NIABY volunteers went to many of these meetings to observe first hand and document the "public process". The following are excerpts from a conversation that took place after the final meeting between 2 volunteers - a political neophyte who had never been active in politics (the Political Newbie - PN) and a seasoned veteran of City politics (the Political Junkie - PJ). Here are some highlights of their conversation as they discussed their observations of the City Hall public "consultation" meetings on supportive housing for drug addicts in residential neighbourhoods.
Political Junkie (PJ) - So what did you think of the meetings?
Political Newbie (PN) - Well, attending these meetings was quite an eye-opener! Not really what I expected. I expected the "public" from each local neighbourhood to attend. It was during the second meeting I realized that the whole thing was a sham!
PJ - A sham?
PN - I couldn’t believe it - many of the same people that showed up at the second meeting I attended were the same people I saw at the first one! This led me to wonder how many meetings were these same people going to. Was this not supposed to be about community input? Even the City facilitator seemed a little embarrassed and was asking the audience for tougher questions since the meeting was so one-sided.
PJ – Yeah, all public "consultation" meetings are like this. The bureaucrats are interested in getting their propaganda spin out there. It’s always the special interest groups who are out in force. Usually it’ll be people who have a stake in the process, especially people who are employed in the area.
PN - If I were to estimate, I’d say that 95% of the people at these meetings were there to speak in support. They were a mix of true Believers, those who had family members addicted or mentally ill and those from the Industry – operators of non-profit facilities and larger operators like Vancouver Coastal Health. I was observing a bunch of organized lobbyists!
PJ - You mean 5% were actually from the public? That many? (laughs) Hey, how many of the same speakers turned up at each meeting?
PN - The first two meetings I recognized many of the same people who told their stories of how supportive housing helped their family members. It was the same people talking to the same City Staff telling their same stories! The third meeting however, I was surprised I didn’t recognize anyone. I thought to myself, great, maybe we’ll actually hear some honest discussion with the public. I realized quickly however during the Q&A section of the meeting, most of this audience was employed by the subsidized housing industry. Towards the end and since there was no opposition they became a little cocky even asking Jill Davidson [City of Vancouver Senior Housing Planner] how they could ensure more facilities get built. Letter writing campaigns were discussed to both politicians and the Board of Trade as effective measures to help their cause.
PJ - Well these meetings present good opportunities for City staff and the industry to brain-storm about how to get more money!
Why you don't see the public out is because the process of advertising any public meeting by City Hall only brings out the people who are lobbying for something. Actually consulting the public would require a different strategy and process than these so called "neighbourhood" public meetings. City Hall bureaucrats know this and they don’t really care what the public has to say because they make no effort to change their process.
PN - Neighbourhood public meetings! What a joke! The neighbourhoods most concerned about these proposed facilities – 16th and Dunbar and 7th and Fir did not even have a meeting scheduled in their immediate neighbourhoods – not by accident either I would assume ...
PJ - Hey! You're becoming really cynical!
PN - ... and most people in the audience were not from that particular neighbourhood as we witnessed by the same individuals repeatedly showing up over and over again at different meetings.
Later on ...
PJ - Say: Were there any "plants" in the audience? You know, that's when the City Hall staff mentions an expert that just "happens" to be in audience that night.
PN – Absolutely! Jill Davidson [City of Vancouver assisting in running the meeting] and Linda Thomas [Vancouver Coastal Health also running the meeting] knew special interest people from the audience. They even referred to people by name even suggesting they may be able to answer questions better than themselves.
PJ - There are always other "experts" in the audience were designed to be used if there is any opposition. Dr. Cathy the doctor from Dunbar was classic example of this. She was there to diffuse any opposition by appealing to the emotional.
PN - Oh, you mean the doctor, Cathy who cried on three separate occasions?
PJ - What? You mean Dr. Cathy was at more than one meeting and cried at each meeting? No way!... You're joking! You are joking, aren't you?
PN – No I'm not kidding! Dr. Cathy from Dunbar gave quite a performance each time. She spoke at three of the meetings I attended and cried at all three. She usually spoke in response to an asked a question about neighbourhood safety.
PN - Oh yeah! What did Cathy say at the St. Mary’s meeting… here, I wrote it down ... she said (in response to a man from Dunbar question about safety) and I quote, "I just want you to feel confident your young children are in no more danger than they would be with young teenage punks in this neighbourhood that are rich, have lots of money, buy drugs, do a lot of B&E's and break into cars ..."
PJ - That was a good one. Personally, if I was a teenager I'd take offence that I was called "a punk" and told that I commit more crime than drug addicts. Did any of the City Hall or Vancouver Coastal Health tell her that comment was way out of line? Or where is her data to prove her point?
PN - No. No one questioned her outrageous statement.
PJ - Well if City Hall didn't ask her for her evidence that rich Dunbar teenager punks do more B&E's and theft from auto than junkies. By their silence they agreed with it ...
Later on ...
PJ - Hey what did you think of that film they showed "to put a face" on those living in Supportive Housing?
PN - I thought the City’s 10 minute video was a shameless piece of propaganda designed to pull at the emotional heartstrings of the audience.
PJ - Well of course it is! It's effective and it works. It's emotional blackmail. It's designed to shut up the opposition before they get started! No one wants to speak out after viewing something like that.
PN - First of all the three individuals featured in the video were not suffering from both an addiction and mental illness so they are not an accurate representation of the "concurrent disorder" population the City is proposing to house at 16th and Dunbar or at 7th and Fir.
PJ - So what? You don't actually believe they [City Hall bureaucrats] are interested in accuracy? These are very personal stories and testimonials designed to seek sympathy from the audience, set the mood and divert you away from facts. It's classic strategy.
PN - I don’t think anyone would mind a depressed person or a treated schizophrenic like Jude and Renea featured in the video living in a building next to them – the City already has 37 buildings and hundreds of market supportive housing apartment units for these people. But what I find incredibly misleading is the three people shown in the video are not the dually diagnosed [mentally ill drug addicts] population who's going to live in this supportive housing.
PJ - So they were showing a film about people who wouldn't be in the proposed facilities at Dunbar and Fir and other communities? Well that's a good strategy by City Hall. Show different people than who’s going to be in them!
PN - What communities object to are large apartment buildings for the dually diagnosed population ... you know, that were formerly treated in institutionalized care facilities who the City knows are the greatest challenge to house and are we now expected to believe they present no significant risk to the community?
PJ - Well you are expected to take the word of the "experts" at these meetings!
PN - What experts? In the City’s 20 year experience with running supportive housing we know none of the 37 buildings they currently operate are specifically for concurrent disorders. Linda Thomas even said this at the Mt. Pleasant meeting, and I quote, "Fraser St. is our first clearly concurrent disorder site. It’s our very first site that will be specialized of people mental illness and in "recovery" from addiction."
PJ - It’s common for someone who is selling something - like City Hall is trying to do with this type of housing - to say they have lots of experience when they don't. It's done in order to reassure the public.
PN - If anything I am more certain than ever that the City knows nothing about what they are proposing. I heard lots of vague statements, I heard lots of warm and fuzzy thinking and a lot of good intentions but nothing I heard convinced me these facilities and the people housed in them would be safe for the community. There were no specified standards to be met, no (drug) testing, no studies to prove it (safety) and no measurable outcomes for the people housed.
PJ - Welcome to City Politics!
Prior to this discussion - A Political Newbie Learns a Lesson »
Published May, 2007.