30 replies to this topic

[Galvanized]

Richmond School is in Saanich, in the Camosun neighbourhood, AKA the panhandle.

I didn't know Burnside was being used, that sounds like a good program.

[Caramia]

The only thing I dont like about the plan is the scale. 30 people should be the max of any supportive houses, or I think it will turn into an unhealthy agglomeration. Yes, tthe smaller houses would be more expensive but come on, look at the stupid things we spend money on, this is worth it!

I do think spreading it between municipalities is a great idea, this is a regional issue, why shouldn't Saanich and every other municipalty take its share?

[G-Man]

^ I couldn't disagree more Caramia. This project is creating ghettoes we need services spread evely througout the city tied to market housing. They should be turning these schools into market housing with social housing you could even do it in the 50/50 range.

Blanshard Elementary in particular should have high density market and social housing. It would be great for Quadra Village.

[Caramia]

I don't know if we really have a disagreement here G-Man. By scattering them through the region, we prevent the assigning one area (ie: Burnside) as the ghetto. By limiting supportive housing size to 30 people per unit we prevent the type of numbers that allow for ghettoisation within the areas picked. By limiting the number to 30 in each site, obviously the schools could not be used exclusively for supportive housing, and there would have to be other sites picked... however schools are a good start because they are scattered in much the way supportive housing should be.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Re. where the school is located: it's in Saanich, but it's part of School District 61, which is Victoria (SD63 is Saanich, and SD62 is Sooke). As with all things political, nothing can be simple around here or actually overlap -- therefore, parts of SD61 cover (edit:) schools located in the municipality of Saanich, even though Saanich is a separate political entitity. Go figure.

I agree with Caramia re. the scale of this proposal, and that bunching that many people identified as needy into one clump like this is asking for unpleasant repercussions -- which is what G-Man is saying, too, although you guys seemed to be talking past each other there (or G-Man misinterpreted Caramia's point, or something. Whatever!).

I think there's some irony in this idea coming from people who have blanched at a similiar scale for a d/t highrise development proposal. Overall, ISP is looking at housing for 2000 people, spread over 4 to 5 settlements. The Richmond School one is probably ~500 people. If a d/t tower proposal came along to accomodate 500 people (200-300 units), there'd be gnashing of teeth, and why? Because the tower would be vertical. Yet it seems to be alright to put 500 people into low-rise development spread over a couple of acres. That's a big population increase for an established area. Further, if 500 people were added to downtown, via a highrise or two, it would be a mixed group of young, old, wage-earning, etc., not a single-issue group. But the Richmond project is for people grouped under a single umbrella of needs (all the way from addiction/ mental disorder to affordable housing). Doesn't that actually intensify the effect of putting, all of a sudden, up to 500 new residents into an established community, and make the scale of this project have way more impact than a highrise tower downtown with a mixed population?

Another thing that's weird: isn't there general agreement among urbanists/ planners etc. that incremental change, vs. rapid, sudden change, is best for a community? The population increase for d/t Victoria has been slow and incremental. So why would a sudden change be such a good thing for the neighbourhood around Richmond School?

I'm not trying to shoot this project down, I'm not against creating affordable housing or finally expanding/ creating treatment centres and places for detox (vs "non-judgementally" facilitating an acceptance of substance abuse) or having supportive housing for people who'll otherwise fall off the wagon time after time. But I don't understand why everyone has to be lumped together into one project, especially since affordable housing is apples to the oranges of drug/alcohol addicts, not to mention the mentally ill. Why consider it desirable to concentrate them all in one place?

[G-Man]

I think that the part of the proposal I don't like is using these school sites exclusicely for the ISP they should be for both this sort of project and market housing. The buildings should all look similar so that there is no ghetto, it is a neighbourhood that has a mix of incomes and social housing. Exclusive use for the project is what I don't like.

I also don't think that building temporary structures is a good idea. What we end up with is temporary structures being used well past their intended life just like the office buildings on Superior or the Huts at Uvic. Build permanent social housing, the problem is not going away.

[Caramia]

/agree

I also like the way some co-operative housing is done, where the person pays a percentage of their wage so that if they end up getting a better job, they don't have to move, but can become part of the market housing component, and if their rent becomes too high, can choose to either subsidise the community that gave them a leg up, or move to a more affordable situation.

The subsidized housing units in James Bay on Superior Street are a fantastic example of how non market housing can work imo. I have a friend living there now, after "graduating" from a women's safe house. It is a clean, pleasant environment for her and her kids, and she has managed to get employed and stable there. Too bad the waiting lists are so long, she had to live in a Gorge Motel with her two children for far too long while waiting, and that was not a good situation for raising children.

But I don't understand why everyone has to be lumped together into one project, especially since affordable housing is apples to the oranges of drug/alcohol addicts, not to mention the mentally ill. Why consider it desirable to concentrate them all in one place?

Exactly! We need to recognise that not everyone who is in need of supportive housing has the same needs, or should be lumped together. Putting the mentally ill together with the drug addicted is a disaster waiting to happen, just like putting runaway children with sex trade workers. While a lot of these people do have overlapping problems, a lot of them dont. By lumping the different needs together you meet non of them, and at the same time expose people who are already messed up to new brands of destruction, while driving away people who don't want to deal with the hardcore need types. We already have that problem when our old hobos choose not to sleep in our shelters even on snowy days because they dont like watching people twitching out on drugs.

[zoomer]

But I don't understand why everyone has to be lumped together into one project, especially since affordable housing is apples to the oranges of drug/alcohol addicts, not to mention the mentally ill. Why consider it desirable to concentrate them all in one place?

Because it's the silver bullet.

One quick simple answer to Victoria's street population problem. Take them off the streets, drop them in a school far away from downtown, and the proponents are heroes! Of course they know this plan will never fly, but in the meantime, it's something to believe in, and more importantly something to vote for.

It avoids all the complexities of dealing with an age old problem, much easier to warehouse 2,000 people in one fell swoop. Actually engaging in endless negotiations with various municipalities, the province, the feds, and a myriad of agencies, departments and politicians to build proper and appropriate housing and support services with a long term plan to reduce the number of people who fall in between the cracks would be the hard thing to do.

The silver bullet solution also prevents us from taking a hard look at our city/province/country and the changes that are required. No, much easier to spend a whack of cash for 2,000 "problem people" and we can carry on our merry way, feeling good about ourselves.

:roll:

[Caramia]

Nice post zoomer.

The silver bullet solution also prevents us from taking a hard look at our city/province/country and the changes that are required.

I wanted to add to that:

...taking a hard look at our selves/city/province/country and the changes..

[Ms. B. Havin]

Does anyone know what's happening with the ISP project? It appears the Richmond School at any rate is off limits for another year or two, according to an article in today's T-C, Margaret Jenkins student body off to Richmond, by Jeff Bell.

Margaret Jenkins school needs seismic upgrades, and instead of having the students in the school while that gets done, the entire student body will move into the empty Richmond school, which is only 4 km away from MJ. They'll be in there for the 2008/09 school year at least. This will also save time & construction costs on the MJ seismic upgrade.

[G-Man]

I kind of lie the fact that it hasn't been brought up in a year, it was a bad idea.

I think they should put ISP in the Wing.