2010 Vancouver Olympics, and the two faces of the city
March 28th, 2007 by Jeff Kee | - Related Posts - |
“It’s like uncovering the ash-ridden lungs of a cancer patient - he may look perfectly fine on the skin and what not, but when you get to the depths of this, the hideous and low-class segments of the city are barren and wasted - adding a black spot to the elegance and the beauty of the city.”
It’s been a few years since the 2010 Vancouver Olympics was confirmed. My home country, Korea, was in the running to but they lost the bid. But hey, I’m in Vancouver, and I get to enjoy the benefits of it, so it’s all good for me. Either way it was going to be happy news for me!
Well. Great city, yes. But it is also one of those cities where you have to work hard to get it. This may sound true in any part of the world, but it is so especially in Vancouver. The real estate prices are quite challenging, and gas prices are higher than the rest of the regions in Canada, and we have one of the highest taxes in Canada. Also, the traffic is not the greatest - if you cannot afford to live downtown (which a lot of family’s cannot), they you have to face the commute to work, unless you’re lucky enough to work in your local suburb. If you’re rich (or like me, with no family and enough money to afford Yaletown) then life is awesome. If not, well. Not the greatest, but still quite good.
If you hit the East side of Vancouver, where they have the “single occupancy hotel rooms” (which is a positively-notated term for cheap dirty housing for druggies and near-homeless people and other losers) surrounded by barrages of homeless people who cannot even afford that, it’s not so pretty anymore. It’s like uncovering the ash-ridden lungs of a cancer patient - he may look perfectly fine on the skin and what not, but when you get to the depths of this, the hideous and low-class segments of the city are barren and wasted - adding a black spot to the elegance and the beauty of the city.
“These buildings are at a risk of being removed, because real estate development corporations want to rip them out, re-develop the sectors of the city and revive it into more beautiful neighbourhood that meets the standards of the rest of the city. Once these are re-developed, the rent won’t be $12 ~ $15/night any longer.”
This is what the issue revolves around - the issue that rips Vancouverites into two segments (oh, and add a 3rd segment that doesn’t care, but a lack of opinion doesn’t really make a difference so I’ll look at 2 segments only). I’m part of the people that are all for the Olympics. I believe in the Olympics helping out our city, our markets, and drive prices and values up. And the city will be even more developed to meet the needs of the Olympics. And then there are those who oppose it. I mentioned the “single occupancy hotel rooms” before. These buildings are at a risk of being removed, because real estate development corporations want to rip them out, re-develop the sectors of the city and revive it into more beautiful neighbourhood that meets the standards of the rest of the city. Once these are re-developed, the rent won’t be $12 ~ $15/night any longer.
“I don’t see why the real estate developers, who have rightfully earned the money through ambition and drive, should miss out on opportunities to increase their net worth from $2 billion to $4 billion. They deserve it fully. I don’t see why the rest of the good citizens, who are hard-working and goal-oriented, should run out of space downtown because there are these hideous, drug-ridden motels so close to our beautiful downtown.”
Essentially: We take away the last resort of living from the druggies and near-homeless people, re-zone it, and give more affordable living space to the rest of the citizens, and expand the horizons of the city - the good clean city, that is. And I’m in full agreement with that. I don’t see why the real estate developers, who have rightfully earned the money through ambition and drive, should miss out on opportunities to increase their net worth from $2 billion to $4 billion. They deserve it fully. I don’t see why the rest of the good citizens, who are hard-working and goal-oriented, should run out of space downtown because there are these hideous, drug-ridden motels so close to our beautiful downtown. I don’t see why these people who clearly don’t deserve this, should be protected any more. They already get food stamps - that’s more than enough actually. The city, pressured by hippie activists, currently have a re-zoning penalty that is charged to developers. $5,000 per unit is the amount of money that developers need to pay the city in order to rip apart one of these motels, if I’m not mistaken. Well, that’s still an affordable price, so I guess the developers can bite the bullet, and the city gets to save some face to the socialists in this region that somehow think that being poor is some kind of a ticket to pride. “Down To Earth” takes a whole new meaning with these people - they think that just because they are poor, they are some kind of earth-loving philosophers, and try to feel self-righteous by protecting those who have even less than them - the homeless. And they are lobbying to increase this city-imposed penalty to $20,000 instead. What a load of shit!!! The developers and building owners should be able to do whatever the hell they want. The building owners have put up with the taxes and the low revenues for years. Finally, they have a chance to flip their hard-earned investment and make some profit, and these valueless, less-than-human-beings are the excuse to limit their ability to sell it? That is ridiculous. If it’s yours, you should be able to sell it to whomever you want. Once you buy it, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Rip it out, re-build it, don’t use it as a haven for heroine-shooting worthless trash, etc.
Of course there are those of you who are gasping at the lack of humanity in my comments. “Human Rights” is probably one of the many phrases floating in your throat. Well, human rights, in my opinion, is merely a dream. In a realistic sense, people cannot be equal. Some are smarter than others. Some are more fortunate than others. Some are part of a minority ethnicity so that poses a disadvantage. Some have a disability, meet an unfortunate accident, and they they fall into their demise. As much as we try to beautify and justify our philosophies, there’s always an element of vertical scaling when it comes to “measuring” people. It will never go away. If you know math, you know the graph of the square root relation. It never touches either of the axis, no matter how far you push it. Human Rights is a non-existing concept, essentially. Rights are earned. You don’t earn it by simply being human. You just need to accept it. And unfortunately, there are those who are born with disabilities, and those people make up a small portion of the homeless community. And when you become disabled, well. Unless you can somehow raise some money (in which case you would be using your excellent marketing skills to cope with the situation, which is a brilliant survival tactic), you might be hooped, and that’s how it is. BUT.
Can we afford, at the expense of the rest of the city, to protect the entire homeless community for the few who REALLY had no choice? To save 1 out of 10 of the homeless community, do we sacrifice a larger picture? No, we can’t do it. Darwinism is a word that’s caught in my throat, although you may still be hung up with the phrases such as “Human Rights”, “equality”, “protect the weak” or “wellfare state”. It’s reality, and for a larger picture there have always been sacrifices.
“I know this is so politically incorrect . . . But deep down inside, I know this is true and this is how the world works . . . “
These hippie protestors are now resorting to ridiculous measures such as ripping out the Olympic flag from the city hall’s front gate, defacing the Olympic stone and the countdown clock with grafitti and what not. It’s pathetic that they have to resort to that. It’s absolutely pathetic. They just cannot accept that the rich people, who deserve to make the most money they can, are getting richer off this Olympic development while the poor people lose out. What’s wrong with that?
I know this is so politically incorrect, and I would never win an election this way, and that’s OK - I don’t intend on being a politician because it is a position where you believe in one thing, say another, and then do something else. I can’t do that. But deep down inside, I know this is true and this is how the world works, unfortunately, and I’m not the type who will try to fight it, because I don’t need to. I have a successful business that is growing, and I’m making bigger connections. I’m not rich quite yet, and I rent (and my rent isn’t cheap in Yaletown), but when the city grows, there’s more money flowing, and my business grows. So. I’ll fight for what’s worth more to me. Let’s see who wins - moneyless, influence-less hippies ripping flags and putting graffiti, or those who have ambition and understand market and politics and will make the right moves to adjust.
RSS ME!!!
A very good blog entry Jeff. Even though I don’t see eye-to-eye with your point of view, It’s still a refreshing read about Vancouver Politics and Social inequalities prevalent in the world around us.
Yes, there will never be a single solution to poverty or social injustices that we see on a daily basis. But one thing remains true, our governmental institutions will always cater to the political class ( aka. the rich) and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. As we all know, this practice has been ongoing since the formation of our modern day economies.
(I suggest that you read the book “Understanding Power” by Noam Chomsky).
Education remains a key factor if you want to help change the world. If people can see beyond the smoke and mirrors presented by mainstream media outlets (MEGA-CORPORATIONS) or western forms of propaganda, we can all make a difference. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but as history has shown, empires and systems inevitably crumble, only to be replaced by something new or, hopefully, more progressive.
Appreciate the comments Lem.
My opinions are generally a bit radical - but we need both sides to pull on an issue. I’m never too neutral or too much of a softie when it comes to political issues.
Politics in Canada, in my opinion, still have a decent balance. There’s of course the influence from the rich that put lobbying pressure on the government, but there’s also the masses that need to be satisfied - to be elected you need to win the heart of not-so-rich people as well so there is always a compromise made. That’s more than enough catering for “those” people, in my opinion.
Your Cancer patient analogy could also be use to describe the Olympics. I guess I don’t see a difference between Social Welfare and Corporate Welfare, where you abhor one while support the latter. If the Olympics want so bad to come to Vancouver, they should pay for it themselves. After all, you know what its like to overcome adversity by hard work and perseverance, don’t you?
Corporate Welfare? No such thing.
It’s just rewarding the deserving. Money makes money, right?
[…] It s been a few years since the 2010 Vancouver Olympics was confirmed. My home country, Korea, was in the running to but they lost the bid. But hey, I m in Vancouver, and I get to enjoy the benefits of it, so it s all good for me. … – More – […]
I believe that it is an eventuality that the Gastown and Chinatown areas will be redeveloped. We are running out of room downtown and projects such as Woodward’s,not forgetting the marketing genius of Bob Rennie, will make it profitable and attractive for developers to consider that area. Think of this, I currently have 6 assignments in the 2 Woodward’s buildings. The prices range from almost $700/sqft with a 10 year leased parking to over $1000/sqft. Developers see this kind of money in an area where they can buy properties to develop at a lower cost and they cannot resist. More and more developments will come up and guess what, the ‘undesirable elements’ will move away. Why? Not because they will be dragged away by cops but because they shun attention. They live in the shadows of society and when a big spotlight is pointed at them, they will move. I will not enter the discussion of human rights and welfare but that is my opinion of what will happen in that neighborhood. The Olympic Games may force the politicians to accelerate this process though.
Jeff you fail to make one vital connection - what or where do all the people you refer go after the gentrification of their homes ? Do you simply ship them off to another part of the city ? Or do you provide funding to give them adequate housing ? Either way their issues cannot be eliminated simply by renovating their building and puttng them out on the streets.
To be honest with you Greg, I don’t believe in that much welfare.
I don’t want a single penny spent on re-locating them UNLESS it will get rid of them from the city for good.
Some kind of a labour camp/rehab would be good. That thing you mentioned once (I think it was you) about how Atlanta managed to clean out the city by deporting them - very tempting for me.
It’s my tax dollars. They didn’t pay into the pool. I don’t understand how so many upper-class white people and other social activists think that everybody should be guranteed a certain standard of life regardless of how they have lived? For all I care, I wouldn’t spare a piece of bread if I saw one dying on teh streets from hunger.
I’d rather donate that to Africa - where they got raped by the global corporate injustice and now live in a world of povery which is largely dependent upon the global import/export scheme, as well as the currency exchange system which is essentially there to keep the disparity of wealth and poor between different nations.
They’re the ones who ended up in that situation without much of a choice. Not the people on Hastings/Main. An $8/hour (which is minimum wage, I’m sure you know) job can get them help.
And of course there’s the argument for the 10%(or whatever the figure may be) of homeless people or so that were actually born with mental disabilities or so - we can’t tell the difference, and we can’t justify helping the whole lot so that we don’t sacrifice the few who didn’t have a choice. In any case. Shit happens, and some people are born with disabilities which hinder their ability to survive and that’s how it is.
Jeff you are seriously over generalising to fit your own argument. There are a thousand different reasons why people end up living on the downtown east side. You simply cannot generalise and simplify the situation to suit your own ends.
The reasons the downtown eastside exsists as a the poorest postal code in Canada are complex. However, regardless of why it is exists it is up to the rest of us to take responsibility for its existence rather than wanting to move it somewhere else out of view. A truly responsible society takes care of all its members not just those who have some level of affluence. Just because you and I have done well since immigrating to Canada does not give us the right to villify others that have not done so.
We must work together to remove the root causes of drug addiction, the four pillars approach is one of the most innovative methods that Canada has come up with.
I believe in a federally regulated guaranteed annual income for all Canadian citizens. We as working individuals need to demand that our taxes go to more than overly ambitious public-private partnerships such as the 2010 Olympics.
Did you know that Hastings between Cambie and Main used to be the “Robson Street” of Vancouver when Robson Street was still a dirt road ? It has only been in the last 25 years that Robson has risen to prominence as a commercial district.
Hey ian,
before i go further I’d like to comment that you’re probably one of the more intelligent and proactive individuals I’ve met. Unlike that other Jessica bitch we saw on the Facebook group (where this all stemmed from) your arguments are valid, respectable. Whereas Jessica, I felt, was one of those unrealistic dreamy upper-class canadian trying to sound all humanitarian by being so freakin sweet etc.. kinda like that dumb woman from New Orleans who refused to leave with the evacuation team unless she coudl bring her dogs. Give me a break!!!
Anyhow.
Federally regulated income - I don’t agree. Some people are not fit to survive and that’s the law of nature as far as i’m concerned.
As for drug addiction campaigns - I agree. But most peopel who are already tehre are too late to get out of it. Education for those under 20 who still have the Y split ahead of them are the ones who do need to be targeted.
I’ve personally seen a friend (well, semi-quasi ex-gf sorta woman) turn from a wild child to a homeless person. I’ve seen the dynamics and psychology of those who are.. well. beyond help, beyond return. I know the Led Zeppelin song goes “there’s always time to change the road you’re on” but that’s a rarity, and I don’t see justification to pour that much resources on them.
Education and proper guidance to the future generation is what will solve this problem in the long run. I also support creating a city environment where it’s very difficult to survive without a proper lifestyle and a job - it will motivate more people to live a “proper” life.
I support our tax funds going into drug-busting. Hells Angels must go, really.
But then, I must make the point - compared to other places in the world, canada’s very very very very easy to succeed in. And I say that because I’ve lived outside of Canada most of my life! I’ve seen a tough world to make money in. I’ve seen a society where people try adn try but because of the lack of resources they can’t make it. Insurance frauds by getting hit by cars, suicide and such were so common in Korea, espeically druing the depression that happened in 1997 and spread all across asia.
As much as I may come across as a cold-hearted bastard, I’m not. I do believe in creating a world where corporates create a good balance with the people and the ecosystem. I do believe in creating a world with less crimes, less drugs, less beatings, less pollution.
I personally will never drive a large car, ever, unless it ran on electricity, or if I ended up in trades where I need to haul luggage (which i probabliy wont..).
I just can’t resist this debate. So I’ll jump right in. Coming from a country like Singapore; which is basically a dictatorship disguised as a democracy; to the United States and Canada, where personal freedom and rights are paramount, I have come to the conclusion that everything comes at a price. There is no perfect system. We have to give up something to get some other thing. So it comes down to what is more important to us individually. In the west, we get to express that individuality, somethimes to an extent that I think crosses the line of being good citizens. Just as the government has a responsibility to govern, the people living in that country has the responsibility to obey the laws. But governments anchored by the yoke of politics do not act in the best interests of its citizens just as governments which can dictate the actions of its people run the risk of leading them right over the edge of the cliff.
Take the criminal justice system for example. In Singapore, first time drug traffickers get the death penalty. The repeat offenders percentage is zero. The principle is they would rather have 9 innocent guys in prison than to let that one guilty one go free. In the west it is the exact opposite. 9 guilty criminal go free just so we can prevent the one innocent guy from being punished. In either scenario, there are sad and infuriating instances of injustice. Just depends on which you would prefer.
I think that for myself, since I have chosen to be Canadian, I will accept the pros and cons of this system. I understand it is not perfect and the roots of the problems are extremely deep and often very emotional, especially when it comes to sensitive issues like human rights, unions, the justice system, environment, health care, etc. I believe that I have a better chance of obtaining that so called ‘American Dream’ here than in Singapore. I believe that in the West, we live to enjoy life, not just to get through life working to pay for material things. I took the family on a shopping trip to Washington on a weekday last week. In Singapore? Ya right.
Jack - if you are looking for the American dream in Vancouver, hmmm, you might need to go south somewhat. Although we may be annexed sometime soon.
What is the cost of your dream ? To drive around in an Escalade, polluting the environment or to make the world better than when you arrived.
To some people driving around in an Escalade or Hummer is all they need to realise the American dream. Some of us think the American dream is what is causing this global catastophe.
If the American dream means SUV and being an over weight chubby who easts fast food morning , noon and night then count me out.
The original “American Dream” was a world where your efforts and hard work was rewarded properly and proportionately, isntead of bieng taxed 50% once you make over $100,000 a year. It’s a joke. But oh well. The original American dream was to be able to self-sustain your family through legitimate means of hard and smart work, isntead of living in a place where there are no opportunities, everybody makes roughly the same, with no incentive to be better tahn others - AKA a communist society.
If we are to reward those who make the effort, we cannot reward those who didn’t. they should be punished.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: “The American Dream is a subjective term usually implying a successful and satisfying life. Perceptions of the American dream are usually framed in terms of American capitalism, its associated purported meritocracy, and the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights. The term is not easily defined, and has subjective meaning to many who claim it. The term is used by many modern Americans to signify success in life as a result of hard work (as in, “living [or pursuing] the American Dream”).”
Ian, most of us came to this country as immigrants for one reason or another. We have different opinions about various issues and that is what make us unique individuals and this country great. I appreciate your concern with the future of the planet and applaud your efforts to preserve it for our children. What I do not appreciate is your assumption that my idea of ‘the American Dream’ is materialistic. You conveniently used a term I used to describe the freedoms Canada and the US guarantees all its citizens to label all the negative by-products of a capitalistic society. I suggest when you respond to someone’s comment, you stick to the subject and not twist it around so you can bring your perspectives on some other issues into the spotlight.
What we consume is what is largely responsible for killing the planet. All those cars, planes, plastic bags, big screen tv’s, computers, all come from somewhere - they do not magically appear on the store shelves.
What is the incentive to make more money if it is only to consume more and therefore degrade the planet even more ?
I make an effort to save the planet everyday, I don’t own a car, I don’t own a house [I live in a co-op].
The rewards I seek are to preserve this planet for future generations, however if we continue as you suggest I believe we will be killing our future generations; at the very least subjecting them to extreme conditions that make our lives heavenly.
Well, I certainly agree that Olympics or not the downtown Eastside is threatened. The way I see it is that back in the eighties, when the govn’t of the day shut the doors of Riverview to all but the most desperate cases and sent the rest of the patients out to group homes was the beginning of the end. The DTES has always had a reputation, but how could a small city (as Vancouver was in the eighties) cope with the influx of group home drop-outs/kicked-out patients who refused to take their meds for all sorts of reasons (some valid some not). Before people could really manage to deal with this, Ontario and Alberta began to ship their welfare recipients off to the DTES. Want to get a picture - volunteer at a soup kitchen and ask the patrons where they are from (pre-nineties). It will amaze you how few are actually locals. I think Vancouver and BC are responsible for the patient they kicked out and lower mainland natives, but no one else. Am I heartless, no, I think the solution is for welfare recipients to return to their native provinces to pick up a welfare check. That would at least give BC a handle on how many homeless they can cope with. then get mad if they don’t. Right now, Olympics or not B.C. cannot provide welfare to ALL of Canada’s down and out; nor can Vancouver cope with ALL of BC’s down and out.
Check out London England for an idea of what happens when you attempt to give social housing to the poor, the system overloads, some poor get everything, raise their kids to live on dole and others get nothing (on a waitlist), the situation staggered London, and they got rid of all social housing in return for fair (market value) rent supplements welfare recipients ( but, the Recipient had to be Londoners - born or immigrated to the place).
So a fair question is, why should Vancouver have to subsidize housing for non-locals or out-of-province people who just choose the most expensive city in Canada? I personally am not able to afford a SFH in decent condition in Vancouver, so I live in the burbs, why should some who is not raised here get that privilage, there are many more affordable places to live. Reality is: beggars can’t be choosers. Somehow, I don’t feel this is unfair or heartless, just what we all live with.
[…] The Sea-To-Sky Corridor and its development April 30th, 2007 by Jeff Kee - Related Posts -5 of many of the reasons why I think the Vancouver Real Estate Market is still goodA one day pause of posts…2010 Vancouver Olympics, and the two faces of the city […]