City Conversation #59: When Vancouver city staff pit low barrier housing against schools and parks, a community comes together hoping not everyone loses
Certainly more professional social worker or psychologist inputs might find the right mix of residents in this building.
Argue that point & you may get a workable solution that Eby may accept.
Still sticking to my #1 and #2 however.
The Coalition’s vehemence is not helpful and does smell of NIMBY. Sorry, but the label is being used for a reason. And Eby will likely overrule Council if they reject it, for this reason.
Wait and see is the operant approach at this stage. It’s not clear Eby could overrule but this Council is timid enough that the threat may be sufficient
1. High density at a subway station makes perfect city planning sense, to increase ridership on the subways. If not there, where?
2. Supportive housing must be dispersed throughout the city, including Kits where I live. People who for many reasons, fall through the cracks, need our compassion not our fears.
3. The shadow on the park argument is a cover for no not “them”. Actually too much direct sun is bad for little kids. Ergo… sunscreen.
Arny, I agree with your #1. But #2 is a problem, as the science clearly shows the need to integrate these residents with other folks, not to place 129 single men with complex health issues together with no thought and little planning. #3 is also off base. I was at the park this afternoon. It was a sunny day and there was shade under the copse of trees in the park but in our climate it would be uncomfortable most of the time.
The community has said repeatedly they are accepting of these neighbours, just not in the quantity And warehouse configuration that is proposed. The community was never offered a viable alternative. Their reactions are predictable and in my opinion, quite restrained
I have to disagree with Arny. I seriously thought he was being sarcastic. I lived in that neighbourhood for a quarter of a century. Most of the people there have lived there for that long. They have deep roots. There is nothing wrong with that either. Why must the many always acquiesce to the few? Are drug addicts more important than children and families?
I agree with you. This same “if not here, then where?” Argument is being used to destroy the city’s existing zoning-not modify it after community consultation, simply destroy it because, apparently, anybody should be able to live anywhere in Vancouver regardless of their circumstances, the neighborhood history and character, all that good stuff.
You’re probably right about #2 Brian.
Certainly more professional social worker or psychologist inputs might find the right mix of residents in this building.
Argue that point & you may get a workable solution that Eby may accept.
Still sticking to my #1 and #2 however.
The Coalition’s vehemence is not helpful and does smell of NIMBY. Sorry, but the label is being used for a reason. And Eby will likely overrule Council if they reject it, for this reason.
Wait and see is the operant approach at this stage. It’s not clear Eby could overrule but this Council is timid enough that the threat may be sufficient
I support this project for three reasons:
1. High density at a subway station makes perfect city planning sense, to increase ridership on the subways. If not there, where?
2. Supportive housing must be dispersed throughout the city, including Kits where I live. People who for many reasons, fall through the cracks, need our compassion not our fears.
3. The shadow on the park argument is a cover for no not “them”. Actually too much direct sun is bad for little kids. Ergo… sunscreen.
Arny, I agree with your #1. But #2 is a problem, as the science clearly shows the need to integrate these residents with other folks, not to place 129 single men with complex health issues together with no thought and little planning. #3 is also off base. I was at the park this afternoon. It was a sunny day and there was shade under the copse of trees in the park but in our climate it would be uncomfortable most of the time.
The community has said repeatedly they are accepting of these neighbours, just not in the quantity And warehouse configuration that is proposed. The community was never offered a viable alternative. Their reactions are predictable and in my opinion, quite restrained
I have to disagree with Arny. I seriously thought he was being sarcastic. I lived in that neighbourhood for a quarter of a century. Most of the people there have lived there for that long. They have deep roots. There is nothing wrong with that either. Why must the many always acquiesce to the few? Are drug addicts more important than children and families?
I agree with you. This same “if not here, then where?” Argument is being used to destroy the city’s existing zoning-not modify it after community consultation, simply destroy it because, apparently, anybody should be able to live anywhere in Vancouver regardless of their circumstances, the neighborhood history and character, all that good stuff.
Thanks for your thoughtful reading
Is this a joke?
That’s it ?
No rebuttal.
I’m too horrified. You’re actually serious. Lol.