Part 4—The 2025 Vancouver by-election is about many problems but only one Issue— open communications between government and governed

CC#148— Homelessness, addiction and mental health Part 2

There is only one issue in this by-election

We were carrying on with our conversations around how open communications between government and governed is the only Vancouver by-election issue. My son led off.

“The mayor’s just announced that there will be no more new supportive housing until other Metro Vancouver municipalities step up and do more. Surely that’s a good thing?” he asked.

“The devil is in the details,” I responded, “and as has often been the case with this Mayor, there are few substantive details. But to clarify the vocabulary, supportive housing is meant to provide tenants with access to life-skills training, medical, addictions and mental health care.” He shrugged agreement, then pressed on.

“His proposal sounds logical, if aggressive. What could possibly go wrong?”

“What’s most worrying about his proposals and all the debate they’ve created amongst politicians and supportive housing providers,” I answered, “is their complete refusal to consider alternative ways to provide supportive housing, such as the dispersed approach we discussed in our last conversation.”

He frowned, then responded. “But he’s saying that supportive housing needs to be dispersed to other municipalities than Vancouver. What’s wrong with that?”

Individual homes, not projects

“Well,” I answered, “let’s think about individual homes rather than projects. The belief that supportive housing should be built only in the form of larger, congregate projects has been shown through peer-reviewed[1] scientific research to be a recipe for failure for the residents as well as the communities they live in. And that’s whether the homes are in Vancouver or anywhere else in Metro Vancouver.

“So what’s a better solution?” he asked.

“As I mentioned in our last conversation: what does work is to disperse folks across many buildings, with no more than 5% of the residents in any building from the population of those needing support. That way they become residents of a “normal” living environment of their choosing. Studies actually show the remaining 95% citizens in a building will look out for those needing support. Instead of concentrating folks so that their issues are reinforced, we disperse them.” He looked skeptical so I pressed on.

“You’re in an older rental building of, what is it, 14 apartments?” He nodded so I continued. “And don’t you have one neighbour who’s sometimes a bit off, seems out of it?” This time his nod was more reluctant. “Yet you and your neighbours support him. You include him in your parties and gatherings, right?” Another hesitant nod. “So you have at most 7% (one apartment in 14) of the residents needing support. And even though the apartments are all studios, there are some homes inhabited by couples, so,” I concluded with a smile, “you’re a building where about 5% of the residents need support.”

I could see he was taking it in, so I continued. “Your neighbour seems to need only the supports you and your neighbours provide—right?” He nodded. “But in many cases the care burden can’t just be borne by the neighbours. There needs to be a roving cohort of mental health workers supported by security personnel such as police.”

“Seems straightforward—why aren’t we doing that?” was his next question.

“This is where inertia and entrenchment come into play,” I replied, “as well as the desire to maximize profits off the backs of ordinary citizens.

Inertia and entrenchment are kinda two sides of the same coin:

Inertia is like Einstein’s definition of insanity—“doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Even though the current models are not working—if they were supportive needs would be declining—we seem unable to consider other approaches.

Entrenchment happens when too many healthy folks are making too much money off the existing models and the folks stuck in them.

Maximizing profits includes the folks making big profits off the sale of so-called safer supply drugs as well as the folks squeezing more and more unfortunates into congregate shoe boxes where they see no hope, no care and no loving kindness.”

“How can we possibly turn the corner?” he asked with hope there is an answer.

“The science,” I responded, “supports the 5% dispersion model—no more than one in 20 residents in any building needing support. There are already a few programs bringing trained, roving support workers to folks in crisis in their homes. With a 5% cap and reasonable resources, this will work.”

I continued. “Of course, this model will definitely upset the entrenched interests who want to keep folks needing support concentrated either in one neighbourhood—the Downtown East Side—or concentrated in large buildings that are cheap to operate because they make no efforts to help folks in need of support.”

“So how can we overcome these issues?” he asked with real trepidation.

“I’m not an expert in these matters, but here’s a modest proposal to get the conversation started:

· Require that every rezoning involving new or renovated buildings containing rental or strata homes set aside 5% of the total unit count for supportive housing—this should be fully integrated within a building, no separate entry doors, no spatial segregation. This 5% should be in addition to the current 20-30%[2] of “below market” homes in new rental rezonings, but should not be an opportunity for additional overall unit count or FSR[3].

· Use a calculated but fixed percentage of revenues from new development—Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) and Development Cost Levies (DCLs) to help fund the roving mental health workers. Fund the balance from the millions wasted on failed programs and models.”

“Could that work?” he asked.

“Better than what we have now?” I asked rhetorically. “Definitely. If we had open communication with our government, there’s no telling what we could accomplish!”

He came over and gave me one of his big, trademark hugs, certainly a best practice for open communication.

---

The post above is just over 1,000 words, way more than the three minutes that Vancouver City Council now permits for public presentations at its meetings.

---

If you appreciated this post, please share to your social media and consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at

Brian Palmquist writes on the traditional, ancestral and unceded lands of the Musqueam people. He is a Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired, still teaching, writing and consulting a bit, but not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 50-year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller and AIBC Construction Administration course text, “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” A glutton for punishment, he recently started writing a book about how we can Embrace, Enhance and Evolve the places we love to live.

---

[1] “Peer reviewed” means that before publication, findings are reviewed by several qualified scientists who are not connected to the research, hence independent.

[2] The 20 to 30 percent spread arises from the various ways housing is categorized. Leave that alone, just dd 5%.

[3] FSR stands for Floor Space Ratio, is the ratio between the area of a building and its site. So a FSR 2 building will have a floor area twice as large as its site area.