The Caring Citizens of Richmond Society (CCRS) successfully defended a well-established family community against a proposal to build in their midst a huge 40-bed drug rehabilitation/recovery centre. The following article describes how CCRS did it.
A community meeting was called inviting neighbors to come together. Flyers announcing the meeting were distributed door-to-door. At the first meeting they shared their sentiments about the proposed project and examined what they must confront:
Non-profits have the support of government health agencies.
The media is interested in readership and ad revenues; they exploit explosive issues; they are on the side of "good intention" and "compassion".
The Media reports what it sees and hears; they do not do "research".
Engineers, architects, electrical contractors, who all tend to benefit from a project will come out with blueprints and mock-up models and speak highly of the project.
Governments want to "look good" and be perceived as "doing something for society".
CCRS realized that they had a mountain to climb. Odds were highly stacked against them. They knew that advocating against such projects would lead to a being labeled as NIMBYs – Not in My Back Yard – a pejorative term that evokes unpopular connotation. It would be a duel between David and Goliath.
To succeed, CCRS knew it could not afford to make the same mistakes other communities have made in their quest. One of the greatest mistakes of most communities is showing up en masse at a site waving placards, shouting slogans, and causing a ruckus hoping to draw attention to their cause. Media loves that but it does not have any benefits. Venting and waving placards may feel good at the time but it doesn't get the results you want; it just gives the media a story.
Hence, CCRS developed key strategies and tactics. Key among them was securing strong support within the community: businesses, professionals, lawyers, engineers, store proprietors, schools, etc. – those who are likely to strongly protect and support the community. They established a "think-tank" to gather evidence, do research, prepare strategies, etc. The key to their success depended largely to the creation of teams of community volunteers who:
Went out to inform neighbors of the meetings and discussions through flyer distribution.
Did extensive research on the non-profit organization proposing the project.
Examined public documents about the project and gathered as much information about chronological events pertaining to the proposal.
Examined the contract between the government and BC Housing 1 (owner of property on which proposed project was to be built) to determine the criteria for the approval of such public service projects – to establish whether or not the project's approval is in earnest.
Did research on addiction, rehabilitation, treatment, and recovery projects and statistical evidence of successes or failures. 2
Drafted letters and brochures presented to the city mayor, councillors, and city planning department drawing attention to inconsistencies, misstatements, errors and unsubstantiated claims about the project.
Conducted public meetings at malls and community centers to inform the public of their findings and to gather support.
Planned meetings and provided refreshments.
Organized a large public conference.
CCRS knew that it must establish within the group a strong motivation to succeed. Thus, the monthly meetings conducted were inspirational. They created strong desire, dediction and determination to move forward. By sharing findings of the different committees, it was able to establish a comittment by all volunteers and team leaders to work together. That became the catalyst for the movement that generated more than 12,000 signatures of support during its many public campaigns.
CCRS conducted their own public meetings. Public meetings on highly emotional issues tend to bring out strong sentiments. In spite of unanimity of goal, some vocal supporters wanted to light candles and do a sit-in vigil at city hall. Others were ready to prepare placards and posters and shout their grievances at public officials. Raw energy in the room could have exploded into a mob scene but cool headed strategists prevailed.
CCRS strategy followed these guidelines:
- Public meetings were to be factual and inspirational.
- The campaign against the proposed project was to be conducted professionally.
- There was to be no poster waving or public display of sentiment against the project.
- Media interviews about the project were to be handled expertly by designated knowledgeable members and not just anyone.
- Statements released to the media and to city officials are to be provided with documentary evidence.
- Those in charge of rezoning and city planning were to be provided with factual statistics challenging the merits of the project.
- Establish the weakness of the proposed project as well as the risk and contingencies its brings to the community.
CCRS knew that to gather public support and sway public officials, it must be armed with unassailable facts that seriously question the merit of the proposal and the claims it presents. That it was able to accomplish.
- Examine the proposed project with a "fine-tooth comb". Any rezoning proposal is given to public examination. Obtain all documents provided. Determine what is presented as fact, claim or projection. Be ready to ask for proof of any claim or to substantiate projections.
- Conduct extensive research on the project, its principal, its history, or mode of operations. Most non-profits or recovery facilities maintain web pages. Search the internet. Look for their principals, directors, or officials. Credentials of principals are often given. Look for their previous professional connections and obtain as much evidence of their successful experience. Examine "success claims". Who gives them? Often, these statements come from those who are at arms length with the non-profit organization and therefore, are self-serving, rather than valid proof.
- Conduct extensive research on the industry. Again, the internet is a great source of information. Read as much as you can about the addiction/rehabilitation industry. As you do, you will discover many references that may assist in your deliberations.
- Inform the community of work in progress. Prepare a newsletter in printed or PDF form. Gather email addresses and ask recipients to recommend other newsletter recipients. Door-to-door delivery of newsletter works well.
- Know who makes the recommendations and decisions at city hall. Obtain their email addresses. They are the ones who would be on top of your list to inform of your findings.
- Prepare briefs, brochures, etc. Remember that you want to inform those in (5) above. Your brief or brochure could include photographs, references, letters and video recordings. (CCRS had its public conference video recorded and sent this to the mayor and councilors along with all the speeches presenting facts to the public.)
CCRS was successful because there was no deviation from their original strategy - that of conducting a diplomatic and civil campaign that demanded full accountability, transparency, and disclosure of facts to establish that the large drug treatment facility and supportive housing component could mitigate all risks to the community and that claims in its support were verifiable facts.
CCRS made sure that the scientific burden of proof rested on the shoulders of the non-profit agency. CCRS expected them (non-profit agency proposing the large facility) to provide scientific proof of effectiveness. CCRS resisted being emotional about the issue and stuck to a debate based on fact. The non-profit agency was unable to explain "inconsistencies" with their claims and failed to respond to many of the facts CCRS presented. Most of their claims were based on hearsay, anecdotal testimonies (stories) and inconsistent data.
The proposed large drug treatment center was rejected by the City of Richmond.
Published March 31, 2009.