While no one can question Wendy’s heart I think we have to question her brain. Seriously “we don’t mind the open drug trade because it keeps the area from gentrification” She needs to give her head a shake. That open drug market is prey on the very poor and venerable she claims to be so concerned about. The harm that the merchants of death are causing are much worse then any yuppie with a teacup dog would do. Also stating that the area should remain 75% poor is pretty absurd, why not wish that those poor people could become unpoor, seems like a better goal to aim for.

Yeah, “brilliant”. Except that she didn’t say that she “didn’t mind the open drug trade”, she said that she would “would take away the drug trade any day”.

It’s naive at best and dangerous at worst to think that gentrifying an area will raise the standard of living of its residents. What happens instead is that those residents are driven out. Obviously Wendy opposes that, as do I.

Sorry, but, comparing the drug problem that plagues the DTES to gentrification is just ridiculous. This is the kind of bullshit reasoning that assures the DTES will get worse and worse every year. Perhaps Wendy enjoys bumping into crackheads and meth addicts shitting and vomiting in the streets after breaking into your car or apartment to steal your belongings for drugs. Is that the community Wendy and her fellow povertarians would like to preserve? Because that’s exactly what they are doing.

Now that’s a great comment-mostly for the tone. It’s been getting a bit flamey lately-I won’t mention any names-so thanks Denis.

Yay! Thanks tons Francis. Maybe you could hyperlink the words “Francis’s Questions” to the original post so people don’t have to search for it.

Its in this sentence:

As a researcher whose job it is to help the low-income community develop a vision for the future, I’m fairly obsessed with Francis’ questions and I thank her for framing them so well.

Wendy

The drug-use issue has existed in the DTES for at least seventy years. We have similar levels of addiction, it’s just in plain sight now because it was forced out by closing all the indoor places people used to buy and use in the 40’s-70’s. Drug-use can really suck, but the street-use we see today isn’t a new problem unique to this neighborhood.

And I agree with Wendy that having a crappy/”scary” neighborhood can keep the rents down. Gentrification is about profit, not quality of life improvement. It’s about churning populations. We move the middle classes to the suburbs and create inner-city slums. Then we move all the rich children back into the city and move the poor out to the suburbs (or just onto the street). Every step makes profit for real-estate speculators. And every step destroys communities people have built over generations.

Bluntly, I sometimes have more pity for crack-dealers than for real-estate speculators. Both profit off the suffering of the poor, but only one is seen as a pariah and occasionally goes to jail.

Do any of the “purveyors of hysteria” seriously believe that drug gangs earn billions in profit each year by selling to the 5,000 addicts living on welfare in the DTES? Unlike social housing/services and low-income residents, illegal (and legal) drugs are NOT concentrated in the DTES. They are bought, sold and consumed from Point Grey to Boundary Road and from Burrard Inlet to the Fraser River. There’s an open drug market in every campus and high school and neighbourhood in this city. Two million Canadians wilfully break the law and smoke pot at least once a week. Little Jimmy who lives next door to you in Kerrisdale is just as likely to have smoked crack in Sam Sullivan’s van as you or me.

So what I find ridiculous is the media and VDP force-feeding the public hysterical tripe about chaos and street disorder and “purveyors of death”. It creates a perfect justification for why the VDP should spend more and more taxpayers’ money to infringe on the civil liberties of people in one neighbourhood of the city in order to clean it up for the Olympics: the public demands action! But as Wendy, Jeanette and others posting here have pointed out, most residents don’t feel threatened by the street scene, other than the fact that everyone talks to and knows each other (which is frightening to most Vancouverites, who prefer their little silos, but actually, this is the very definition of CIVILITY). I’ve been raising a kid in this area for 5 years and have lived here on and off since the early 1990s without incident.

We all remember what happened before Expo 86, right? And how we all vowed we would never let it happen again? Well, the VDP are counting on public ignorance and hysteria generated by sensational clap-trap like the Phoenix Project to get taxpayers to fund and assent to a despicable policy once again. It’s not very comforting to know that otherwise intelligent and discerning people seem to have swallowed it so easily. So history repeats.

Frankly, I’m tired of comments about “povertarians” from the likes of A. G. Tsakumis and others. This pejorative perhaps–and I do say perhaps–pertains to a very few anti-poverty workers but has the overall effect of painting all efforts by such workers as living off the avails of the very poor. I normally don’t even read comments from A. G. Tsakumis because of remarks like his (which are so obviously biased) but I couldn’t help it because I’m interested in the thread.

I compliment Wendy Pedersen for speaking frankly about the good points and yes, also the bad points of the DTES. I hope to hear more from here.

Wendy Pedersen claims, “But for those of us willing to live with it, we get cheaper stores, cheaper housing, tight knit community, decades long friendships and a sharing of resources that builds a sense of how to be together that doesn’t exist in other places in Vancouver.”

I call bullshit on this notion of the DTES as a magical place full of sharing and co-operation that doesn’t exist in other parts of Vancouver. How does Wendy Pedersen presume to know what kind of relationships people in South Main, the West End, south Fraser, etc. have with their communities? Answer: she can’t, but it is easy to caricature the non-DTES parts of the city as Yaletown Lite, or something close to it, when the truth is actually a lot more complex. But acknowledging that truth would mean admitting that the DTES is not as unique a place as Wendy seems to think it is.

I’d prefer to see fully funded treatment beds over “visioning exercises” every day. Lack of fully funded treatment for those drug users who would like to quit, is, in my view, criminal. I understand that funding drug treatment (eg., detox and recovery, as opposed to harm-reduction or “maintenance” strategies) is not as glamorous as attending rallies, or busting sidewalk dealers, or pumping money into well-meaning consultation sessions, consciousness-raising seminars, private security, etc. etc. etc. But it is one of the last options that has not, so far as I can tell, been tried by any level of government or private initiative.

I think the poor really resent being lumped in with thieves, pimps, drug dealers and junkies.

Gentrification will push out those elements, it won’t push out “the poor”.

From this story:

http://www.theprovince.com/technology/personal-tech/Opposing+ideas+battle+streets/1247277/story.html

“On the north side of Powell and Main is the $1,000-a-month suite she shares with her two children in the Four Sisters housing co-op. Across the street is the Concord Pacific Smart condo, with 90 units priced from $239,500 to more than $500,000.”

At current rates (5 year fixed at ING, 4.34%) a $239,500 condo would cost $1304.35 per month. Likely these condo prices will go down. Likely interest rates will go down. So we have condos that have some units priced (monthly) close to market rate co-ops. We can discuss the minutae (that the cheapest units are likely tiny, and the extra $304.35 per month makes them unattainable). But, for argument’s sake: the unit would be owned after 25 years. It could be left as a legacy to two daughters, who could sell it, or rent it out to deserving low income people in the future. Home ownership is not all evil. If attainable it provides security and stability for future generations of a family. Some of the original co-ops in Vancouver were built in False Creek, alongside condos, because it was believed that a mixed income model was better for all (to prevent ghetto-ization of co-op tenants), I’m pretty sure that model in False Creek has been successful. The co-ops are still there and it’s a lovely neighbourhood.

njb: that’s assuming you have a 15-20% down payment and your income will go up as the interest rate does as well. It doesn’t necessarily follow that for a family of 3-4 on one income that can afford a housing charge of $1000, owning is either as affordable or better.

“It doesn’t necessarily follow that for a family of 3-4 on one income that can afford a housing charge of $1000, owning is either as affordable or better.” No, it doesn’t, nor did I say it did.

wow – it sure is easy to tell the constructive comments from the flamers, isn’t it?

I am just in awe of what Wendy and her band of DTES volunteers have been able to accomplish with their always kind-spirited actions in the hood. Just look at how mainstream media coverage of the neighbourhood has (not so much changed as) broadened in scope over the past year or two. Now, alongside the usual “OMG look at that loser!” nightly news story, we also get to see local people brightly stand up for their community with dignity.

Who knows, maybe it’s not too late for this city to wake up and see what a treasure it has in the DTES, and what humbling lessons are available to be learned here.

Wow. Lots of good discussion. Though I think it would be more fun if people looked more at common values and building off each other’s comments rather than breaking them down (don’t bruise my ego as it drives my point home!).

Someone said that people “handling poverty” would be out of work if we ended poverty… Certainly true in the short term. I know Wendy and others would rather play with children and perhaps run a business or what-have-you. I don’t want to be in a world with poverty, but as long as I am I cannot ignore it. Good work Wendy and others. I think this point is valid for some governmental structures perhaps. Mechanisms like our correctional system are like a Juggernaut.

Another person’s idea that gentrification will only push out the street- entrenched people involved in “illegal” activities, and not people who are just plain poor, is very hopeful! Gentrification sounds good then! Except that those individuals resorting to “illegal” activities are there two. They are my brothers and sisters.

Another person commented that the open drug market is all across the city. This is true. This is an issue close to me as many of my friends are acquiring employment through this industry. Emery would say “stop the war on drugs”… this idea sounds worth thinking about. I would say: make secondary education super duper accessible, if not free. And make sure every child has the highest quality of standardized care from daycare to grade 12. Make mechanisms to get my buddies trained in what they dream of doing. I know lots of people who sell drugs. None of them had this choice of work as a childhood dream. None at all. The school system failed them (and many other systems, like being in-care of the ministry).

I might be doing deals the same as my friends, except that I decided to bite the bullet and accept the system labeling me “learning disabled” so that I could get a financial break and the supports I need to make sense of college. I can tell you, with no lie, that it was more difficult for me to manipulate and claw and stumble through my first two years of college than it was for me to squiggle and wiggle away from ten dudes attempting to stop my face into the pavement in the intersection of Broadway and Fraser.

I guess my point is that if we as a city can create good options for a good life, people are going to choose that life. Drug dealing takes in the same crowd that may have enlisted for army service decades ago: daring able-bodied young people without any money to make any career plans come true.

Just another point of view. Thanks everyone for sharing your insights with me!

As someone who is most definitely standing on the outside looking in, this thread has been very illuminating – thanks everyone.

______
Hey GJ’sG–

I really, really enjoy it when you get gassy.

In fact, I would be overjoyed if Ms. Bula used your comment to start another great discussion thread in a slightly different context.

.

When I wander along Hastings, I see an incredible streetscape with so much potential. There are some fantastic gems of buildings from a bygone era before the area was abadoned by the middle class. The existing pro-poverty groups working in the area are doing their best to keep the area from evolving. The whole city is evolving and this place will too. It would be great if it could be returned to its former glory as a lively entertainment and shopping area complete with theatres, etc… so that it’s open to EVERYONE, not just the pro-poverty set.

@CV who are these people who are stopping the area from evolving? I’ve not heard a single person working in DTES speak out *against* re-development of the Pantages theatre, but I’ve heard many people in other neighborhoods call fowl.

I live down here, and while “the current methodologies” aren’t necessarily working – the people who are working down there are doing what they can to provide compassionate care to those who are marginalised in lieu of other services.

The Union Gospel, Salvation Army, other churches, and even the “reviled” PHS don’t have the mandate or the means to employ entirely new treatment methods for addicts and homeless and mentally ill: They are not responsible for creating detox beds, mental health hospitals, or subsidised housing throughout the province. They do what they do because they are mandated independantly to provide compassionate support and assistance. To expect these organisations to do otherwise is naive.

Do you think that any of these organisations would be upset if the provice suddenly opened 2,000 new detox beds, 2,000 mental health/assisted living beds, and 10,000 units of social housing dispersed throughout the province – and a corresponding program to co-ordinate services to get people to these places? Does anyone really think that should some government actually have the balls to change the entire way we approach the margninalised people that the PHS or the Union Gospel Mission would suddenly cry fowl?

The “povertarians” do what they do because – no one else is doing anything – they do what they do because if they didn’t do anything, who would do something? They do what they do because they cannot stand to close their eyes to the things the rest of us tune out as we drive down Hastings on our morning commute.

The DTES IS a treasure. In any other city, a Heritage district like this would be treasured and well looked after. Is blind Gentrification the answer? No – look at Coal Harbour – we don’t need another soulless neighborhood. Is careful planning, including mixed income housing in DTES and ALL neighborhoods going to help? YES. I don’t hear many povertarians getting upset when new social housing units are announced for Kits.

But you know, as much as it’s easy to stand back from a distance and say that everything going on there is completely wrong, that we shouldn’t make a new ghetto, etc., god forbid we put low incoming housing in YOUR back yard. I’ve never heard any of the people who rant about the DTES advocate for social housing in THEIR neighborhoods…. funny, that.

I am going to use this post to promote my special interest in the DTES. I want the Gregor Shelters and the Cold and Wet Weather Shelters to remain open 365 days a year. A letter just written by the Vancouver Downtown Business Association has stated that street disorder is down because of the Gregor Shelters. However, even with this evidence the emergency shelters all are going to be closing on March 31st leaving up to 900 street homeless seeking the sidewalks to sleep on again. Judy Graves says in addition to the emergency shelters 500 people still sleep outside. Although I have tried to get the DTES community organizations interested in demanding that we look after our most vulnerable with shelters (Storyeum) all I got was politeness. We love your idea but we are going to do anything to help you. Everyone in the DTES is enamoured with Housing First rather than Shelters First. Wendy Pedersen and all those affiliated with the Carnegie (which is all of the DTES) are all against shelters. Even VANDU with over one-half of its population homeless is against shelters. If these organizations cared for the community no one would be sleeping on our streets and the rest of us would feel safer. When I spoke to the czar of housing from the USA Philip Mangano he was totally perplexed that the City had a policy of limiting shelters so the street homeless have no where to sleep. He said what are they going to do with the sleep homeless until there is affordable housing. I was horrified when the City’s Housing Centre in an open forum told me this as well. Those that are in the shelters now are happy and I have been told repeatedly that even if social housing was available they would not qualify anyways. As for the non-profits not supporting shelters I will cite one example: DTES Neighourhouse which works closely with Carnegie, if not under Carnegie, continuously takes downposters I put up advising of shelters and in particular the flier directing the street homeless to the United Church Mission Shelter at Main and Gore.

To the not running for mayor comment February 25 2009. Storyeum was used only as a location to let the City voters know there are places that the City owns and could be made into shelters overnight. Be it Storyeum or BC Place or somewhere else. From me wanting DTES shelters it became obvious to me that the community did not want them and it is the community who is responsible for the dire state of the DTES and not the street homeless people. I cannot even blame the politicians as they do what the community wants. The DTES says it wants more social housing rather than shelters but we already have 75-80% social housing and the desired level of social housing in any neighbourhood is 8% (Raymond Louie).

778-329-1250

The Carnegie Centre is against shelters. Saying something in public to protect its ass after two years of being against it is not being supportive. If the Carnegie had compassion for the needs of its neighbourhood then it would be focusing all its resources to eliminate street homelessness in the DTES.

Rolf Auger is a personal friend of Jean Swanson, he is on the Board of Carnegie, he is a devoted volunteer working for Wendy Pedersen and he writes letters to media every week.

In June of 2008 I approached the Board of Carnegie and was told by its President that it had other priorities than going after Storyeum as a shelter. I asked him what priorities were more important. He mumbled something about his funders. Maybe the funders do not want the area changed. I don’t know for sure. But both VanCity and the Real Estate Council both have a vested interested in keeping the DTES property values low. Saying that social housing in an area that has 75 to 85% social housing already seems on the surface to be a waste of time. When I asked City Wide Coalition, a Wendy group, to include shelters in its stands for housing, it refused.

The things I got from the Wendy groups is tearing down of my fliers and being told that I could not be a volunteer for any of her groups for fear that I would disrupt them. Being allowed to voice another opinion that is so crucial to the survival of the dTES is not being disruptive. I was also removed from all her email lists that she monitors.

From Wendy’s post it is clear that CCAP wants the status quo to remain as it is so a few residents (supporters) of the DTES can continue to be involved in the free leisure programs in the DTES and to occupy low cost housing.

There are 6,000 signed up members for Carnegie as memberships are required to play pool. But less than one percent attend Board meetings or vote. The membership doesn’t know what the hell is going on.

I pray that there will be a revolt of the area residents that will force Carnegie to insist that the area needs additional shelters now.

On March 31st 2009 the Gregor shelters and the yearly cold and wet weather shelters will be closing forcing 900 shelters user to be on the streets again.

778-329-1250

Just one more comment: I don’t know why Audrey is attacking me personally. I have written letters of support for her to newspapers. Here’s one of them: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/letters/story.html?id=2746e73e-ccb1-4a3e-8770-afa70e5cd4ab
I find that this seems to be a pattern of hers: you (or your organization) help her with something, and she turns around and attacks you (or your organization) later. I’m not expecting gratitude, but attacks in response to helping is disconcerting, to say the least.