Context…

I recently made a post in a Facebook group that caused quite a stir on Twitter. Here is the post in question that was tweeted out, and without context, I can see how it can be interpreted quite negatively.

The post causing controversy

Note that the intent of this post wasn’t to target or silence voices that I disagreed with, but I can see how it can be interpreted that way. The post was made after a number of group members indicated they were being threatened for voicing their opinion. It was specifically written to tell people to report posts that endorse violence, doxing or other poor behavior that violate the Twitter/FB ToS.

In my opinion, people who engage in this type of activity should be permanently silenced from these platforms. It does not lead to constructive conversation and leads to further division. If there’s any doubt in this intent, here’s the edit history showing the very first iteration of the post:

The initial post, prior to added commentary

With the intent of the post clarified, I want to note that the list of handles was posted based on responses to the thread. I did not validate the posted information since it was meant to be a community driven list. I have since removed the list of handles and refocused the post to be much more specific.

The current, updated post

With that out of the way, I want to take this opportunity to bring attention to what my actual stance on the homeless and substance abuse issues are in Vancouver, and what I perceive to be the concerns of the residents of Yaletown.

I believe in the 4 pillars drug strategy:
https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/four-pillars-drug-strategy.aspx

Substance abuse and mental health issues cannot be solved by arresting those afflicted, and recovery cannot be forced. However, for the 4 pillars to be effective, all of them need to be addressed, and we have been woefully lacking in 3 pillars.

We have insufficient support and recovery services and a failure to engage with the surrounding community to drive social inclusion. The only item that has been addressed thus far is consumption and safe supply, and even that aspect is incomplete. Unfortunately, the politics of today make it challenging to have a constructive conversation to solve these shortcomings, as any criticism or challenge of the current path of execution is automatically labeled as ‘not caring about lives’ or NIMBYism. It’s unfortunate that this messaging comes straight from some leaders in this city.

I want homelessness and substance abuse to be a core focus at the provincial and municipal level, and I wholeheartedly support additional funding and buildout of solutions, no matter where they are. However, I do have a problem when only one facet of the issue is being addressed, and in a half-hearted manner. Nobody is being held accountable for progress and there is a lack of ownership to drive a comprehensive solution.

The contentious situation around the OPS (overdose prevention site) at Seymour and Helmcken wasn’t really about the OPS itself, but the result of a number of decisions leading up to it. It’s important to understand the full context to understand why there was opposition.

During the COVID pandemic, the provincial government purchased the Howard Johnson hotel on Granville and Helmcken to get people off the street and into a safer location. While one can debate whether or not the purchase of the hotel was an appropriate use of funds (vs. a long term lease), it was an important decision that was necessary to save lives. The problem was that this was done without any supporting services, especially for those with substance abuse and mental health issues. Further, there was no communication with existing residents of the neighborhood with respect to what was planned for the future, or how we could create a sustainable support structure. As such, the neighborhood saw increases in attacks and drug paraphernalia strewn about, especially in the vicinity of children.

Needles lying within reach of children is not acceptable

Nor are people jumping on cars

Or people being attacked in public

One of the ways the city addressed overdose issues that arose due to a lack of support services was locating a mobile OPS (overdose prevention site) at the corner of Seymour and Helmcken. Again, because none of the people involved took responsibility for public safety, safe disposal and did not engage the community, residents saw an increase of attacks and drug paraphernalia in the vicinity.

When the permanent OPS site was proposed at Seymour and Helmcken, it was the first opportunity residents had to voice their concerns. We acknowledge the need for the OPS, but at that point the community had lost a significant amount of trust in those that were executing on the 4 pillars strategy.

During the city council meeting on October 13th (https://council.vancouver.ca/20201006/regu20201006ag.htm), it was very evident that people were taking an ‘us vs them’ mentality. Any criticism was seen as not caring about lives. In fact, Kennedy Stewart made the claim that the OPS was critical to save lives, however:

1. VCH/RainCity stated that the proposed OPS would provide no net increase in services (call timestamp reference 9:53:15)
2. The proposed OPS could not ensure on-site consumption, could not allow for on-site consumption of inhalation substances (call timestamp reference 10:18:03, 10:59:00) and has minimal chill-out space (580 sqft of space only, call reference 11:01:28). It’s an OPS in name only, and did not provide much beyond what the mobile OPS already had (see point 1)
3. The highest number of overdose deaths in the City of Vancouver are not occurring in Yaletown. As per the VPD, the highest number of deaths are occurring in the Northeast (District 2: https://vancouver.ca/police/organization/operations/patrol-districts/district-two/index.html) and Southeast (District 3: https://vancouver.ca/police/organization/operations/patrol-districts/district-three/index.html) quadrants of the city by far (call timestamp reference 10:05:00). It is not clear why this OPS location is being prioritized as there are areas with more urgent need. It was confirmed that other areas of the city have a much higher need (call reference 11:07:50).

Given these answers, it wasn’t evident why the permanent OPS was being rushed through. When resident concerns about crime and discarded needles was brought up:

1. VCH/RainCity refused to take any responsibility for public safety or cleanliness (needle disposal), as it was ‘out of scope’ . To me, that’s not an acceptable answer as it shows a lack of ownership.
   On the same call, VCH/RainCity make statements that they’re experienced and willing to work with the community to address concerns (call reference 9:55:00), however they have been operating the mobile OPS site since May and have done nothing of the sort.
2. Concerns about increased crime and drug paraphernalia was met with the response: ‘studies have shown OPS sites show a decrease in crime and reduction in publicly discarded needles’. However, the flaw with this response is that:
   - We already have a mobile OPS and we did not see a reduction in crime and publicly discarded needles. The proposed OPS site does not provide enhanced services beyond the mobile OPS and provided no net increase in services.
   - The OPS’s in the studies did not have the same characteristics as the proposed OPS, nor were they located in residential neighborhoods (alluded to call timestamp reference 10:54:54)
3. Concerns about an increase in crime and attacks was immediately met with dismissive responses, claiming that there was no evidence crime was due to the new residents in the neighborhood or side effects of the OPS, and that it was likely due to the COVID pandemic. However, the uptick in calls in Yaletown were disproportionately higher than surrounding areas. Further, due to the VPD often responding that nothing can be done, residents are no longer reporting a large number of issues.
4. Concerns about increased crime were met with the response: “safe supply will eliminate the need for people to commit robbery as they won’t need to buy illicit drugs anymore”. This completely ignores non-property crime items, which is the bulk of complaints in the neighborhood.
5. Dismissing the concerns as unique backlash to this site (call reference 10:15:00), which is a false characterization, as there was never any community communication prior to the launch of any sites, and the only reason this became public was due to a procedural issue necessitating a lease change and public hearing.
6. Categorizing concerns as stigma throughout the call, and believing that this is the root of the concerns (which it’s not).

To the community, pushing this through without listening to the concerns of residents and working with them to create something more sustainable completely broke the trust that they had with the city and province. The community understood that an OPS was necessary due to the new residents at Howard Johnson, however the primary motivation around the pushback was because there is no sustainable plan, just patchwork to treat symptoms. The protest wasn’t about the OPS itself, but surfacing that there is a complete lack of a sustainable solution and that nobody has taken ownership.

Addressing homelessness and substance abuse is not an ‘us vs them’ issue. Public health and safety is not an ‘us vs them’ issue. Solving one doesn’t mean giving up the other. Anyone who tries to frame it as such is only driving division and preventing progress. The retort that those who want public safety concerns addressed don’t care about saving human lives is a false dichotomy.

The experts (VCH and RainCity) confirmed there were no net increase in services. By describing the attitude of anyone who brought up concerns as ‘dehumanizing’ is the exact type of statement that causes division. Unfortunately, this comes from the mayor himself.

We should not accept that we need to forgo public safety to help the homeless, mentally ill or those fallen prey to substance abuse. We should not accept that in order to achieve public safety, we cannot help those in need. Both can be done, but we need leaders that see past the populist rhetoric and work on sustainable solutions. And from my viewpoint, the public health and safety issues that have arisen show a failure in execution.

I actually believe that with the right leadership, Yaletown can be an example of how the 4 pillars can be done right. But it can’t be a top down driven process. It needs to be something that is done with the engagement and support of the existing community. I can see a situation where the Howard Johnson is the main component in providing a full suite of services which includes adequate mental health, recovery, social integration, education and other services that are necessary to address the root cause. Addressing these items also implicitly address public health and safety concerns. The current approach of consumption and safe supply cannot be the only components, and there are many examples of cities that neglected the other pillars that have now spiraled out of control.

If you’ve made it this far into the post, thanks for taking the time to read. I’m fully aware that I’m likely going to get flamed by passionate people on both sides, but I also believe that there are people out there that share my viewpoint. That we can solve the root cause of the problems our city faces. And we can do so in a way that doesn’t cause more ambiguity.

Update: I posted the following to those indicated in the initial post:

Unfortunately, @kwardvancouver ‘s responses perfectly illustrate the divisive nature being propagated by those that are supposed to lead the city on these initiatives. This should not be the response of someone that’s driving city policy.