The new Vision council promised to stop putting city money into paying for private security guards in the city’s business districts and it’s about to carry out that promise tomorrow — after hearing from speakers on the subject.
If you have a strong opinion, hop on down to the 9:30 committee meeting tomorrow, although I seriously doubt anything you have to say will change their minds. But you’ll get to practice your public speaking skills and, who knows, someday they might have an impact somewhere else.
For those not in the know, the Downtown Ambassadors were a creation of the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association back in 2000. They’re those guys and gals in the red and black jackets who roam around, sometimes helping tourists, sometimes making sure that a particularly energetic panhandler isn’t scaring anyone, and generally keeping an eye on the street.
For the first several years, they were paid for from the fees that the BIAs levy on their business members. Then the idea popped into someone’s head that it would be good for the city to help pay for them, since they help maintain order and safety in various parts of the city.
The previous council put money into expanding the downtown program, then agreed just prior to last fall’s election to help pay for similar Downtown Ambassadors in 15 other business districts, at a cost of $500,000 a year. I understand there was high anxiety just after the election over whether senior managers were merrily finalizing those contracts, locking them in.
But, apparently not. They’ve weren’t signed and now the motion is to not proceed with them. That is certain to upset some business owners in the districts. I know that in Gastown, they very much like the Ambassadors, who come around frequently and get to know every character in the neighbourhood.
The question for everyone, though, is not: Is this a good program? I think people think it is, in general, except for some complaints that have been publicized about how street people or not-upscale-enough-looking residents get treated.
The question is: Who should pay for them? Are they just a service that mainly benefits the businesses, and so they should be paid for, as they have been exclusively in the past, by BIA fees? Or are they a general benefit, something that serves a lot of residents and visitors to Vancouver and therefore should be paid for by general tax dollars. (And I’m not even going to get into the question of whether the question of whether this is just privatizing or contracting out police services.)
36 responses so far ↓
1 re:place Magazine // Feb 4, 2009 at 8:59 pm
[...] [CBC] Parallel Bridges [Price Tags] Vancouver’s summer fireworks festival cancelled [CBC] New Downtown Ambassador contracts to be cancelled [State of Vancouver] What should we be building? [Stephen Rees Blog] Vancouver gives manager extra [...]
2 Wagamuffin // Feb 4, 2009 at 11:03 pm
So….
If they take away the Ambassadors program…
Who is going to protect us from the cops?
On a more serious note, the Ambassadors are visible and walk the beat, something the police seemingly cannot or will not do.
I say: Keep ‘em. They are another level of safety and security on our streets. More people watching out for all of us is a good thing. They successfully co-mingle private and public security in places like New York City.
Surely, we are worthy—and worth it.
3 not running for mayor // Feb 4, 2009 at 11:28 pm
While I like the idea of the ambassadors I feel many people have an issue with them being run by a private company paid for with taxpayer money. I’m sure if the city took them inhouse the total cost would be about the same, the ambassadors themselves would make a bit more money thus being able to attract and keep better people. It would also reduce some issues people have about them. Personally I’d be fine with the status quo. We’d all love to have the VPD walk the beat and do what they do, but they won’t and even if they would we couldn’t afford it.
4 Sharon Townsend // Feb 5, 2009 at 1:43 am
The Ambassador program is not perfect but it fills a significant need in our community. They help with all manner of street issues that would never, ever get addressed no matter how many police the city hires. They handle most things on their own and when it gets serious - it is time to call the police. The police love it - by the time the call comes from an Ambassador the situation has been screened and they are rarely wasting their time. I would be over the moon if I could have a police presence in my neighbourhood on a daily basis. They would know the local residents and shop keepers by name. They would notice the notorious shoplifters when they turn up, they would report the abandoned matresses left by residents on moving day, they would make sure all the homeless would have shelter during freezing temperatures - but no… that is not what police do any more. It is not what citizens do anymore. So there is this big hole in our community that should some how be miraculously filled.
It is funny how people forget that business pay taxes too. Half of them to be exact! For all the city services that are not applicable to business you would think the small amount of support that was involved with the Ambassador Expansion could have been tolerated.
BIAs and business communities are not exclusive little enclaves. They share the neighbourhood with residents. It is everyone’s community - and whatever the business community does, more often than not, the residents around it benefit. Litter pick up, hanging flower baskets, decorative banners, street patrols, community festivals - don’t assume any of those bring dollars into a business. Instead think of them as a contribution to a collective sense of place for all to enjoy.
The writing has been on the wall since before the election that the Ambassador expansion was on shakey ground. It is unfortunate that so much effort has been wasted on this valueable project but as Frances has said so well… the business community does not need any public speaking practice on this topic.
Unfortunately, the need is still there. Those needs were made abundantly clear in the reports developed for the Ambassador funding allocations. I am eager to hear what our new council proposes as an alternative that may be more appropriate to their liking. Doing nothing is not an option.
5 gmgw // Feb 5, 2009 at 5:22 am
I won’t miss the Ambassadors. They were a good idea in theory, but in practice they often acted more like a goon squad, at least when dealing with the homeless. I vividly recall an encounter with them a couple of years ago. I was walking to work along Seymour about 8 AM when I came upon two Ambassadors shaking down a homeless person who’d been sleeping, covered with cardboard, in a doorway where the homeless often sleep (the building houses a social service agency and I have to presume that the proprietors don’t have a serious problem with people sleeping there; it’s not the main entrance to the building). They were shouting at him and threatening to have him arrested if he didn’t get his ass out of there, now! As I passed by I mildly suggested that they might take a more civil tone; it wasn’t the poor sod’s fault he had to sleep in that doorway. They both turned on me and threatened *me* with arrest (i.e. calling the cops to have me arrested) if I didn’t move on, pronto. I did.
I’ve since observed similar incidents involving the Ambassadors several times. Either the Ambassadors I’ve encountered were all very poorly trained, or the ugly rumours about their mandate to harass the homeless and indigent are true. Regardless, in no way should the city have been funding them– they are an arm of a private company– and the new Council’s decision to curtail that funding is welcome. Better and more humanistic ways to deal with street-level social problems in this city must be found.
6 spartikus // Feb 5, 2009 at 11:56 am
The Ambassadors have been (or were until recently) banned from a major city associated building downtown because their “undercover unit” continually refused to identify themselves to this building’s own security when entering it to “arrest” alleged shoplifting suspects - something which, I’m told, even the VPD has the courtesy and professionalism to do.
7 Sharon Townsend // Feb 5, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Under-cover loss prevention is not part of the Ambassador program. Human rights training is. Authorization by a property owner to request compliance with the tresspact act is part of what they can do if the situation is appropriate and legal.
Every security company in the city becomes an Ambassador in these kinds of conversations. They are not. Formal complaints are minimal and if they do come… they are treated seriously.
As I said earlier - the program is not perfect - neither are employees, just like police are not perfect, citizens are not perfect, street people are not perfect and the law is not perfect.
Bottom line is we still have a huge void in what the police have time and mandate for and the question still remains - if not Ambassadors… what then.
8 tommi // Feb 5, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Does Vision plan to replace Ambassadors with beat cops or are they simply going to cancel the program after all this investment? This decision will most likely result in more petty crime around the city, especially the DTES. Is Vision okay with more street disorder and crime activity in our neighbourhoods?
9 Jeannette M // Feb 5, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“well liked in Gastown” - I am a resident of Gastown.
Before the Ambassdors showed up, the BIA (I assume) hired a private security guard to do what the Ambassadors basically are “supposed” to be doing - we had a regular guard or two from the company the BIA contracted, and they were a constant familiar face. Respectful, friendly, sweet to not only residents, but to tourists, the homeless, the drug addicted, and seemed to know many business owners/employees by name.
Then the DA showed up - never have I seen them smile, offer directions to a lost tourist wondering how to get to Chinatown looking at Carral and Hastings. They stomp around, smoke outside starbucks and flirt with the employees, harass the panhandlers (I’ve seen them be rude and get into shouting matches more than once) and, if I was in some state of distress, they are NOT someone I would want to run to for assistance. They are completely unfriendly, and look like they hate their jobs. I don’t know what they are doing down there, but I can’t wait until they are gone and we can either have beat cops (which really, in that hood, SHOULD be on patrol all the time, if ANY neighborhood) or our old security guards.
The DAs in Gastown are AWFUL.
10 Dave Jones // Feb 5, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I enjoy the remarks of some of the perfect people out there who care more than others and seemed to relish in heaping abuse onto the ambassadors.
The ambassadors are people who have paid money to be trained, have exposed themselves to onerous and multilayered accountability and licensing. They are people who face many of the most tragic and difficult people in our society while having no powers other than to model citizenship wherever they can and to whomever they can.
Ambassadors come from many countires, ethnic and racial backgrounds. They speak many languages. Some of them are mothers returning to the workforce. Still more come from their own difficult backgrounds inclduing homelessness and addictions. A few are recovering from serious injuries and walking helps. Others are going to school and some are there to acquire skills in judgement, decision making, interpersonal relations, and conflict resolution for careers elsewhere. There are even ambassadors who just love being in the open air and talking to people. There are also some who made the wrong choice and have left the program because it does not suit their personality. My god, they are human!
To the person who feels the ambassadors in Gastown are awful, perhaps you would prefer to return to the days six month ago when open drug use and trafficking were a minute by minute event and when aggressive individuals plagued visitors. Speak to the Executive Director of the Gastown BIA who has the data and knows how it was used and the results it produced. You don’t have to believe me, the data speaks for itself. And if you are really clever you might even figure out what the trick was.
I just ask that you take some time to really understand the program and what it can and cannot do and how it fits into the spectrum of hospitality and public safety as simply one component. Try to remove your political or philosophical lens and take an unbiased look or at least clean your monocle.
11 Observer // Feb 5, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I guess that doesn’t include the Commercial drive ambassadors whom I saw harassing some squeegie kid today.
12 Jeannette M // Feb 5, 2009 at 8:57 pm
@ Dave.
I am not using a political lense, or a philisophical one. I am using my own eyes, with what I have seen in Gastown.
The program has issues. Is it good in theory? Perhaps - if it was limited to tourist help/advice and more like a community watch then it would be ok.
I have witnessed the Ambassadors harassing panhandlers. I have witnessed Ambassador’s breaking the smoking near entrance way by-laws. I have witnessed Ambassadors ignore confused tourists with maps, leaving them to be unhelped or helped by pedestrians. I have witnessed Ambassadors move homeless people along and threaten to call the police on them. I have witnessed Ambassadors stand around and unprofessionally flirt with the girls at Starbucks.
I am a long time resident of my community. I walk throughout the community everyday - in many respects I possibly spend more time down there on the street than many of the local business owners do. And I can tell you that I haven’t noticed a lick of difference in the drug use in Gastown. It’s just as bad as it was, or as not bad as it was, depending on your point of reference.
I would much MUCH MUCH rather have my tax dollars go towards well trained beat cops anyday. If the BIAs want to continue to pay out of pocket fine, but there has been zero benefit to me as a tax payer.
13 not running for mayor // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:15 am
Jeannette I to am a resident of Gastown and have been for years, I have no idea how you could say the drug use is as bad as it was, the area is now night and day. I don’t account it all on the ambassadors, when Gastown BIA was using Palladin guards they were doing a good job as well but I have definetally seen an improvement since the Ambassadors took over. I’m sorry your experiences are so terrible but they do not represent the community. Attend a meeting of the Gastown historic planning committee which is run by members of the public that live in the area and they will tell you about the vast improvement to the area, in which the ambassadors have planed a large role.
14 Jeannette // Feb 6, 2009 at 1:40 am
Perhaps you’ve been living here longer than me, but I have noticed no difference.
the palladin guards did a fantastic job. they were friendly, they were kind, they got to know people. I had ZERO bias against the DAs before I moved to this hood, and was curious when I saw the red jackets instead of the yellow ones. I have witnessed so many terrible things done by the guys in red over the past year that I don’t know how anyone can think they have done a great job. My only regret is that I don’t carry a camera on me to capture some of these indescretions.
The area has changed yes - but to credit it to the BA’s, really? In the last 2 years so many new shops have opened, the woodward’s project and the carral street project has brought a stronger daytime civilian presence, and these things have made a difference.
I still see people shooting up in alleys, on the street, in my doorway. I see people walking around with syringes hanging out of their arms.
I mean, even IF the noticable drug use has gone down, how can it reasonably be attributed to the DAs? Out of sight out of mind? If all the DAs are doing is moving people along how is that justifyable? they just go to Chinatown, Railtown, or Strathcona which doesn’t pay for DAs. How DAs can be a reasonable solution to street safety is *beyond* me.
Also: I’ve seen more petty and violent crime in Gastown done by the drunks coming out of clubs than any panhandler or street person. The DAs don’t do anything to prevent against this….
15 A Dave // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Last summer I was walking with my 8 yr old son at Cordova and Columbia and we came across two Ambassadors writing a note in chalk on the sidewalk. My son, always curious, stopped and read the message out loud as the Ambassadors and I stood there. It read:
“Tourist Alert: Hastings Drug District ahead. Not for children’s eyes.”
A rather bizarre message for an “Ambassador” to write, wouldn’t you say?
The awkward conversation that followed left both my son and I shaking our heads. These Ambassadors had zero compassion, tact, understanding of their job, or people skills. They had no idea how to deal with my kid, let alone an adult questioning their actions. I doubt either of them even knew what the word “diplomacy” means.
Any improvement in the Gastown streets cannot possibly be tied to the Ambassadors, and if the BIA makes that tenuous conclusion, then they should probably hire someone new to do their research. The recent improvement on the streets in Gastown is undoubtedly due to the shelters that opened recently. If the Ambassadors really wanted to do good in Gastown, they would stop all the club hoppers with weak bladders and the exploding population of designer dog owners from using the area as a giant toilet. Give them plastic bags and make them clean up all the dog shit everywhere. Now that would be money well spent.
16 Jeannette M // Feb 6, 2009 at 3:44 pm
@ A Dave:
So THAT is who was writing all those messages in chalk! I wondered about that = for a few week period they were *everywhere* in the area - “Drug District Ahead” and notes about “ghost people” and all sorts of bizarre offensive things. At the time, my boyfriend and I thought it was some strange group of extreme anti-drug use “activists” infiltrating the area… WOW.
17 A Dave // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Yeah, Jeannette, funny thing about those messages is that I had taken my son to the Vancouver Museum about a week before, and they had an activity about the “Hobo Code”. During the Depression, hobos used to write chalk messages in code telling other travellers if a place was safe, a good place to eat, where to find a place to sleep, etc. The Ambassadors — or whoever dreamed up their using these chalk messages last summer — were obviously playing off the Hobo Code, probably in conjunction with Tourist Office. Unfortunately, the information they (the Ambassadors, not the hobos)conveyed was alarmist, puerile, judgemental and often totally bizarre. It made everyone — tourists, residents, addicts, homeless, business owners — utterly embarrassed to have to pass these ridiculous messages every day. This is the exact opposite to what an “Ambassador” should be doing.
18 Sharon Townsend // Feb 6, 2009 at 11:52 pm
interesting. Downtown Ambassadors were not working the DES or Gastown last summer.
19 Dave Jones // Feb 7, 2009 at 3:04 am
Commercial drive does not have ambassadors and ambassadors ar enot permitted to write chalk remarks. Get over it people. They have helped in many ways and are not perfect. For interest Ambassadors started in Gastown in June 2008. They have never worked the Commercial drive area. There are many companies that use red and black uniforms. Make sure you see Downtown Ambassador on the back before you attribute behaviour. If you see something you don’t like then call the Gastown BIA and be precise. Time, date, location, and identifying call sign located on the right breast pocket. It will be dealt with. Smoking by a doorway, no problem, call the Gastown BIA or the DVBIA at 604 685-7811 with details and it will be resolved. If an identifiable ambassador marked something in chalk, that is not something the program supports and was the action of an individual who would not be an ambassador long if someone took the step to report it.
20 Sharon Townsend // Feb 7, 2009 at 3:24 pm
this blog thread feels like one of those bizarre discussions that claim Obama is a Muslim. Everyone is an expert, everyone has evidence, everyone presumes what they hear is the truth and everyone is closed to believe anything other that what re-enforces their personal bias.
21 A Dave // Feb 7, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Riiiiiigggght, Sharon and Dave Jones!!! One of you says they were in Gastown last summer, the other says they weren’t. If they weren’t working there, then what the hell were they doing writing chalk messages on the sidewalks, smoking outside of Starbucks or Al’s Pizza? Clearly, their bosses and the BIA had no control over what they were doing, and apparently don’t even know where they were doing it. (See the blog Beyond Robson for another Gastown dust-up with the Ambassadors that was recorded). Thankfully, the debate is moot. They’re gone.
22 Sharon Townsend // Feb 7, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I was mistaken about the start date of Gastown’s program (I was of the understanding it was not rolled out until September/October.) Guilty. However, I am not mistaken about their training and what they would and would not do. The chalk accusation is nothing but heresay.
The Ambassador program is a good one and will continue to function in the city with or without city funds. The only part that is cancelled is the small portion of hours that was going to be financially supported by the city… 38 patrol hours a day for the entire city.
23 Stephanie // Feb 7, 2009 at 10:40 pm
“Dave Jones” wrote:
“They are people who face many of the most tragic and difficult people in our society while having no powers other than to model citizenship wherever they can and to whomever they can.”
I cannot believe that anyone actually managed to write that with a straight face. I am someone whose job it is to actually “face many of the more tragic and difficult people in our society”, and I can tell you with complete certainty that if I *ever* got up to what I see the DAs doing to the poor in Gastown, I would be fired in a heartbeat.
The DAs are unprofessional. They are unrestrained. They personalize disputes that are contextual to their roles. They are verbally abusive. And they intrude in places they have absolutely no right to intrude - for example, screaming at people who are panhandling, shooing people with carts off the block, or “moving along” anyone who looks like they might be a drag on business.
I also beg to differ with the assertion that open drug use and drug dealing have improved. Have you gotten a look at Blood Alley lately? It’s a hellhole, and the dealers who have moved in are several shades of nasty worse than the usual low-level dealers we used to have down there. Cordova between Carrall and Abbott is turning into a nightmare. And there are problems around Maple Tree Square that most definitely didn’t exist six months ago.
Complaints aren’t minimal because the DAs are professional - it’s just that nobody bothers to complain. I mean, come on - a panhandler has a reasonable expectation of a positive outcome when they call the Gastown BIA to complain about their private security? Is anyone naive enough to believe that?
24 Sharon Townsend // Feb 8, 2009 at 12:26 am
please offer us a viable alternative and we would be happy to consider it.
25 nancy (aka money coach) // Feb 8, 2009 at 2:20 am
I’ve lived in gastown for 7 years now and am happy to see the DA’s go. Like a couple others have mentioned, I’ve personally witnessed what at best can be called harassment of our marginalized fellow citizens. It’s nuts: Patrons of the Modern Club are not monitored as they arrive with open beer cans, and leave the premises and piss on people’s doorways, but at 8am Sunday morning people without homes who are pathetically sleeping against buildings, in no-one’s way, are woken up and moved along (an illegal act by the DAs, incidentally, when it’s public space).
I don’t blame the individual DAs, but until the company can train better and have a super-clear mandate that protecting against shoplifting is one thing, and “cleaning up the neighbourhood” according to a select group of citizens in the community is another, the company should not have their contract renewed by anyone, much less the city.
26 A Dave // Feb 9, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“The chalk accusation is nothing but heresay.”
Sharon and Dave Jones, if I report an eyewitness account of innappropriate behaviour on the part of the DAs, is it going to be dismissed by the BIA as “nothing more than hearsay?” If you don’t even believe what the taxpaying residents (and patrons of the local businesses) are reporting with their own two eyes, what possible chance of redress would a homeless panhandler have reporting harrassment by a DA?
27 Sharon Townsend // Feb 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm
badge number, date, time, location, photo perhaps? that’s all that is needed. We take all complaints seriously but we will not take responsibility for people we don’t employ or events we cannot substantiate. I equate that to witch hunting.
Nothing would make me happier than to redirect self assessed funds spent by my BIA on security toward things that actually directly benefit local businesses like marketing. That is going to take beat cops, bylaw enforcement (other than parking) and health care workers in my neighbourhood in a deterrent mode rather than crisis response mode.
I don’t see that happening any time soon so again… please offer us an alternative. We are doing the best we can with the resourses we have to make our neighbourhoods clean, safe and a great place to live - for everyone. Instead of beating us up for it, perhaps you may want to chip in an help out.
28 Stephanie // Feb 9, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Pardon me if I don’t give much weight to Ms. Townsend’s assertion that complaints will be taken seriously, given that several Gastown residents are telling her in this forum that there are systematic problems with the behaviour of DAs and she’s dismissing them with terms like “witch hunting” and “hearsay” and allusions to Obama birth certificate wingnuttery.
As for the insistence that we “offer an alternative”, my initial suggestion would simply be that the BIA exercise a modicum of competence in running the DA program. But the problem with this suggestion is that the BIA considers the behaviour we object to as perfectly acceptable, save the smoking near the doorways and chatting up the Starbucks servers.
It seems pretty clear to me from the comments made here by Ms. Townsend and Mr. Jones that the DAs’ lack of professionalism comes from the top down, not the bottom up.
29 Sharon Townsend // Feb 9, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I can only speak for the DA program in my jurisdiction. Complaints are dealt with seriously and immediately. In 18 months there have been 2 complaints. One was about a DA sitting on a bench having a nap. He was on his lunchhour. Now DA must sit inside a warm stuffy office to have their lunch so people don’t think they are slacking off. If they want a cigarette, they have to do like everyone else and go outside. The other complaint was an interpretation of the tresspass act. The situation was resolved and dealt with within 24 hours - no debate required. I challenge you to find another organization that would respond as quickly or without a lengthy investigation. We err on the side of caution - always.
I have said it several times, no program is perfect but I take strong exception to the inference that the BIA is anything less than professional in its conduct or attitude.
I stand by my reference to witch hunting.
30 Stephanie // Feb 10, 2009 at 12:50 am
Ms. Townsend, we are telling you that we have *seen* the DAs yell at panhandlers, and harass people off of public sidewalks, and roust people from sleeping in public places, and threaten people who call them out on their behaviour.
You, on the other hand, insist that the DAs are professional.
So: are you saying the above behaviour is professional, or are you saying that we are lying? Please do clarify.
31 Sharon Townsend // Feb 10, 2009 at 1:41 am
I will say it again… time, date, call number, location.
The original blog post by Frances was never intended to debate the merits of the DA program -which Councillor Louie publicly agrees is a good program! The blog post was to discuss the City of Vancouver’s reversal of a motion that was passed by the previous administration.
I highly doubt that we are going to look through the same lens on this subject any time soon so my question becomes back to what is a viable alternative to the program expansion that Council has now cancelled.
32 Not Running for mayor // Feb 10, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Surprised to see this thread still going strong.
This whole discussion reminds me of a video years ago about a security guard that fought a skateboarder at the BC Hydro site and was fired after the video recorded by another skater was posted on the net. The company reviewed the onsite video after the fact and discovered the guard had just before the altercation been spat on and struck in the back of the head with a backpack. Which for whatever reason didn’t make it onto the net version of the video.
Like I’ve mentioned I have lived in Gastown for years (before it was hip to admit you lived here). I have never seen either the old Paladin guards or the more recent DA act inappropaitely. I spend alot of time walking the streets and don’t just walk to work and home then spend the nights in my unit. I have witnessed them talking to homeless people on many occassions but never yelling or shooing them away, they appear to know most of them by name. I’ve seen them hand out information with the addresses of shelters and where they can get a hot meal as well. Maybe you see that as pushing them along but as I don’t. I can understand Sharon and Dave being non-confrontation on this as they need to be. But I on the other hand don’t, I’ll call you out and state that you are lying when you say you’ve witnessed that behaviour firsthand. (with the expection of smoking just outside starbucks or flirting with the girls I’ll buy that)
33 Dave Jones // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:48 pm
OK this is out of hand. Opinions are one thing, allegations another. If there is a solid example I can investigate please send it to me at the email or call at 604 685.7811 and arrange a time when we can meet to discuss.
34 Stephanie // Feb 11, 2009 at 9:42 pm
And in this exchange we have a perfect example of the lack of accountability of the BIA and the DA program. A number of people say they’ve seen serious problems with the DAs. The BIA says it hasn’t had any complaints. Now, if the BIA were a responsible organization that was interested in accountability it would say, “ok, this is a problem. If we’re only hearing complaints in this context then we need to look at what’s happening, because we need better information if we’re going to address problems with the DAs. ” Instead, the BIA and its allies say that there’s no problem whatsoever, we’re making it all up, and that we’re engaged in witch-hunting and wingnuttery.
I expect it’s time to look for ways to compel them to be accountable, in the way of sanctions and the like. Maybe this is something the rest of the neighbourhood, like the people who have come here to talk about what they have witnessed and been characterized as liars, can work on.
35 Stephanie // Feb 12, 2009 at 1:35 am
That’s funny - when I posted my comment, Dave Jones’s must have been in the moderation queue. I’ll be sure people have that contact information so that we can document and report issues in the future.
36 Charles Gauthier // Feb 12, 2009 at 5:57 pm
To add to what Dave Jones has said about any complaints or allegations of wrongdoing by the Downtown Ambassadors, I refer you to our comment/complaint process:
Downtown Ambassador Comment and Complaint Process
Downtown Ambassadors currently operate in the following Business Improvement Association, BIA areas:
Downtown Vancouver BIA
Yaletown BIA
West End BIA
South Granville BIA
South hill BIA
Gastown Business Improvement Association.
Each BIA licenses the trademarked Downtown Ambassador program through the DVBIA and uses Genesis Security to provide the service. Comments or complaints are handled by each BIA and only where there is a concern that the image of the program is being affected would the DVBIA become involved in another BIAs management of the program in their area. However, because the program is identified most often to the DVBIA, the distinction between BIAs may not be obvious to others. Where there is uncertainty or the area involved is the DVBIA, the comments and complaints should be directed to the DVBIA Executive Director at with a copy to .
Persons submitting comments or complaints will be responded to, normally the same or next business day to let them know who will be handling the issue.
The following information is necessary to assist in isolating the incident and dealing with it:
Location (as precise as possible)
Date and time (very important)
Identity number of the ambassador (located on the right breast pocket area) or description
Whether the uniform said Downtown Ambassadors on the back (there are other security companies that use a similar uniform)
Company name on the shoulder flash if possible
Particulars of the incident
Contact information of the complainant
Comments and Complaints can also be provided in writing to the DVBIA at 1790 - 401 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5A1 (Attention: Executive Director) or directly at (604) 685-7811.
Leave a Comment