degree.

Stump

Re: rehab gulags.

Well said - neighbour. I see we have the same issues because we live in the same district. Stuff's been goin' missing from around here for as long as I can remember - certainly since we moved in in 1994. And yes, junkies were part of it, but so were opportunists, and even some staff from the Balmoral Hotel as their truck was seen loading stuff from my garage. Unfortunately, the cops couldn't do anything. But I've had an ugly on at the Balmoral and its owners ever since. And we all know who they are.

Life on Mars

'Rehab gulag' is your term and not mine. And I don't have to prove that forced detox and rehab treatment in centralized institutions work well, because, they have worked well in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. Aggressive treatment, aggressive law enforcement against drug trafficking have brought down heroin addiction and resulting homelessness. General homelessness has been alleviated if not eradicated through govt intervention. However, I doubt if you could apply the same model to entire countries with much bigger populations.

Homesteading only works in sparsely populated regions like northern BC, northern Manitoba. It makes economic sense as the value of land is much lower in these areas. However, it is an act of individual necessity and capability rather than a manageable programme.

Assuming you can even find enough housing for druggies and the mentally unstable in a certain neighbourhood it's unlikely the citizens will be happy. With East Van home prices at $700,000 nobody wants to see prices degraded by a ghetto.

Mars is right

Do you ever READ any of the material I post for you?

Here's another report you should spend some time with my friend:

http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/docs/UKDPC%20drug%20policy%20review.pdf

It's a bit long perhaps at 108pp so I'll just post a short summary:

The report, An Analysis of UK Drug Policy was authored by University of Maryland drug policy analyst Peter Reuter and Alex Stevens of the University of Kent, for the UK Drug Policy Commission. Headed by long-time drug reform proponent Dame Ruth Runciman, the commission describes its mission as "to provide independent and objective analysis of drug policy and find ways to help the public and policy makers better understand the implications and options for future policy."

If the commission's report is any indicator, policy makers can use the help. Labor's strategy of education campaigns, forced drug treatment, some harm reduction measures, and harsher prison sentences has not made an appreciable dent in drug use. Britain has the highest level of dependent drug users in Europe, the report found, and heroin use has skyrocketed from 5,000 people in 1975 to an estimated 280,000 now.

The report estimated the size of the British drug market at more than $10 billion a year and the cost of drug-related crime at more than $25 billion a year. It also found that Britain's drug use rates were among the highest in Europe.

While Reuters and Stevens were highly skeptical of the ability of drug policy to influence drug use, they praised harm reduction measures. "Government policies have only limited impact on rates of drug use itself," they wrote. "However, the UK has introduced evidence-based measures, notably the expansion of treatment and harm reduction, that have reduced the harms that would otherwise have occurred. On the other hand it operates measures, such as classifying drugs to deter use and increasing use of imprisonment, that have little or no support from available research."

The number of people in drug treatment had increased from 85,000 to 181,000 between 1998 and 2005, much of that increase driven by the criminal justice system, the authors noted. But the number of drug war prisoners has also increased by 111% in the past decade, and sentences are nearly a third longer than when Tony Blair took office.

West

Would you like to read some of the material I post for you.

http://www.amazon.com/Treating-Alcohol-Problems-Psychotherapy-Practice/dp/1572300779/ref=cm_syf_dtl_pl_2

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1986-01-01_1_page006.html

Druggies

Bob:

I challenge you to think about replacing your use of 'druggies' with 'my son' or 'my daughter'. Perhaps then you can start to treat people as human rather than as trash to dealth with in as economically efficient (to your mind) a way as possible.

Further, this isn't Hong Kong, or Singapore, or Malaysia, and I doubt many people who live in this country wish to emulate their laws and society.

Why do anyting at all?

Why is it necessary to do anything at all? The downtown eastside has been plagued with substandard housing for decades.

The reduction of affordable living spaces, proportional to those needing a place to live, is without as doubt the major factor. Besides the increased numbers of homeless, due to many controllable or uncontrollable circumstances, the relative supply of accommodation has decreased. More conventional housing, as well as squatter dwellings on diminishing industrial and port lands, has declined or has been eliminated.

The challenge is to find suitable ways for the homeless to acquire the basic fundamentals of life (i.e. food, shelter and clothing). It is the humane thing to do, and there isn’t only one approach to the solution. Although this is an extremely emotional topic, and for many posters their own personal circumstances influence them more than anything else, insults are rarely conducive to achieving suitable results. And although we are not the ultimate decision makers, a compromise of positions is necessary.

The suggestion of modular housing, with adequate social services and security is one step to improve the well-being of those less fortunate than ourselves

NY Times article on treatments for addiction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/health/23reha.html?ref=health

Aggressive is right

Peru, your standard seems to be simple abuse. All of the measures you propose involve abusing somebody for being different from your estimable self. Force some kind of treatment on them, arrest them and throw them away. Lose the key while you're at it.

The kind of desperate lives these people appear to be living are already all about abuse. Trapped by criminals, addicted to poisons, thrown out of wherever they lived before, denied basic rights or services, rousted by cops and politicians who think they should be legislated out of their very existence, all without a single hope on offer anywhere.

Exactly how, I mean by what mechanism exactly do you think that increasing the levels of abuse would act to cure them of their reaction to the abuses already in effect?

A Failure to communicate

Like I said, forced or mandatory detox (if you want the free housing) or just forced rehab if a court deems the person unsafe or unable to handle themselves safely on the street has worked in Hong Kong and Singapore. Now you may not say that applies to Vancouver, but I often hear many people citing European cities as examples in numerous issues.

But, then you don't want to live in a society like Singapore. But then Singaporeans don't respect the mess you have created in Vancouver with your open drug bazaar called Downtown Eastside and all the liberal policies that favour criminals and worsen the entire situation. And I read in NY Times that 'coffee' shops in Amsterdam are being restricted because of increased criminal activity. And most of the Dutch I talk to who live in Amsterdam, when I travel to Amsterdam tell me that while drug liberalization has led to fewer people being imprisoned for silly and minor drug offences, it has opened up more abuse. So what they saved in incarceration costs goes to substance abuse management. So you see, there is no free lunch.

Of course I'd love to give Vancouver's homeless nice facilities with relaxing First Nations' art hanging off the ceiling, free internet, free HBO and even lease a BMW 5 series for them when they are ready to reenter the world. But, we are not rich in BC or Vancouver, and I can envision more and more homeless swamping our streets. We need cost effective and practical solutions that do not interfere with our neighbourhoods.

You are the guys who label it as a gulag. It doesn't have to be. Just as your idea is bound to evolve from a birkstock, summer of love festival into a seething ghetto that destroys the innocent neighbourhood surrounding it. I get the impression you think that all or any law enforcement on druggies and the homeless are Gestapo tactics.

Of course I perused your study links. I respect your earnestness that much. But, you have to do more than throw studies around- we have to debate a solution for this community. And your studies- one of them showed that no govt policy has worked on drug abuse. Well, in that case drugs should be decriminalised or legalized. And that's getting off topic and into an area where either we or the mayor have any authority.

Let me repeat my position. I want to give Vancouver's homeless decent housing and medical treatment; except let's determine who needs what, who is a druggie and who just needs temporary shelter. Don't fall into the politician's trap of supporting modular, temporary housing without first developing a permanent solution. The politician benefits from the headlines, coming across as a genius Mother Teresa and our neighbourhoods get trashed.

I know druggie sounds wretched, but an addict is an addict. Addicts are amoral creatures who will do anything including sell their mothers to feed their habits. I'll call them 'my sons' or 'my daughters' in church, but on the street let's deal with druggies as addicts.

churchy-ness

"I'll call them 'my sons' or 'my daughters' in church, but on the street let's deal with druggies as addicts."

If you can't take the lessons of the sermons in church home with you and apply them to real life, you may as well stay home with a cup of coffee and watch football.

If they are addicts then use that term. But druggies is a putdown that shows how you put yourself and your p.o.v. on a pedestal and render judgement. Not yours (judgement) if I recall Sunday School correctly.