DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE COULD BE KEY ISSUE

Mayor Philip Owen's "Four Pillars" Strategy Has Already Left
Non-Partisan Association Mayoral Candidate Jennifer Clarke Struggling

In the next civic election, the Downtown Eastside will be a key issue.
It could even -- heaven forbid the lowly Downtown Eastside should
matter that much -- be the deciding issue in the mayoral race.

Sure, all the usual suspects -- the ward system, government relations,
taxes, planning and especially transit -- will make their presence
felt. But Mayor Philip Owen's "four pillars" strategy for dealing with
drugs has already been a flashpoint that has left Non-Partisan
Association mayoral candidate Jennifer Clarke struggling.

Mr. Owen's replacement on the NPA ticket says she's in favour of the
strategy, but she's having a hard time convincing people that she is
really committed to its most contentious aspect -- harm reduction.

Safe injection sites and easy medical access to methadone and heroin
are politically sensitive issues, despite the evidence that they
reduce the incidence of AIDS and Hepatitis C, cut crime, get addicts
off the street, save public money and provide critical points of
contact for those who want treatment. Yet Ms. Clarke's tendency to
place conditions on harm reduction strategies leaves many doubting
that she's serious about them.

Now Ms. Clarke has sat on another political Whoopee Cushion by calling
the Downtown Eastside a "ghetto," which connotes ethnic segregation.
Ms. Clarke now says it was a poor choice of words. We'll give her a
passing grade for humility, but she fails on sensitivity.

The Downtown Eastside faces daunting problems, and the NPA is rising
to them with its four pillars strategy. But it's on the NPA's watch
that many of the problems have become more serious.

If Ms. Clarke wishes to convince the public that her NPA can tackle
these problems with the combination of sensitivity and unflinching
commitment that they require, she must begin by taking more care in
her public utterances.

And she must continue by articulating a comprehensive strategy for
coping with the area's problems.

As Ms. Clarke defended her ghetto remark, she offered some useful
ideas. One is using heritage incentives, which allow owners of
heritage buildings to sell off floor space to other developers to
underwrite the improvement of Downtown Eastside buildings. Another is
to freeze taxes for people who invest in rehabilitation.

However, these aren't new ideas, and many of the buildings in need of
improvement are heritage buildings.

The financial disincentives that the city imposes on those who
rehabilitate old buildings -- skyrocketing taxes, strict building-code
restraints -- are a problem throughout the city. And again, the
failure to effectively address those disincentives has been the NPA's.

Of course, the city and the province have contributed to many
successes on the Downtown Eastside. The Sunrise Hotel and the Bridge
Housing Society for Women are just two recent examples. But those
projects are just the beginning of a delicate process.

Ms. Clarke's critics believe the redevelopment she desires would
displace poor people. Ms. Clarke disputes this, and says she only
desires a mixed population, like the West End. She doesn't want
development that pushes property values "too high."

How high is that, in the city with the highest cost of property in the
country? These are pressing issues for all of us, but most
particularly for the families of modest means and ordinary, single
pensioners who are, despite the Downtown Eastside's image, its primary
citizens.

How dedicated is Ms. Clarke to a workable plan for the Woodward's
building, which is the single most important piece of real estate in
the area? The province bought the building for $22 million in the
NDP's dying days, but the Liberals have stalled a plan to turn it into
a mix of low-income and market housing, commercial space and
university facilities.

Will Ms. Clarke pressure the Liberals to act? What alternative does
she propose if they don't? Her campaign organization has close ties to
the provincial Liberals, and many doubt that she will take a strong
stand.

Ms. Clarke's rival for the mayor's chair may well be Jim Green, the
longtime Downtown Eastside activist who in 1990 came surprisingly
close to unseating a mayor named Gordon Campbell.

Mr. Green is articulate and sure-footed. Ms. Clarke is often
tentative. If she doesn't effectively stake out a balanced, effective
plan for the Downtown Eastside that can win support across the city,
she may find that the neighbourhood that politicians have forgotten
actually matters quite a bit.