Lots of interesting info from the presentation on housing and homelessness yesterday, currently only in PP form, no report.
For housing wonks: The housing/homelessness powerpoint for Vancouver
February 2nd, 2011 · 66 Comments
Categories: Homelessness
66 responses so far ↓
1 Max // Feb 2, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Interesting; on page 17 – II – Decrease barriers….
it talks about storage for carts, yet the City did not give funding to the Church for their storage for carts program. They ended up entering a contest through ‘Pepsi’ in order to gain the monies needed – for this year. The associated cost was $95K. Now, we all know money has been wasted on other ‘projects’ by this council.
2 Wendy // Feb 2, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Interesting, thanks for posting. What concerns me is that this only looks at the city of Vancouver proper, and not the metro region.
In thinking about percentage of income spent on housing for both owners and renters, this narrow focus doesn’t allow for the fact that some have made the choice to pay more to live in, say, the West End or Kits rather than pay less and live in Burnaby or Surrey.
I’d very much like to see a regional perspective on these questions. Homelessness is also a regional and not just a city of Vancouver problem.
3 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 2, 2011 at 10:20 pm
All CoV reports cited in presentation available at:
http://www.vancouver.ca/housing
Following are my highlights. It’s a powerpoint, not a report, so it’s impossible to comment on the data presented without background.
(1) council priorities:
- end street homelessness (2015)
- increase housing for low & modest households
(2) Who are the homeless? They are you and I.
- The fastest growing segment are babyboomers/gen X.
- “No significant increase in out-of-province homeless” …Whatever that means—that problem is staying the same.
(3) Vancouver population is 2% aboriginal; homeless population is 33% aboriginal.
We can make gains here by building neighbourhoods or quartiers that support traditional social patterns.
(4) 80% have one or more health issues; 60% have suffered trauma; 50% have been in government care.
If we can identify at-risk cases early in the process and stay with them, we may be able to redefine success and save the system a ton of money. Here is an example of where we are dropping the ball at the “case file” level.
(5) The numbers show what we know.
- homelessness is a growing trend (some part due to better tracking); and
- homelessness is lower when we take action (i.e. building temporary shelters).
(6) Mapping homelessness: north of Broadway; west of Clark to about Burrard.
(7) When discussion turns to housing type issues become thorny for me—neighbourhood structure is not even considered.
We are under-performing in the planning and design of our neighbourhoods. Thus,
a) some housing types are not being considered (fee-simple, high density);
b) housing types under consideration may be the wrong type (tower); and
c) neighbourhood synergy is not being leveraged to achieve a greater good (at a lower price).
(8) Rental stock
30% – West End
25% – Broadway corridor
20% – historic quartiers
8% – west side
14% – east van
While the percent-share may stay the same, the real numbers of affordable units throughout the city is suffering under Towermania, and bad neighbourhood design. This is where the chickens come home to roost. Damage we have brought on ourselves rears its ugly head here.
(9) Secondary suits are recognized as “important source of rental supply”.
Really? Unfortunately, so is Laneway Housing. It is troubling to think that a built form that delivers crowding is being branded as a “solution”. Similar problem as with the “social housing in towers”.
(10) STIR
It seems like everywhere a STIR project is mapped, I could go and put my finger on another high rise development with serious design flaws.
(11) In the final analysis—we are making progress.
The same City Hall that has Marpole, Mt. Pleasant, the WE, and the HAHR up in arms is to be trusted to get this right?
No. There are urban design fundamentals that have been missing since the 4 Pillar approach was instituted. They wreak as much damage here, as in every other part of our city. Yet, the presentation leaves me with one irrefutable impression: we are moving.
That is a good result. The other stuff can simply plug in and give the effort an impetus from an area it probably never even thought was possible. We are moving to get the job done, and we still have not exhausted all our options.
Keep up the good work.
4 Glissando Remmy // Feb 3, 2011 at 12:03 am
The Thought of The Evening
“I don’t know why, but every time when Robertson & Vision make predictions like this, I have this urge to go brush my teeth and rinse. At least I’m trying my best fighting against the Evil Gingivitis !”
I have a problem with these facetious Hollyhockian punks, starting with the predictor of the ridiculously insane 500 years plan. You know that one, the Guru Joel, The Cortes’s Uncle Buck ($$$).
Then, I’m looking at the past two years of Vision reign in Vancouver, and at their fart filled chamber of motions and potions. They couldn’t save Pony Jack and Rooster Chester and Sissy the Goat at the Children’s Farm but they can eliminate homelessness by 2015? When exactly, before or after Valentine’s Day of that year? Why not choose 2014 just before that year’s municipal election? Or, 2016? Tell you why, because it’s all a load of crap, that’s why. Vancouver, the Greenest City by 2020? Based on what? Based on Penny Ballem’s PPP and on the insight info brought from Chicago by the Whiz Kid Aufochs? BTW, this guy is still working for the city or is on some sort of sabbatical?
They want to save the Planet? LMAO.
How arrogant can one be to say that? Last I ask the Planet, she said to me ‘Flock off! I can save myself. I’ve been doing that for millions of years long before your flock of crooks walked straight. So… Buzz off!’ That’s what she said to me. I do listen! But tell that to Vision!
Let’s see what’s left on the Agenda…no oil tankers in BC; no farmed Salmon; no cars on the streets; no money laundering schemes through registered charities…
Busy, busy, busy. Like a Bee Hive in there. No wonder, Kerry Jang their Good Soldier Schweik, is looking more and more like he is getting advice from some imaginary friend. ‘What’s that?’
Actually he is deep thinking…what would the European Vision say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWiW15pFpjU
‘But, yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but, no…’
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
5 Frances Bula // Feb 3, 2011 at 9:36 am
@Wendy. Actually, Metro Vancouver has done some very comprehensive work in the past on these issues. It doesn’t look a whole lot better region-wide, if I’m recalling correctly. High percentages of people paying over 30 per cent or over 50 per cent of income for rent. I’ll try to dig it up.
6 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 3, 2011 at 10:52 am
Part II:
(1) City can provide land 1200 units to close the supportive housing gap (12 – 15 sites)
- questions of built form & good fit for supports being provided rear up
- as do contextual questions. Can we do more with less by framing these site choices within a neighbourhood structure?
For example, is having one house per block better than having one huge housing block? What if the urban blocks structure local streets that function as top quality urban places? Does that provide amenity to the units as well?
(2) Cost (BC Housing formula)
Per 100 units: $20M to build (no land); $1M/yr. supports.
- Why the 100 unit measurement? What is the unit size?
On a per unit basis, BC Housing numbers are:
- $200,000 per unit (build; no land); $10,000 per unit/yr. supports.
On the back of an envelope, over the phone we ran the numbers on fee-simple, high-density housing a year ago or so. Including land, we calculated a cost between $1M and 1.25M for a 4 unit, zero-side yard, human scale house. It included outdoor space amenity: front door yard; rear garden; garage; and roof terrace.
Our average unit size was 2x single occupancy, so here we can calculate a yield of 8 units/lot. We can assume the lower construction cost of $1M because there are no land costs. Result…
- $125,000 per unit (build; no land); that’s 62.5% of the BC Housing number—almost half! The quality of house would be better, and I think we could trim the price down a bit further.
- If each of these houses included an in-home care suite, that might take a bite out of the $80,000/yr. support cost for the 8 residents.
- If the houses were strategically grouped on adjacent neighbourhood streets with thru block links and the rest, there may be synergies among the houses that might help with costs.
(3) Key Elements for Success (missing)
- Design Neighbourhood Urban Codes
- Residential intensification Strategies targeted to improve the environmental quality of urban neighbourhoods.
- Integrate social housing as part of neighbourhood codes.
- Integrate BRT/LRT transit as part of neighbourhood codes.
(4) Charge back
I wonder if—as part of tracking—we could charge back to senior government partners ongoing costs of shelter and supports for individual cases originating in their care.
Percent share of the ongoing costs to shelter and support street involved in our city, by senior government department:
- DIA (Indian and Northern Affairs): 33%
- Corrections: their share of 50%
- Foster/group care: their share of 50%
- Mental Health: 80%
- Other Medical: 60%
[The totals add to more than 100% because many individuals are impacted under more than one category]
We seem to be at the point where we can close the loop. The personal history of each individual street involved may have as much to tell us about how to manage the issue as any other practical strategy we may dream up.
As with cardiac care and cancer, for example, early intervention is critical to success.
7 Max // Feb 3, 2011 at 10:54 am
@ Wendy and Frances:
Paying 30 – 50%of your income for rent or mortgage is no different now than it was 20 (+) years ago.
I bought my place in 1993 and paid just shy of 50% of my income to mortgage for a period of years. (Vancouver)
It is not new.
Until housing/land/constuction costs come down – this will not change.
No developer is going to build at a loss to them.
8 ThinkOutsideABox // Feb 3, 2011 at 2:08 pm
I found this – affordable housing as defined by Metro Vancouver:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/housingdiversity/HousingDataBookDocuments/Metro_Vancouver_Housing_Data_Book_2010.pdf
Notable on page 5:
- Metro Vancouver’s median renter household income of $35,875 is equal to approximately 65% of the median income for all households in the region.
- Based on the median income of $35,875, an “affordable rent” is equal to $897 per month. Based on the 2006 Census, the average rent across all households in the Metro Vancouver region was $893 and the median rent was $812.
Then on page 7:
Description
- Affordable housing is defined as housing that should not cost more than 30% of a household’s gross income regardless of where they live. Different households are affected by affordability challenges in different ways. Based on the 2006 Census, the median annual income for owner households in the region was $69,318.
9 Jason // Feb 3, 2011 at 2:31 pm
I must say that I was stunned that 1/3 of all homeless are aboriginal. It seems that this is incredibly low hanging fruit that has been ignored for decades.
A comprehensive strategy, at the federal level, that finally helps lift up the aboriginal community could pay incredible dividends in lowering homelessness across the country.
“reservations” have never worked, and they simply perpetuate an endless cycle of problems, abuse, and specifically an inability to ever “own” property….tackling this problem would be one of the best ways to help move homelessness in the right direction.
10 Max // Feb 3, 2011 at 3:23 pm
@ Jason # 9
Part of that problem needs to be laid at the feet of the band councils in certain areas.
A recent report showed that there are 60 reservations across Canada, with an average of 1,100 persons to each, where the band chief is making more than the Prime Minister; in BC there are 3 making more than the Premier.
Accountability of how monies are handled and distributed does not seem to exist.
I think that is part of the problem that needs to be addressed.
The Native Housing…. (and sorry, I don’t have the balance of the name) that operates in the DTES have several buildings worth millions listed as assets.
The biggest problem facing our FN persons is addiction.
11 Jason // Feb 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Max, I don’t disagree with you. It seems to me that the status quo has remained in place as long as it has because some people have prospered substantially from it.
While I also agree addiction is the biggest problem, I do believe it’s part of a vicious cycle that starts with the conditions/framework of the native communities. If there is no opportunity for upward mobility people turn to “escapes” to cope with the realities of their situation.
I’m not saying that the aboriginal issue should be the only focus for homelessness, it just seems to me that this is one area that has been neglected for too long, and one that could have an incredible impact on homelessness.
12 Max // Feb 3, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Jason,
I agree with you.
I just have a problem understanding how some of the bands are so prosperous – their band councils look for opportunities whether it be with government, such as logging partnerships or like the Osoyoos band that established a winery, golf course/spa resort – while others that just keep struggling.
I guess like anywhere, it comes down to leadership.
13 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 4, 2011 at 9:24 am
I worked with one aboriginal community in the area west of Prince George. While that is not enough exposure to generalize from, I did spend several weeks living in the various communities.
What struck me the most, besides the natural beauty of the place, was the level of connection felt to community members living in Smithers, Prince George and Vancouver. There really is a different cultural construct and set of values alive within that group.
This would be important to research further. My sense is that those values of community, and the supports they engender, work better when there is a critical mass. It takes a certain number of people living together in one place to get it going.
It’s too white to lay the problems of the aboriginal communities at the feet of their councils. A bit too much like band council equals city hall.
Again, I am not a expert, but as I understand it one of the underlying problems is genetic. There is no tolerance in the aboriginal DNA for alcohol. Their systems cannot process it. And of course, in our culture, the stuff is everywhere.
I remember one case of three teenagers involved in a traffic accident over night and the reception locally that it happens every year. We have ritualized coming of drinking age; they have a fatality rate that is right off the chart.
I think it is unlikely that a band Council will be able to effectively lead on alcohol. If they did, we might study their methods.
A problem with governance in some communities emerges from the size of the community. About 500 ballots per band election in the case I was in contact with. Add to the mix the clan-like system of family rule, and it is sometimes not possible to achieve fair and balanced government. One group can dominate.
On the positive side of governance, they rely on consensus based decision making as much as possible. That too is in the tradition. The size of the community means transparency is not a problem. Everyone more or less knows what’s going on.
14 ITK // Feb 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Frances, next time you’re talking with Gregor or any of the Vision councillors, can you please ask them to explain the difference between Homelessness and Street Homelessness, and why they changed their website and all their materials to “Street Homelessness” about a year ago, despite the fact that they campaigned on “ending homelessness by 2015″?
No one has seriously asked them to explain this change after they were elected, and I think it deserves attention and a full explanation. I find it distasteful the way they’ve politicized the homeless problem ever since the last election and no one seems to be holding them to account for this.
15 spartikus // Feb 4, 2011 at 3:51 pm
@ITK
I just checked Canadian Newstand and CBCA to see if that was true. It’s not:
Robertson has offered a target. He says he will end street homelessness by 2015. And to do this, he says he will use a model that is in place in Calgary as well as 300 communities across the U.S. The most successful example appears to be Portland, Ore. where street homelessness was reduced by 70 per cent between 2005 and 2007.
-Allen Garr, Courier Oct 29, 2008
The Vision plan stresses ending street homelessness by 2015 – the kind of timeline that’s been adopted by such cities as Calgary and Seattle – and says it would push for more shelter beds and lobby for more permanent housing.
-Frances Bula, G&M Oct 28, 2008
Until now, the Vision Vancouver candidate has been focusing his campaign for mayor largely on ending street homelessness by 2015.
Catherine Rolfsen. V. Sun. Oct 27, 2008
This article by Christine Montgomery in the Oct 29, 2008 Province does not have “street”:
On Tuesday, Robertson unveiled a 57-point program promising to end homelessness by 2015
But given the other 3 articles, I think this is an omission.
The Vision Vancouver election platform I have bookmarked (I also have the NPA platform bookmarked) also refers to “street homelessness” eliminated by 2015 on pg. 4.
But I take you feel this has been altered.
16 Nathan // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:07 pm
ITK – “explain the difference between Homelessness and Street Homelessness”
If you are sleeping in a shelter you are still homeless, but you are no longer living on the street so you are not street homeless.
I think the average person thinks of someone living on the street as homeless so it makes sense for the city to use the term “end homelessness” as a slogan.
17 Frances Bula // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:29 pm
@ITK. This has been answered elsewhere, in various posts, but everyone in the housing field makes a distinction between “street homeless” — people sleeping physically out on the streets, either for a few nights or, as is increasingly the case in the Lower Mainland, for months on end — and “sheltered homeless.” People on the streets are more worrying for a lot of reasons. They’re often out there because they’ve been barred because of their behaviour or because they won’t go to a shelters because most don’t accept 1. couples 2. pets 3. people who want to go out and come back in between 10 and 7 4. you get thrown out at 7 every morning. 5. Et cetera. And being out on the streets even for a few days tend to make people start acting strangely, as I’m sure you can imagine. The longer they’re out, the more they show signs of mental illness. And once they get entrenched on the streets, it’s really hard to get them back to a normal routine.
Re the politicization of homelessness. Not sure what you mean by that. Every single council I’ve covered has been concerned about homelessness and has pushed the province to do more.
18 Frances Bula // Feb 4, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Re what Gregor Robertson said about ending homelessness. I also went back and checked Canadian Newstand, since I was quite sure that there was a shift at some point between saying his goal was to “end homelessness” and saying it was to “end street homelessness.” That shift didn’t happen in the immediate pre-election period compared to post election. In his inaugural address, he said “street homelessness.” But if you look at what he said and wrote earlier in the year, you’ll see he referred only to homelessness. I have cut and pasted in a story below here from the Vancouver Sun, written by Gregor himself, from June 10, 2008. Here it is below.
We are living in the most pivotal time in Vancouver’s history. We face daunting challenges like homelessness, public safety and climate change.
At the same time we have enormous opportunities with our cultural diversity, emerging green economy and creative realm. To excel on all fronts, we need strong leadership, leadership that has a bold vision for Vancouver and that brings the whole city together to achieve it.
My vision for Vancouver has four key goals:
1. End homelessness and spark an affordable housing boom.
2. Focus on community safety and serious crime.
3. Make Vancouver the greenest city in the world.
4. Boost our identity as a creative capital.
To succeed, city hall will need to empower people and neighbourhoods to make change. These goals won’t be accomplished with more ego-centric and divisive partisan politics. We need a mayor and council committed to being respectful and productive, and to engaging leaders and citizens across the city to bring our best ideas forward.
Vision Vancouver represents change. I’m honoured to be running for the Vision nomination with Raymond Louie and Al De Genova, two dedicated civic leaders. Together we have built the largest civic party in Vancouver’s history, and one that truly reflects the diversity of our city.
My Vision campaign has attracted support from across the political spectrum, from the Non-Partisan Association, the Coalition of Progressive Electors, the Greens, Work Less and almost all of the provincial and federal parties. Most exciting has been the groundswell of support from people who haven’t been involved in any party, or now feel compelled to get political for the first time.
This wide-ranging support demonstrates the appetite for my fresh approach to politics, that sets aside partisanship and focuses on our best ideas and the actions we need to take together. Democratic politics is the most powerful tool we have to make our world a better place. The more of us that are engaged, the faster positive change will happen. I bring that perspective and commitment. My background as an entrepreneur, building my juice business Happy Planet from scratch on forward-thinking principles like healthy food, regional economics and creativity, gave me a very personal understanding of what it takes to create success.
My years as a Vancouver MLA, fighting for small businesses on Cambie Street and to protect affordable rental housing, gave me firsthand experience tackling the complex challenges that Vancouver faces. Many issues I’ve championed involve both provincial and civic governments. As Vancouver’s mayor, I would continue to be a passionate defender of our city. As the father of four teenagers, I’m concerned about our schools and creating good jobs and the affordable housing that they’ll need. For their sake, I want Vancouver to be the global leader on environment. I will accelerate clean transportation, green buildings, clean energy, local food, and zero waste.
For our city’s heart and soul, I will support targeted tax relief for small business and incentives for green businesses. I will push for more patios, festivals and zoning for studio and commercial space for artists.
As a top priority, I want to see a firm commitment to end homelessness, with a clear, business-like approach to providing housing and health care to those in need. It’s time for us all to believe in our city and roll up our sleeves together. We must face our challenges honestly, with smarts and hard work. It’s time for new vision, new leadership, and for Vancouver to rise to its potential.
I am committed to doing everything I can to be the mayor that Vancouver needs. Let’s be a city that takes care of our own, and inspires the world.
Credit: Gregor Robertson; Special to the Sun
19 spartikus // Feb 4, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Francis,
This is likely nitpicking, but the meme I’m seeing from certain sites and individuals is Gregor promised to end homelessness by 2015, and has post facto inserted “street”.
Promising to end homelessness and promising to end street homelessness by a certain date are not mutually exclusive.
The op-ed above does not give a fixed date for ending homelessness.
20 Bill McCreery // Feb 4, 2011 at 11:22 pm
From the oop-ed above:
“To succeed, city hall will need to empower people and neighbourhoods to make change. These goals won’t be accomplished with more ego-centric and divisive partisan politics. We need a mayor and council committed to being respectful and productive, and to engaging leaders and citizens across the city to bring our best ideas forward.”
Well, let’s see how is he doing so far?
1) “…to empower people and neighbourhoods to make change…” NOT.
2) “These goals won’t be accomplished with more ego-centric and divisive partisan politics.” NOPE.
3) “We need a mayor and council committed to being respectful and productive, and to engaging leaders and citizens…”. NOT again, and YES, he has engaged us, but not quite the way he had hoped.
And, looking at Gregor’s “…vision for Vancouver has four key goals:
1. End homelessness and spark an affordable housing boom.
• “End Homelessness”, MAYBE, but there are a lot of doubters.
• “affordable housing boom”, more like a whimper and STIR is not “affordable” at $1050 rent for a 390 s.f. undersized hotel room.
2. Focus on community safety and serious crime.
• What has Vision done, can anyone elaborate?
3. Make Vancouver the greenest city in the world.
• Vancouver was already on its way to being green. Chicken coops, Sunset Beach gardens, bike lane which cause serious traffic congestion and green house gas emissions and parachuted, inappropriate spot rezonings, such as Shannon Mews where 2000 people will have drive 12 blocks to get a litre of milk are not successful examples of a green city.
4. Boost our identity as a creative capital.
• Vancouver had a global reputation for enlightened city and neighbourhood planning. The currently employed planning process is badly broken. Bad decisions are being made weekly by this Council. Ir-repairable damage is being done to our city and our neighbourhoods.
The bottom line is Vision has failed or done the opposite of everything Gregor promised he would do.
21 Max // Feb 5, 2011 at 10:04 am
@ Bill # 20
The oped gave me a giggle as well.
Glad it was posted up as a not so gentle reminder of what was promised and not delivered.
FYI: Robertson is providing the opening remarks at the upcoming VEF event on Cleantech. – Feb. 22 @ Vancity Theatres, 5:00 pm.
Sadhu Johnston is sitting on the disucssion panel.
You do not have to be a VEF member to attend however it is $50 at the door – which includes food after the talks.
22 Max // Feb 5, 2011 at 10:12 am
I wonder if I can get away with wearing one of citycaucus’ NPA t-shirts at the event….
If nothing else, I am pretty sure I have an NPA button form the last election – I’ll slap it on my lapel!
23 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:10 pm
“End Homelessness”, MAYBE, but there are a lot of doubters
McCreery 20
This is probably the place to discuss it, Bill. What besides the costs is there to be doubtful about?
Let’s start with mental health & addiction. Are we okay with those folks living on the street? If it’s not a typo, that remarkable figure of 30% of the homeless being aboriginal. Are we okay with that? Even granting that there will be cross-overs in the lists, who’s left? Foster care, corrections, and victims of trauma.
So, it may turn out that the greater part of homelessness is not to do with just poverty or drug use. Thus, “ending homelessness” becomes tantamount to dealing with foster homes; corrections; mental health; addiction & aboriginal issues.
Is that what you’re doubtful about Bill? ‘Cause if what we are saying is that we are doubtful that we can get the senior levels of government to step in and deal with issues that have been let go for so long, then I more in that camp.
24 Jason // Feb 5, 2011 at 10:34 pm
“It’s too white to lay the problems of the aboriginal communities at the feet of their councils. A bit too much like band council equals city hall.”
I am in no way saying the bulk of the problem rests with band council. I think the entire system is broken, and starts with the “reservations” themselves. We are talking about homelessness and the reservation system removes the ability for individuals within the native community from profiting individually from home ownership (this is but one of the many problems).
The stat of 1/3 homeless being aboriginal is a problem screaming for an answer. No one can argue that the status quo is working, and it’s time that government tackle this issue head on rather than avoiding it for another decade.
25 Jason // Feb 5, 2011 at 10:34 pm
“It’s too white to lay the problems of the aboriginal communities at the feet of their councils. A bit too much like band council equals city hall.”
I am in no way saying the bulk of the problem rests with band council. I think the entire system is broken, and starts with the “reservations” themselves. We are talking about homelessness and the reservation system removes the ability for individuals within the native community from profiting individually from home ownership (this is but one of the many problems).
The stat of 1/3 homeless being aboriginal is a problem screaming for an answer. No one can argue that the status quo is working, and it’s time that government tackle this issue head on rather than avoiding it for another decade.
26 Bill McCreery // Feb 6, 2011 at 12:51 am
@ Max 21. thanks for bringing it out. I was in fact also appreciating the irony, among other things in Gregor’s op-ed. Vision’s modus operandti is that ‘if we say it, it is true’, and ‘if we keep repeating it it’s really true’. They need to be called on that.
@ Lewis 23. Your skeptizism (sp?) is well placed. I would like to continue and will tomorrow evening. I’m going to the Chinese New Years Parade tomorrow, etc. So it’ll be tomorrow night before I’m back in blogis-sphere.
By the way, check out WEN’s website. Some interesting things happening there re: St. John’s Church.
27 Michael Geller // Feb 6, 2011 at 8:02 am
Yesterday Tom Durning of TRAC (Tenant Resource & Advisory Centre) distributed the above mentioned powerpoint, along with a very comprehensive report on rental housing in Vancouver. It can be found here: http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/housing/pdf/RentalHousingSynthesisReport.pdf
Data from the rental report was set out in the powerpoint presentation.
It takes at least two hours to go through the report, but since it is raining today, I highly recommend it. In fact, even if it stops raining, (and I hope it does since I’m playing in a SuperBowl golf tournament), it is worth reading.
The report was prepared by a consulting firm headed by Dale McClanaghan, (yes a former president of the NPA) with input from Coriolis, another planning and real estate consulting firm and Altus Group, which includes cost consultants, appraisers and the like. All are respected firms in the planning and economic consulting field.
It provides a very comprehensive overview of Vancouver’s rental housing stock…where it is, when it was built, its condition, the required cost of renovations and repair, replacement costs, along with policy options and much more.
While I have some concerns with some of what is in the document, and with some of what is not in the document, overall I think it is a very good piece of work.
I was surprised that Vision would hire a former NPA president to undertake a comprehensive housing strategy but gave them full marks for doing so…(Although I would note Dale was also once head of Vancity Enterprises and has been in the housing consulting and development business for a while).
However, when I went on-line to check some facts for this posting, I discovered that he wasn’t hired by Vision. No, he was hired by the NPA in 2008. http://www.straight.com/article-167825/city-report-proposes-60000-contract-exnpa-president
However, trying to put politics aside for a moment, the report includes some fascinating information that should interest anyone who wonders why STIR was introduced; why rental housing seems so expensive; why there are so many older rental buildings around the city and so few newer ones; etc.
One of the tables on page 16 sets out the rents for different types of rental housing from SRO’s to Single Family Rental houses. (It includes secondary suites, rented condos and single family houses). I was surprised by the high number of houses being rented out until I realized that the report uses Census Data. I suspect the single family catagory includes all those houses that have been illegally divided up into suites…(no doubt some Fabula readers live in these suites but never thought about the fact they are illegal.)
While I still need to spend more time going through the report , there is some information that surprises me. For one thing, it suggests the condition of the rental housing stock is much better than I expected. Using a sample of typical buildings, it examines the repair cost of bringing rental housing up to an acceptable standard. However, rather than set out the estimated up front repair costs, it annualizes them.
I think this is a very important issue, not just for the privately owned rental stock, but also for the non-profit and coop housing. My belief is that thousands of rental units need tens of thousands of dollars of repairs or the units will eventually become uninhabitable…but the money is not being spent. The non-profits/coops like Entre Nous Femmes don’t have the money and private landlords either don’t have the money, or don’t want to spend it since it may require vacating units and charging higher rents (and we all know what happens to landlords who evict people to undertake repairs….and then seek a higher rents…their names end up on the front pages of local newspapers, being criticized by housing activists and politicians.
(As an aside, it seems that the landlords who want to fix up buildings and increase rents are subjected to even more criticism than those who allow their buildings to rot or possibly burn down, but maintain lower rents.)
In my opinion, the report does not fully express the seriousness of this issue.
The report also highlights the financial gap between the ECONOMIC rent, and the MARKET rent of new construction. The economic rent is that which needs to be charged to cover the capital costs, operating costs, taxes, etc.
(As another aside, I would invite Fabula readers, especially those in the housing and development field, to look at table 29 on page 95 and tell me if you agree with me that some of the cost items seem very, very odd.)
However, notwithstanding these and other criticisms, I think this is an important piece of work, and one which helps explain the housing affordability challenges facing our city. As more and more people need rental housing, the cost of producing it is going through the roof, if you’ll pardon the pun. Sadly, there is inadequately zoned land to accommodate the required housing, and I suspect that we are going to have to be much more innovative in figuring out how to produce more new units, how to repair the existing stock, and how to address the related problems of homelessness, which of course comes with a lot of related issues including dealing with mental illness, drug and alcohol addictions.
But that’s another story.
28 Jason // Feb 6, 2011 at 11:07 am
I thought these were some interesting stats regarding the situation for aboriginals….
- 50% of the aboriginal population is less than 25 years of age
- 21.9% have less than a grade 9 education (compared to 12.1% for other Canadians)
- Drop out rates are 6 times higher than national average
- Aboriginal females are 6 times more likely than non Aboriginals to have children between 15-19
- Only 38% of aboriginal students completed school compared to 77 percent for non aboriginal
- suicide rates are 8 times higher for females and 5 times higher for males than national average
- unemployment rate double that of non-aboriginals
- 40.9% of aboriginal families were below the low income cut offs compared to 16.5 percent of Canadians
- incarceration rate is 5 to 6 times that of other Canadians
And the stats go on and on and on….(stats from:
With 50% of the aboriginal population under the age of 25 this is a problem that is going to continue to be a burden on social services for decades.
While I realize there is no quick fix, and it may take a generation to reverse these trends, I again reiterate that tackling this problem immediately could have dramatic long term affects on homelessness. You have to break the cycle before you’re going to start moving people off the homelessness roles permanently….simply providing shelter does not solve the problem, it’s simply a band aid solution.
29 Chris Keam // Feb 6, 2011 at 11:17 am
“bike lane which cause serious traffic congestion and green house gas emissions”
I really hate to sidetrack an important discussion, but Bill McCreery, please quantify this general statement.
Which bike lanes?
What constitutes serious?
There’s no evidence I can see that supports the idea that any of the recently constructed bike lanes resulted in ‘serious traffic congestion’. In fact every time I use any of the downtown bike lanes, I haven’t seen anything resembling the conditions you are describing.
thanks,
CK
30 Mark Allerton // Feb 6, 2011 at 2:34 pm
@Jason
The stats you’ve quoted are tragic – but I’d suggest that this is a pattern of problems that are seen in many communities where the key problem is poverty.
The problem of poverty in aboriginal communities is compounded by the desire within the wider society to find anything vaguely plausible to blame other than themselves.
I doubt that blaming aboriginal poverty on an inability to get on the home ownership ladder is a new low in this long and storied game, but it’s tone-deaf nonetheless – even in Vancouver, where real-estate appreciation allegedly cures all ills.
What poor people need are stable accommodation and jobs in that order, not mortgages.
31 Jason // Feb 6, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Mark,
I believe I stated that the entire “system” was broken, and gave the ability to own a home as just one example….but I do appreciate your condescension. I always find that condescension is a true source of problem solving.
When 1/3 of homeless are aboriginal, and they are disproportionately failing across all categories, I would suggest that there are problems beyond just “poverty” within the aboriginal community and that we’ve created a system that perpetuates the problems.
“The problem of poverty in aboriginal communities is compounded by the desire within the wider society to find anything vaguely plausible to blame other than themselves. ”
So by suggesting the system is broken and that we need to fix it, we as a society, are blaming the problem? No, we’re recognizing that there is a problem and looking at how we can fix it. We, “the wider society” do bare responsibility for the problem….that’s why I’m suggesting its a problem that we should be focused on.
“What poor people need are stable accommodation and jobs in that order, not mortgages.”
Actually stable accommodation, when it comes to the aboriginal community, is not going to solve the problems of the community in general. Yes, it may well get them off the street, but that doesn’t reverse the stats, that doesn’t fix the sources of the problem.
I get really tired of people talking about homelessness as if it’s all just about providing shelter. Mental health, addiction, employment, social conditions, etc. etc. are the issues that RESULT in homelessness. The sooner we look at trying to find solutions to the underlying causes, the faster we start moving people permanently off the streets.
It takes a lot of people working on the issues to solve these problems Mark…so how about we build bridges rather than burn them…I find that’s a good life philosophy in general.
32 Max // Feb 6, 2011 at 6:40 pm
‘It’s too white to lay the problems of the aboriginal communities at the feet of their councils. A bit too much like band council equals city hall.’
********
@ Lewis N.V. #13
I am usure what ‘too white’ is.
I tire of the fact that anytime someone mentions anything controversial to what may be an accepted norm, they are painted as too white or racist.
My point was, many of the band councils are prosperous – have money. I question how it is spent within their own communities.
There have been numerous articles on bands where the council members are definitely the ‘city mouse’ , have large houses, new cars etc, over the balance of the community that is treated, by their own people, as the ‘country mouse’ – given the scraps and are struggling.
We, as citizens question the spending of our governments, all the time.
I think it is time some of the FN communities start asking those same questions.
Checks and balances and accountability – for ALL Canadians.
33 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm
“I am in no way saying the bulk of the problem rests with band council. I think the entire system is broken…”
Jason 25
I’m not one to wait for government to come in and fix things up. However, in the case of aboriginal affairs… It’s hard to know where to start. You can add to the list of statistics the rate of births that are FAS (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome).
However, some stats are going to distort the real conditions. I witnessed life on the reservation first hand as being far more community driven, extended family oriented, and matriarchal-based than in other Canadian communities. Being below the the low income line on reservation may feel a lot different than living at the same income level outside.
The cultural divide cuts across most of the values that we can quantify. One of the first issues that I observed was that crossing from one cultural milieu to the other was part of the problem.
“skepticism”
Bill 26
… says my Mac Dictionary: 1 a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
I’ll look for your comments. But, as I think about it more, that page or two in the City report identifying the origins of the homeless rises to prominence. I am quite sure we can build the houses; I am even hopeful that we will be able to provide the supports. But, from there the two issues that remain are:
(1) Going forward can we stabilize and “normalize” lives? I think we can in a good many cases. However…
(2) What does the future hold for us? And here is where the skepticism creeps in given the City’s report. In your view, Bill, is it about closing the loop? Do we have to reach the point where all the agencies mentioned as putting clients on our streets must be held accountable?
* * * * * * *
Chinese New Year’s parade was a huge success. Chinatown was buzzing. With the streets closed to traffic there was a bit of that Olympic experience of being able to walk down the centre of the street and see the architecture from an entirely different point of view. The Chinatown merchants were out in full force. The stores looked immaculate and fully stocked. The kids got a Lucky Money envelope with a chocolate coin from one storekeeper and loved it.
The dragons and the drums stole the scene like they do every year.
34 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 6, 2011 at 7:46 pm
CORRECTION: “band land” or “band lands” may be a more accurate term in Canada than “reservation”.
35 Max // Feb 6, 2011 at 8:07 pm
The latest horse hockey being spewed by the Mayor:
(This council has done ZERO as far as bringing new housing on-line. To try and take credit for it is a lie and again, predictable. All efforts coming to fruition were the works of the previous NPA and the Province, Minister Coleman. Lord, how stupid does he think people are?????)
********
We’re working hard to end homelessness
By Gregor Robertson, The Province February 6, 2011
In just two years, the City of Vancouver has made tremendous gains in our efforts to help homeless people and create new affordable housing. Although there’s more to do, we are closer than ever to making sure no one has to sleep outside at night.
Through our new homeless shelters, we’ve seen street homelessness drop 47 per cent in two years -that’s almost 400 people off the street. The Downtown Vancouver BIA credits these shelters with a drop in aggressive panhandling, trespassing, and open drug use downtown. By providing a safe place to sleep and a warm meal, the low-barrier shelters bring stability to many people who’ve been homeless for years.
But we know shelters are, at best, a band-aid solution. That’s why we are focused on a comprehensive, long-term plan to build permanent housing and prevent people from becoming homeless. Our success hinges on strong partnerships with governments, businesses and community organizations.
The city is working with the B.C. government and Streetohome Foundation to build over 1,500 units of affordable housing spread throughout Vancouver. This required provincial and foundation investment of over $330 million and 14 parcels of land donated by the city and it will provide supportive, stable housing for people who need it most.
Many question why we would build all of these units -isn’t that just going to attract more homeless people from afar? Not so. Our recent homeless count found that less than 10 per cent of Vancouver’s homeless come from out of province.
There are a range of reasons why people become homeless. Many are hard-working individuals who have fallen on hard times or illness through no fault of their own. Others made some bad choices or, as new research is showing, were discharged from correctional institutions without anywhere to go. Whatever the reason, many have lost everything and cannot afford decent housing, and require some form of support.
The result? Research shows that each homeless person requires about $55,000 per year in taxpayer support due to increased police, ambulance, hospital and justice system costs. When that same person has social housing, those costs drop to $37,000 a year. So valuable tax dollars are saved through smart investments in housing.
Even more can be saved by preventing homelessness altogether. Affordable housing isn’t just about the poor, addicted or mentally ill. It affects people in every neighbourhood throughout our city.
To prevent more people from becoming homeless, we need affordable housing options so people can live and raise a family in the city they work in, and weather hard times when needed. It’s not right that so many are just a paycheque away from being homeless.
Statistics show that 39 per of Vancouver renters pay more than 30 per cent of their income on rent, and another 15 per cent pay 50 per cent or more. Combined with one of the lowest vacancy rates in Canada, the lack of affordable rental housing makes living in Vancouver a serious challenge.
At city hall, we’ve pulled out all the stops to spark the construction of new affordable housing. We approved laneway housing, and expanded secondary suites. Our short-term incentives for rental (STIR) program got the first new market rental housing under construction in three years. We created the first new co-op housing in nine years.
Altogether, in just two years, over 2,300 new rental units have opened, or are approved and in the works.
This is a major boost for students who are looking to move out from home, for seniors who want to downsize but remain in their neighbourhood, and for our workforce, who have been priced out of Vancouver and moved to the suburbs.
The challenges of homelessness and affordable housing are not easy, and city hall cannot solve them alone.
We’ve been fortunate to have strong partnerships with the B.C. government, foundations, private donors and many extraordinary community organizations. We’re going to need these partnerships to continue and grow.
Last week’s Province editorial lamented that we still need 450 housing units to end street homelessness by 2015. I take a more positive view. Compared to where we were a few years ago, a gap of just 450 units is an incredible achievement. Our work is paying off, our programs are delivering results, and more and more people have a place to sleep at night.
Ending street homelessness is within our grasp.
Gregor Robertson is the mayor of Vancouver
36 Mark Allerton // Feb 6, 2011 at 9:53 pm
@Jason 30
I see that as usual you retreat into waffle and generalities when challenged on specifics. Oh well.
37 Mark Allerton // Feb 6, 2011 at 10:08 pm
@Lewis 33
I believe they are called “Indian Reserves” on Canadian maps (for example “Burrard I.R. #3″)
38 Jason // Feb 6, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Lewis, I don’t doubt your observations about the sense of community or extended family on “band lands” in the slightest. Nor do I think that trying to apply a western, capitalist based solution is going to solve all the ills the statistics so obviously show…I do, however believe that when we have such glaring statistics about one particular ethnic group falling between the cracks that we should stop ignoring them and start taking action…and when they make up 1/3 of our homeless problem, that they are a good place to start in helping lower the homeless rolls.
While I dont like the idea of relying on government to solve the problem, there are obviously changes that need to be made in the system that currently exists in order to help reverse the current situation.
Mark…sorry, did miss a question or fail to respond to something? Im not interested in getting into a personal back and forth when talking about homelessness.
39 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 6, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Jason, I think I share your feelings.
If that number is accurate, it represents a staggering reality about one group. However, as we look at the other groups implicated—corrections, foster care, mental health & addiction, trauma victims, etc.—is not what comes into focus that we have glaring statistics about a range of populations, all of them of a more or less “predictable” type?
Like a recurring nightmare, what parades before me is the suspicion that we are host here in Vancouver—and to a lesser extent in all the major urban centres in our nation—to a human dumping ground of “failed” case files.
In all of these groups and demographics, surely we can do better than that. There is the ring of truth in the Mayor’s op-ed (thanx Max 34)… we stand to save costs if we simply face up to the issue, and try to understand it in all its complexity, rather than try to avoid it.
40 Bill McCreery // Feb 6, 2011 at 11:19 pm
@ Lewis 23.
“What besides the costs is there to be doubtful about?”.
Homelessness is not a city by city problem. There are no national or provincial plans in place. If this problem is to be addressed, there must be. The Metro is never going to agree on a regional plan because I am told Burnaby and others are happy to not take their share of finding accommodation for these people. In part because of our climate if we build more housing, more will come, etc.
“Let’s start with mental health & addiction. Are we okay with those folks living on the street?”, etc.
I’m not OK with anyone having to live on the street. I have commented before on this subject, our sorry history of 4 governments starting with Bill Bennett dumping and promising community based supportive housing, but doing zero. Gordon and Rick coleman have finally started after 30 years.
“…“ending homelessness” becomes tantamount to dealing with foster homes; corrections; mental health; addiction & aboriginal issues.”
Yes.
“Is that what you’re doubtful about Bill?”
No. Next year I will strongly push the City of Vancouver and other cities to work with “the senior levels of government to step in and deal with issues that have been let go for so long”.
41 Bill McCreery // Feb 6, 2011 at 11:29 pm
@ CK 28.
“Which bike lanes?”
Well, I was on Hornby this aft and saw 1 bike and cars in mid-afternoon backed up half way between Smithe and Nelson to get through Georgia intersection. A friend now drives down to Seymour to work in the Guiness Tower rather than taking Hornby to save a little time but as he says “at least I’m moving”. A resident of Citygate tells me traffic on the Dunsmuir Viaduct was backed up half way across the viaduct, but is now backed up to Gore at rush hours.
“What constitutes serious?”
IMO, the above examples constitute serious. It’s also a waste of human time.
42 Jason // Feb 7, 2011 at 8:36 am
Bill,
You state “In part because of our climate if we build more housing, more will come, etc. ” but in the PP that Francis posted (page 14), it states “no significant increase in out-of-province homeless”.
Now the document does not appear to provide any numbers to support this, so I’m not sure what constitutes “significant” or what percentage of our homeless currently are from “out of province”.
I hear the comment that homeless come here because of our climate (which makes some sense), but I’m wondering if someone has the numbers on that. And it seems that’s a horrible argument for not building more housing…if there is a significant increase in homeless from across the country, and we can demonstrate that, then we can also advocate for additional dollars from the federal government because of it.
Lewis…I do think we’re on the same page. I think my focus on the aboriginal community is based on the fact that we seem to have a microcosm of all the problems in one place. I also feel, given our heritage, we have a responsibility to turn the tide on a history of neglect, abuse, broken promises, etc. Tackling the problems of the aboriginal community would, in part, be tackling many of the issues of poverty in general. The benefit here is that you have all the problems in one given community/group that makes it possible to build a comprehensive set of policies and programs around.
I do, agree, however that this is but one area that needs attention.
“There is the ring of truth in the Mayor’s op-ed (thanx Max 34)… we stand to save costs if we simply face up to the issue, and try to understand it in all its complexity, rather than try to avoid it.”
I don’t think there is any doubt, that as a society, we would benefit not only financially by dealing with these problem, but socially and culturally as well.
43 Max // Feb 7, 2011 at 9:11 am
@ Jason 41
For the past couple of years I’ve participated in the Christmas ‘Homeless Partners’ program.
You have the opportunity to read through a brief profile and what the would like for Christmas.
The stronger portion of the participants have come here from other provinces and in some cases the US.
I believe the site is still operating if you wish to take a peek yourself.
44 Bill McCreery // Feb 7, 2011 at 10:17 am
@ Jason 41.
“…if there is a significant increase in homeless from across the country, and we can demonstrate that, then we can also advocate for additional dollars from the federal government because of it”.
Agreed. But, that’s only part of the equation. We need national and provincial plans as well. Presumably more funds to offset our disproportionate numbers (assuming that is validated of course) would be part of such plans.
When was the last time you heard Gregor say anything about advocating for the homeless other than when he tries to take credit for what was done by the previous administration and an effective Provincial Minister. Under his watch wer’re minus 120+ social housing units.
45 Mark Allerton // Feb 7, 2011 at 10:41 am
@Bill 39
Please correct me if I am wrong, but you don’t appear to support any kind of unilateral action on homelessness by the City of Vancouver alone, and believe the City can only act if there is agreement from the region, the province and the feds on a plan – which you intend to “strongly push” for.
Is that a fair summary of your position?
46 Max // Feb 7, 2011 at 11:31 am
@ Mark Allertson # 44
Mark, I believe that is how the units to date have been accomplished.
The city worked with the province in order to get the funding required.
The city has offered up the land, but I think the overall construction costs have been funded by the province.
47 Mark Allerton // Feb 7, 2011 at 11:59 am
@Max #46
The HEAT shelters were unilaterally put in place by the City, and only afterwards was funding secured from the province.
In addition, Bill appears to be requiring not only buy in on any individual action from the Province *and* the Federal Gov., but also national and provincial plans. Which appears to be a lot more than has been required for any previous action by the City (including during the Sullivan administration.)
48 Max // Feb 7, 2011 at 12:44 pm
@ Mark Allerton #47
I realize the HEAT shelters were done in a somewhat ‘blackmail’ tactic fshion. Let’s open the shelter then ask the province for funding so it will be the province to blame if the funding does not come through. It worked once, but it did not work so well this last go around.
As for permanent social and supportive housing, the previous NPA worked with the Province on the units that are now open, coming online and/or are in the process of being built. 14 projects in total.
Bill is correct. In order to secure future units, all levels of government need to work together.
It should not be the sole burden of Vancouverites to provide social/supportive housing to all those that flock here.
To-date, Vision has added nothing new, however, I see the Mayor is laying claim to the previous councils’ work.
49 Mark Allerton // Feb 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm
@Max I don’t intend to debate whether Bill is correct or not until he’s actually confirmed his position. Thanks.
As an NPA supporter (no?) surely you should be happy that the current council has continued to execute on the good work done under Sullivan. Or is this just about who gets credit?
50 Max // Feb 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm
@ Mark Allerton #49
See, that is part of the problem Mark, I don’t see Vision as continuing the work.
The province is continuing the work, but not the city.
51 Bill McCreery // Feb 7, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Mark, you have rephrased what I’ve said. I am not sure why. Max, for one, has understood what I’ve said. He has also mentioned the combined roles of the city and province. But, so far Vancouver has borne the brunt of the burden for homeless housing. Little has been done by the other municipalities, except Surrey is starting to. It is not equitable, nor is it affordable for Vancouver to continue to work alone. That’s why a national and provincial plan are necessary as a 1st step a longer process.
52 Mark Allerton // Feb 7, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@Max
Perhaps you could substantiate the allegation that the City has not been continuing the work. In what way?
53 Max // Feb 7, 2011 at 1:46 pm
@ Mark Allerton #52
Take a look on the city’s web site.
The last reports for social housing/social housing plans date back to 2007.
Nothing since then.
If there were ‘something’ in the works, Vision would be in front of the cameras stating their latest step to ‘ending homelessness’.
54 Mark Allerton // Feb 7, 2011 at 2:01 pm
@Bill
I don’t disagree that it would be good if there were national and provincial plans on homelessness.
However my problem with your position is that you appear to see a national and provincial plan as a “first step” without which nothing else can or should be done.
I believe the City should be demonstrating leadership by example in this area and sometimes that will mean acting unilaterally (for example, HEAT, STIR) and experimenting “bottom up” with approaches to the problem that if successful can be adopted provincially and federally.
On the other hand you appear to want to leave the leadership to senior governments – whose track record on this matter is poor to say the least, and you plan to turn this around by simply talking to them more forcefully.
You might as well ask for World Peace and a Pony while you are at it.
55 Max // Feb 7, 2011 at 2:36 pm
@ Mark #54
Wow.
I would suggest you do some research before you spout off that neither the Provincial or Federal Governments are involved in our local social housing problem.
It is up to the city to push for the assistance, and that is NOT what is happening now.
The HEAT shelters are temporary, and STIR is not an acceptable project until an overall community plan is put into place. Neither is plunking towers into Chinatown or the DTES.
Seems to me your baseless accusations at Bill are nothing more that cheap political potshots – which seems to be the nore with the Vision fluffers.
56 Mark Allerton // Feb 7, 2011 at 2:57 pm
>sigh<
Do NPA supporters always have to be so rude?
When did it become acceptable to suggest that anyone who says anything supportive of Vision is performing fellatio on Vision collectively prior to their performance on a porn film set?
Way to go to make friends and influence people.
57 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 7, 2011 at 3:06 pm
@ Bill 40
I concur and my only regret is that you couldn’t point to faults in my statements or things I may have overlooked.
At the time the 4 Pillars were instituted all the governments were here at the table. I wonder if the better part of what was missing then was a more aware public. More understanding of the issues at a greater level of detail.
“Homelessness is not a city by city problem. There are no national or provincial plans in place.”
I have written here before that I wonder if part of the answer may not be to establish a municipal-to-federal connection that makes an end run around the issue that we are as municipalities animals of the Provincial Legislatures.
That link could look at all urban issues including homelessness, and direct federal funding for infrastructure—including social infrastructure.
“I’m not sure what constitutes “significant” or what percentage of our homeless currently are from “out of province”.”
Jason 42
The Mayor’s op-ed puts the out of province number at 10%.
“… a national and provincial plan are necessary as a 1st step a longer process…”
McCreery 51
I dunno, Bill. I would say a “necessary step” and hope like hell that we will be able to put the full court press on the two other political stages where winds sometimes blow from different directions. Metro won’t jump in until Metro has teeth (i.e. one person, one vote).
I am trying to stay as politically neutral as possible, and respect all the other voices that do not. Like “good” urbanism, homelessness may be on the cusp of becoming an issue for all political stripes. We’ve seen as much in our own city since Mayor Owen took unprecedented steps, and many observers say, ‘paid the price for it’.
PS
When I finally get my pony, I’m gonna name her “Peace”.
58 spartikus // Feb 7, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Remember when George Abbott placed all planned and all previously approved social housing projects “under review”.
Remember this…
“We have a rapidly rising expenditure line in that program,” Abbott said of Homes B.C. “That is unsustainable in any fiscal environment, let alone in these challenging times.”
A few days later, Abbott said the private sector and non-profit groups had to step up to solve the affordable housing crisis.
“We need to move away from the notion that only government can supply affordable housing,” Abbott told a luncheon sponsored by the provinces’ major developers.
And he’s supposed to be the moderate one.
Good times.
59 Bill McCreery // Feb 7, 2011 at 7:17 pm
@ Lewis 57.
If I don’t “point to faults in my [meaning Lewis'] statements or things I may have overlooked” it’s usually for a number of reasons:
1) I agree, and I often do agree with your take on a number of issues;
2) I haven’t time to get into more detail;
3) It’s not, IMO, appropriate for me to over-comment; I like to hear a variety of perspectives because I do find this discourse stimulating;
60 Max // Feb 7, 2011 at 9:11 pm
@ spartikus #58
I read the article and admire how you pick and choose the certain lines that suit your need to try and discredit George Abbott.
Not to mention the timeline noted is 2001-2004.
And he is right, partnering with private, municipal, provincial and federal government and sectors are required.
Something like what is taking place right now with Harcourt and Guistra raising $26 M for social housing.
FYI – you may want to quote a source other than the ‘Tyee’ which is a noted for its undying support of the NDP and Vision.
61 spartikus // Feb 8, 2011 at 9:18 am
I read the article and admire how you pick and choose the certain lines that suit your need
Usually when people want to level a charge of cherry-picking quotes, they mention what was left out that makes the selection inaccurate. You did not. Because the excerpt I chose was an accurate representation of George Abbott’s position at the time, Now this…
And he is right, partnering with private, municipal, provincial and federal government and sectors are required.
…is not accurate. Because they’ve had 10 years (and yes, no kidding it from 2001. That’s why I said “Remember this”) to implement this concept and the problem has gotten worse. Or do they need a century?
In fact, statistically homelessness exploded with the Liberals coming to power in Victoria.
FYI – you may want to quote a source other than the ‘Tyee’ which is a noted for its undying support of the NDP and Vision.
This is called poisoning the well, and is frowned upon in polite company. If you wish to call The Tyee article into question you should do so by pointing out any inaccuracies contained within it, not by sticking your tongue out at it.
62 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“We need to move away from the notion that only government can supply affordable housing,”
Spartikus, Max
I’m on side with that statement. The problem is that we are not talking about “affordable housing” we are talking about “social housing”.
The revelation for me in the city report were these numbers—among the homeless:
80% have one or more health issues (addiction, mental health, HIV, other chronic)
60% have suffered trauma
50% have been in government care (foster care, group home, correctional facility) [Kraus, 2010]
33% Aboriginal
10% Out-of-province
While Jason and I chose to focus on the aboriginal question, the larger picture is that whatever people fall through our social net (federal & provincial) end up on the street & homeless.
If it appears that we do indeed “have a rapidly rising expenditure line… That is unsustainable in any fiscal environment, let alone in these challenging times”, then the rising line must be seen to be the success rate or effectiveness of our government care programs.
Further down the line, we also want to have reported the success rate of turning homeless people’s lives back into functioning in the main stream. What percentage of stabilization can we hope to reach? Anyone?
I must lament that little in the City’s Strategy showcased the first of this month shows forward movement:
1. Providing land for 1200 units in 12-15 sites.
Good to provide land, not so sure about the average site holding 100 units (that’s either towers or sites in excess of 1 acre in size).
2. New sites to reflect location of homeless.
Given the homeless are attracted to the downtown, and the downtown eastside, there is room to question this strategy.
3. Tailor zoning approaches and conditions to meet local housing needs and opportunities.
This is a smoke screen without concrete examples. Zoning is not the problem that is making the local neighbourhood associations against their municipal hall, for example… re-zoning and failure in urban design are closer to the point.
4. Integrate successful strategies for rental inventory into current neighbourhood planning initiatives.
Again, no concrete examples. Some of us don’t believe this kind of government intervention in the economy is effective. The report identified that mortgage helper suites play a role in providing affordable housing options in the neighbourhoods without the need for special incentives. Why not work with that? If it is more STIR, for example, the bets are off.
5. Publish a regular report card. Next homeless count 16 March, 2011.
See you in 6 weeks.
63 Max // Feb 8, 2011 at 5:00 pm
@ Lewis N.V. #62
I still have a problem accepting the number of 10% of our homeless as being from out of town – I believe that number to be higher.
Regardless, we will not see a decrease in the number. People will flock to Vancouver and for those that live on the fringe, the DTES.
Mental illness and drug abuse go hand in hand. Certain drugs have been proven to cause brain damage, so if someone is not ‘mentally ill’ when they start out, it may be the eventual outcome after prolonged use.
The Province has been very active is supplying supportive housing throughout BC – which is what should be done.
I was reading that a new $12.5M supportive unit for women is underway in Surrey and speaks to the ability for all levels of government to face this growing problem.
SURREY – Representatives from the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, the City of Surrey and community partners broke ground today on YWCA Alder Gardens – a $12.5-million supportive housing development that will provide 36 apartments for women and their children at risk of homelessness in Surrey.
Alder Gardens is part of an agreement between the Province and the City of Surrey to build 110 units of new supportive housing in two developments in the city. The second development is Creekside Health and Housing Centre, located at 13670 94A Avenue, and slated to break ground in 2011. In total, the Province has helped create more than 300 new supportive housing units in Surrey for those who are homeless or risk of homelessness.
As well …
SECHELT – As the one-year anniversary of the 2010 Olympic Games quickly approaches, the Province and community partners celebrated the opening of an Olympic Legacy Affordable Housing project in Sechelt today.
Arrowhead Centre is a $3.7-million development that features eight affordable rental apartments and support services for people living with mental-health issues, who are at risk of homelessness in the community.
“The legacy of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games continues to deliver benefits to British Columbians,” said Rich Coleman, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister Responsible for Housing. “The Arrowhead Centre will provide those with mental-health issues at risk of homelessness with access to safe, supportive housing in the community of Sechelt.”
As for your mention of STIR and other such developments, there was an interesting push back article in the Georgia Straight, Jan. 26, 2011 by Charlie Smith.
This line summed it up….’Prior to running in the 2008 election, Gregor Robertson expressed concerns about the pace of development in the Fairview Slopes area. However since he became the Vision Vancouver mayor, Robertson has consistently voted in favour of major projects.’
http://m.straight.com/s?a=370529&id=370529&pal=2&s=60
In my neighborhood in Kits, there is a lot that has been sitting empty for the better part of a decade at the corner of Macdonald and W. 4th.
I would love to see it developed for low income or affordable housing.
Schools are close as are other activities for young families. The only thing it is supporting right now are signs posted by the city to not dump furniture etc. I think they are trying to combat Chris’ free stuff corner, which by the way, was voted in the GS as the best place for free stuff. Chris is homeless, 60 years old and spends his day gathering and putting out stuff. I’ve always said he works harder than many employed people….:)
64 Lewis N. Villegas // Feb 8, 2011 at 9:50 pm
I’m with you Max. The scope of what you wrote about speaks to (1) providing supports and housing; and (2) doing it in every neighbourhood.
I’m starting to latch on to the idea of one house per block, rather than a block of houses. Would that facilitate community involvement?
I wouldn’t worry too much about importing homelessness from other places. Bill McCreery pointed out that we don’t have to go further than next door (Burnaby) to find places happy to see people go to the DTES. I heard it in Dartmouth and Winnipeg. But, you wonder how much is just hear say.
I don’t know the pathology of mental illness, so I don’t know to what extent schizophrenia can be brought on by alcohol and drug addiction. However, its just as easy to think that people are self-medicating in the absence of something better. The combination of depressive illness and alcohol abuse, for example, would compound the problems.
I’m going to keep my eye on inputs/outputs.
On whether or not we can trace back individuals to social programs, and hold the respective governments accountable for their (failed) case files. And, I am going to pay special attention to the number of people that can be helped off the street into the mainstream.
As a practical matter, finding housing sites, building housing, and staffing supports are all concrete goals that I think will be sustainable going forward.
I have a positive feeling about this one.
65 spartikus // Feb 9, 2011 at 8:07 am
I’m on side with that statement. The problem is that we are not talking about “affordable housing” we are talking about “social housing”.
I must point out Abbott made his comments in the context of putting Homes B.C. on hold:
“This mix of funding – with 725 new social housing units and 250 new rent supplements – will benefit low-income families, seniors, urban singles and those with special needs with something I believe is a fundamental right – a home,” said Dosanjh. “Many of these new homes will include support to help people live independently.
And…
These new units will be built in partnership with non-profit housing societies, co-ops and the private sector.
Once again I feel compelled to point out the statement you are onside with was made in 2001. There have been 10 years for the private sector to step. The conditions, with an ideologically friendly government in Victoria, were optimal.
And yet here we are.
On a different note, on the matter of First Nations overepresentation in the ranks of the homeless (and the incarcerated for that matter), there is one subject that is noticeably absent from this discussion. For all the talk of structure of band governance and intolerance of alcohol, no one seem to have mention systemic racism.
This is a country that spent the better part of a century attempting to stamp out First Nations culture via the horror of residential schools.
This is a country where scores of aboriginal women go missing and the police put minimal resources towards finding them, while if a millionaires son is kidnapped hundreds of officers are mobilized.
This country is still coming to grips with it’s colonial legacy.
66 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Feb 10, 2011 at 12:49 pm
“As for permanent social and supportive housing, the previous NPA worked with the Province on the units that are now open, coming online and/or are in the process of being built. 14 projects in total.”
This is a good debate, but allow me to nitpick over the constant assertions by Bill McReery, Sean Bickerton (and Max) and of course, the spinmasters at CityCaucus, regarding the NPA’s record on social housing.
It is a complete fabrication to say that the NPA had anything AT ALL to do with the BC Housing purchases of SROs during Sullivan’s tenure. Nor did they have anything to do with the units in Woodwards. The NPA’s record was ABYSMAL, and their total direct contribution amounted to about 250 units total, not the often-repeated 2500+.
Rich Coleman publicly expressed his frustration with the NPA dragging its heels many times, saying basically that the Province had a whack of money ready to invest but the NPA never got their act together to find the sites, forcing him to eventually make a number of deals to private speculators for SRO hotels, which, in many cases, returned profits of 60% or more to the developers who flipped the hotels to the province within 2 years of purchasing them.
The NPA foot-dragging cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, money which could have gone into MORE social housing, but instead went into speculators pockets.
Remember Ken Dobbell, the Premier’s right hand man who the NPA hired (despite the conflict of interest) for $300,000 to address homelessness?
Here’s a quote from an old Tyee story called, “Dobbell Homeless Plan Stalled”:
“When asked about the Vancouver situation, Coleman sounded frustrated. “You know, I sat them down and I said to the city, quite clearly, ‘Come to the table with some land and we’ll work with you.’ I told the city, ‘I will find more capital.’ “You’ve got to start moving,” Coleman warned. “If you don’t start moving, the money has to go somewhere else. It can’t sit on my books and not get used.”
Again, what happened is that the NPA still did NOTHING, and Coleman ended up turning to private land speculators and purchasing the SROs.
The NPA record was a complete joke, and it wasn’t until the 11th hour, right before the last civic election, in a desperate attempt to make it look like they were doing something, and after the province made them look like retards, that Ladner finally announced some building sites.
Just because you keep repeating the lie that NPA deserves credit, gents, doesn’t make it true.
Leave a Comment