Tag Archives: vancouver

the vancouver sun audience – a narrow and shrinking population?

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?

Our New/Old Drug Policy: Welcome to the 1980s

17 Replies

The Tories are beginning to lay down the ground work for a new (or should we say old) drug strategy.

The ‘new’ strategy? A TV campaign informing kids that drugs are bad, an increased presence at the border and a slight increase in funding for drug rehabilitation. If it sounds like the 1980s all over again, it is.

Ironically, it is being billed under the new tagline: “Enforcement is harm reduction.”

This is bad news for all of us. The tentative progress of the last decade is about to be lost in one fall swoop, including of course, Vancouver’s Insite injection site.

Let’s be clear, enforcement is not harm reduction.

There is no evidence to suggest that an increased police presence will have any impact on the drug problem in Vancouver, or anywhere else in the country for that matter. Indeed, American’s 36 year old war on drugs demonstrates otherwise. My question to Tony Clement is: what are doing that Nixon (who coined the term “war on drugs“), Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and previous Canadian governments, didn’t try? With only a fraction of the resources America dedicated to similar campaigns, explain to us why this policy will be success?

In short, Clement’s strategy is analogous to yelling at a non-english speaker when they don’t understand you. It’s a strategy – and for some people it feels good – but it accomplishes nothing. This is because the problem isn’t that they can’t hear you – it’s that they don’t understand you. Similarly, it’s not that many drug users don’t know drugs are bad – or haven’t seen warning messages – it is that they have come to a place where they are truly dependent. Screaming at them, arresting them, and legally marginalizing them isn’t going bring them into the fold and increase the likelihood they’ll seek treatment – if anything it will accomplish the opposite. I would love to see Clement in the downtown eastside, yelling at users to seek treatment. It would be about as alienating and as effective as it sounds. Contrast that to the injection site’s strategy of developing a relationship with users over time, and keeping the door open for when they are ready. Is it ideal? No, nothing about the world of drugs is ideal. But at least it works.

The simple fact is, Clement wants to overturn a program that enjoys the support and cooperation of the Vancouver Police Department, local community leaders, local business leaders, and Vancouver Costal Health. Still more problematically, Clement wants to replace a program supported by evidence and science with one based on ideology and fear.

The benefits of the injection site and harm reduction strategies are clear. They include:

Saving lives by:
- Reducing overdose fatalities
- Reducing injection-related infections such as HIV and Hepatitis C
- Increasing access to addiction treatment programs
Improving public order by:
- Reducing public injections
- Reducing drug-use related public disorder
- Reducing drug related waste (such as needles) in public spaces
Reducing healthcare and policing costs associated with drug-use by:
- Reducing emergency room visits
- Reducing use of ambulatory and emergency response services
- Reducing police resources dedicated to drug-use related public disorder

If the Conservatives aren’t interested good public policy, policy that saves lives, improves public order and reduces healthcare costs… so be it. But I am certain they are interested in electoral outcomes. Given the injection site’s support in Vancouver (the last polls show it receives a 70% support rate) it will be difficult to secure a seat in the city if the Insite injection site is perceived to be on the chopping block. With Emerson stepping down, the Conservatives won’t have a single MP from one of the country’s three largest cities. If evidence and science can’t persuade them, maybe, just maybe, electoral math can.

For myself, the Insite injection site is what re-invigorated my interest in municipal politics. I hope it survives the December 31st exemption renewal deadline. Otherwise, I’d hate to be the politician who saw Insite go down on their watch – I know I’ll be volunteering for who evers campaign is opposing theirs.

Carole Taylor and Vision Vancouver

8 Replies

There are some rumors floating through the blogosphere that BC Finance Minister Carole Taylor is interested in running for Mayor.

It is an interesting development since it is unclear with whom Taylor would run. Most observers would probably argue her natural home would be with the NPA. If Mayor Sullivan succeeds in securing incumbency protection for NPA candidates then nothing short of an open party revolt will bring him down. And then, even if it does, his rumored war chest could mean he could run as an independent.

What then is Taylor to do? One possibility that shouldn’t be ignored is taking a run at the Mayoralty nomination with Vision Vancouver. Clearly many in the party that would find supporting a former Liberal MLA an anathema. But then this would be a test of Vision. It would need to ask itself, is it merely the NDP’s arm in Vancouver politics, or is it a broader based progressive party that seeks to attract progressives on both the right and left of the spectrum? If, it is the former, than it will continue to split the vote with COPE and will likely never recapture the success it achieved under the moderate (and at times right leaning) Larry Campbell.

Indeed, in a worse case scenario where Carole Taylor runs unopposed as the NPA candidate, she would probably clean house. Not only would Vision lose the opportunity to win back the Mayor’s seat, it would almost certainly not pick up any new councilor seats and could conceivably lose some.

But a Vision slate with Taylor at the fore could be powerful. The only question is, could the party foster a coherent agenda between its right and left wing progressives wings? I genuinely don’t know – but it is a possibility worth at least exploring.

For those within Vision who won’t even entertain Taylor because of her alleged conservative pedigree miss a more intriguing narrative. Take a closer look at the BC Liberals track record after Taylor joined. After her arrival the BC Liberals moved left on:

first nations issues (from the insulting “referendum” to Campbell becoming the First Nations emissary to Stephen Harper)
the environment (BC is now the only jurisdiction seriously tackling climate change in Canada)
the unions (from almost out right war with health care workers to labour peace through a series of negotiations lead by Taylor)
homelessness (from cutting programs to buying up SRO’s across the downtown eastside)

This is not an argument in favour of Carole Taylor, only an assertion that Vision would be wise to sit down with her, engage her, and determine if there is sufficient common ground for a closer relationship. What is clear is that this election will be a defining one for Vision. It will need to prove that it is more than just Larry’s creation and can survive on its own. A strong Mayoral candidate – like a Carole Taylor or a Gregor Robertson – will be essential.

Hollyhock hangover…

2 Replies

So many good things to share. But at the moment, I’m hung over and tired from 5 days of conferencing at Web of Change.

In the meantime, I’d like to share my first musical recommendation on this blog. As my sister’s fiancé know, I’m no music buff – and the idea of sitting (or standing) and watching a band never climbs high on my “to do” list. However, this weekend, I couldn’t have felt more differently. The conference organizers brought in Delhi2Dublin – an electro-acoustic blending of traditional North Indian and Ireland sounds with cutting edge dance rhythms and DJ aesthetics.

A Celtic-Indian-Electronic fusion rock band?

It sounds like multiculturalism gone mad. Heck, it is multiculturalism gone mad… in a distinctly west coast way.

If you are in Vancouver and you are looking for a great band to power your party… consider hiring these guys. Their energy was out of control.

I have no idea how they will sound on CD, but live, they blew my mind (along with pretty much everybody else in our small concert hall).

Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to hollyhock I go…

4 Replies

Very excited over here as I’m about to head off to the Web of Change – an annual gathering connecting senior leaders working at the convergence of online strategy, technology, and social change.

I’ll be giving a talk on online collaboration, and community management in open source projects – I’m looking forward to test out the ideas with an experienced audience. I’m continuing to try to refining my thinking in this space, especially in preparation for the talk I’ll be giving at the Free Software and Open Source Symposium at Seneca College a month from now.

Of course one of the best parts of Web of Change is its location: the secluded Hollyhock conference centre on Cortes Island, near Campbell River, British Columbia. (see map)

I’ll admit it is not easy to get to, but once there… rumour has it that it’s pretty magical. Combine that with some evening yoga sessions, the healthy food on offer and the abundant fresh air, and this could be the most personally renewing conference I’ll ever attend.

In addition, my internet addiction will not be tested as apparently there is an internet room where one can get online. Phew!

As for my blackberry… it will probably be good for me not to have it working for a few days.

eaves.ca

if writing is a muscle, this is my gym