CITY RESORTING TO SPIN TACTICS ON REHAB CENTRE DEBATE

To the editor:

Re: "MLA stirs up mob's fears," Oct. 17."

The Oct. 4 forum on the proposed Fraser Street double diagnosis rehab
(DDR) centre was billed as an info session, yet it became readily
apparent to those attending that the city social housing
representative and health authorities (Vancouver Coastal Health
Authority and Triage) came poorly prepared.

Fraser area residents opposing the facility had more historical
information and policing statistics than the DDR centre
representatives. In addition, DDR information was often flawed or
incomplete. This 39-unit facility is geared to housing individuals
with mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and
depression) who have refrained from substance abuse (alcohol, cocaine,
and marijuana) for two months.

Here are examples of concerns:

Mark Smith of Triage indicated the average individual is more likely
to offend than centre residents. Yet, a Fraser homeowner was able to
find a spring 2004 article from a respected academic publication that
found DD patient crime rate as high as six times that of the average
population.

Many residents questioned whether two months "clean" was sufficient
time to prove commitment. An addiction counsellor (also an area
resident) categorized these individuals as "high risk." In addition,
addiction reform is often a progression of relapses with longer
intervals between episodes. Health authorities present admitted
relapses will occur.

Health authorities maintain that historically there are no problems
once this kind of centre begins operating. Yet, questioning by the
public, determined there are no other DDR centres in the city and this
is a prototype.

It became increasingly clear that its real purpose was not to provide
information to us but to note our objections. A social housing planner
pointed out that December council vote approval hinged on assuaging
resident's concerns. This was a session to collect these concerns so
his department could write a convincing report.

One Fraser resident called the whole process by the city an insult. No
one has asked us about this process that started in the late 1990s and
information circulation was to a three-block radius. One Fraser
resident told the panel: "This meeting happened because of us-not your
concern for us."

I can only conclude that there is a new democracy at city hall. It's
full of handlers, empty public relations gestures and public
manipulation techniques.

Jean Sorensen,

Vancouver