WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDRESSING URBAN SOCIAL ISSUES?

Which level of government is responsible for homeless, drug-addicted
prostitutes? This sounds like the opening for a sick version of one
of those lame jokes about the Canadian obsession for
intergovernmental correctness.

But, in fact, it is a very real conundrum, especially for
policy-makers concerned with the vitality of our inner-city
neighbourhoods. The debate about Vancouver's safe injection site is
a case in point. Just why is it that its future is to be determined
solely by the federal government in Ottawa?

The answer, of course, is that the federal government has
jurisdiction over criminal law and harmful drugs. Such laws probably
are more relevant to what happens on the streets of many of our
inner-city neighbourhoods than many municipal by-laws that are
explicitly concerned with streets. In short, it is the federal
government that seems to hold much of the jurisdictional authority
for what is sometimes called "urban disorder."

Canadians justifiably pride ourselves in being less concerned with
disorder and more concerned with attacking the so-called "root
causes" of social problems. Some advocate a larger role for the
federal government in attacking root causes, especially in social
housing. But the reality is that our provinces are the levels of
government best equipped for social policy. Some already have
sophisticated programs in place.

Of course, these programs need more resources and they need to be
better coordinated with each other. But the solution here is not to
bring in the federal government. It is to insist that the federal
government provide more tax room for provinces to cope with the
enormity of the problems for which they are responsible.

Is there a role for municipalities in attacking the root causes of
social problems? Not really. If we want municipalities to be
responsible for social programs we shall have to make them bigger
than they are already are and give them a range of taxing authority
that even most mayors are not asking for. Otherwise, there will be
"a race to the bottom," with all but the richest municipalities
trying to export their social problems to their neighbours.

What municipalities are good at ( or should be good at ) is
regulating the use of public spaces ( within the context of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) and providing an
appropriate array of collective services to support a high quality of
urban life.

Streets that are populated by drug-addicted, homeless prostitutes are
evidence that the quality of urban life in that area is pretty low?
What is to be done and which level of government is to do it?

Let's acknowledge that our provincial governments need to go after
the root causes of the problem. They need to provide integrated
services that probably start with drug rehabilitation programs,
subsidized housing, and community-based services that are closely
connected with the housing. Given other demands on provincial
resources, this is asking a lot, but these are the tough decisions
that provincial governments have to make.

But what about the selling of sexual services by someone who is not
mentally-disturbed, homeless, or drug-addicted? Right now the
Criminal Code makes it illegal to engage in public solicitation for
such services and to operate a brothel. Meanwhile, municipal
governments are licensing massage parlours and escort services, whose
advertisements are quite legal.

Why shouldn't municipalities be making the rules about what happens
on their streets and why shouldn't they be able to regulate and
license brothels and safe injection sites so that they can act to try
to prevent the obvious deterioration of some of their most sensitive
neighbourhoods?

American responses to problems of urban disorder have often involved
harsh police crackdowns with few, if any, attempts to attack root
causes. We need provincial action on root causes, not more debates
about who is responsible.

But Canadians are also justified in expecting that, when programs in
place to provide housing and community support for people who are
indigent, mentally ill, or drug addicted, then municipal government
should be able to enforce by-laws preventing people from sleeping in
streets or accosting passers-by for money.

Better root cause social policies will mean that we will have far
fewer drug-addicted homeless prostitutes than we have now. But
municipalities are likely to still need more authority to control
what happens on public streets and sidewalks, places that are so
important for the quality of urban life for everybody.