WHY THE DTES WON'T IMPROVE

This piece was a Vancouver Sun op-ed. It says a lot about why the DTES continues to be a hell hole. Add to this a recent report from a friend that the number of long-time clean and sober Narcotics Anonymous celebrants has markedly declined since the opening of Insite. Read on...

 Opinion: City plan for DTES ill-conceived

 Proposal to allow only social housing and rental units will keep area crime-ridden and impoverished

 

Vancouver Sun October 2, 2013

 

 

Downtown Eastside poverty activists and their supporters rally to decry the gentrification of the DTES and to protest against the impending construction of condominiums and high-end restaurants in the area.

Photograph by: Jason Payne Jason Payne , PNG

Do you think there should be neighbourhoods in Vancouver where new rental housing is not permitted?

Do you think there should be neighbourhoods in Vancouver where new ownership housing is not permitted?

I pose these questions because the recent Vancouver city council report on neighbourhood planning proposes zoning changes in the Downtown Eastside to effectively prevent any new ownership housing for the foreseeable future.

More specifically, new residential developments would require 60 per cent social housing and 40 per cent rental units. This would be a departure from the current policy allowing a broader mix of tenures with 20 per cent social housing and 80 per cent rental and/or affordable ownership housing.

According to the staff report, this recommendation follows extensive planning consultation in the community that has involved the city manager, general manager community services, general manager planning and development services, director of social policy, and assistant directors of housing and planning and staff.

In my opinion, this proposal is outrageous and ill-conceived from a community social planning perspective.

It is extremely poor social engineering, and if approved, would allow the DTES to remain the worst crime-ridden and impoverished ghetto in any Canadian city.

A zoning bylaw prohibiting home ownership would be a contradiction of everything planners know about creating healthy neighbourhoods. To the best of my knowledge, it would be the first time in North America that a municipal bylaw creates a rental zone, where residents are not allowed to buy a new home.

This proposal is also wrong from various financial perspectives.

Today, there are limited senior government funds for social housing, and increases are unlikely. Rich Coleman, the provincial minister responsible for housing, recently told an Urban Development Institute luncheon he intends to limit funding for new social housing projects to only those in greatest need, namely the homeless and others suffering from mental illness and addictions.

Coleman prefers to see provincial funding go toward shelter allowances for needy households so they can be better integrated into existing buildings, without everyone knowing who is living on government assistance. He adds this approach will also house four times as many people for the same dollars.

I also question how much rental housing will be built under the new zoning. While Vancouver politicians boast about the recent increase in new rental housing starts, in nearly every case, these projects have proceeded because the city has granted exceptional density bonuses and/or forgiven the development cost charges that are normally collected to pay for much-needed community amenities.
So one might ask, given the questionable economics and contradiction with professional planning wisdom, why would city staff be recommending this approach?

To answer this question, one needs to examine the politics of the DTES.

From my experience as a founding director of the Building Community Society, a DTES non-profit organization formed to improve living conditions for local residents, a very small number of activists have a remarkable level of influence in the community.

While I was volunteering, they opposed a neighbourhood spring cleanup, which I hoped would have had a positive effect like the successful “broken windows” initiative in New York.

They even opposed asking the government for an increase in the shelter component of welfare, claiming this would simply put more money in the pockets of landlords.

More significantly, they consistently opposed any new condominium housing, even in mixed tenure developments like Woodward’s.

They claimed it would lead to gentrification and attract new residents who would make local residents feel uncomfortable.

Sadly, these same activists appear to have convinced city staff that condominiums should be banned, despite the reality that there is so much government-funded social housing in the area, low-income households will never be forced out to make way for the gentry.

While local residents should have a say in the future of the DTES, I believe the rest of us, especially those who like me are disgusted and ashamed of what continues to be allowed to happen to this neighbourhood, should speak up as well.

Council has now agreed to extend the DTES community consultation until Jan. 31.

Meanwhile, I would encourage every Vancouver resident to take a walk around Hastings and Main and consider whether a ban on allowing people to purchase homes in this neighbourhood really seems like a sensible planning approach.

If you agree it is not, you should instruct council to direct city staff to come forward with a more thoughtful, considered, and positive plan; one which might hopefully contribute to the transformation of the DTES into a truly healthy and diverse community.

Michael Geller is a registered architect and planner. From 1974-77, as manager, social housing for CMHC, he helped create a number of social housing projects in the DTES.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

WE NEW IT WAS WRONG EVEN THEN....

CITY JOURNAL is a powerful and influential "second voice" American newsletter. It is followed religiously by policy makers and policy critics across the USA.

In the spring of 1997, Theodore Dalrymple published a very thorough and smart piece titled:

Don’t Legalize Drugs
Advocates have almost convinced Americans that legalization will remove most of the evil that drugs inflict on society. Don’t believe them.

The article is lengthy and thoughtful and well your reading. Find is HERE. 

GOOD NEWS - CHARIOT'S COMING!

I never thought I would see this in my lifetime, but it has truly happened. The Federal Government has made a sane and reasonable and knowledge-based and compassionate decision regarding addictions. Congratulations to Health Minister Rona Ambrose and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

 

Ottawa overrules health officials on Vancouver heroin replacement study

 

Health Canada had approved prescribing of heroin as part of Vancouver study; new regulations overrule the department

 

By Peter O'Neil, Vancouver SunOctober 4, 2013 7:14 AM

 

 

 

Health Minister Rona Ambrose announced regulations on Thursday aimed at overriding a decision by officials in her department to allow the prescribing of heroin in a Vancouver research study.

Photograph by: JULIE OLIVER, OTTAWA CITIZEN

OTTAWA — The Harper government announced regulations Thursday aimed at denying heroin to Vancouver addicts involved in clinical research.

The move was made less than a year after the former federal health minister said political interference in the drug approval process was a “recipe for disaster.”

Health Canada last week approved prescribing heroin to the study participants.

But that decision was overruled by the regulations that Health Minister Rona Ambrose announced Thursday. Meanwhile, the Conservative party has launched a fundraising drive linked to the issue.

“The prime minister and I do not believe we are serving the best interests of those addicted to drugs and those who need our help the most by giving them the drugs they are addicted to,” Ambrose said at a news conference in Toronto.

“The answer of course is not to treat heroin addiction with heroin. … Our goal must be to take heroin out of the hands of addicts. We must focus on treatment and we must focus on recovery.”
The regulations, which took immediate effect, will “protect the integrity” of Health Canada’s special access to medication program by denying doctors the right to use it to provide illegal drugs like heroin or cocaine to patients, she said.

The special access program provides emergency access to medicines not yet available in Canada to doctors treating patients with “serious or life-threatening conditions when conventional therapies have failed, are unsuitable, or unavailable,” according to Health Canada.

Ambrose’s decision relates to 21 participants in a major clinical trial, all chronic long-term addicts who had failed to respond to methadone treatment.

Their approvals to access the heroin won’t be revoked, though they can’t be renewed after the permits expire in three months, according to Scott Bernstein, a lawyer with the Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver who represents their interests.

The trial was an attempt to determine if hydromorphone, a legal opioid painkiller, can work as an alternative maintenance treatment over diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient in heroin.

The study’s proponents say ongoing provision of heroin, or a substitute without heroin’s “emotional and regulatory barriers,” keep addicts involved in the health care system, improve their chances of eventually breaking their habits and/or finding housing or employment, and sharply reduces the likelihood of their return to back alleys, dirty needles and crime.

Ambrose’s rebuke of Health Canada’s approvals coincided with a fundraising letter sent to Tory supporters by party official Fred DeLorey.

“I was shocked to learn today that Health Canada approved applications to give heroin to addicts — against the wishes of our elected government,” he stated. “We’re going to take steps to make sure this never happens again — but we need your help. If the NDP or Liberals are elected in 2015, you can bet they would make this heroin-for-addicts program permanent.”

The government’s approach received a scathing rebuke in Vancouver from the program’s supporters.
“The minister is medically, morally and ethically wrong,” said Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and an internationally prominent advocate for so-called “harm reduction” measures.

“This again falls into a pattern on the part of the federal government of acting based on ideology, while ignoring the science.”

Both Montaner and Bernstein, the Pivot Legal Society lawyer, said the announcement contradicts that of Ambrose’s predecessor less than a year ago.

Then health minister Leona Aglukkaq, in a letter to her provincial and territorial counterparts, rejected a request to delay the approval of generic versions of the highly-addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, also known as “Hillbilly Heroin.”

“A drug approval process based on politics is a recipe for disaster,” Aglukkaq said.

Bernstein said legal action may be considered to fight the decision. Supporters of harm reduction efforts won a major legal battle when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2011 against the federal government’s bid to shut down Insite, the supervised injection site in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.
poneil@postmedia.com

A PIPE DREAM

The following thoughts were sent in from Al Arsenault, our friend and colleague with the Odd Squad and the Drug Prevention Network.

 

The 'successes' just seem to  keep rolling in. I wonder what the costs are for making drug use acceptable and even 'safe' for we all know that when the perceptions of risk about using drugs  goes down the amount of use goes up. Also, what does it cost in terms of the loss of human potential to keep people stuck in their active addiction rather than to reclaim that proud and productive person which  lies dormant within the empty shell of a human being who us addicted to these poisons?

They consider the saving of a few people from the sea of diseases to be worth it all when legions of lives can be resurrected from the dirty and deadly cesspool that the  (now soft-lipped) crackers now flounder in.

They say that we, who are willing to lead them into  (ill-funded) treatment, lack compassion. 

I cannot wait until the day that the SIS 'studies' have been debunked as pure scientism so that we can forge ahead with real and meaningful salvation instead of Band-Aiding these poor souls to death. Perhaps this is but a pipe dream.

The News Ain't All it's Cracked up to be...read between the lines.

There is a full page article in the Vancouver Sun today serenading the opening of the new Mental Health & Substance Use facility at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

(Note that we always say Substance Use. If a fella were to accidentally say "Substance Abuse," he might find himself in solitary confinement.)

This symphony of excitement tells us about The 8,000 visits that will surely appear and the wonderful toys and the millions of dollars expended on this new miracle.

But when you read the fine print, as any buyer must, you find this note about the new staff: a specialist in substance use services.

Make that  "a" as in ONE.

One designated genius to handle substance use and abuse issues.

Now, this is progress.

This is how authorities move forward.

Congrats. Slap yourself on the back a few more times.

Addicts Don't Need InSite, They Need Support

This piece in the Huffington Post, written by Kathryn Marshall, lawyer, columnist and political commentator, was sent to us by Sean Heaney who runs a wonderful and dedicated small recovery centre on the east side of town.

Last week's controversy over Health Canada's funding of a program to give heroin to select addicts is like déjà vu. It's an awful lot like the conflicts the federal government has had with similar drug programs over the years. The Insite supervised injection clinic in Vancouver's renowned Downtown Eastside is the most famous example, where addicts can go to inject heroin under the supervision of nurses. Centres likes these are sometimes called "safe injection" sites, which is truly an oxymoron considering that these harmful drugs are anything but safe.

There has long been a debate raging in Canada over how best to help people who are addicted to dangerous, illegal drugs. It's been played out in the court rooms and among politicians and policy makers on repeat, yet we don't seem to be getting closer to actually helping addicts in the Downtown Eastside recover.

All it takes is one trip over to the Downtown Eastside and you can see for yourself that centres like Insite are doing little to get the addicts off the street and into places where they can get off drugs and get their lives on track. Arguably, places like Insite are actually making addictions worse by enabling the drug use and sending the message that it's "okay" to use drugs, so long as it's done "safely."

The Downtown Eastside is an extreme example that represents only a small part of the problem. Drug and alcohol addiction are serious problems in communities across the country that often exist in privacy behind closed doors, not in full view on street corners.

Marshall Smith is an addiction expert who knows first-hand what it's like to be stuck in the depths of an addiction. Ten years ago he was a successful political staffer with a bright career ahead of him. Then someone offered him some cocaine, and he was instantly hooked. His life derailed and he spent years living as a homeless addict, including in the Downtown Eastside. Smith recovered, and is now the Manager of Corporate Development and Community Relations for Cedars at Cobble Hill, an addiction treatment center on Vancouver Island.

According to Smith, in order to craft a successful strategy to deal with addiction, government policy makers need to be talking to people who have actually beat their addictions and are living in long-term recovery. "If they want to help individuals and communities recover, they need to listen to people in recovery from this disease. They need to ask people in recovery how they got well and what is required to successfully support yourself in recovery" says Smith.

The problem that Marshall sees with current drug policies and programs is that they are focused on the maintenance of people's addictions and disease prevention, not on the recovery. The questions policy makers seem to be asking is "how can we make it safer for addicts to do drugs?", not "how can we get addicts off of drugs and help them get their lives together?"

So instead of developing more recovery programs, more programs are developed that give addicts access to drugs and tools that keep them stuck in the depths of their addictions.

Neal Berger, the Executive Director of the Cedars Cobble Hills Treatment Center, is calling on the government to fund and execute a national research study on people who are living in long-term recovery from their addiction. He sees real value in studying people who are successfully managing their illness. It's this valuable insight that can lead to effective policy to help addicts achieve recovery.

Berger is encouraging the government to sit down and talk to people who have overcome their addictions. "Like many other diseases, addiction is a chronic illness that needs to be rigorously managed through participation in recovery focused programs" says Berger.

Smith likens this approach to any other strategy one would employ to beat a disease, asking "can you imagine building a cancer strategy without engaging cancer survivors?"

Getting addicts into recovery is easier said than done. Smith knows all too well the challenging road it takes to get there, and a system that enables addictions certainly doesn't make it any easier. A system that actively pushes addicts towards recovery and draws on the real experiences of those who have recovered could make all the difference.

ANOTHER VOICE BEING HEARD

PAM McCOLL, who iss the local push behind SAM - Smart Approaches to Marijuana - has set this Letter to the Editor, which the Sun will publish  tomorrow or Monday.

Harper needs to stop cracking jokes and take responsibility for embarrassing the nation.

Early this year UNICEF revealed that more Canadian kids smoke marijuana than anywhere else in the western world and the Prime Minister is cracking jokes about Sir John A. MacDonald

and his( Harper's)  own sobriety.

A UNICEF report released in the spring of 2013 ranked Canada first out of 29 countries on the percentage of young people smoking pot. 28 per cent of the 11 - 15-year-old Canadian children surveyed said they had smoked marijuana during the last year. This is an embarrassment for our country and a very sad comment on the effect the Harper government has had on prevention and education. This is a public health crisis and political pundIts are arguing over legalization and decriminalization when the majority of the pot market is under age and will continue to be regardless of effort to legalize. The legalization of marijuana could well increase access and availability to the youth market and enhance not dilute the criminal distribution of pot in this country.

CNN ( Anderson Cooper ) news reported that in the State of Colorado three young people died from synthetic marijuana use and 150 were hospitalized this week but that went pretty much unreported in this weeks Canadian media.

Few of the 90% of Canadians who don't use marijuana understand what legalization or decriminalization looks like and the discussion needs to move to what commercialization, and normalizing marijuana would mean to our kids. Anyone who downplays the risks and harm marijuana poses to youth will at some point in the near future be called out. In the meantime where on earth is Health Canada and the advocates for public health in this country ? Politicians sit down until this country has had a change to discuss this in depth and say no if someone asks you to sign a call for referendum at this time.