As a follow-up to the stats released by the city from its homelessness count, here’s my story in the Globe with Councillor Kerry Jang staking out the city’s position unequivocally: It’s the province’s job to pay for enough shelter space to get everyone off the streets. The city will give land, buildings, fix-up costs, but not more.
The two sides are at a stand-off right now over that issue, with Housing Minister Rich Coleman having said to me and others that if the city wants to open up more shelters than the province has determined is its limit, it has to contribute half the operating costs.
I await the results of this dust-up when 560 people no longer have a place to sleep inside on April 30. That’s when the seven additional shelters the city pushed to get for the winter run out of funding.
54 responses so far ↓
1 Kam Lee // Apr 9, 2010 at 10:57 am
Fat Boy Coleman, always blames the other guy. Why would he cjange now? Reason why he wants the city to pay is, he can’t get any kickback from it.
2 George // Apr 9, 2010 at 11:17 am
Do we need to resort to name calling? How can we have an adult conversation if you are acting like a kid at in High School?
FYI, another province dropped the housing and welfare onto municipalities years ago. This seems to be the direction we are headed, a very slippery slope. Gregor didn’t think this through.
3 Kam Lee // Apr 9, 2010 at 11:24 am
This government deserves everything it is getting. They are criminals. Remeber Coleman is the minister responsible for upping the on-line gaming limit to $9999.00. Just a tad under the 10 grand mark that would alert the feds. Hmmmm, makes me wonder, how about you?
4 Charles Gauthier // Apr 9, 2010 at 11:27 am
It would be so unfortunate if we go back to the way it was before these housing options were made available to the homeless. Within the Downtown BIA area alone, we have seen a significant drop in rough sleeping and aggressive panhandling, but more importantly people in need are getting help.
I hope that the Province and the City can resolve this impasse and come to the realization that what they’re doing is working and actually is saving taxpayers money in the long run with fewer emergency visits, as an example.
5 JP Ratelle // Apr 9, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Kam, take your name calling back to the other sites you frequent. I’ve read some of your other “work” and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Kerry jang is the same councillor that told me and my neighbours in False Creek that we were a bunch of……well I’ll leave it there.
I have absolutely no use for the man and if all he drum up for support is people like Kam Lee above, then that speaks a lot about Vision supporters.
On the topic at hand, I encourage Minister Coleman to stick it out and force Vision into making some real decisions. Gregor’s promised to end homelessness by 2015 which was completely unrealistic considering the ONLY plan we’ve seen from him is to politically poke Victoria into paying the tab for his policies.
If for a moment we think about the millions his backer Joel Solomon has, and the donations flowing into Vision from the developer community in this city, Gregor needs to come up with a REAL plan that includes tapping his friends that put him in the big chair.
So far they’ve received lots of city perks, but not one of them has done anything to make this a better city to live in. Apparently the payback stops at the Vision Vancouver bank account.
6 morven // Apr 9, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Instead of a brawl between the city and the province, why not ask the development community (who have an interest in a socially balanced Vancouver) just how they would solve the problem and what market solutions they might adopt (excepting the Olympic Village example)
How about it?
-30-
7 sv // Apr 9, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Hey JP now that your enforcing the etiquette here I look forward to our scolding of AGT the next time he pokes his head up around here.
Myself, I expect Minister Coleman and the rest of his government to start taking care of their responsibilities. It’s not just housing that’s a shambles, the Ministry of Children and Families is a disaster these days. I deal with them frequently and if other ministries are flailing as badly we’re in for a lot of trouble-more addiction, more homelessness-just down the road.
8 Michael Geller // Apr 9, 2010 at 2:49 pm
The’ development community’ does not necessarily speak with one voice. However, I for one would argue that creating more and more shelters is helpful, but not the answer. Instead, we need to increase the stock of decent housing through a combination of strategies…and we also need to decrease the number of people relying on the provision of such housing.
In the past I have suggested that one solution to increase the stock of affordable housing would be to set up relatively inexpensive prefabricated modular housing on privately ownedvacant sites, which could be relocated when required. This is not necessarily a great long term solution, but it might be a good interim solution.
Another solution would be to house people in privately owned rental apartments scattered about the city. As we heard at Council yesterday, there are a lot more apartments coming vacant each month in the city. Another approach would be to enforce the maintenance and occupancy by-laws to bring buildings up to standard, and use RRAP renovation grants and other similar programs to improve vacant or othrewise unsuitable units.
If the province would increase the shelter allowance, some private operators and non-profits might look at providing well maintained, small units. But at $375 a month, this is not feasible.
To reduce the number of people looking for housing, as previously suggested on this site, I would try and reunite some people with family and friends…yes, Sharon, send them back to where they come from, where possible…especially those who have only recently arrived in the city. I would also implement a cadre of programs to help people find work…including giving them an address, giving them new clothes, offering free haircuts and dental work, etc.
I recently spent some time at the West End shelter, and while it was a very uncomfortable experience, I was surprised by who is being housed. Many of the people were not the traditional ‘homeless men one expects to see with long hair and beards…they were young kids, some of whom were not speaking English, and I was curious to know why they were there .
Perhaps the time has come to carefully review who is living in these shelters and determine how many of the 600 really ‘deserve’ or need to be found new housing at public expense. How many should be put into facilities for the mentally ill….who should go into detox…. I know some will say that we need to house everyone…. that they are all in need, but the fact is, we’ll never end homelessness, not by 2015 or 2051, if we continue to try and house everyone who arrives in the city.
9 Higgins // Apr 9, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Jang should stick to his racket. This is not one of his “sessions”. He has no credibility. Plus he’s in for the sandwiches.
10 Urbanismo // Apr 9, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Wednesday last, CBC evening news ran a revealing clip: Chinese money and Vancouver real estate.
I’m talking homeless: please be patient!
The reporter interviewed a young ethnic Chinese real estate agent ready and packed heading for the China coast to sell Vancouver real estate.
The clip also showed a dilapidated West End stucco bungalow that had just sold for C$1M: a property that prior to this currency upheaval, may have fetched, at the most C$100 g’s.
Why would anyone want to buy an over priced “tear-down”?
Well, the Chinese, having foolishly encouraged credit for irrational, “irrational exuberance”, is loaded down with rapidly depreciating paper. Ergo, they will buy anything, any where, any price just to dump their “worthless” for real value: i.e. Vancouver real estate!
Huh! Amazing how the consequences of irresponsible acts, by detached people, thousands of miles away impact our domestic tranquility . . . eh? We cannot even afford to house our own: and it’s not just the homeless!
Minister Coleman and Mayor Gregor just cannot keep up with mindless Helicopter Ben and his distant enablers!
11 Chris Keam // Apr 9, 2010 at 5:38 pm
give them new clothes:
http://www.workinggear.ca/
I know there’s a similar program for women, but I don’t know it’s name. Beauty Night Society is another organization that performs similar work. Both groups are in Vancouver
12 landlord // Apr 9, 2010 at 8:25 pm
@Urbanismo : “We cannot even afford to house our own”. What do you mean “we”? Those who can afford to live in Vancouver do so. Why should the poor old taxpayer subsidize housing for those who can’t? They don’t vote or make campaign contributions so who really cares?
As we have seen when push comes to shove even Vision is prepared to throw the homeless under the bus. Particularly if they think they can pin it on Victoria or Ottawa.
What other areas of spending should be cut to provide free shelter (and food, clothing, health care, career counselling) for the indigent? Arts grants? Police and fire? Hospitals
? How much more in taxes are you prepared to pay to make it happen? Would you vote for the politician who made those cuts or raised those taxes?
13 JP Ratelle // Apr 9, 2010 at 10:15 pm
landlord,
Based on your comment, I thought you may like this. I hope the link works.
If not do a google search on “Michael Ramirez cartoon 1950 vs. 2010″
http://www.cfif.org/v/index-mc1.php?cartoonMonth=2010-04&start=WinnersAndLosers.jpg&nr=0
14 Paul // Apr 9, 2010 at 10:50 pm
First off the homeless problem in Vancouver is not just Vancouver’s problem. Last I heard about 1/2 the homeless people in Vancouver. Actually came from areas outside of the Metro Vancouver.
So maybe the city should just pay to find these people and send them home and let the other cities deal with them.
Also I feel closing Riverview was the stupidest thing ever. It was one thing to have a homeless person. Now we have people on the street who are one step away from craziness.
As for the whole idea of subsidized housing. I do support it. But the problem is how do you stop people from getting it who really don’t deserve it. I’d love to live in a place where housing is cheaper anyone would. I realize of course these places are not great. But some person out there who really shouldn’t be subsidized would find a way to get into one of these places. So some kind of system needs to be set up so that those who have a good paying job are not being subsidized.
15 Urbanismo // Apr 10, 2010 at 6:01 am
Oh boy landlord, you didn’t learn a damn thing from your brief audience with Uncle Fritzy did you!
All this junk currency dumped on us just ups the C$: a hidden subsidy for our Guangzhou competitors.
A one way subsidy you aren’t even aware of!
So forget petty locals. Its in PM Harpers court and he’s into love, peace and let-God-sort-’em-out politics.
So don’t expect much from him . . .
16 Urbanismo // Apr 10, 2010 at 6:11 am
PS . . . Oh and landlord, next time you buy your new jock-strap from Walmart, check the label.
Made in China!
And be prepared to pay with your manhood!
17 Chris Keam // Apr 10, 2010 at 7:44 am
Regarding the ‘pack ‘em up and send ‘em home’ suggestions. It’s (IMHO) a court case just waiting to happen.
(excerpt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
Mobility Rights
Mobility of citizens
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Rights to move and gain livelihood
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Limitation
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
18 Urbanismo // Apr 10, 2010 at 8:11 am
Oh and one other thought landlord . . .
It’s called “thu free market”!
And the only one who doesn’t get hosed is the gal in the penthouse on the dog end of a view corridor . . .
So enjoy your phuccin’ weekend!
19 Kam Lee // Apr 10, 2010 at 8:23 am
Thanks for your concern JP. A bit of advice? Take care of your ramblings first. I call it like I see it. This government has been swindling all of us for years. It is my right as well as my duty to show the darkside of these people. As for my sources and the reliability of what I say, I can back up everythng I say. Can you say that? I suspect not.
20 JP Ratelle // Apr 10, 2010 at 9:19 am
Kam,
If I wanted advice from a guy who clearly needs some therapy, I’ll get it from one of your buddies, Grant or Gary. If you’d like I can copy and paste your best work from their blogs that will enlighten people just how “pleasant” an individual you are. So clearly, you know what to do with your advice. And no you have to proof to back up anything you write, despite what you claim.
Chris,
Excellent point regarding the mobility of citizens. Unfortunately, in Ralph Klein’s day, he routinely bought bus passes to BC to put his Alberta welfare cases in BC when the NDP were in power. In Quebec, my home province, the government is continually pushing the envelope of rights in the Charter regarding immigrants.
I have no doubt the Pivot Legal Society would gladly take up a pro bono case to test the legality of such a move, Alberta and Quebec likely don’t have the “activists” found in BC.
All of that said, your comment implies that you support a National Housing Strategy, which I may or may not have read on another thread before. If we’re going to have another type of social safety net paid for by our taxes, we need to ensure that it isn’t there helping those that just want to give up trying, rather than those who fail trying.
There is a difference there, that those with bleeding hearts can’t seem to grasp.
21 Kam Lee // Apr 10, 2010 at 9:33 am
Is this JP or AGT? Sound much the same, and not very truthful or on task.
22 landlord // Apr 10, 2010 at 10:28 am
@ Urbanismo : What I’m aware of…
Foreign direct investment holdings in Canada hit the half a trillion dollar mark at the end of 2007, chiefly in the oil and gas industry.
The total foreign direct investment position in Canada was still dominated by holdings of American investors at the end of 2007. American corporations accounted for 58% of the total.
Direct investors from the United Kingdom rose significantly for the second consecutive year (+37.5%) to $54.7 billion, the gain principally arising from acquisitions.
Foreign direct investment positions in Canada arising from Asia/Oceania increased steadily in the past five years, still mainly driven by corporate investors from Japan, not China.
(http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080506/dq080506b-eng.htm)
23 Urbanismo // Apr 10, 2010 at 10:57 am
Ummmmm landlord . . . it isn’t the quantity . . . it isn’t the general country of origin . . . it isn’t StatsCan!
It’s the concentration of lots of worthless one-denomination paper in one conveniently located little spot and we are that little spot . . .
. . . and, evidently, it’s hurting some of us . . .
Good God man just about every aspect of our lives are tax-payer subsidized at one level of another: roads sewers so why get vindictive over the hairy-assed smelly ones . . .
24 landlord // Apr 10, 2010 at 11:50 am
Funny you should mention China (their currency is not worthless, btw). It was when they dropped the idea that the State should provide for the needs of all that they developed the most productive economy on the planet. There’s a lesson there for us.
25 Urbanismo // Apr 10, 2010 at 12:15 pm
For heavens sake landlord I’m not talking about the Chinese Renmimbi Yuan.
I’m talking about all the worthless paper with which Helicopter Ben is printing to pay back all the loans the profligate US consumer, and for that matter us, have incurred in our insatiable binge society. QED
26 George // Apr 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm
@ Cris Keam
Dress for Success is the woman’s organization for work clothes.
27 Higgins // Apr 10, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Chris Keam,
Well documented.
Thank you for you pointing out that Canadian Charter. What a trio of pricks on this post. Michael Geller, landlord and Paul. Run them out of town! And I am not suggesting it. I insist!
And then, no one will ever be run out of town. Phew!
Read for yourselves in case you missed them comment5:
“To reduce the number of people looking for housing, as previously suggested on this site, I would try and reunite some people with family and friends…yes, Sharon, send them back to where they come from, where possible…especially those who have only recently arrived in the city.”
Michael Geller
“Those who can afford to live in Vancouver do so. Why should the poor old taxpayer subsidize housing for those who can’t? They don’t vote or make campaign contributions so who really cares?”
landlord
“So maybe the city should just pay to find these people and send them home and let the other cities deal with them.”
Paul
28 landlord // Apr 10, 2010 at 3:46 pm
@ Higgins : You might not like the questions I ask but I notice you don’t answer them. Name-calling. Tsk, tsk.
29 A. G. Tsakumis // Apr 10, 2010 at 11:45 pm
@ sv: When I refer to someone as a fool, or a moron, it’s because they have commented accordingly. If someone feels I have done that, great, fair game. But to suggest that that is equivalent to the non-stop diarrhea coming from the likes of Kam Lee is entirely laughable.
I have never suggested that anyone is “criminal”–THAT is offensive and personal. I have never suggested that someone’ girth, or lack thereof, is fair ball either. THAT is offensive.
Mr. Lee visited my site often, and still does, because he thought I was going to go after the Premier personally–which I will not. Not like the other nutters and cowards Mr. Lee supports–they either have nothing to lose or hide (not so) deep in anonymity. They want to talk about the Premier’s wife, his sons, his personal life. None of it proven, or, frankly, relevant unless it’s related to something in govt. Otherwise, all it doesn’t is unnecessarily injure innocents, who didn’t sign up for a “public life”
It’s not that Mr. Lee doesn’t understand this, it’s that his rabid doctrinaire love of all things NDP lead him to the same place Andrea Reimer went when she referred to Rich Coleman’s weight.
It’s not that Mr. Lee isn’t capable of getting that nightmare candidates like Kash Heed (formerly Singh…) should have NEVER been brought in, it’s that it would require some mental dexterity to comprehend the difference between analyzing a story in fairness, without needing to dredge up someone’s personal issues–as they do not affect their public contributions.
In short, Mr. Lee and his ilk are desperate and afraid–because it’s a long, long way to the next election. And if a new leader comes along, with a new plan and new priorities–and some honesty…the most heartless, arrogant Premier in B.C., will mean nothing to the majority of folks in this province that understand the scourge that is the NDP.
30 michael geller // Apr 11, 2010 at 7:19 am
While I probably should not interfere in the conversation between Kam Lee et al, I would like to clarify, for those who visit the Fabula site for information and dialogue on urban issues, where I am coming from with respect to Family Reunification.
There seem to be an increasing number of homeless youth on the streets, who if not helped early on, could face an extended life of homelessness, sexual abuse, and illness. Family connection and reunification programs around the world have often demonstrated that rather than simply provide shelter for runaways, many of whom may have mental illness and drug abuse problems and no means of employment, it is worthwhile to try and reunite them with family and friends, before its too late.
This strikes me as a reasonable thing to try and do in Vancouver as part of a comprehensive strategy to address homelessness.
In case you didn’t see it, one of the best documentaries made about homelessness in Vancouver is The Devil Plays Hardball http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/devilplayshardball/ which featured the efforts of four Vancouver residents who agreed to ‘mentor’ and assist homeless people in the DTES. Disappointingly, only one of the four was able to achieve any real success. She was a lady called Susan, (who in fact is Susan Evans, a very remarkable and accomplished lady) who eventually was able to help get 17 year old Amanda back with her parents in Powell River.
There is an increasing number of Amandas on our streets, and we need to do more than simply provide HEAT shelters or other forms of housing for them. I think there is too much talk about housing people, and not enough talk about how to reduce the number of people needing to be housed.
On a related theme, last Christmas, Peter McMartin wrote a heartwarming story about another initiative that attempted to connect homeless people with their families http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Christmas+cards+from+streets+bear+more+than+simple+Season+Greetings/2369631/story.html .
Again, while I am not a social worker, I am convinced that initiatives that help re-connect people with families and friends, or help people get employment and eventually pay for their own housing, are essential to deal with the challenge. Saying ‘we are going to end homelessness by 2015′ may help win elections, but it isn’t going to happen, especially if all we do is try to provide more and more heavily subsidized accommodation.
If you don’t believe me, just look at how little of lasting value has really been accomplished in the last 16 months.
31 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 11, 2010 at 8:13 am
We should recognize homelessness as a regional issue. Many of the people that are homeless in Vancouver have originated from other places, and that pattern repeats in every place we find homeless people. And, we need a national policy for ending homelessness, since homeless people in Vancouver are also coming from other regions and countries.
However, I think we have to deal with everyone on the streets, everywhere in Canada. We should have a zero tolerance policy.
In the meantime, the shelters are working, and apparently we need more to open while our governments shape a plan.
1. Where are we getting the money?
Frances quotes the City manager’s report:
“The resulting reduction in our well-documented statistics on crime reduction, disorderly behaviour, and health status will tarnish the reputation of Vancouver, our fragile economic recovery, and the experience of our city.”
Reduction in costs of dealing with the impact of people living in our streets saves money, which is the equivalent of raising taxes, or taking money away from other government programs.
The City manager also points to another “unintended consequence”: people sleeping in the streets take away from the values of community that make viable Vancouver industry (tourism) and land values (neighbourhood economies).
2. Where are they coming from?
Frances quotes Councillor Jang saying:
“homeless problem [is] created by provincial policies, like making welfare harder to get or not building social housing for several years.”
It’s really too bad to see political football playing when you tune in to see responsible action.
Homelessness is mostly a by-product of mental illness and addiction. Neither welfare nor building housing will end homelessness. We have to treat the problem. By far the most expensive part of the treatment will be providing the assistance that has to go with the housing.
The Minister understands this. However, it appears that he has not enough funding to do what he says needs done.
Here again, the longer we vacillate, the more money it will cost us.
3. What’s the Plan?
Frances quoting Councillor Jang again
“the city is prepared to throw in any land or buildings it has available and provide money to fix buildings up for interim housing. He said real-estate staff have identified enough properties for this purpose – housing one step up from shelters but not quite as spacious or with as many amenities as permanent quarters – for all 1,800 homeless people.”
My reading of the City’s DTES housing plan and strategy, updated for the Olympics, shows serious errors entrenched in city policy. Thus, the City is prepared to throw in some stuff, but it is not prepared to throw in Plain Common Sense.
Why is this problem not being addressed by everyone on the senior management team?
4. End note
I’m on board with Michael Geller’s intuition that while we accept that the homeless will just keep coming in numbers, on the one hand, we have to be able to show results on the other.
We must plan and operate from a level of confidence that we can mainstream people who are the mentally ill and/or substance dependent.
Where is that number being reported today?
32 Joe Just Joe // Apr 11, 2010 at 9:28 am
Interesting that the real estate dept has identified enough properties to house them, where are these sites and has there been any public consultation with the locals? I seem to have missed them but I’m sure they happened as the current government ran on being open unlike the previous one.
33 Urbanismo // Apr 11, 2010 at 9:29 am
Vancouver Land Corporation, circa 1980+/-!
A housing initiative created by Mayor Gordon Campbell and the city by donating land from the heritage land bank.
It soon transmogrified into David Podmore’s Concert Properties.
What happened?
Before we go off on Michael’s intuition we’d better do a bit of soul searching.
Lewis’s mumbo-jumbo notwithstanding, subsidising the safety and security of 1,800 of the city’s most vulnerable shouldn’t even be up for debate.
That is, if we were decent people!
34 Kam Lee // Apr 11, 2010 at 10:18 am
Well Big Al / JP Ratelle, whoever you are…You know exactly nothing about me. I am a small L liberal, with a left leaning social conscience. I run a multi-million dollar business, and sit on two boards, and volunteer endlessly for many causes. So I have lots going for me, family, friends, travel, and unlike you I do have a real job.
35 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 11, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Let me de-mumbo, just after I underline the fact that Urbbie-n-Me find ourselves in agreement once again:
1. There is an economic dimension to hosting the DTES that must form part of the tally.
Under-performing urban land costs the hosting local government lost tax revenues. Turning the tide produces the opposite effect: new tax revenues are created without increasing taxes, and without taking money away from other programs.
In short: We have to attract investment to our historic neighbourhoods. We need the money.
2. Homelessness is at the end of a downward cycle in human functioning.
If we want to end homelessness, then we will have to deal with the problem at the level of its root cause. However, we will also have to deal with homelessness per se—with shelters—in the interim, while we get set up to deal with root causes.
3. We don’t have a workable plan at the municipal level… and the signs from the Ministry are not so good either.
My reading of the DTES housing plan and housing strategy is that it is trying to stop development in the historic neighbourhoods. This is not the place to do a blow-by-blow analysis, however, the language is all there.
One has to ask, if City policy is getting in the way of bringing the historic neighbourhoods back up to economic functioning, then why should we be surprised that nothing is happening?
The “solution” is most certainly not an “all-government” effort. The public sector initiatives should aim to attract private sector investment.
That’s where I hear Michael is coming from: we have to have employment for people in recovery programs… Oh, yeah, and we also have to have a decent neighbourhood with nice sidewalks, good places to shop, good transit, etc.
This is not rocket science. (a) As Urbbie puts it, this is what we would expect from “decent people”. And in the case of Vancouver’s historic neighbourhoods, (b) it is also the way to ensure the preservation of the cradle, or birth place of our city.
36 Sean Bickerton // Apr 11, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Mayor Robertson came into office with the central plank of his platform a bedrock promise to end homelessness by 2015. Where is his plan?
So far, his administration has spent limited city funds on temporary shelters that warehouse the poor and hide them out of sight, but do nothing to address the central problem.
Under the previous NPA administration, Mayor Sam Sullivan and council undertook the largest housing initiative in the city’s history, providing property and land and securing financing for somewhere between 2400 and 3200 units of socially assisted housing. That was a real plan with real results.
Our current Mayor Robertson has rushed to take credit for the housing initiated by the NPA, but his term in office is half over and he has still not produced a comprehensive plan to match his promise to end homelessness. And the problem has doubled on his watch.
Temporary shelters are an emergency measure absolutely necessary to save lives during harsh winters, but permanent housing is the only real and lasting solution.
Where’s the plan?
37 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 12, 2010 at 11:57 am
Sean, part of the problem with calling for a plan is coming to some consensus about the kind of plan that is required.
The 2005 dtes housing plan, for example, is the wrong kind of plan. It pays lip service to being a component of a larger strategy. However, by slamming shut the doors to neighbourhood residential intensification, it closes off the possibility for real investment from both public and private sectors.
So, question about what kind of plan we are looking for is central.
In my view the plan should include a revitalization of Hastings Street.
This is the usual “beautification” scheme with one important difference. On Hastings, revitalization should come complete with LRT surface service and fibre optics. That requires a significant commitment from all levels of government, and a full-out consultation in all the neighbourhoods (like in the Evergreen process).
That level of public sector investment is what is needed to trigger new businesses to relocate into the corridor.
Preservation of our cultural history as represented in the historic neighbourhood footprints and build out is also a key component. As has been suggested elsewhere in this blog, the cultural industry might become a major presence in this area if projects like the Pantages Threatre were also part of a plan. A cultural presence would be a region-wide draw.
The plan would also include residential intensification to a level of 10,000 per quartier, or 50,000 in the dtes—approximately three times current population levels. In the Hastings Townsite, the total population would approach 20,000. That kind of population intensification would support a regeneration of the retail base serving local residents.
A housing strategy in the non-market and low income sectors fits here, as do the shelters Frances is reporting in this string. But this “housing strategy” would take place within a revived local economy. One consequence of which would be the regeneration of local employment.
Furthermore, the tax revenue or tax increment from redevelopment should be included among the economic benefits of implementing the plan. As should the positive spin-offs of having local neighbourhoods or “quartiers” kept safe by making the streets walkable, and by eyes-on-the-street being resident in new local housing.
The implementation of LRT on Hastings is a key missing element in current plans. There are several reasons why a revitalized Hastings corridor is fundamental.
- It would provide access from the historic neighbourhoods to employment downtown and Stanley and New Brighton parks.
- It would take cars off the street, returning viability to Hastings as an urban spine. It is hard to imagine new businesses and business relocation taking place on Hastings as it is today.
- The trips added on Hastings LRT would be trips taken off Prior, Cordoba and Powell. Livability would be returned to those blighted neighbourhood streets.
- Finally, it would provide access to more housing options heading east to the historic Hastings Townsite, and it would provide access to the concentration of services in the DTES coming from all directions.
The sketch just provided, it is important to note, tries to balance social, economic and environmental concerns. Elements like preservation of the built form, transit implementation, street tree planting for beautification, are all cutting edge issues for building “sustainable cities”.
Here’s the poser: When you and I say “plan”, are we thinking along the same lines? How much tolerance is out there for the proposition that all of this stuff I have just outlined is necessary to “end homeless”? Are we prepared to see “keeping the shelters open past April 30th” as one point in a constellated plan?
38 Joe Just Joe // Apr 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I like most of the above plan, but the fiber optic is already run along the corridor, not along Hastings but along the tracks so no need to duplicate it, the current line can be easily ties into. I think a tripling of the population might be a tad too much, definetaly more then what the city even suggested and they didn’t get too much positive feedback from certain circles. I’d love to see it happen but don’t think the appetite is there unfortunately.
As for the lrt I’d love to see that come to light. What I’d envision is a line from Waterfront all the way to Coq Centre and tie in with the Nevergreen line there. The Nevergreen line should be built using the Southern route and not the current proposed route. This way many more people could be served and fairly cheaply.
39 Urbanismo // Apr 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=vOhf3OvRXKg#t=00
40 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 12, 2010 at 4:18 pm
The density, the figure of 10,000 per “quartier” or pedestrian shed, is based on an 800 s.f. unit, a gross density of 42 units per acre, and 2 persons per unit. We can achieve 60 units per acre with fee simple houses, 3.5 stories high.
Good to hear the fiber optics are in place.
41 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 12, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Joe, I provided the gross density numbers to you in the previous post, since I have them at the tips of my fingers. Now, with a little more time, let me address the substance of your response:
“I think a tripling of the population might be a tad too much, definetely more then what the city even suggested and they didn’t get too much positive feedback from certain circles. I’d love to see it happen but don’t think the appetite is there unfortunately.”
How do we get to consensus on this crucial issue? That’s the question I believe you are asking.
In the historic neighbourhoods, which include the dtes, maybe the place to begin building consensus is by making “historic preservation” a desired outcome at the end of the process (we’ve already said this is a “green strategy”).
If I am reading between the lines you put down correctly, and what you are suggesting is that there will be resistance at the level of “gentrification”, the social housing component of the plan would address that. “Ending homelessness” would be identified there as a desired outcome at the end of the process.
Thus, if we can agree that it makes sense to build out the historic neighbourhoods in a manner that is “in keeping” with Vancouver’s urbanism in its founding decades (say until the time of the run up to the opening of the Panama Canal, and the start of WWI), then as far as non-combustible construction—concrete and brick—Water Street presents a near complete record of the relevant building types.
Let’s go survey what is there.
On the north side of Water Street we have the “warehouse” buildings (the Hudson’s Bay Company Store is probably the best of the lot); and on the south side of the street we have the “hotel” buildings (the Water Street Café is probably the most interesting historic building in our city).
In case anyone is worried… we would not be thinking of the “Storeyum” as a prototype. The Woodward’s model is also excluded.
The north side provides a good building type for the avenues. For example, buildings along 99-f00t wide Hastings Street, can be up to 50-feet high and not lose the human scale. The south side of Water Street provides the building type for intensification on neighbourhood streets measuring 66-feet. The south side is characteristic of what I would term 3.5 storey build out.
When we shift planning paradigm we gain a couple of important results.
First, the planning method becomes consultative and consensus driven. That’s why it is important to identify “facts that we can all agree about”. One such set of facts might be the list of characteristics that define buildings on the north side of Water Street, and another list of characteristics for those on the south side. It is impossible not to agree about stuff like that provided the work is well done.
Second, zoning is by “building type”, rather than by “use”.
The plan would identify “human scale streetscapes” as a characteristic of Vancouver’s historic urbanism, and a desirable outcome at the end of the process. Again, any folks doubting that Vancouver’s historic urbanism has “human scale streetscapes” would be invited on a field survey. As part of the planning process, we would go out there, measure streetscapes, and report back on their defining characteristics. Folks that expressed doubts could be helped to verify these results for themselves.
Joe, are you feeling any better about the intensification process? The point we are trying to understand is that we cannot reach consensus about perceptions (i.e. what is or is not “a tad too much density”). That approach is doomed to failure.
The only consensus plan that will work is one that is built upon the things that we all can agree about—concrete and measurable stuff. That means we are looking at a minimum of three steps before we can measure density, and hopefully settle on a number:
(a) We have to agree to the planning approach. In the historic neighbourhoods my suggestion is that it should be a “conservation based” approach.
(b) We have to agree that we are going to deliver the social housing targets, complete with staffing for assisted living. Furthermore, we have to agree to base these targets on concrete measurements of the reality that is out there. The shelters fit here.
c) We have to agree on the set of building types that represent our historic past.
Architects and engineers would base their designs on these “models”. How individual practitioners choose to define their work vis a vis a “model” is what will achieve diversity of character, and continuity of built form in the historic neighbourhoods.
The developers are likely to appreciate the degree of “predictability” that comes with adopting what are typically referred to as “form based codes” for planning the intensification of our historic neighbourhoods.
(d) Finally, after the plan “zones” these types along the various neighbourhoods streets according to urban design principles that are also concrete and measurable, we can make a tally of what the population might be at full build out.
Have I fallen back into mumbo-jumbo? Or is this sketch something that we could see working in our historic neighbourhoods?
Joe, does keeping the build out “in line with historic precedent” answer your concern about “too much density”?
42 MB // Apr 13, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Weeding out the comments above that do not address homelessness, but instead choose to make useless cheap shots at a selection of politicos, it is apparent Michael Geller and Lewis Villegas have made some very meaningful and astute contributions. I for one appreciate it, along with Urbbie’s and JJJ’s informative posts.
Slagging Gregor and Rich will not cause the problem to disappear. In fairness, the slagging should be democratically flung at every councilor and mayor in the metro, and at every MLA and MP across the land. And when the retributive verbal slugfesting is done, then we need to take a long look in the mirror and redefine our own attitudes and priorities. Homelessness and street-level mental illness and addiction represent a shameful failure of our entire society, not just of political process or planning.
Lewis alludes that the solution may well develop from asking the right questions about our cities and towns and of our fellow citizens. Let me propose one:
What kind of society do we want to live in?
Those who are not happy with the appearance of homelessness / addiction / metal disabilities over the last generation or so, and I suspect that is the vast majority of Canadians, may well then ask, What can we do to change our society for the better?
The problem is not necessarily localized. While elected officials in other cities in the metro on both the right and left have smugly and rather cavalierly knocked Vancouver over the past few years for its concentration of open homelessness and drug addiction (as though city officials invited this malaise, like inviting the circus to town), they have ignored their own, and the proportion of homeless and addicted who originated from their cities. The issue in fairness must be addressed at the metropolitan level all across Canada.
I believe that scale, innovation and broad commitment are important to the discussion and to formulating solutions. For homelessness to be adequately addressed, we’re talking about permanent homes (not just shelters) at a large enough scale to afford a nurses station for on-site medical assessments and treatment referrals, a kitchen serving at least one hearty meal a day (preferably two), job centres, and staffing by non-profits under a revamped social housing management protocol. But the scale must also be complementary to the neighbourhoods, which are predominantly heritage or of a lower density than Vancouver’s inner city. I suspect the majority of citizens would accept a certain and defined neighbourhood level of social housing projects for homeless people provided they are small and decentralized enough to fit well, but large enough to function efficiently, are located predominantly on arterials with mixed use zoning, and have defined their positions in a series of in-depth urban design charrettes.
Michael proposes modular homes as an interim solution, but what would permanent housing look like? Small, self-contained units in low or mid-rise structures with smaller footprints may work well, especially if things like exterior wall panels can be pre-manufactured, and interior walls can be moved or opened to provide a variety of flexible unit layouts, including fully accessible rooms for people with physical disabilities. Operating costs would figure high on the public side of the ledger, so high energy efficiency and ability for minimal staff to operate the projects would be important considerations.
Developers by nature are hard wired for innovation to reduce costs. Their contribution could be to utilize their project management skills to build social housing targeted to homelessness. Perhaps one day a large enough portion of the homeless will eventually be able re-enter society as productive, employable and tax paying citizens, and therein some of the social housing projects can then be converted to market housing and sold.
Housing and treatment should never be separated if we as members of an advanced society are going to achieve measurable success in addressing homelessness (which, don’t you agree, in an advanced society shouldn’t exist?) and all its social encumbrances. Prohibition on drugs has not worked, and more voices from mainstream society, like the Vancouver Sun editorial board (who are not exactly a bunch of lefties), are saying so. They are calling for the healthcare system to take over from the War on Drugs, which, after an entire generation of massive public expenditures on enforcement and prisons, has clearly failed.
This is where the broad commitment comes in. An ideologically obsessed federal politician of whatever stripe is, in many different ways, detrimental to the advancement of society. The finest example is how every effort was made on behalf of the feds over the last four years to shut down needle exchanges, Insite and the Naomi Project, despite the multiple reports outlining the peer-reviewed science stated how successful they were even without adequate treatment programs. Housing and treatment demands support from the feds as well as the provinces and cities. As long as the support is absent, the problems and their high social and monetary costs will persist, and locals will be wrestling with a huge octopus without a tank of air.
If lack of federal assistance continues for a long time, along with provincial cutbacks, then cities will have no choice than to look at density bonuses and casino revenue to build social housing, or let the homeless die on the street. That’s a stark choice, one an advanced and educated society shouldn’t have to face.
Urban design alone is not enough in this case, but it would sure help integrate these housing projects into our neighbourhoods, and therefore help the most downtrodden achieve a modicum of dignity and acceptance and foster a sense that they belong to a real community.
43 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 13, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Well put MB.
44 Michael Geller // Apr 13, 2010 at 3:39 pm
There is no doubt that we need to build new housing. However, the experiences over the past few years have demonstrated that the new projects seem to be very expensive, given the high design standards and LEED gold which the Province and City officials want to achieve, and difficult to get off the ground.
While I don’t want to minimize the importance of creating new housing stock, I also feel we must look at other solutions. This is why I have continued to promote the Toronto Streets to Homes program which has been very successful…
Some people have argued that it won’t work here because we don’t have a high enough vacancy rate…well, that’s simply not true anymore. For a variety of reasons, there are hundreds of apartments coming vacant every month, many of which could be suitable to house people IMMEDIATELY.
Below is a brief description of the Toronto experience and I would urge everyone interested in this issue to explore further Toronto’s success in getting people off the streets:
Streets to Homes (S2H) was the plan endorsed by Toronto City Council in February 2005 with the goal of ending street homelessness. In partnership with contracted community-based service providers, S2H, a program of Shelter, Support and Housing Administration Division, helps homeless people living outdoors to get a safer place to sleep and find long-term housing.
Follow-up supports are arranged or provided to create stability for people once they move into housing to help keep them housed. New program innovations are continually being developed to serve homeless people living on the street.
Since September 2008, S2H has been providing enhanced services to all street-involved people with a focus on the downtown core. This includes people living in shelters but spending their days on the street, people sleeping rough, and those in housing who panhandle.
As of May 2009, more than 2,400 people had received the assistance they need to move into permanent housing. 91% remain in their homes.
To learn more, go to http://www.toronto.ca/housing/about-streets-homes.htm
45 Joe Just Joe // Apr 13, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I’m going to play on M. Gellars idea a bit and suggest a cheap solution, although I am fully aware of the negative public preception it’ll have.
If you can buy a 20ft container for $1000 on the market in a port city such as ours. It strikes me that you could provide shelter for these 600 people for only $600K. Now this is w/o electricity or running water, simply a 20ft*8ft*8ft box where a homeless person could sleep, plus store their items safely. Have a portapotty for every 4 or 6 containers plus give every one a free community centre membership where they can shower. The containers fit quite nicely inside a parking stall which the city has an lots of via easypark. As a bonus they reduce d/t parking spaces.
46 Michael Geller // Apr 13, 2010 at 6:23 pm
JJJ, a number of people will be giving a presentation on opportunities for using containers to house the homeless at an event organized by Architecture for Humanity, with support from Monte Paulson and the Tyee on Thursday night, at the InterUrban Gallery starting at 7pm….Everyone is welcome…there is an impressive cast of speakers…you can find details here http://afh-vancouver.org/main/?p=806
47 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 13, 2010 at 6:27 pm
For the twenty or so years that I was Chair of the Strata Council in my Mount Pleasant condo, three of the suites were owned by a Vancouver based non-profit and rented to people with differing kinds of challenges.
From time to time these suites required more attention from the Council than the others, but we took on the challenge on believing that there was a greater social good involved of which we were supportive.
When the experiment went wrong—there was one eviction, and when another tenant moved away all our problems with petty thievery seemed to go away as well—or when things boiled over, the answer always seems to have been “more or better support”.
However, I think that these are minor irritants in an approach that carries with it many pluses. Michael is right to bring it up as a working component of a comprehensive strategy.
48 Stephanie // Apr 13, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Lewis: why do you accuse Cllr Jang of playing political football by stating that homelessness is caused by cutbacks to welfare and social housing?
In British Columbia, we saw a *massive* spike in street homelessness when access to welfare was cut. We saw a new category of homeless person – folks who were unable to get welfare. And we also started to see homeless families, and homeless people with jobs, because the supply of affordable housing stock wasn’t keeping up with the population needing it.
What I’m saying is evidence-based. Your assertion that “homelessness is mostly a by-product of mental illness and addiction” is a common-sense canard. Addiction is more likely to be an *effect* of homelessness than a cause. Mental illness is a contributory factor, yes. But anyone who’s doing any research in this knows that the primary cause of homelessness is poverty and a lack of affordable housing stock. That increases in real wages have not kept up with the cost of housing does not help matters.
Look south to our neighbours if you want to see what we’re going to end up with – there is no major US city in which a minimum-wage job can reasonably pay for a one-bedroom apartment. Most homeless folks in the States are wage-earners.
Providing adequate housing and levels of welfare will, in fact, pretty much end homelessness. How do we know this? We had lots of addicted and mentally ill people in Canada 30 years ago – but we also had a national housing strategy and the Canada Assistance Plan. We had a whole bunch of apartments and houses that people could rent on the cheap. And the number of street homeless was pretty much nil.
But now we have a more complex problem on our hands: because by cutting social housing construction and access to welfare, we – yes, we, and the governments we elected – have created a street-entrenched, at-risk homeless population that requires a whole bunch of supports that *never* would have been necessary had we not created this mess in the first place.
You all keep buggering this up because you are treating what is a political and economic problem as a medical problem, and because you keep looking for solutions to things that you continue to ignore the obvious causes of. Whether you do so out of political expediency (i.e., Geller’s Family Reunions) or sheer thick-headedness, I frankly do not know.
49 MB // Apr 14, 2010 at 9:21 am
I agree with you, Stephanie. But the situation has deteriorated for a significant portion of the homeless to the point where medical intervention must, in my opinion, be part & parcel with housing and increased welfare benefits.
I spent a winter in a tenament house on welfare in Stathcona and got seriously educated about poverty. It was bad enough then, but to think this was before crack hit the streets and made a bad situation worse.
50 Michael Geller // Apr 14, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Stephanie, you strike me as a very knowledegable and intelligent person. However, I cannot understand why you think the increasing number of homeless youth living on the street is a political and economic problem.
It is much more complex than that. As MB points out for many it is a medical problem. For many more, it is a social problem that needs careful attention.
I do not pretend to be a social worker or family therapist. I know that many of the kids on the street are there to escape unspeakable family lives. But we can’t solve the problem by just building shelters and other forms of housing.
They are the answer for some, but not everyone.
There is a need for a broad variety of solutions, catering to a broad set of needs. We can learn from the successes of other cities like Toronto, and many US cities where family reunification and housing placements in apartments scattered around the city have worked.
PS. I am told that the shelters are costing approximately $80 per person per night. That’s right…$2400 a month for someone on a cot in a large room. There has to be a better answer from a medical, social and yes, political and economic perspective. Don’t you agree?
51 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 14, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Hi, Stephane, good to have you back! As you can read from the comments posted above, mine is not an isolated sentiment.
Here’s some push-back. Is the quote we are discussing this one:
“homeless problem [is] created by provincial policies”
We can split hairs:
“Homelessness” is mostly a by-product of mental illness and addiction; but “the homeless problem” is created by provincial policies.
Isn’t that political football par excellence? The polarized ideology of B.C. politics fails to serve the people. The interests of the party, and the individual candidate’s hopes for re-election, are put ahead of the search for common ground. Meanwhile, the substance of the issue is clouded, and made ever more difficult to understand.
Let me try to de-murk some of the dtes waters.
Our brand of street-involvement is very much associated with mental illness and addiction. A recovering alcoholic recently described the problem of the addict as putting “filling the pie hole” ahead of his own personal well-being, and ahead of relationships with family and community. In the case of schizophrenia, the very hand extending to offer help is experienced as a threat. There is something debilitating about each of those conditions—never mind both of them together—that incapacitates the individual’s ability to function in a way poverty does not.
I grew up in Montevideo. There was poverty right in my neighbourhood, but there was not homelessness. In Buenos Aires, and in other larger urban centres of South America, the “Villamiserias” are examples of how entire communities of poor people self-organize and achieve remarkable levels of functioning.
You say:
“Providing adequate housing and levels of welfare will, in fact, pretty much end homelessness.”
The observation that has troubled me is how the cost of renting an SRO seems to keep pace with the size of the welfare check. How is the comparison between those two numbers today? Anyone? (Michael, I like your numbers for the cost of shelters per person per night. Does that include staffing costs?)
“…you are treating what is a political and economic problem as a medical problem…”
Economics and politics are not the same kind of thing. One is based on facts, the other is based on ideology—in our region, rampant ideology. The “Dtes Housing Plan” provides a brief historic sketch—facts—providing a time-based analysis of the area [from page 10]:
” [1] early 1900s, prostitution along Dupont (now Pender) Street… Brothels, bookies, and alcohol were associated with the area.”
” [2] 1950s urban renewal—the City [continued to acquire] significant tracts of land… [along with] systematic disinvestment… Banks, aware of City policies, no longer approved [local] loans.”
The 50-year leap between 1 & 2 is revealing. In 1946 there was a “shift” in the tax burden. Federal tax collection went from being tariff-based to direct collections from Canadians in the form of Income Tax. As the Canadian population boomed, the Federal bureaucracies bloated. The Vancouver Planning Department was created in 1951 (Montreal’s in 1947). Freeways and urban renewal were Federal initiatives, as was CMHC, and the bank’s pushing residential mortgages in suburban locations.
” [3] late 1960s, a freeway [planned along] Prior and Union; Carrall to the waterfront; [and on the] Georgia Viaducts. Local residents successfully rallied against… and argued that … Downtown Eastside was a vibrant and functional low-income community.”
Thus, we can trace the birth of the so-called Downtown Eastside to the advent of centralized planning, and governments losing the “Freeway Fight”.
The analysis fails to identify the loading of the unbuilt freeway’s traffic onto Hastings, Prior, Cordoba and Powell representing additional levels of neighbourhood blight and further disinvestment by all levels of government.
However, all of the causes presented thus far in the analysis point to economic issues, and a shift in urban design methodology at a Federal level. The central government was acting out of a surplus of new-found power (i.e. taxation), and—obvious to us now—with a complete lack of capacity for understanding urban problems.
Whatever else the population of our historic neighbourhoods is suffering, they are also having to shoulder a bankrupt vision of urbanism.
The Dtes Housing Plan’s historic sketch continues, turning to focus on the social side of the issue:
“The number of low-income people in the area has remained about the same over time, but the nature of the community is changing:
[1] resource-based workers being replaced by younger people, some with serious multiple problems.
[2] alcohol [losing ground to] heroin, crack cocaine and chemicals…
[3] de-institutionalization of the mentally ill [1980's].
[4] retail activity [marginalized, all but lost]
[5] reduction of job opportunities for lower skilled people
Note that here, addiction and mental illness (1,2 & 3) figure as prominently as the economic issues (4 &5). Business was bled away from the historic neighbourhoods resulting in a chronic lack of local employment and services.
I have come to call this the “Missing Pillar” in the Four Pillar Strategy.
Without a functioning local economy, progress in recovery is made that much more difficult. Without a massive urban design intervention the pilling-on effects of 60 years of modernist-paradigm planning will continue to weigh as one of the most significant burdens for those living in the historic neighbourhoods.
We have layer-upon-layer of problems, and a constellation of opportunities. The consensus-based, consultative approach is the best way out of this mess uniquely of our making.
52 spartikus // Apr 14, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Excellent comment, Lewis.
53 Michael Geller // Apr 16, 2010 at 10:51 am
At the Architecture for Humanity event last night, a number of design/construction proposals were put forward for affordable housing solutions. Some had come forward a year ago, in response to a city call…but unfortunately none proceeded, reportedly because the province was not prepared to fund the operating costsf or such ‘quick’ solutions.
Janice Abbott of Atira, who has had a lot of experience in the field, and other presenters offered some surprising observations. For instance, not everyone wants a self contained unit. That’s right. According to their experiences, many people do not want to cook for themselves…they prefer a communal eating arrangement; furthermore, some people are quite content with shared bathrooms…and even prefer them to private bathrooms. While I found this difficult to believe, that’s because I am a very different person than those being housed.
Similarly, some people did not appreciate the wonderful (and oftentimes expensive) roof-top
lounges and outdoor amenities. Instead, they prefered to congregate around the lobby.
I would like to congratulate Councillor Kerry Jang for his presentation which highlighted the importance of trying to prevent homelessness, rather than just trying to solve it with more accommodation. Jang was quite honest in his assessment of the challenges.
I just wish more people would also focus on the things we can do to prevent homelessness, including helping people find employment, keeping kids off the streets through family reunification, etc., since without these types of initiatives, we’ll never end homelessness in Vancouver.
54 Lewis N. Villegas // Apr 17, 2010 at 9:11 am
Coming out of Boston some 10 to 15 years ago, Michael, the optimum number of people for addiction recovery (these folks would leave the premises after the program is complete), and mental illness support (these folks might not leave) was seven per household.
That was confirmed by one non-profit doing recovery programs in houses I visited in Coquitlam and Surrey. However, because of lack of space, and high demand, they were bunking people and housing 11 or so per 3 bedroom suburban home. The basement was set up as a meeting area where sessions took place. The kitchen and the coffee pot was the area of congregation, and going outside was not so cool since they were in a suburban neighbourhood.
That fee-simple building that we jaw about would support this “scale” of occupancy, and prove flexible enough for all the options you describe.
Leave a Comment