Am Johal: 2010 Olympics increased social divides in Vancouver

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Vancouver artist Ken Lum’s East Van cross at East 6th Avenue and Clark Drive is impeccable in its timing as a work of public art reflecting this period. As a piece that is partially about pain and suffering in the city, it is a stunning visual landmark that is daring in its scale. We are a city divided, and it’s important to be reminded of that.

      The housing movement that has emerged during the Olympic period in Vancouver shaped the 2008 civic election. It pushed a provincial government which had done nothing on the file since cancelling the 2002 Homes B.C. program, an initiative that used to build 1,200 units annually, in addition to buying SRO buildings and starting construction on some units. This movement will also blow back if the City of Vancouver attempts to erode the social-housing units at the athletes’ village site.

      Vancouver social movements are asserting themselves on the national stage. During the Olympics, the Red Tent campaign set a Guinness world record for longest banner wrap after wrapping the entire Canadian pavilion with red tarps. Last week, SFU communication PhD student Julia Aoki, is completing week 66 of a rolling hunger strike, an action designed to push the federal government to re-establish a national housing program in Canada. In a few weeks’ time, MP Libby Davies’ private member’s bill calling for a national housing strategy will be debated in Parliament. Don’t be surprised if you see red tents turning up on Parliament Hill.

      On June 6, a delegation will leave by train for Ottawa, just as people did in 1935 on the original On-to-Ottawa Trek. Were it not for the egregious democratic distortions of the Olympics, civil society would not be so energized.

      Without a national housing program, Canada is falling far behind other countries in addressing this crisis of affordability. While 40 percent of all housing in the Netherlands is social housing; 22 percent in the U.K. and Sweden; and 14 percent in Germany, France, and Ireland, Canada only has five percent of its overall housing stock as social housing. As more and more of people’s incomes cover the high cost of housing in urban centres, less is available to spend in the economy and personal debt levels tend to rise. It is unsustainable economically to allow this affordability crisis to perpetuate itself. The social consequences are devastating.

      The Conference Board of Canada released a report last week which showed that 67 percent of Metro Vancouver households struggle with the high cost of housing. Nationally, the lack of affordable housing hurts Canada’s overall productivity. The report showed that a typical Canadian household spends 50 percent more on shelter than on food and over five times more on clothing. The report states “housing unaffordability is a structural feature of the Canadian economy affecting people at a wide range of income levels”.

      The Olympic project amplified and accelerated development paths in the city which increased the divides in the city. The City of Vancouver’s social indicators report from 2009, based on numbers compiled from the 2006 census, shows a city divided. While we invested public dollars in luge tracks and speed-skating ovals, little was done on the affordability crisis. We were too busy putting on an expensive two-week party to think about things that really matter.

      Now, David Podmore and Gordon Campbell are bringing us a $600-million roof for B.C. Place and a mega casino in the downtown core. Vancouver is gunning to be branded “Las Vegas North”. Now the logic has been twisted to say that if we want social programs or arts funding, we should support more gambling. To stand opposed to these projects would be to stand in the way of progress—a pre-determined conversation dreamt up by the backroom boys at the Vancouver Club. Rather than fund child-care spaces or social housing units as would be normal in the developments around the stadium, the money will be rerouted to the roof.

      The opportunity costs of hosting the 2010 Olympics have been immense. Had Vanoc and the government partners kept to their commitments, they would not have left a city divided. Instead, we are now facing a 50 percent cut to arts and culture and massive cuts to education, social assistance, and many other areas.

      Raquel Rolnik, the UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, presented a report in March 2010 to the UN Human Rights Council stating, “In the period between the designation of the host city and the staging of the event, cities normally undergo a series of transformations that not only affect their urban infrastructure, but also bring about economic, social and demographic changes that have long-term consequences for the local population....Regrettably, the legacy of hallmark events on the situation of these people has been far from positive. The alleged economic benefits of staging the games are not spread evenly throughout the local population. Instead, old disparities appear to be exacerbated as the processes of regeneration and beautification of the city usually focus on areas mostly populated by poor and vulnerable groups.”

      The future of the city, if there is to be one at all, must be prefaced on the advancement of human rights. City bylaws and engineering departments that move homeless people along are totally unacceptable. Policing methods that use selective ticketing as a basis of sanitizing public space are from another era. We need a charter of human rights at the civic level as the City of Montreal has adopted.

      In a city without election spending limits or caps on donations, we will always get the best democracy money can buy. It is structurally unsound and morally indefensible. The City of Vancouver currently is a banana republic shaped largely by a private club of developers, planners, and architects; the citizen has virtually no role in the workings of government or public processes. Surely, we should aspire for something higher in this great city. We should give democracy a try.

      Human rights are basic rights and should never be based on obligations or coercion by the state. They are the beginning point of a mature democracy. How a citizen engages with the state matters. The “right to the city” is a slogan, it is a clarion call for human rights, for access to the necessities of life, for civil liberties, for participatory democracy. It is a gesture of resistance to the psychological posture of the city and the rules of the game it has established. It is a refusal to participate on those terms. It is about asserting an independent culture of civil society in the city.

      With the 2010 Olympics, we were promised that we would do things differently. Unfortunately, on housing, civil liberties, and costs of the games, in an all too familiar pattern, the spectacle became a missed opportunity to bring the city together.

      Am Johal is chair of the Impact on Communities Coalition.

      Comments

      15 Comments

      Tent Village Supporter

      Apr 5, 2010 at 1:43pm

      It saddens me that the Olympic tent village set up on Hastings during the Games is ignored by political players like Johal.

      If we relegate our reading of history to one filtered through the actions and positions of organizations like Pivot and political parties like the NDP, we're destined to continue to believe that change is going to come through the ballot box.

      Democracy Fan

      Apr 5, 2010 at 4:29pm

      Am says that "we should give democracy a try." I am so sick and tired of this twisted line of thinking. The fundamental principle underpinning democracy is that we each have one vote. You're certainly right to suggest that those in the right circles and with the most money have subsequent influence. I don't like that either.

      However, the fact is that these guys in charge were elected by our fellow citizens. Anyone who can't wrap their head around that fact is doomed to failure in any movement for change. The guys in charge won't ignore you because they're jerks, they'll ignore you because they know that they don't need your votes because millions of others support them. You should be campaigning to change their minds, and doing it in a way that respects their intelligence. Calling everyone you disagree with a crook and everyone who supports them an idiot is going to be a dead end, I can pretty much promise you that.

      blahblah

      Apr 5, 2010 at 5:39pm

      Wrong dude. The police didn't bus the homeless out of town, the police didn't restrict "dissidents" to protest zones. The unorganized organizers shot themselves in the foot by calling everyone who disagreed with them stupid. There is where the real divide came from.

      Déjí  vu!

      Apr 5, 2010 at 10:00pm

      Déjí  vu! I remember the same arguments, the same complaints and, in some cases, the same protestors in the lead up to Expo 86 and beyond. It’s great to point out how expensive Vancouver is and how all our problems will be solved by throwing even more money around. The DTES is a perfect example of how a neighbourhood was revitalized and made a sustainable showcase of peace and tranquility by dumping a couple of billion dollars into it like in the interval between Expo and the Olympics. Personally I would prefer to see people who need help getting it, instead of people who just want help taking it (Kim K anyone?), or it going to snout-in-trough poverty industry joy riders (hi Libby!).

      I think we saw the silent majority out in force every night of the Olympics. I was one of them. Two hundred thousand people downtown, living, working, and paying for this city aren’t demanding what Am and friends say we need, so I guess we are not the citizenry who count or matter. Housing for those in need? Sure. Regulate the crap out of every aspect of the housing market to satiate a few college-know-it-all-hippies? No thanks.

      College-know-it-all?

      Apr 5, 2010 at 10:38pm

      I think we'd do a whole lot better as a society if we actually listened to some of these "college-know-it-all-hippies" rather than to the corporate media, advertising, and politicians. It seems to me that those who have spent years studying these things ought to have more influence than those with money. Of course they won't all agree with one another, but it's a much better place to start than where we normally go. Also, if there are enough educated people who are resistant to the norms of society that there can be an established stereotype such as "college hippies," shouldn't that cause you to consider that a little more carefully?

      LOL

      Apr 6, 2010 at 1:54pm

      "Established stereotype"?

      Cause to consider things more carefully based on the views of a "college hippy"? lol

      Tell ya what dude, go out and live in the real world (ie, the one off campus) for a couple of decades and then reapply for some respect, see what happens. Because at this point, you're pretty much viewed as a baby with a silver spoon learning things at an arm's length in the warm confines of academia.

      As a start though, I wouldn't write off the disappointment and distrust that the tent city gathered, considering the people there weren't even homeless. Social housing for those low-lifes? Not gonna happen any time soon, professor.

      joker

      Apr 6, 2010 at 3:48pm

      Most people in Vancouver consider east van to be... well, east of downtown. But if you look at a blog a couple of weeks ago about the east van cross, you will find several people from east van debating over where the "dividing line" is that separates east van from downtown. They go on about whether the line is Ontario St. or Clark drive. I also remember during the torch run through the dtes one person was quoted in the paper saying that for Vanoc to run the torch through dtes was an act of arrogance and a slap in the face. I thought to myself - maybe Vanoc was trying to get the people in east van and the dtes to feel included as a part of Vancouver. But of course that would require the angry person to consider that he might be wrong and to lose some of his anger. God forbid. My point? Canada is one of the most generous places on earth. Sorry we can't "solve" everything. But as a law abiding, tax paying citizen, it distresses me to have a bunch of obviously angry types to keep asking for more while supporting drug use and losers who don't want to work. Yes, I know lots of people need help, but until you start weeding out the freeloaders from the truly needy, you will continue to face resistance to dumping more money into a problem that ultimately will never actually be "solved". Homelessness has always been here, always will. Don't stop trying though. And to keep attacking people who don't agree with you as stupid won't get you any supporters. Besides, real change comes from within. If some people would try changing themselves and their opinions first, they might just find that good things will happen for them. But to just want more money without admitting that maybe you might try something different is a waste of time. Lose the anger... gain your life.

      Fed up

      Apr 6, 2010 at 4:19pm

      I am fed up with the comments of some the people posting here. eg. "but until you start weeding out the freeloaders from the truly needy you will continue to face resistance." Many of the "truly needy" have been put on the street by "truly crappy public policies". Remember we were taking people out of institutions and putting them in community housing. Trouble is the community housing turned out to be the DTES and places like it in other centers. There are far too many of us that turn our backs on these people as though they all had a choice in their circumstances and they made the wrong one. If you fry your liver with alcohol and you are a politician or business man you get a new one. If you are mentally ill and fry your brain on street drugs that is deemed to be your fault and you are not entitled to anything at all. The hypocrisy is disgusting. I don't have anyone in my life that is in this situation but it doesn't mean it won't happen to my friends or family in the future. It can happen to you and yours too. I wonder how you will feel when that happens.

      Birdy

      Apr 6, 2010 at 11:37pm

      re: "I think we'd do a whole lot better as a society if we actually listened to some of these "college-know-it-all-hippies" rather than to the corporate media, advertising, and politicians."

      In case you haven't noticed, the "college-hippies" started dating the "corporate media/politicians/military industrial complex" many many years ago.

      They recently had a deranged child which they named "progressive social change"

      I saw this offspring once, it was wandering around accusing people of thought crimes, and going on and on about how the best way to take away the rights of citizens is by claiming that their civil rights violate the UN-defined human rights of those same citizens. It was also mumbling something about a "pew twirl border" or "queue furled lorder" or something like that......... I couldn't really make it out.

      Attn: Fed Up

      Apr 7, 2010 at 10:14am

      What do you really expect? Those addicts have a way out and they're government funded. The critique is aimed at the people in this city that have some sense of entitlement when it comes to housing. If you go and abandon your family to get high, there are programs out there to help you, but when you refuse that help and demand funding for your addiction, you lose your credibility.