Category Archives: vancouver

Welcome to Vision Vancouver

Last night I was acclaimed as part of the Vision Vancouver Executive (see story here). There was great turn out for the AGM, which is good news in preparation for the upcoming municipal elections here in Vancouver.

Needless to say I’m excited to be part of the Vision Team. After a rejected op-ed and traveling to 8 cities in 12 days I’m exhausted and a little beat up. The good news and cheer from the AGM was very much welcome. Sadly, it was off to the airport for Edmonton right afterwards so not even a chance for a beer with everyone to celebrate.

I apologize for the thin postings last week – come Wednesday and a 12 hour nap, I’ll be back on top of things.

The unwritten story of the Vancouver Municipal Strike

4 Replies

With the strike now months over I’ve been looking for a story about the total costs of the Vancouver municipal strike and have yet to see one.

Most critically, I’ve been hearing from a number of sources that the strike to a heavy toll on the city’s staff. In short, many staff were unable survive for several months on strike pay along and ended up quitting their jobs and taking employment elsewhere. While no one has been specific about the numbers – they suggest they are large enough to represent several % points of the workforce. Indeed it would be interesting to learn how many staff got poached by the neighboring municipalities.
The costs of recruiting and training staff are significant (I’m frequently told it generally takes 6-9 months for someone to get up to speed on job) and these costs often don’t not even take into account the lost tacit knowledge and institutional memory held by employees who left. It’s possible that the real damage of the Vancouver strike hasn’t even been felt or noticed yet by the Vancouver’s citizens.

Worse still, neither the union nor the city appear to care much about this issue. In their stand off against each other, these workers were probably seen as expendable. The Mayor’s aggressive behaviour was in an effort to recast the next election along pro vs. anti union lines. When you are as unpopular as he is, it is possibly the only remaining strategy that will attract traditional NPA voters. As a result having a large swath of the public service quit conformed nicely with this tactic.

On the union’s side, the retention of any given member was probably not of consequence as the assumption was that some new face will simply jump in and pay union dues once the strike ends. As long as the number of jobs is unchanged, who fills them may not matter to the leadership.

With both the Union and Sam claiming victory (how I don’t know). It seems everyone won, except of course, the citizens of Vancouver, along with the current and past employees of the city.

I’d love to see the Vancouver Sun cover this…

Afghanistan and Vancouver's Downtown Eastside

16 Replies

Taylor and I published this op-ed in today’s Toronto Star. It is not often that one can show a direct link between our soldiers in Afghanistan and Canadians in downtown Vancouver.

We originally entitled the piece: From Kandahar to Carnegie – dealing with the opium trade at home and abroad a title I think sounds better. I suspect however that the Star justly felt the reference to the Carnegie Centre – the community centre that serves Vancouver’s downtown eastside – may have been to obscure, especially for Toronto readers.

Failed strategy connects Afghan fields, city streets

Dec 07, 2007 04:30 AM

David Eaves
Taylor Owen

In the coming months, under the leadership of the former U.S. ambassador to Colombia, U.S. private contractors will likely attempt to fumigate poppies in Afghanistan. Around the same time, the Canadian government will decide whether to shut down the Insite supervised injection site in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

The two policies are inextricably linked and unambiguously bad.

In April, the United States appointed William Wood, nicknamed “Chemical Bill,” its new ambassador to Afghanistan. In his previous post, Wood championed and oversaw the fumigation of large swaths of the Colombian countryside. The result? For every 67 acres sprayed, only one acre of coca was eradicated. Moreover, production increased by 36 per cent. In addition, the spraying negatively impacted legitimate crops, contaminated water supplies and increased respiratory infections among the exposed populations.

Wood is in Kabul for a single reason – to execute a similar plan in Afghanistan. Poppy production, once held in check by the Taliban government, is exploding – up 60 per cent in 2006. Poppies yield 10 times the value of wheat, so it is unsurprising that about 10 per cent of an otherwise impoverished Afghan population partakes in the illicit poppy harvest. It earns them upwards of $3 billion (U.S.) a year, or roughly 65 per cent of Afghan GDP.

The short-term economic costs and long-term development and health impacts of fumigation will be borne by those whose livelihoods are both directly and indirectly connected to poppy cultivation. Spraying could easily cause public opinion to turn against the Karzai administration and NATO forces, further compromising the mission and increasing the danger to Canadian soldiers.

Given the increased risks this policy poses to both our soldiers and the overall mission, the government’s silence is unconscionable. Others have not been so quiet. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently observed that there is little international support for fumigation. He announced an alternative policy to wean farmers off of opium, one that includes an ambitious plan to top up payments for legal crops, such as wheat.

Such policies, however, are only part of a long-term project. Success will require a holistic view, one that understands the connections between the consumption of illicit drugs in places like Vancouver and their cultivation in Afghanistan. Specifically, this means tackling the demand for opiates. Although 90 per cent of world heroin comes from Afghanistan, the vast majority is consumed in western countries. Blaming Afghan farmers for the problem is as hypocritical as it is ineffective.

Reducing the cultivation of poppies in Afghanistan begins not on the streets of Kandahar, but on the streets of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

Fortunately, such policies exist. Insite, Vancouver’s supervised injection site, offers a real first step toward reducing poppy cultivation. This small storefront provides drug users with a sanitary and safe place to inject in the presence of registered nurses. The result: 21 peer-reviewed studies document how Insite diminishes public drug use, reduces the spread of HIV and increases the number of users who enter detox programs.

But Insite does more than get drug use off the street. It is a portal into the health-care system for addicts who are too often shut out. Drug users who visit Insite are an astounding 33 per cent more likely to enlist in a detoxification program. Indeed, Insite has added a second facility, called Onsite, that capitalizes on this success by allowing drug users to immediately access detox and drug treatment services on demand.

Sadly, the Harper government remains ideologically opposed to Insite. It is unclear if the federal government possesses the legal authority to close the site but there is significant concern it will attempt to do so within six months.

The Conservatives should be looking to scale Insite nationally, not contemplating its closing. A national network of injection sites could dramatically reduce heroin use in Canada by channelling more drug users into drug treatment programs. Diminishing the demand for heroin would in turn devalue the poppies from which it is derived. Changing this economic equation is both safer and more effective than fumigation if the goal is shifting Afghan production from poppies to legal crops. Admittedly, Canada’s share of the global consumption of heroin is relatively small, but our success could provide a powerful and effective example to the international community.

To many Canadians, Afghanistan is a world away. But the lives of drug users outside Vancouver’s Carnegie Centre and those of our soldiers in Kandahar are bound together – linked by the international opium trade. What we do in Afghanistan shapes events in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, and vice versa. Canada’s soldiers, drug users and ordinary citizens deserve a government that recognizes this reality.

David Eaves is a frequent commentator on public policy. Taylor Owen is a doctoral student and Trudeau Scholar at the University of Oxford.

Vancouver is on the fast track to regulating the illicit drug trade

2 Replies

The rash of gang related shootings in Vancouver is causing everybody to rethink everything. More and more people I talk to, from doctors and lawyers to people on the street, are coming to the conclusion that the war on drugs is accomplishing little – except making the streets of Vancouver more dangerous.

As if to put on exclamation mark on that point, Ian Mulgrew – a columnist with the Vancouver Sun – wrote a great column entitled Legalize pot, a key drug fuelling gang wars.

For those not based in Vancouver – read it. Something is brewing out here.

the vancouver sun audience – a narrow and shrinking population?

5 Replies

Earlier this week the Vancouver Sun built an entire edition around the changing diversity of surnames in the city. In 1991, Smith was the most common surname in the City. Today it is Lee. In fact, the city’s top ten surnames are: Lee, Wong, Chan, Smith, Kim, Chen, Gill, Li, Brown, and finally… Johnson.

After publishing at least a half dozen articles on the subject in a single issue it is safe to say the Sun is aware of Vancouver’s evolving diversity.

But look below. As part of its coverage of the recent (and frightening) increase in murders by organized crime the Sun had one bit entitled “Reader Responses.”

Anyone else notice that all of the Sun’s “readers” are white, over-45 and, with one exception, male? Nary a Lee, a Chan, nor a Gill in the lot.

There are two possible problems here.

The first is that this actually is a representative sample of Sun readers, and the owner/editor of the newspaper should be deeply concerned. This is after all, a shrinking demographic that is not representative of the broader population.

Alternatively, the Sun’s readership is in reality more diverse and its editors or journalists chose to eschew that diversity and make this group an example of the city’s opinions.

I suspect it is a little of both.

Either way, for an industry that is failing to attract younger and more diverse readers, it doesn’t take an MBA to know things like this send a powerful message about who you believe your audience is, and who you want it to be.

CNN's converage of Insite

3 Replies

The Insite supervised injection site is starting to attract more and more attention. Last week CNN broadcast this 3 minute bit about the site.

What’s fascinating is how a simple parsing of the language in the video reveals the depth of the differing perspectives.

Listen carefully and you’ll notice how those opposed to the injection site deal in abstract terms whereas those who support it talk in tangible outcomes.

For example, in the clip, Dr. Thomas Kerr and Insite workers/supporters cite tangible benefits: a 45% reduction in public drug use in the area, users being 33% more likely to enter detox, the reduction of discarded used needles in parks and schools. This are measurable, tangible benefits and outcomes.

Contrast that to the quote from an unnamed US official: “It that is a cruel illusion. Because they’re still addicted, trapped trying to get help and dying by virtue of the drug itself.”

Here is a vague comment designed to appeal to your emotions. More importantly, it is devoid of fact, research, or for that matter, logic. Being addicted, trapped, and dying from drug use is a reality for users whether the injection site exists or not. The injection site at leasts gets users in regular contact with social workers – which is why users who use the site are 33% more likely to enter detox – those relationships build trust, which enables users to seek help.

But the worse quote is from Dr. Colin Mangham, director of the Drug Prevention network. His “research” shows that 800 people overdosed at Insite in 4 years.

First off, this isn’t research, this is publicly available information. Second, Mangham’s statement presumes that those 800 overdoses would not have occurred if Insite did not exist. This is pure fantasy. Indeed one of the main purposes behind creating Insite was to ensure overdoses would occur within the site as opposed to on the street. Those who overdose at Insite receive medical attention quickly and cheaply (a nurse is on hand who provides the necessary treatment). It is worth noting that despite these 800 overdoses, they has not been one death at Insite.

In contrast, when drug use occurs on the street, deadly overdoses are both commonplace and expensive. Victims invariably require paramedics, who in turn may require a police presence. In addition, overdose victims may get taken to an emergency room – the most expensive point of contant in the medical system.

I expect with the Olympics coming there is going to be more coverage of this type. One things the Federal Government will have to consider is that, if they shut Insite down, an army of international reporters swarming the downtown east side are going to want to know: what more effective policy did you replace it with? (Hint: there isn’t one).

Beasley on Affordable Housing in Vancouver

3 Replies

Last weekend Larry Beasley gave the keynote speech at the Dream Vancouver conference hosted by Think City. Beasley the former head city planner has been credited with transforming Vancouver into the success story that it is.

(As a brief aside, Dream Vancouver was a great exercise. Big kudos to the organizers. Any event that brings together and connects citizens who share a passion for Vancouver is a success in my mind.)

Affordable housing has become a significant issue in Calgary and Toronto, but in no city is the issue more problematic – or long running – than Vancouver. Beasley blamed this on a commonly understood fact – Vancouver has been blessed and cursed by its international stature. The property market in Vancouver is simply not restricted to the city’s population. For reasons of investment, political security, and sometimes just for a pad to crash, the whole world wishes to own a part of the city and it is driving up real estate costs. To fully grasp the magnitude of the problem, one developer informed me that up a 1/3 of some residential towers in downtown Vancouver sit empty. I’ve been unable to confirm this figure, but it is a startling number if true.

How can the city address this challenge?

Beasley offered three possibilities. First, he noted that the False Creek Flats – a large piece of industrial land to the east of downtown – is ripe for development. This is an area of land larger than downtown Vancouver and which, if developed appropriately, could provide a variety of housing to meet the demand of the market. A carefully thought through plan combining market housing, social housing, and a third hybrid model (outlined below) could turn the False Creek Flats into an vibrant urban centre – a neighborhood Beasley suggested be called Crosstown.

Second, he suggested Vancouverites from all political stripes re-examine Eco-Density. Beasley argued that Eco-Density is a tremendous piece of marketing that has captured the imagination of many people. He concedes, the term remains fairly vacuous (my word, not his) – but believes this is an opportunity, not a liability. What Vancouverites need to do is give the term substance and form. Obviously this means greater density – Beasley appears to favour row houses – but it could also mean much more. The question is: what more?

Finally, Beasley talked about aMadrid model for urban development. Madrid is probably even more of an international city than Vancouver, and consequently faces many of the same pressures around affordable housing. Spain in general is the recipient of many European snow-birds (although I presume mainly in the south) so the pressures created by foreign owned housing receives national attention. Beasley outlined how, in Madrid, the government builds and sells off apartments to owners that agree to live in them themselves. In addition, the owners must sell the property back to the government at a pre-agreed price. The re-sale amount ensures that the owners receive a modest return on their investment (Beasley didn’t share what the rate of return is) and that the government can resell the house to a new owner at a controlled price. This ensures property values increase at a controlled pace and keeps the costs of running such a program exceedingly low. Consequently, this hybrid of social and market housing is intriguing. Under the right circumstances it would attract buyers looking for housing and discriminate against those seeking only an investment. However, it remains unclear to me how one would allocate these properties (perhaps through a bidding process?). In addition, I’ve been unable to find any literature on this hybrid model… I hope to have more on it at some point.

All in all, an intriguing set of ideas. I’d never seen Beasley speak before – I can see why he’s got such a loyal following in the city.

David Beers on Vancouver Eating its Young

12 Replies

David Beers published a piece entitled “Why Does Vancouver Eat its Young?” in yesterday’s Globe and Mail. I agree with David’s sentiment, Vancouver does eat its young. Moreover, and many of his points are valid (e.g. the NPA’s closure of the Child and Youth Advocate office). But I chaffed at the partisan perspective of a news editor who founded a newspaper because he didn’t like the partisan perspective of other BC newspapers. I like the Tyee and even publish there, but its hard to not grow tired of its relentlessly partisan approach (Raif Mair, a balanced newspaper does not make) and its simplistic view of BC politics: Liberal=bad, NDP=good (or at least, not bad). While the investigative journalism is needed and deeply appreciated, I’m often left wondering if the Tyee is simply trying to become a left-wing version of “The Sun.”All the more so since it is funded by a silent, and secret, partner – rumored to be the BC Federation of Labour.

Take for example his op-ed. Both the provincial NDP and the BC Liberals have invested in social housing (the Liberals may be late to the game, but they’ve stumped up some serious cash). But neither has a track record of addressing affordable housing – the issue that could help Rachel, the op-ed’s protagonist.

In addition to the partisan swipes, the piece is premised on some highly problematic analysis and is factually wrong. Nowhere is this better illustrated than Beers choice of Montreal as a viable alternative to Vancouver. For an article whose theme is how Baby Boomers are shifting problems and costs on to young people, choosing Montreal as a positive counter example is, at best, questionable.

Montreal is a fun city to live in – I know, I’ve lived there. It has a vibrant arts scene and great nightlife. It is not however a utopia or sustainable policy alternative.

Montreal – and the province of Quebec – has the largest debt/per capita and deficit/per capita in the country (it ranks second highest in dept/gdp ratio) Despite having the highest tax rate in the country, Quebec is about to leave the next generation a whopping $117billion(!!!) debt, and a $2.1billon deficit (in 2005). If there is one place in the country that is mortgaging its young to satisfy the needs of Boomers, it is Montreal. Why? Because almost all this money goes into operational spending. Little is invested into infrastructure for the future. This is a city and province where, literally, bridges fall on citizens and universities place mesh nets around buildings to prevent crumbling cement from falling on students. Quebec’s tuitions may be low, but its universities are bankrupt.

Montreal is also not a homeowners’ paradise. It has one of the lowest rates of home ownership in Canada: only 50% percent of Montrealers own their home vs. 61% of Vancouverites. While public policy – such as the adoption of row houses – helps depress rents, one reason rental apartments remain easy to find is that an astonishing 200,000 people (11% of the population) left the city between 1971 and 1981. That loss still impacts the city today. It has yet to recapture it’s 1971 population peak of 1,960,000. Indeed, three and a half decades later it is still shy by 100,000. Not only has the city yet to recover demographically, it only recently climbed out of the referendum induced recession which saw jobs – for the young and old – dry up. This is a dramatic price to pay for affordability and it offers little in policy guidance to Vancouver’s city planners. (In contrast, Vancouver has grown by an astounding 35% since 1971)

Beers’ sentiment is right. Vancouver is not affordable. But is scoring cheap political points off the issue really the role for a newspaper editor? Especially one that is seeking to reframe the debate in British Columbia? There is a lot that can be done to tackle this issue… something I’ll dive into tomorrow while discussion the solution oriented speech Larry Beasley’s gave at the Imagine Vancouver conference this past weekend.

The old, old, old war on drugs

6 Replies

Last night I was able to swing by the Wosk Centre for Dialogue to see Prof. Bruce Alexander receive the Nora and Ted Sterling Prize in support of Controversy (A prize established at Simon Fraser University to honor work which challenges complacency and that provokes controversy).

Prof. Alexander spoke of his personal history and research into addiction, but during the speech one factoid really stuck out.

He pointed out that the war on drugs has been going on much longer than I suspected. Indeed, in 1922 the government of the day apparently introduced whipping and deportation as a punishment for addiction and drug use. This is a level of shaming and deterrence the current government could only dream of implementing.

Did it have any impact on drug use? Of course not.

If whipping didn’t work, how is a “just say no” combined with stiffer criminal penalties going to have an impact? The creation of mandatory minimum sentences in the 1970s’ had no impact on drug use… how will this differ?

So why does the current government believe it’s new “tough on drugs” approach will yield better results? Because the new conservative drug policy isn’t about achieving results, it is about looking tough. Sadly, as it drives drug users and addicts further underground it will likely push them further out of reach of health and social workers, making the problem worse, not better.

Sigh…

Insite – Incremental Death?

eaves.ca

if writing is a muscle, this is my gym