Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Coleman says Vancouver needs to pay half the cost of operating Gregor shelters

March 25th, 2010 · 32 Comments

The city had its day in the media sun Tuesday, with a homeless count that seemed to be proving that having more shelters is keeping people off the street.

The housing minister got his day today, with his Colemanesque gentle ultimatum that, if Vancouver wants to open more shelters than the province currently funds, it should pay half the operating costs.

The question that I can’t help thinking is going to come Mr. Coleman’s way: If his complaint is that the city is “setting its own policy” on how many shelters to have open without wanting to pay the bill, surely some people are going to ask, “Why is it not provincial policy to ensure that there are enough shelters to provide everyone on the streets with a bed?”

I’m sure we’ll get an answer soon.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • booge

    Perhaps we can make Coleman become “homeless” as well: Throw him out of office come election time.

  • landlord

    @booge : Current estimates place the number of homeless in Canada at somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000. The annual cost in 2007 was approximately 4.5 to 6 billion in emergency services, community organizations, and non-profits.
    Is Mayor Robertson or Minister Coleman or the Prime Minister (or any of their opposition counterparts) about to raise taxes to provide all of those people with free homes, food, clothing, medical care? Are the people who are so critical of the politicians for failing to deal with the problem prepared to pay more in taxes?
    We are already putting the social services that we do provide on the credit card. Deficit budgets guarantee that the economic future will produce even larger numbers of unemployed and homeless Canadians as rising interest rates and taxes kill jobs and force bankruptcies.
    Instead of taking mindless shots at politicians, perhaps you could suggest a realistic solution.

  • spartikus

    Are the people who are so critical of the politicians for failing to deal with the problem prepared to pay more in taxes?

    I am, yes.

    I would gladly give up the provincial tax cut I received in the BC Liberals first term.

    Canada is the only G8 nation without a national housing strategy (we did once, until Mulroney ended it).

    The Canadian tax burden is also quite moderate compared to other industrialized nations.

    I would gladly pay more taxes if it helped the mentally ill, the abused and the lost a chance to live life in dignity.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Landlord, it’s costing more to keep the misery supermarket open. Yes, if it takes a one-time push, I think Canadians are prepared to buy a bond, or pay a special tax with a time-certain sunset clause.

    What a tangled tale we weave. Good exposé of the politics, Frances:

    “Mr. Coleman said… the city has to “meet us partway” if it wants to take on ambitious new initiatives for homeless shelters and housing.

    He said his ministry is prepared to provide operating money for the three Downtown Eastside shelters [but]… would not provide money for the four shelters set up this past January in the West End, Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant, and downtown neighbourhoods because he promised those communities that the shelters wouldn’t operate there indefinitely.

    The seven shelters currently house about 500 people a night and are turning people away because of lack of room.”

    I also think that if the Minster consulted with the communities with a plan that took care of the problem, the neighbourhoods might just allow him to go back on his word.

    I think I get the dimensions of the issue, though one learns to be ready for surprises. What I don’t get is why the Minister would dub these temporary, last ditch actions, that nevertheless result in people being turned away at the door “ambitious”.

  • booge

    @landlord ; Are the people who are so critical of the politicians for failing to deal with the problem prepared to pay more in taxes?

    Politicians are paid and are expected to deal with these problems. Coleman was floating solutions _before_ the olympics.. ..solutions at a Provincial level. It’s a provincial responsibility. Perhaps they can divert some of the monies from railGate to help pay for housing.

    PS no one is suggesting that we Feed & House them for free. have them work in projects and make them responsible. I am totally in favour in making them stakeholders in their own welfare. No free lunches. But provide assistance? Of course, we do that now.

  • JP Ratelle

    Rather than constantly running to the taxpayer trough as our union friend Spartikus (sic) is suggesting to do, perhaps if Spartikus would like, he can take the money from HIS provincial tax cut and give it to charity, maybe he already has. If so, good for him.

    Or he could start a charity to help others with his money rather than suggesting the government use my portion of taxes to pay for his charitable desires.

    There are other options in this country for people to help the needy that don’t include the government, AND for the most part that means the money is better managed and helps more people.

    As for comparing Canada’s lack of having a national housing strategy with other countries from the G8 would Spartikus (sic) like to engage in a debate on the economies of those other countries, their business and personal tax rates and other factors that make each country tick?

    Blah, blah, blah.

  • spartikus

    There are other options in this country for people to help the needy that don’t include the government

    Which explains why, before governments engaged in large-scale social spending, there was no homelessness.

    Charity is fine and dandy, but the funds raised don’t even begin to address the scale of the problem – and that’s in good years. When recession hits, so do people’s donations.

    would Spartikus (sic) like to engage in a debate on the economies of those other countries

    Hey, I live for that sort of thing. Here’s a great place to start.

    Lewis raises a good point that free marketers should take note of: it’s cheaper to house people than it does to police and cure them.

  • mary

    I worry when I find myself agreeing with a BC version of a Liberal, but in this case I think there is something to Coleman’s position. Robertson’s approach to homelessness is at best a bandaid. there is no policy analysis from any credible source that concludes that shelters solve homelessness. They are a cynical approach to the problem at best. They do not “house” people as Lewis stated (perhaps a slip); they simply provide temporary shelter and do not help people address the underlying causes of their homelessness, be that addiction, mental illness, or other barrier.

  • SV

    So who’s responsible for dealing with addiction and mental illness? I thought health care was a provincial responsibility?

  • landlord

    Comparing Canada’s social programs to those in the other G8 economies is unproductive and misses the important point. Most of the G8 nations have debts of 70-80% of GDP and have been increasing that debt faster than at any time in history. Most of this debt has gone into so-called “stimulus” spending, chiefly to bail out failed public and private industries and financial institutions. Servicing this debt (i.e. paying back bond-holders in China and the Persian Gulf) consumes more of the G8 nations’ budgets than any other programs except health and defence spending.
    It’s a simple formula : the more you spend on debt service, the less you have for social programs or anything else.
    The deficits which feed the debt can only be eliminated in two ways : cutting spending and raising taxes. Governments at all levels in Canada will have to do both, and soon. This will result in widespread job loss, sharply reduced personal incomes and increased poverty and homelessness.
    If any of you can think of some way around this, please let me know.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Mary, we live on “slips” don’t we?

    I agree with you the shelter is not the solution. However, nobody has a plan or at least a plan that I can hold up to the light and say, “Yep. This one works”.

    So, while we ramp up to that— I was going to use the word “triage” to describe the Mayor’s efforts—it’s important to get them in for the night, hopefully into an environment that can provide for personal safety.

  • A. G. Tsakumis

    @spartikus

    “Canada is the only G8 nation without a national housing strategy (we did once, until Mulroney ended it).”

    As usual, don’t let the facts get in the way or either a) pumping for the left or b) lying about the right.

    The Mulroney govt reduced funding and support (because of glaring inefficiencies).

    But it was completely axed under Paul Martin.

    Get your facts straight.

  • julia

    we need to do a better job with the money that is already out there. When I hear about the dollars spent on the DTES every day I am shocked. There are far too many careers tied to leaving things exactly the way they are.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    There is a lot of under-performing land tied to the DTES rubric.

    When you take stock, the volume of traffic that is coming into town using the Powell/Cordova one-way coupling; Hastings Street; and Venables/Prior you realize that there are serious, blighting impacts on the historic neighbourhoods (a.k.a DTES) that have nothing to do with “the problem”. Nevertheless, these are neighbourhood blighting issues which nobody is talking about.

    A plan for Vancouver’s historic neighbourhoods needs to include the implementation of a streetcar on Hastings Street, returning this magnificent spine to its former prominence, removing about half of the vehicular load there today, and providing some 200% more trips in a new “Olympic Line”.

    No one is talking about that.

    The streetcar could connect Stanley Park with New Brighton Park behind the PNE providing balance for another issue that does get identified: the lack of park space in the historic neighbourhoods.

    The streetcar track would be the ideal place to lay down fibre optics. A pipe connects Harbour Centre with Seattle underwater that can extend for another 2.5 miles underground. East on Hastings, that would take us all the way to Templeton Drive, two blocks east of Nanaimo Street, the gateway into the other historic neighbourhood that has been long ignored: the Hastings Townsite.

    Just along that corridor we have enough land, and with fiber optics and transportation, enough business development opportunity and mobility, that the downtown side of a regional hosing plan could be implemented along with something much, much more significant.

    We could bring back to full function—and full glory—the oldest and most venerable parts of our great city.

    What would be the implications of that on the tax revenue side? People are always against “new taxes”. However, these are exactly the “new taxes” we want to get! How about the cost-savings of solving the problem? How much revenue-savings does that represent?

    How ambitious are we prepared to get?

  • Todd Sieling

    > Are the people who are so critical of the politicians for failing to deal with the problem prepared to pay more in taxes?

    I’d be happy to pay higher taxes if it meant that everyone had a home and a hot meal every day, and I add my real name to that. Are you willing to say that you’d rather see your fellow human beings go without shelter because you prefer to keep your taxes lower?

  • Todd Sieling

    > There are far too many careers tied to leaving things exactly the way they are.

    Should have replied to Julia in my comment above, but I agree that this is very much the case. The poverty industry as it’s sometimes called is not unique to Vancouver, and unfortunately rests on ensuring a continued supply of ‘customers’.

  • JP Ratelle

    “Are you willing to say that you’d rather see your fellow human beings go without shelter because you prefer to keep your taxes lower?”

    Yes Todd I can say that.

    As I stated above, my money can do more to help people in my hands than it can in the governments.

    If you think giving more of your money to the government is efficient you’re clueless.

  • JP Ratelle

    Now to be nicer to Todd:

    “The poverty industry as it’s sometimes called is not unique to Vancouver, and unfortunately rests on ensuring a continued supply of ‘customers’.”

    This was the most intelligent thing you have ever said here.

  • spartikus

    Comparing Canada’s social programs to those in the other G8 economies is unproductive and misses the important point. Most of the G8 nations have debts of 70-80% of GDP and have been increasing that debt faster than at any time in history

    I’m not sure how this is relevant. We’re not talking about one year’s or two year’s policy, but policy over decades.

    Get your facts straight.

    Such as Canada is the only G8 country without a national housing strategy? Thanks for confirming the main point, Alex.

    Yes, the federal Liberals share in responsibility but please, your objection falls into the category of splitting hairs.

    Mulroney strangled the patient, and Martin pulled the plug. Feel better?

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Todd would you locate your business on a revamped Hastings Street?

  • Chris Keam

    “The poverty industry as it’s sometimes called is not unique to Vancouver, and unfortunately rests on ensuring a continued supply of ‘customers’.”

    You could say the same thing about police and criminals, paramedics and car crashes, firemen and arsonists, all the way down the list to stupid examples such as lifeguards and drowning victimes.

    In every case it would be both just as true, and just as dismissive of the motivations of the people who take on these tasks, knowing full well they are to some extent Sisyphean in nature.

  • Chris Keam

    “If you think giving more of your money to the government is efficient you’re clueless.”

    Yes, yes. Far better to double, and triple, and quadruple the overlap of services as every charitable organization (some with very clear ideological goals that accompany their giving) finds the need to hire their own personnel. You talk of downsizing the ‘poverty industry’ yet seemingly can’t wait to increase the workforce engaged in its activities.

  • landlord

    @spartikus : How it’s relevant. Re-read the last paragraph.
    “The deficits which feed the debt can only be eliminated in two ways : cutting spending and raising taxes. Governments at all levels in Canada will have to do both, and soon. This will result in widespread job loss, sharply reduced personal incomes and increased poverty and homelessness.”
    That’s how Paul Martin eliminated the Mulroney deficits and it’s how the next Liberal government will reduce the Harper deficits.
    There will be no national housing or childcare strategy. There will be no more money for the poverty industry. There will be no further “stimulus” spending. There will be reduced spending on all programs and increased taxes.
    Unless deficits are eliminated more and more revenue will go to pay the growing debt, crowding out all other program spending, including police, paramedics, firemen, lifeguards, hospitals, pensions, everything.
    These are facts which must be faced.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “The deficits which feed the debt can only be eliminated in two ways : cutting spending and raising taxes.”

    I can’t agree with that presentation of the facts.

    The third way is to grow the economy. As I suggested above, growing the tax base is the best way to overcome the problems in areas of urban blight. Let’s dig a little deeper to find things we can agree about…

    1. Supported housing will require employing people to provide the supports.

    If what we are looking for is a treatment model for mental illness decades after closing the hospitals, that is not an endless stream, but a finite problem.

    2. If we connect government investment in infrastructure with stimulus for growth, then it will be possible to think in terms of repaying debt by targeting “new revenues” flowing from redevelopment in urban lands.

    If that is a bit too difficult to grasp, we can give it a name: “Tax Increment Financing”. The method is not as important as recognizing the underlying premise—good urbanism strengthens government revenue streams at every level.

    3. The urbanism in the historic neighbourhoods has been neglected to the point that prime-prime urban land is under-performing every other area in our city.

    Put another way, having the historical neighbourhoods in a state of near disfunction is costing us tax revenue, at the same time that it exacerbates what is already going wrong there.

    Vision requires understanding. We can build consensus by identifying facts that we can all agree about. I’m presenting three.

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    I realize this is somewhat off topic, but if we are looking for long-term, rather than triage solutions, I am fully in favour of Lewis’ proactive vision!

    After living on the fringe of the DTES for so many years, it’s pretty clear to me that the only strategy that makes any sense is to provide a local economic engine that will rejuvenate the DTES community and include its members in the transformation.

    Unlike our City planners, whose solution is always MORE CONDO TOWERS, the sensible way to do this, as Lewis describes, is better connecting this Historic area to the city and amenities that surround it and starting to build on the immense cultural capital (and potential tax base) that is currently being underutilized. The key to this is restoring the Hastings Corridor in a thoughtful and careful manner.

    Although haphazard improvements have been made lately, the only plan the City is currently following in the DTES is the perilously thoughtless idea of adding more and more condo towers, then letting the free market do the rest. This is the type of civic development “plan” that Jane Jacobs would cringe at. Destroying our Historic Area’s character and integrity is not revitalization, it is a cloaked version of the same old developer giveaway game that keeps getting played out in Vancouver. Speculation, not planning, rules! Not.

    Components I would add to Lewis’ plan would be to locate the proposed National Aboriginal Art Gallery and Chinese Centre for Culture and Trade along this portion of Hastings. If connected by his Hastings streetcar they would not only provide long-term economic opportunity for these traditional community members, they would also create destinations (economic anchors) that would attract subsidiary businesses and more visits from other parts of the city. The original plan (not sure the status now) was to locate these two institutions on the Larwill Park site, which seems like folly to me when you have two historic communities only a few blocks away that could benefit directly from these developments. The Pantages, of course, is another jewel on this corridor that is being left to crumble, for shame…

    This type of direction seems to have manifold benefits, including: increased tax base and economic activity, employment opportunities for low income community, reduced dependency on handouts, restoration of community and historic pride and integrity, better infrastructure, the list goes on…

    Now, about that proposed community planning charette, Lewis…

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Let’s go!

  • landlord

    @Ghost : There is one organization working on economic development in the DTES. Check out BOB. http://bobics.org/

  • Bill Lee

    @villegas http://francesbula.com/uncategorized/coleman-says-vancouver-needs-to-pay-half-the-cost-of-operating-gregor-shelters/#comment-21666 Comment 14

    And when the Dunsmuir and Georgia Viaducts were closed the traffic fell onto Hastings and the Cordorva-Powell pair. Those viaducts mitigate the traffic woes of DTES.

    And there already is fibre along the tracks. I remember seeing Rogers (then CP/CNTel) burying optical 2 metres down along Union Street until they reached the CN tracks at Glen Drive.

    And all that activity doesn’t stop that great barrier to redevelopment, the Vancouver Port fortress. From Stanley Park for 8 km to New Brighton, and on into Burnaby, the tracks and the port block the community from being able to exploit or use the harbour.

    Maybe it’s time to divert bulk cargo to Prince Rupert, or to Point Roberts terminals and open the waterfront to the Eastside residents.
    We didn’t need this security fencing before the U.S. 9/11 and we don’t need it now.
    Baltic Dry Index has still not risen to pre-recession levels, and may never.
    It is time to reconfigure the Port for People!

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    Landlord, BOB has done some good work, but their shell-like existence is a testament to the failure of DTES planning. All the money and effort that went into the Vancouver Agreement (that created BOB), which finally got the Feds back at the table, evaporated after what, three or four years? BOB is still there, but the Vancouver Agreement is history. Lots of momentum and good intentions never yielded a comprehensive plan…

    Bill, yes another component I would add is an overpass at the foot of Carrall connecting the new Greenway to Crab Park, then another 150 metres of Seawall to link it to Canada Place. Thus connected to False Creek and Coal Harbour, this short elbow would complete Vancouver’s Green Ring Road and provide another steady influx of people through the Historic Area. Right now the Greenway dead-ends at the tracks, and Crab Park, despite being only about 200 metres from Waterfront Station, is very difficult for most to access, so it too is underutilized, despite its fantastic setting.

    Also, you are bang-on about the heavy traffic down Powel and Hastings when the viaduct closed for the Olys. Back ups every morning past Oppenheimer Park. And because Main was the only North-South from the DTES to Mt. Pleasant (and beyond), it too was a bloody nightmare. There were also days when the Skytrain lineup went down the stairs, all the way across Thornton Park to the Ivanhoe!

  • David

    The city’s oldest public housing project was demolished last year and 800 people were moved out. This land will be redeveloped with a mix of private and social housing, with significant anticipated profits for the province. Little Mountain, built in 1954 and formerly home to about 800 good citizens in non-market housing. IF COLEMAN WERE SERIOUS ABOUT SOCIAL HOUSING THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD HOUSE MORE THAN THE 800 PEOPLE THAT WERE MOVED OUT. It won’t and he isn’t.

  • Omoishiroi

    When did Vancouver overtake Toronto as the centre of the universe? What Vancouverites need to recognize is this – Coleman represents ALL of BC. Outside of Vancouver the ‘support’ for additional funding is limited – other cities have their own funding initiatives – so I agree with Coleman – you want more money for homelessness in Vancouver ask Vancouver taxpayers to pay for it from their pockets.
    The same for the safe injection sites – you may want to fund this in Vancouver but the majority of federal taxpayers do not want to fund it.
    Bottom line if you believe in any cause that the majority of taxpayers do not support – open your own wallet and donate to the cause but keep your hands off the tax dollars from the rest of BC and Canada’s majority.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    The only problem with Omoishiroi’s analysis is that it ignores that homelessness, addiction and mental illness cases cross municipal boundaries. The issue is regional in scope, yet the greatest concentration is in one place, the DTES.