DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE A REGIONAL PROBLEM

Watching the ebb and flow of events on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside
reminds me of a game of Snakes and Ladders. Just when we think we might
have the beginnings of a solution, there's this sinking feeling that we've
lost ground and have to start over again. Under these circumstances even
defining what constitutes progress can be tricky.

Take the example of social housing, which is at the heart of the Woodward's
building standoff. Suppose we found some wealthy philanthropists who were
prepared to buy the building and, for the sake of peace on the streets,
donated the entire project to social housing.

Wouldn't this be "progress" as it involves no public funds and answers the
cry of the many needy people who lack adequate housing? Not necessarily.
That's because there are a great many people -- not just in Vancouver --
but across the country who would dearly love to have a permanent home a
couple of blocks from the ocean, and a stone's throw from downtown
Vancouver with its seawall, Stanley Park, and, of course, Gastown.

Several years ago I conducted a national survey on where in Canada people
would live if they had a choice. One quarter of Canadians named Vancouver
- -- more than three times the mention of any other place in the country. The
reality is that Vancouver has become the magnet for mobility in Canada --
when conditions are ripe we needn't worry about finding people prepared to
move to the coast. Of course normally conditions aren't ripe -- high
housing costs, a questionable job market and a terrible transportation
system all act to dampen the inflow from the rest of the country. This is
all part of the subtle system of checks and balances that serves to
modulate population growth in any major urban centre, whether we're talking
about New York, London, San Francisco or this city.

The problem with turning Woodward's into a giant social housing project is
precisely the same problem that plagues the highly permissive "no harm"
policy on hard drugs. It's liable to make matters worse by signalling to
the rest of the country that Vancouver is the best place to come to if
you're looking for a walk on the wild side -- or if you're caught in a
cobweb of troubles and don't know the way out.

The city of Vancouver already has one of the most extensive networks of
social housing on the continent. Does anyone really believe that increasing
the stock of non-market-priced housing from say 10 per cent, where it
stands today, to even 20 per cent would settle the matter and allow us to
ascend a very long ladder to a more civilized society? Or if we put the
best, world class, hassle-free injection sites in the Downtown Eastside,
would we be able to sit back and say, "there now, we've got that one licked?"

We can never be completely certain that our moves forward won't turn out to
be steps backward, but we should be able to do a better job of managing the
risks. For starters, we have to recognize that the problems of the Downtown
Eastside -- homelessness, drug abuse, crime, illness and hopelessness --
are owned by all two million of us on the Lower Mainland, not just the
500,000 who happen to reside in Vancouver.

If we can experience this epiphany, then we may find the number of places
on that Snakes and Ladders board is greatly increased. Rather than
"ghettoizing" the shelter needs and drug problems of the region's
underclass to an area within a few blocks of Main and Hastings, a regional
approach provides other options.

Shelters and social housing distributed across the 21 municipalities that
make up Greater Vancouver will provide not only a more equitable sharing of
responsibility but a more realistic "home" for migrants and others in
trouble than is associated with the downtown solution. An 18-year-old,
unemployed migrant from Saskatoon might have a very different impression of
Vancouver if he ended up in a shelter in Richmond or Coquitlam.

As for social housing, we need a regional strategy for dealing with this
issue. Many residents in the region would love to live in the downtown core
- -- why should this be such a legitimate goal for the down and out when it's
unattainable for most others? Focusing most of our shelter and social
housing on the Downtown Eastside creates a huge distortion in the social
and economic makeup of the region.

A regional approach would also be helpful on the issue of hard drug use. On
the supply side we must get tough, very tough, with the traffickers,
peddlers and pushers who prey on the addicts, users and abusers on the
Lower Mainland. Again, this must be done on a regional level. The concept
that an area like Surrey is tough on drugs while the City of Vancouver
isn't must end.

According to Mayor Philip Owen, the Skytrain and the Trans-Canada Highway
bring scores of professional pushers downtown everyday to prey on the
vulnerability of the city's underclass. At the end of the day they return
to their nests in other parts of the region carrying with them a haul that
some have estimated at $100 million per year. There's talk these days of a
regional task force to integrate policing for major crimes. So why not a
regional task force to apprehend these vultures and deal with them
forcefully? If this needs help from the province or the federal government
to give clear direction to the courts, then let's start that process.

On the more frustrating demand side of the drug issue, we need to do much
more than perpetuate a downtown drug culture with free needles and
no-hassle injection sites. We need a commitment at a regional level,
heavily supported by the province and the federal government, to provide
state of the art treatment facilities aimed at helping people beat their
addiction. These facilities, especially where they involve residential
stays, shouldn't be concentrated in the Downtown Eastside, but located
across the region and the province.

In any other metropolitan area, the unfolding drama in the Downtown
Eastside, whether the fate of the Woodward's building or the controversy
sparked by Constable Al Arsenault's comments on drug policy, would be front
and centre in municipal election debates.

After all, what's at stake is the emergence of an urban ghetto that is
affecting the entire region. Sadly, because of the perverted structure of
municipal government on the Lower Mainland, most of us are forced to the
sidelines as spectators rather than involved as voters. This is especially
troubling since anything approaching progress isn't possible without a
regional strategy. If we don't grasp this soon we may all find ourselves
riding a very long snake back to square one.