Frances Bula header image 2
← →

For housing wonks: The housing/homelessness powerpoint for Vancouver

February 2nd, 2011 · 66 Comments

Lots of interesting info from the presentation on housing and homelessness yesterday, currently only in PP form, no report.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Bill McCreery

    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.

  • Mark Allerton

    @Max

    Perhaps you could substantiate the allegation that the City has not been continuing the work. In what way?

  • Max

    @ 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’.

  • Mark Allerton

    @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.

  • Max

    @ 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.

  • Mark Allerton

    >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.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    @ 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”.

  • spartikus

    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.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ 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;

  • Max

    @ 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.

  • spartikus

    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.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “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.

  • Max

    @ 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….:)

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    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.

  • spartikus

    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.

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    “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.

←  Older Comments
 →