Late Night…Great Night

The City of Victoria released the findings of its Task Force looking into the problem of late night rowdyism in Downtown. Headed by Mayor Fortin, Councillor Thornton-Joe and Chief Graham, they took a wide-ranging look at the causes and solutions of public disorder caused primarily by over consumption of alcohol.

The report can be downloaded from the City’s website.

As I said to Monday Magazine:

Downtown Residents’ Association president Rob Randall feels his organization’s concerns were listened to and incorporated into the report.

“We’re optimistic that we’re going to see a concerted effort to follow up on it, to really follow through on the things we can do, like the taxi stands and the busses . . . and to keep hammering away on those things that we don’t really have control over, like the fines for liquor.”

The need for more liquor inspectors giving more frequent inspections is another thing the Province will have to help with. BC Transit and the taxi commission also will play a big role.

The most interesting thing I heard at the press conference Monday was Chief Graham’s explanation of a more “welcoming” police presence. It’s thought that mere enhanced enforcement is not as effective as simply having a police presence that appears non-threatening. The chief said that in Vancouver, his former domain, several officers from England (specifically Manchester) have been hired recently. These new officers brought with them an alternate way of dealing with the late night crowd that made use of the officer’s gift for verbally diffusing potentially difficult situations. In addition, simply walking the beat and making eye and verbal contact with bar-goers ensured that police interaction with the public was more than just wading into melees and breaking up fights.

This is not to say they will go soft. On the contrary, police (with the help of reserve officers) will actively enforce bylaws and hand out tickets and deal with troublemakers, and with four new dedicated Downtown cops they will have the manpower to follow through. But their role will be more than just showing up after the trouble starts.

I be on C-FAX today, November 19, at 12:30-1 p.m. discussing the report.

Troubled bridge over waters

I attended tonight’s special Council meeting on choosing one of the three options for replacing the Johnson Street Bridge.

The event was anti-climactic as only a few hours before, word came that the anticipated funding was not coming.

Fortin vowed to plow ahead regardless, saying any delay would be costly, using the example of the Burnside Gorge Community Centre.

Councillor Hunter highlighted the maintenance problems with the current bridge, mentioning in particular the “obsolete” electric motors. Folks, those motors were presumably built the year Lenin died. The fact that they have lasted so long is an engineering miracle. They have paid for themselves many times over and the fact that we are debating the hardy motors’ usefulness in the year 2009 is astounding. I do agree they need to be replaced. Now, I don’t know if the motors currently powering the bridge are special but a quick Internet search brings up the fact that ordinary heavy-duty 100 h.p. motors cost well under $10,000. It’s comparable to scrapping a car because the old oil filter is dirty.

Hunter also said that the full $63 million cost of the bridge could be paid for without a tax increase, supposedly because of the City’s borrowing power. But it should be noted that this would come at a profound cost. How would this affect other needed projects like the Crystal Pool or new Central Library? Kudos to Councillor Madoff for pointing out that borrowing will indeed impact other needs.

Councillor Young said the City should enlist an engineer with an interest in preserving the bridge to report to Council. This brought an angry rebuke from Mayor Fortin that City of Victoria engineers are unbiased. However, this will not quell discussion that the current dismal state of the bridge is in part due to deferred maintenance. Was Engineering’s efforts to properly maintain the JSB hamstrung by years of stingy City Councils? Or has Engineering been seduced by the once-in-a-career opportunity to build a true world-class bridge?

Councillor Chandler deserves praise for criticizing the poor quality of the bridge renderings, especially the ones on the web. It was only at tonight’s meeting that a more diverse range of drawings were presented. Still, as they appear on the Internet, the renderings are too small to be of much use.

In the end, Council sided with the Community Advisory Committee and chose the Rolling Bascule version (version 2). I concur. It is the design most sympathetic to the Upper Harbour’s industrial aesthetic.

Is the Johnson Street Bridge a “beater”?

Many of us have owned beater cars. A beater is not necessarily a car that needs a lot of repairs. Heck, a Ferrari needs constant maintenance. A beater is a car that has passed the point where preventative maintenance is cost-effective. The owner of a beater acknowledges that the car is on its last legs and only does enough basic maintenance (fluids, filters etc.) to keep the car running until it’s finally sent to the scrapyard.

Back in April, Mayor Dean Fortin said,

“Do we spend $25-to-$30 million to rehabilitate a bridge that in 40 years we’re going to have to replace and spend another $50 million, or do you spend $35-to-$40 million to have a bridge that lasts 100 years? It’s a difficult place to be.”

Now the figure is $63 million including a healthy contingency fund. But why is the bridge a beater? It was only ten years ago that the City said the newly-refurbished bridge had “several more decades” of useful life left in it (providing follow-up rustproofing and painting was done).

Well, it turns out that crucial maintenance was never done. Why? City Engineers Mike Lai and Peter Sparanese told a special meeting of the DRA Board Monday evening that wrapping the bridge (to protect the waters from lead paint) was too expensive, time-consuming and difficult. The Upper Harbour is host to vital ship repair operations and the bridge itself is an important commuter link that can’t be off limits during the time the bridge is repaired and painted (although it apparently wasn’t problematic to close the bridge for a week to film a Alicia Silverstone movie).

Obviously, at some point in the last decade City Hall (Council, staff or both) decided the bridge was past the point of no return. Tough (and necessary) new environmental regulations meant that the old way of painting the bridge is impossible and the allowable method was impractical. So why was this a surprise in the year 2009? Citizens should have been informed as soon as it became known that the bridge was essentially irreparable in order that replacement funding could be planned and budgeted. Mayor Fortin has been at the Council table since 2002. I would be interested in knowing whether this repainting dilemma was ever brought to Council’s attention during that time.

Is the Johnson Street Bridge a beater? It sure is now.

Johnson Street Bridge

I attended a meeting of the JohnsonStreetBridge.org group tonight. Headed by Ross Crockford, Yule Heibel and Mat Wright, they offer sober second thought regarding the rush to replace the venerable and iconic Johnson Street Bridge. You can read more about the meeting by reading the live blog record at the site:

http://johnsonstreetbridge.org/

Ross brought up some questions the City will need to answer. Like why hasn’t the heritage assessment been made public? Why hasn’t the cost of rehabilitating the existing bridge been broken down separate from the total cost? How realistic is the construction timeline? Will it be completed before March 31, 2011 when the government funding turns into a pumpkin? In that scenario, will Victoria have to pay back the two-thirds cost? Would taxpayers be on the hook for the entire $63+ million? Why wasn’t this payback scenario explained in the Spring when Victoria applied for the grant?

The City is going full-steam-ahead on this project despite the lack of public consultation. Recall that the Save-On-Foods Memorial Centre went to a referendum and that a simple cookie-cutter arena that cost half of what the bridge is supposed to cost. Recall also that the arena went way over budget and was months overdue.

900 Block Pandora GNA

Times Colonist photo

This afternoon at the Victoria Conservatory of Music I (on behalf of the DRA) signed a Good Neighbour Agreement for the 900 block of Pandora. Other signees included VIHA, the VCM, Our Place, The City of Victoria, the North Park Neighbourhood Association and some of the retailers along the block, including McDonald’s. The Times Colonist reports here.

It was several months in the making and we hope it will help open lines of communication in this busy block.

Any Good Neighbour Agreement isn’t a magic bullet. Many things need to happen to ensure safety and vibrancy in a neighbourhood and a GNA is only a small part.

It does mean that everyone in the block takes some responsibility for ensuring the health of the street, from sidewalk cleaning to informing neighbours and police about criminal activity.

TC editorial: Inching closer to a urinal

Inching closer to a urinal

Times ColonistJune 12, 2009

It shouldn’t have taken three years, a cascade of council debates and uncounted sums of taxpayers’ money and city staff time to create a place for people to pee downtown.

The tortuous, expensive road to a decision on downtown urinals should embarrass councillors. Staff compiled lengthy reports on urinal options. The city called for tenders on high-tech, pop-up urinals that rose from the pavement at night then, like Batman, disappeared when daylight broke.

And then abandoned the idea. Portable urinals, hauled away at the end of the night, were tried, abandoned, tried again. And councillors talked and talked.

Now a decision has been made, almost, to spend $40,000 on what looks like a simple, relatively attractive way to deal with the main problem of men urinating late at night in doorways, alleys and anywhere else that takes their besotted fancies. Almost, because council still isn’t sure just where the urinals should go. Based on performance so far on this issue, that could consume another three years.

Or not. Mayor Dean Fortin and the new council have shown a welcome focus on getting things done and tackling a limited number of issues at a time.

The urinals appear useful, especially if their use is encouraged with aggressive ticketing for those who still insist on using the streets for bathrooms instead. They won’t be much help for women, but they aren’t the big problem anyway.

The solution isn’t cheap. Plan on spending $40,000 for the urinal — a semi-open affair that screens users’ bodies while leaving a clear view of heads and feet — and $40,000 in annual operating costs. That’s still reasonable compared with the alternative of dumping clean-up costs on downtown businesses and residents.

But is it reasonable that all taxpayers should be paying for the urinals? The successful experiment with portable toilets saw them used Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, a recognition that the problems resulted from crowds at downtown bars.

As this whole process limped forward in 2006, then-councillor Fortin suggested a five per cent beer tax to cover the costs. That might be unfair to responsible drinkers, but shifting the cost to bar owners would be fair — and it would be an incentive for them to look hard at ways of reducing excessive drinking and disorder.

We’ll offer congratulations to council for taking this useful step — once the urinal is in place and ready to go.
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

I weigh in on public urination and the opinions flow.

I was asked about the revised urinal idea on C-FAX today (it’s also today’s poll), specifically if I thought it discriminated against women.

I said first that there are devices that would allow women to use a urinal but really it is the fratboy/lager lout crowd that is primarily responsible for the unacceptable behaviour downtown. I was also asked whether this was catering to law-breakers (Murray Langdon’s editorial) but I pointed out that in daytime there are many washroom opportunities but practically nothing at night, so it’s a needed service.

Phillipe Lucas appeared via phone and he thought public toilets should take into account the disabled and parents with babies (but that adds another level of complication in my mind). I don’t think you need any special apparatus to change a baby in public and I seriously doubt any parent would take a baby into a urinal even if it came equipped with a change table.

Rob on C-FAX

Thursday, April 9 from 12:30 to 1 p.m., I’ll be a panelist on the Ryan Price show on C-FAX 1070 AM talking about random Downtown things. Click the link to listen live.

Battle of the United Nations over Victoria harm reduction!

An article in today’s Times Colonist berates Victoria for not having a needle exchange, claiming it goes against United Nations health guidelines. Says health researcher Thomas Kerr:

“I think British Columbians should be very concerned about the fact that a relatively wealthy place like Victoria is not adhering to international guidelines regarding HIV prevention,” Kerr said.

“It’s an embarrassment and I wouldn’t be surprised if the UN Human Rights Commission pronounced that the city of Victoria is violating essential rights by not providing those services,” he said.

All is well then, right? Except that another United Nations body, the International Narcotics Control Board says that safe consumption sites and distribution of crack cocaine kits contravene the UN convention against traffic in illicit drugs.

…as they are facilities where persons can abuse with impunity drugs acquired on the illicit market, [safe consumption sites] contravene the most fundamental principle of the international drug control treaties: drugs should be only used for medical or scientific purposes.

So the UN is mad at us either way. What will the effect be for Victoria? From the health perspective it bolsters the argument for harm reduction but as far as the illicit drug angle goes, the INCB’s opinion doesn’t count for much around here.

Social issues meeting follow-up

UPDATE April 2, 2009: More impressions by Yule Heibel and Davin Greenwell

Our Monday night event, On The Front Lines: Community Solutions for Homelessness and Social Issues, was a great success. A good sized crowd attended to hear the latest on policing, justice and social issues from Police Chief Jamie Graham, Councillor Charlayne Thornton-Joe, GV Coalition to End Homelessness director Jill Clements and the DVBA’s Ken Kelly.

Ken gave us an update on Downtown initiatives from the business standpoint, including the Clean Team, Con-Air, Retail C.O.P. and the Clean and Safe Committee. Charlayne and Jill got us up to speed with the Mayor’s Task Force and the Coalition including how they’ve reached the first year goal of housing 200 people.

But it was Chief Graham who received the most interest, with residents wanting answers on a diverse range of topics including jaywalking, camping in parks, open drug use and calling 911.

On the latter topic, Graham was clear: don’t hesitate to call 911 if you see something illegal or you feel someone’s safety is in question. It’s true your call will be queued and you might not get an immediate response, especially if it’s a busy time. But you need to call because this information is needed to track crime hotspots. And the Chief said, even if he were to be driving by the area by chance when the call came in he wouldn’t hesitate to investigate it himself.

Graham gave no opinion on the topic of safe injection sites, saying he would let politicians decide and he will enforce whatever law is in place.

The Times Colonist follows up on our meeting here “Police Chief: Victoria’s Drug Problem Not as Big as Some Say“:

“From experts in the field that go undercover, and trust me they are undercover to try to buy drugs, they are not there in the kind of volume you might think. When over a period of two weeks or so we end up with only 12 or 15 arrests, those numbers are really small,” Graham said.

Overall, Graham said, Victoria has a small group of hard-core drug users.

“It’s not widespread. It’s small. They’re disruptive and we know they create difficulties.”

The Times Colonist further expands on Graham’s comments in this editorial “The Real Downtown Problem“:

“Many of the issues our officers are sent to, they act almost as referees,” Graham said, adding the most common calls city police respond to are reports of alcohol-related disorder — people yelling or screaming, arguments, doors being slammed or pushing and shoving.

By comparison, a recently completed undercover operation in Victoria was hard-pressed to turn up any drugs or arrests at all. Over the course of two weeks, police made only about a dozen arrests, and undercover officers reported surprise at how difficult it was to buy illegal drugs.

This is not to downplay the need to deal with the illegal drug trade in downtown Victoria: One need only look at the numbers from needle exchanges and social agencies to be assured the problem is very real. And those addicted to illegal drugs should have every opportunity to seek help and get the treatment they need.

But alcohol is just a different kind of drug — the only difference is that it’s legal. That doesn’t make the fallout from its abuse any less harmful to individuals, families and communities.

The DRA is happy to have sponsored this talk which has spurred some thoughtful dialogue in the community. We look forward to talking to our guests in the future and look forward to hearing about more progress.U