NO ONE ANSWER TO STREET PROBLEMS

A safe-consumption site, more police downtown when bars close and
legal action against a particularly troublesome panhandler have
something in common -- they are all worthwhile attempts to make the
community safer and more pleasant.

Victoria's downtown ills are not going to be cured by any one
prescription. Those who want a police crackdown and those who push
for more supportive housing and addiction treatment are both right.

The street problems and the 1,500-plus people who are homeless in the
region aren't all alike. The response needs to be just as diverse as they are.

Our debate about a single "best" solution and fretting about
ideological questions serve mostly to stall action of any kind.

It's hardly surprising that having more police downtown when rowdy
drunks pour onto the streets at bar closing time reduces fights,
vandalism, public urination and other disorder. Those are all things
that add to the problems for the downtown community. It's an obvious
solution, welcome even if it has taken far too long to adopt.

And those who want more enforcement against aggressive panhandling
and drug use are also right in believing that would help. There are
people not yet locked into the street life; a push could move them
on. The number is tiny, but small victories matter.

In that vein, the city's effort to get an injunction barring Gerald
Dumont from his usual downtown panhandling haunts is also sensible.
Dumont is, by most accounts, a nuisance. He has been convicted a
dozen times of bylaw violations, including aggressive panhandling. He
hasn't paid the fines.

The bid for an injunction moves into new legal ground. If successful,
it means Dumont could face a choice: Quit panhandling downtown or be
imprisoned.

It's hardly a perfect solution. Jail would cost taxpayers some
$80,000 a year. If Dumont decides to panhandle in a new
neighbourhood, that just shifts the problem. But tackling the street
problems means trying a range of approaches, not holding out for one
magic, perfect cure.

Those approaches should also include measures like a supervised drug
consumption site, recommended again this week. Providing such a site
for high-risk injection drug users would reduce the spread of
disease, cutting health-care costs. It would link users with health
and social services that would bring stability to their lives and
perhaps reduce or end their drug use. And it would cut the number of
people injecting in doorways and alleys.

And our response to the problems should include supportive housing,
outreach teams and increased access to detox and rehab services.

People don't have to like the idea of safe-injection sites, tougher
enforcement or any other aspect of our response to the problem. But
the issue shouldn't be about our preferences or ideology, but about
what works -- for the community and for the people on the streets.