Category Archives: Food & Health

#BCPoli | BC NDP Will Implement a Dignified Province-Wide Supportive Housing Agenda

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Election 2024, BC Votes 2024, Canada, Essay, Food & Health, Politics, Vancouver, , , , , , , , ,

In British Columbia, Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units have long served as a last resort for many of the province’s most vulnerable individuals, including low-income residents, those with mental health challenges, and people grappling with homelessness.

However, these aging, often dilapidated buildings are increasingly unfit for human habitation. As such, there is an urgent need for the British Columbia government to transition vulnerable populations out of rundown SROs in Vancouver, Victoria and elsewhere, toward sustainable, supportive housing models.

By providing care similar to the successful systems used in European countries like Finland, B.C. can address the root causes of homelessness, poverty, and social marginalization while promoting long-term well-being and social integration.

In a 2022 interview with B.C. Legislative reporter Katie DeRosa, then with the Vancouver Sun and now in the same role with the CBC, B.C.’s New Democratic Party Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing, David Eby — who was running to replace Premier John Horgan, who had resigned as Premier for health reasons, as leader of the BC NDP — had the following to say about the need for government to provide dignified supportive housing for members of British Columbia’s vulnerable populations living in communities across the province, and move these abandoned individuals out of rundown SROs …

Premier David Eby addresses need to transition people out of SROs

“There really hasn’t been a co-ordinated strategy or a plan about how we get out of the problems of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, Victoria and elsewhere. I think … putting an invisible fence around neighbourhoods and saying ‘this is the best we can do’ and just hope that things work out, it’s a strategy that will no longer carry us forward.” Eby said if he’s successful in his bid to replace Premier John Horgan … he’ll co-ordinate a long-term response to homelessness issues across the province, with the support and assistance from the federal government, our province’s towns and cities, and concerned groups.

In point of fact, Premier David Eby has committed to just that, copying the Finnish model that provides supported and affordable housing.

Juha Kaakinen, Finnish CEO of the Y-Foundation, providing low-cost housing to the homeless

“We had to get rid of the night shelters and short-term hostels we still had back then. They had a very long history in Finland, and everyone could see they were not getting people out of homelessness. We decided to reverse the assumptions,” says Juha Kaakinen, CEO of Finland’s Y-Foundation, which provides low-cost flats to homeless people across Finland.

The Deplorable Conditions of SROs

SROs, originally constructed as affordable housing for the working class, have deteriorated significantly over the decades. Many SRO units in cities like Vancouver, Victoria and Kelowna are plagued by chronic disrepair, pest infestations, poor heating and ventilation systems, inadequate plumbing, and a lack of basic sanitation. These environments are not only uncomfortable but dangerous, often exacerbating the mental and physical health challenges faced by their residents.

Research shows a strong correlation between poor living conditions and poor health outcomes, including increased rates of addiction, infectious diseases, and mental health crises. Furthermore, many SRO buildings are located in areas with high crime rates, compounding the risks for residents already facing social vulnerabilities. In essence, SROs have become a symbol of the failure to provide adequate housing and services to the people who need them most. Moving vulnerable individuals out of these dangerous environments is not only a moral imperative, but also a matter of public health and safety.

The Case for Supportive Housing

Supportive housing offers a more sustainable solution to the complex needs of the vulnerable populations currently residing in SROs. Unlike SROs, which often serve as temporary, stop-gap measures, supportive housing provides stable, permanent accommodations where individuals have access to social, medical, and psychological services on-site. This model addresses not only the need for safe and secure housing but also the underlying issues that contribute to homelessness and instability, such as mental health disorders, addiction, and unemployment.


The Globe and Mail’s Kerry Gold on how Finland is solving the problem of homelessness.

In European countries like Finland and Austria, supportive housing has proven to be remarkably successful. Finland, for instance, has implemented the “Housing First” model, which provides stable housing to homeless individuals as the first step toward addressing other social issues. This approach has reduced homelessness by over 50% since its introduction in 2008, with most formerly homeless individuals remaining housed long-term. Austria follows a similar model with an emphasis on affordable, long-term housing paired with social services, which has also led to positive outcomes for at-risk populations.

For B.C., adopting a comparable approach would mean transitioning away from crisis management in the form of emergency shelters or rundown SROs and toward long-term solutions that focus on stability, health, and empowerment.

Supportive housing projects, when coupled with services such as healthcare, employment training, and mental health support, help individuals reintegrate into society, reduce their dependence on public services, and lead more fulfilling lives.

Note should be made that Premier David Eby’s government alone has a long term strategy — that they have committed to implement in their next term of government —  to transition members of our vulnerable population out of rundown SROs and substandard accommodation into supportive housing

Cost Efficiency and Long-Term Benefits of Building Supportive Housing

One of the most compelling arguments for supportive housing is its cost-effectiveness. Studies from both Europe and North America demonstrate that investing in supportive housing ultimately saves governments money in the long run. Homelessness and inadequate housing impose significant costs on public systems, including healthcare, law enforcement, and emergency services.

For instance, individuals living on the streets or in unstable environments are more likely to require emergency medical attention, experience police interactions, or become involved in the criminal justice system. In contrast, when people are find safe haven and community in supportive housing, they use fewer emergency services and are better able to manage chronic health conditions, or avoid encounters with law enforcement. Finland’s Housing First model has shown that for every dollar spent on housing and support, the government saves approximately $2 in costs related to homelessness.

B.C., with its high cost of living and significant homeless population, faces similar challenges. Building and maintaining supportive housing units may initially require significant investment, but it will result in long-term savings by reducing strain on public health, criminal justice, and social services systems. Moreover, the social and economic benefits of helping individuals regain stability, employment, and health far outweigh the upfront costs.

In a government publication titled Lost in Transition, the cost of construction of thousands of supportive housing units would be made possible in part by the savings that would accrue from merging the 277 social services agencies on the DTES into 30 umbrella organizations.

Each of the 277 social agencies employs an Executive Director — at an average annual salary of $500,000 — Directors of Finance, Directors of Human Resources, Managers of Supported Housing, Property Managers and other senior administrative staff — each of these 247 individuals earning up to $375,000 annually — a duplication of services and administration funded by the province, Merging agencies would save more than $1 billion dollars annually that would helo to pay for the cost of building supportive housing on the DTES, and across the province.

The Lost in Transition report questioned if such duplication of services properly serves the interests of those who are resident, and cared for, on the DTES.

There was also recommendation in the Lost in Transition report that argued for the provincial appointment of a Commissioner who would oversee the reformation of the provision of services on the DTES, a person with the authority of a Deputy Minister who would report only to a provincially appointed Board of Directors, which would oversee the transition of the current service model, reporting as well as to the office of the Premier.

A Moral and Social Imperative of Providing Dignified Supportive Housing


Eby government planning to take co-ordination of housing provision for B.C.’s most vulnerable citizens

Finally, there’s a moral dimension to the issue.

In a society as wealthy and resource-rich as British Columbia, allowing vulnerable members of our population to languish in unsafe, unsanitary SRO units reflects poorly on social priorities.

The government has a responsibility — a responsibility recognized by those within the B.C.  New Democrat government — to protect its most vulnerable citizens, ensuring that these individuals have access to the basic necessities of life, including safe housing, healthcare, and social support.

Housing is not just a commodity; it is a human right.

By moving away from the outdated, harmful practice of relying on SROs & instead investing in supportive housing, B.C. can take a meaningful step toward ending homelessness and improving the quality of life for our most marginalized citizens.

Relocating vulnerable populations out of rundown SROs and into supportive housing is not just a practical solution; it is an ethical and economic necessity.

In adopting the supportive housing model, British Columbia can — and will, with the re-election of an NDP government — address homelessness more effectively, reduce the long-term social, moral and medical costs associated with inadequate housing, while promoting a more inclusive and caring society.

The time to act is now, with the re-election of a David Eby-led government.

The benefits of the B.C. New Democrats’ approach to building dignified housing for our most vulnerable population will be felt for generations to come.

Stories of a Life | Redux | Chief Cook & Bottle Washer

Essay, fixin to die rag, Food & Health, Jude and Megan, Stories of a Life Redux, VanRamblings, ,

Jude and Megan Tomlin, aged 3 and 16 months, sitting at the kitchen table in 1978
1978. Jude, at age 3½, and Megan at near 2 years of age. At the kitchen table for breakfast.

A couple of weeks ago, when I was extolling the virtues of my Instant Pot to a friend, in a lull in the conversation, she turned to me and said, “You like to cook, don’t you?”

The short answer: I derive pleasure from both cooking and baking.

Here’s the story behind my love for the culinary powers of the kitchen.

1616 Semlin Drive, and East 1st Avenue, in Vancouver. One of the homes I lived in growing up.
1616 Semlin Drive, at E. 1st Ave. in Vancouver. One of the homes I lived in growing up.

From my earliest days, I fended for myself.

My mother worked three jobs, and my father worked the afternoon shift at the Post Office. When I arrived home from school, although my father often left a stew bubbling away in the slow cooker, from age seven on, for the most part if I wanted to eat, I’d have to make breakfast, lunch and dinner for myself, and for my sister.

So, being somewhat industrious, I learned to cook — well, make sandwiches and, for dessert, Jello, at least for the first few years.

I loved turkey growing up (all that triptiphan), so with the help of my mother, I learned to make her delicious turkey, stuffing, gravy, mashed potatoes and vegetables. For the most part, though, my cooking skills were rudimentary — but I didn’t starve, and more often than not there was food in my belly.

When in 1970, Cathy and I moved in together, marrying soon after, I was responsible for most of the cooking. Cathy’s mom sent her out $1000 a month (she didn’t know we were living together), visiting every three months, taking us to the local Woodward’s grocery floor, where she dropped in excess of $300 at each visit.

With Cathy’s mother money, we ate a fairly staple diet of generously thick T-bone steaks and baked potatoes.

Simon Fraser University's Louis Riel House, a student family one-and-two-bedroom apartment
Simon Fraser University’s Louis Riel House, SFU’S student family 1 + 2 bedroom residence.

Soon after moving into the Louis Riel Student Residence at Simon Fraser University in 1971, Cathy joined a women’s group, who met every Wednesday evening. Among the decisions that were taken by the women’s group was this: men shall participate in all household chores, and share in all food preparation.

As we often ate together with other of the students in the residence, my specialty became salads — all different kinds of healthy, nutritious salads, chock full of vegetables, nuts, sunflower seeds, and more.

At this point, Cathy still hated to cook — there was immense pressure placed on Cathy by her peers to develop culinary skills, but she refused. All that changed in the summer of 1973, which is a story for another day.

2182 East 2nd Avenue, in the Grandview Woodland neighbourhood of Vancouver
2182 East 2nd Avenue, in the Grandview Woodland neighbourhood of Vancouver.

When Cathy and I separated in 1978 — Jude and I lived in the home above, before Jude, Megan and I moved to Simon Fraser University and Louis Riel House, when I began work on my Masters degree — the thought occurred to me one morning when making breakfast that I was now the lone parent, and the sole person responsible for ensuring the children ate nutritious foods at each meal in order that they might grow up into healthy adults.

I took on the task of learning the art of cooking (and baking), in earnest.

There was, however, a quid pro quo involved.

After returning from a day of larnin’ and T.A.’ing at SFU, after picking up the children at daycare at 4:30pm, and walking the relatively short distance to our two-bedroom apartment at Louis Riel House, while the children played with their friends on the lawn in front of our apartment, I prepared dinner, calling them in about 45 minutes after dinner preparation had begun.

The kids were famished, and so was I.

Here’s where the quid pro quo came in: at the end of each meal, each of the children had to turn and say to me some version of, “Daddy that was a good dinner. It was mmmm, delicious. Thank you for making dinner for all of us, and all the work you put in to feeding us healthy and nutritious breakfasts, lunches and dinners, and all those wonderful desserts we love!”

I needed the incentive provided to me by both children, and their gratitude — which, in time, they came to acknowledge as their own. The kids felt good about encouraging me, as I encouraged them in all of their endeavours.

We were a happy family, and all was well with the world for the three of us.

Now, I was an adventuresome cook, and not everything I made turned out to the liking of all of us, or each one of us.

Being a dedicated democrat, Jude, Megan and I made a deal with one another in respect of dinner. Both children had to eat at least two bites of each food item I prepared: after all the work I put into preparing a dish, the least they could do was try out the dish to see whether they might like it.

Most of the time they did, but sometimes not.

One night, I made cream of escargot soup. Honestly, it wasn’t bad. But at the end of the soup entrée, I turned to the children and asked them what they thought, to which they replied almost in unison, “It was all right, tasty enough I suppose, but I’m not sure if I’d ever want to have it again.”

I agreed with them. We never ate cream of escargot soup ever again.

Each of us were allowed to have three foods on a list of our creation, foods we did not have to eat, no matter what.

Megan had three foods, Jude had three foods, and I had three foods — those foods changed over a period of time.

In order to add a food to our individual “nah, I don’t want to eat that food” list, some food on each of our lists had to come off. Took some thought on the part of the children as to whether they wanted to remove a food.

Megan, for a great long while didn’t like avocados — but one day, while placing a new food she didn’t like onto her “don’t eat” list, she took avocados off her list, eventually coming to love avocados, as she does to this day.

Watching me prepare meals all the time he was growing up caused Jude to want to become a chef — he worked in the food industry throughout his late teens and twenties, before getting into teaching, which paid better, and was overall less stressful, with “more honourable people”, he’d say to me.

In her teens, Megan became a vegan — there’s a story there, too, which I’ll leave for another day — and, for the most part, took on the preparation of her own meals, as did Jude over a period of time.

After the summer of 1973, Cathy became a great cook — there’s not much I miss about that tumultuous marriage, but I sure miss Cathy’s avant-garde cooking, her culinary craftsmanship, spicing and phenomenally delicious cooking.

Ah well.

Vancouver Broadway Plan, and Its Impact on the Kitsilano Neighbourhood

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Food & Health, News, Politics, Vancouver, , , , , ,

This past Thursday evening, in an event sponsored by CityHallWatch — the online activist civic affairs journal — in a crowded, overflow event held at Kitsilano Neighbourhood House, a broad spectrum of speakers addressed the Broadway Plan — an extensive development plan for the future of Vancouver’s Broadway corridor, a growth plan that envisions an additional 50,000 residents who will take up residence along the corridor from Clark to Arbutus streets, between 1st and 16th avenues — and the implications of the Plan on the Kitsilano neighbourhood.


The Broadway Plan will provide a framework for the types of buildings, with towers between 20 to 40 storeys allowed in the light blue ‘centres’. The graphic above was supplied by the City of Vancouver.

The evening was MC’d by Larry Benge, a co-founder and co-Chairperson of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods — an alliance of more than 20 community and residents’ associations, who have long sought and continue to seek a respectful relationship between the powers that be at City Hall,  and the 23 neighbourhood communities that comprise and are at the heart of the City of Vancouver.


Video | Vancouver’s Broadway Plan: What does it mean for Kitsilano? Townhall Meeting March 14, 2024

Well-informed, respected and accomplished speakers at Town Hall included …

    • Brian Palmquist, a Vancouver-based architect, and publisher of the ‘you must subscribe to’ City Conversations substack, an in-depth journal that provides detailed coverage of development in the City of Vancouver, and its implications for the health, safety and well-being of those of us who reside in the city;
    • Arny Wise, an urban planner, retired developer, and mediator of municipal housing disputes in Vancouver;
      In front, l-r: Stephen Bohus, Brian Palmquist, Randy Helten. In behind: Arny Wise.
    • Michael Geller, an urban planner, real estate consultant and property developer, who serves on the adjunct faculty of Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Sustainable Development and School of Resource and Environmental Management. His blog may be found at gellersworldtravel.blogspot.ca;
    • Scot Hein, a retired senior urban designer employed by the City of Vancouver for more than 30 years, and at present an Adjunct Professor in the Master of Urban Design Programme at UBC where he works with his colleague …
    • Patrick Condon, the James Taylor chair in Landscape and Livable Environments at the University of British Columbia’s School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, and the founding chair of the UBC Urban Design programme.

    In addition to those named above, during the question, answer and commentary portion of the meeting, former Vancouver City Councillor Colleen Hardwick spoke about the lack of civic democracy, while an architect present with his family in attendance spoke of the work of an old Simon Fraser University pal of VanRamblings, the University of Victoria’s Robert Gifford, a Professor of Psychology and Environmental Studies, who in his paper titled The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings [PDF], writes …

    “… high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, are sub-optimal environments to raise children, social relations within high-rise towers tends to be more impersonal and less than satisfactory than is the case with more ground-oriented housing forms, there is an increased incidence of crime and fear of crime among those who reside in high-rise developments, social cohesion is more difficult and substantively less present in tower developments, while independent studies have found that tower high-rise living may well be a strong contributory and determinative factor that can lead to an increased incidence of suicidal ideation and actual suicide among residents who live in concrete, steel and glass tower constructed buildings.”


    The future of the Kitsilano neighbourhood along the West Broadway / West 4th Avenue corridors

The thrust of Arny Wise’s address to those gathered at the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House Town Hall was that the advent of environmentally unsound steel, concrete and glass towers to increase density in the Kitsilano neighbourhood is simply not an optimal form of development to achieve the density desired by planners at Vancouver City Hall.

Scot Hein made reference to the Arbutus Walk neighbourhood, west of Arbutus Street and West 12th Avenue that, originally, was presented by the Molson-Carling developers and planners back in the day at Vancouver City Hall as three 50-storey concrete and steel towers — a development which the neighbourhood residents very much objected to — that under Mr. Hein’s watch was transformed into a neighbourhood-friendly and livable townhouse, 3-5-and-10 storey condominium and affordable housing development, with a walkable green space centering the development, and a 10-storey housing co-op established in the northwest corner.

It should be noted in passing that the final Arbutus Walk neighbourhood achieved much higher densification, overall, than would have been the case had the originally planned three 50-storey podium and tower development gone forward.

Two final notes for today (there’s more coming tomorrow) …

As UBC’s Patrick Condon pointed out at meetings’ end …

“Vancouver has tripled the number of housing units in our city since the 1970s, more than any other urban centre on the continent, certainly a laudable and unprecedented development feat, far outstripping the number of developments elsewhere. Yet, if supply is “the answer”, why is it that even with a 300% increase in development in Vancouver, we have the poorest supply of affordable housing for residents, the highest land prices, the highest rents of any jurisdiction across the continent, and the most expensive condominiums? Supply, alone, is not the answer.”

And, finally, on a somewhat hopeful note: both Arny Wise and Brian Palmquist pointed out during their presentations that the Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability Department at City Hall has had a change of heart respecting tower development along the Broadway corridor. No longer will citizens face the prospect of dark corridors lined with towers on either side of arterial streets.


Sensitive Urban Infill Charette Report City of Surrey. Drawing: Neda Roohnia, Landscape / Urban Design

Rather, arterial streets like the Broadway corridor will allow six storey developments, while the allowable 20-to-40-storey tower developments will be situated one block behind either side of the arterial street, so as “to prevent shadowing” and obviate the dark arterial corridor residents have made known in no uncertain terms to Vancouver City Hall that, that under no circumstance they want or desire.

Arterial streets must remain walkable, and neighbourhood friendly.

Not good news, of course, for those residents who live along the tree-lined streets, off Broadway (9th Avenue), along West 10th and West 8th Avenues.

But there you have it, for what it’s worth. As we say above, more tomorrow.