CBC News on the Olympics and Housing

These three articles (dating back to last September) provide cautionary warnings about the negative affects of the Olympics, specifically in areas of social housing, affordability and human rights. The mayor’s “Civil City” project is criticized as an unsuitable and questionable method to clean up the city that punishes those that are forced to live on the streets, instead of providing home. A quote from lawyer David Eby: “Initiatives like bylaws banning sitting or lying down on sidewalks, the increased use of beat police officers, the increased use of surveillance cameras, and the displacement that that is going to cause, I had to tell them (United Nations conference) that we’re really off track to hosting a sustainable Games.”

Others call for more funding housing, including SRO sponsorship, social housing and proper allowances. The $325 welfare shelter allowance hasn’t been increased in 12 years, which hasn’t allowed for natural increases in inflation or accounted for the escalating real-estate market. I think the frequency and continued publication of these articles makes the public aware of the situation, so we ourselves can act like watchdogs and help to hold the city accountable for its promises and react accordingly when they are not fulfilled.

2006-09-21 – CBC News – Homelessness in Vancouver could Triple by 2010: report

2007-02-12 – CBC News – Olympics making Vancouver Housing Crisis worse: critic

2007-06-14 – CBC News – Vancouver Homeless Advocate makes his Case to UN Conference

2006-08-10 - The Georgia Straight - Small Building Owners Caught in Bylaw Trap

This brief article provides a decent explanation of a city bylaw that prevents building owners from converting SROs (Single Room Occupancy) into another use (like high-end condos) by imposing a $5000 fine per unit. Thus, a 50 unit building would be fined $250,000 making it an undesirable purchase for a prospective developer.

What this bylaw attempts to do is reduce the number of conversions of SRO units of which there are already dangerously low numbers. It is easy to argue that this is a good thing. The equation seems simple: we have a large number of homeless citizens so we need a large number of affordable homes. There seems to be little room for sympathy when we generalize and associate the developer with a money-hungry corporation; this article shows that there is a human side to these transactions with real-life consequences.

This article poses two interesting questions: Why are we fining individual property owners for wanting to reap the benefits of their own private interests? (ie cashing in on their own property, just like any other building owner hopes to do) Is it reasonable for the city to rely on PRIVATE interest to solve a SOCIAL housing problem?

2006-08-10 - The Georgia Straight - Small Building Owners Caught in Bylaw Trap