Dedicated to all you folks out there who've never attended a City Hall "public consultation" meeting...
I'm a political Newbie who had never before attended any public meeting run by a government ... probably like a lot of you. I am utilizing Niaby.com to report back on what I saw and thought of the City of Vancouver's public meetings to provide information about mental illness, addiction and supportive housing.1 It was quite an eye-opener!
I attended 4 public meetings in all – one near the beginning, two in the middle and one near the end of the process. The first meeting I attended I was struck by how few people showed up – I expected a larger crowd given the nature of the issues being discussed. There were only about 50 people attending. 18 spoke during the question and answer period and out of those only 2 asked any significant questions.
Most stood up to the microphone and gave personal testimonials on how someone, usually a family member, had benefited from Social Housing. Others were obviously from the addictions/housing industry speaking in support of the City’s initiative to develop more jobs for them. Others worked for Vancouver Coastal Health. This became apparent as the meeting went on as Linda Thomas (presenting on stage for Vancouver Coastal Health) asked someone in the audience to address a question. Judging from the chatting and exchanged smiles among individuals in the audience it was obvious many knew each other. It was like an old time revival meeting!
No one would argue with statements that mentally ill people require assistance. However, nothing was said about the population that was to be served by the proposed facility in our neighbourhood – dual diagnosed drug addicts. Towards the end of the meeting when the testimonials began to subside the City moderator asked for more questions. They were apparently embarrassed at the extent to which the questions were lobbed at the speakers by the apologists for the bureaucrats. They wanted tougher questions and the heavy hitters like Dr. David Marsh were there to answer them!
I had been warned these meetings would be dominated by the supporters, the lobbyists, people from the addictions industry but this was unbelievable! Now I was really curious. I went to my second meeting. This was a larger venue and about 70 people showed up – many faces I recognized from the previous meeting I attended. Once again the question and answer period was dominated by the addictions industry and their supporters. About 26 people spoke, 2 or 3 asked about plans for 7th and Fir while the rest gave their personal stories or comments in support. Marge from Dunbar with an addicted daughter and mentally ill son told her story – again. Michael who worked with Turning Point Recovery Society spoke in support – again. Toward the end Cathy, a doctor from Dunbar who worked with the chronically mentally ill and has a mentally ill son told her story again, and cried – again. They told the same stories I had heard at the previous meeting - they even spoke in relatively the same order! I found this fascinating – how could the City of Vancouver and Coastal Health give the same presentation night after night and listen to the exact same people over and over again? Would this happen at all the meetings? I had to go to more meetings to find out!
I went to my third meeting in Mt Pleasant. Surely this community, already feeling the effects of addiction and crime would show up in full force. I was disappointed – only 24 people showed up. Still, I didn’t recognize any of the True Believers from previous meetings so I had some hope tough questions would be asked. None were. After the City's presentation I again heard many speakers in support. This time the room was dominated by people in the addictions industry.
Feeling no opposition in the room the speakers let it all hang out, shamelessly asking the City’s Jill Davidson how they could best lobby governments to get more money and to ensure more facilities get built. Effective letter writing campaigns were discussed as well as lobbying the Board of Trade. One asked a question as to whether communities could outright reject such a facility and they were assured they could not as this was a city wide plan not dependent on neighbourhood input but entirely dependent on zoning. Had Council ever rejected such a facility? Again the speaker was assured Council had not and was generally in support of the housing plan however Jill was careful not to promise anything as these were "political decisions".
By the time I attended my fourth meeting I had memorized the scene. It was like watching for the thirtieth time "The Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". About 45 people attended this one and the True Believers were back in full form! Councillor Suzanne Anton turned up too. Good to see a City Councillor observing first hand this farcical process! I hope she went to some of the other meetings as well in order to understand what a sham this was. Starting out slowly, of the first 5 comments from the audience, 4 were made by the same man. Marge from Dunbar was there and spoke her piece - again. By 8:20, after about 16 speakers, the audience was finished. The True Believers had spoken and there was no opposition. The City facilitator started canvassing for "worries" from the audience. He mentioned he was quite surprised at the beginning of this process at the number of people in support and acknowledged people with questions may feel outnumbered. He failed to mention it was the same 30 or 40 people speaking throughout this entire meeting process.
Finally, someone from the general public - a concerned young family man from Dunbar bravely asked "When I hear the terms, there are no safety issues, there are no crime issues – to be frank I feel that has been glossed over. I’d like to have a little more detail... you’ve presented one side of the argument here today... my family is willing to be part of this social engineering experiment... make me think this is a good idea." That raised a few eyebrows!
Jill Davison responded with her usual quick disclaimer whenever 16th and Dunbar was mentioned. "The site at 16th and Dunbar has been bought for Social Housing but there has been no decision made about what kind of social housing is going to be on that site..." She then proceeded with a rambling answer on safety quoting the "Denver Report", a report with which I was familiar and had absolutely no application to the proposed facility for dual diagnosed addicts in Vancouver.
She continued, "The other thing, in terms of buildings in supportive housing in the City we don't have any evidence of an increase in crime in residential neighbourhoods."
She continued, "We are confident based on our experience here in Vancouver and what the literature tells us the worries about crime that people have are worries but really don't materialize ... Does that help?"
Well NO, not really! What experience? The City currently has no buildings specifically for people with dual diagnosis (mentally ill drug addicts) – Fraser St, the first of this type is scheduled to open in August, 2007 but as of yet the City and Coastal Health have NO experience operating such a facility.
Then the good Dr. Cathy once again provided a cadenza of tears. For whatever else one may say she has remarkably versatile tear ducts. She's a hard act to follow. The meeting adjourned shortly thereafter.
Follow up discussion - A Conversation about the Political Process »
Published May, 2007.