Call them drug consumption centres
Re: “Residents should have a say on social service centres,” editorial, Aug. 9.
I commend the editorial decrying the Victoria council promoting and planning “social service centres” throughout the city, without input from residents.
The only limits, apparently, are that centres not be situated closer than 100 metres from another centre, and that “negative impacts must not occur.”
It would be more transparent to call them “drug consumption” or “drug distribution” centres, if that is what they are.
If council can decree that “negative impacts not occur”, how about decreeing that drug addiction not occur?
Maintaining addicts on drugs is no treatment for addiction, and won’t decrease the undesirable effects of drug addicts on the rest of society.
Theodore Kass, MD
Victoria
Yes, Victoria shows colossal arrogance
Re: “Residents should have a say on social service centres,” editorial, Aug. 9.
I’m in disbelief at the City of Victoria’s foolish decision to change the bylaw to allow social service centres — including homeless shelters and services for the drug-addicted — throughout the municipality without input from residents.
Mayor and council even voted to allow these centres every 100 metres. When Coun. Stephen Hammond suggested 100 metres was too close, his motion to extend the distance was rejected by majority vote.
And then Mayor Marianne Alto had the gall to say that it would be a “miracle” if they could find even one site that meets their stringent criteria.
What is 2155 Dowler, then, if not a “miracle?” Why is the city deliberately distancing 2155 Dowler from the social services bylaw amendment?
Whatever the reason, the Times Colonist said it best in the editorial, the whole thing is an act of “colossal arrogance.”
Wally Mutch
Victoria
Drug consumption hurts public confidence
Re: “Residents should have a say on social service centres,” editorial, Aug. 9.
From what I’ve read, regulated drug consumption sites seem to be effective at reducing toxic-drug deaths. But regulated consumption sites would never be allowed in a residential neighbourhood, and for good reason.
So why is the province (and the federal government, for that matter) permitting an unregulated, unofficial drug consumption site like the one proposed at 2155 Dowler to operate in a neighbourhood?
Why is the NDP doing nothing to stop the SOLID Outreach hub from moving from the 900-block of Pandora to a tranquil area of homes, stratas and apartments? It’s preposterous.
Victoria Mayor Marianne Alto has confirmed publicly drug consumption will be permitted at 2155 Dowler. She’s also repeatedly stated that it is not an official supervised drug consumption site and therefore doesn’t need any kind of exemption to operate.
The city is splitting hairs. Their “colossal arrogance” (TC’s words) is repugnant.
The city can position it six ways from Sunday, but allowing the consumption of illegal drugs in the Dowler Place facility is eroding public trust and faith in this mayor and council.
Ali Taleb
Victoria
We need a plan to deal with the drug crisis
Re: “Residents should have a say on social service centres,” editorial, Aug. 9.
North Park residents in the vicinity of the proposed hub at 2155 Dowler Place oppose unregulated facilities where illegal drug use will knowingly take place in family-oriented neighbourhoods.
We also oppose the City of Victoria funding SOLID Outreach with $1.8 million — plus $300,000 to purchase a build ing — without public consultation and without a mandate to do any of this work.
What we do believe, as the editorial stated, is that we need the province to take the lead on helping those struggling with addiction.
We need the province to implement a well-funded, well-researched plan that includes public consultation and draws on medical expertise and the experience of municipalities around the world also facing this crisis.
We need a way to reduce drug-related deaths and protect safe and family-friendly communities.
What no one needs — to quote the 乌鸦传媒 — is the City of Victoria’s “hopelessly ill-considered initiative.”
Casey Innes
Victoria
Putting neighbourhood at extreme risk
Re: “Residents should have a say on social service centres,” editorial, Aug. 9.
Thank you, 乌鸦传媒, for restating how in the dark citizens are about the proposed hub for those with drug addiction and mental illness at 2155 Dowler Place. One of the neighbourhood’s greatest concerns is how the City of Victoria will deal with nuisances and negative impacts that will certainly accompany the clients who will be using illegal drugs inside the facility.
I’ve lived in this area of North Park for nine years. It is a small neighbourhood, only three blocks by three blocks.
It is quiet and charming — a hidden gem. Families use Dowler as a through-way to go downtown and to recreation activities at Crystal Pool and Save-on-Foods Memorial Centre.
Parishioners walk to the three churches in the area. Kids play on the street, decorating the sidewalks with chalk art.
There are healthy, grown trees and flowers in bloom everywhere. I love this neighbourhood.
I imagined our family here forever. But now, the quality of life is at risk. The safety of residents is at risk.
Everything we have come to love about our home, our safe haven, is at risk, and the City of Victoria won’t give us the courtesy of consulting with us, showing us the operating agreement with the service provider they’ve funded, and providing tangible details about how they will respect the rights of the people who call this corner of paradise home.
Reid Najarro
Victoria
Incredible memories of the Martin Mars
As a teenager living in Port Alberni I had fond memories of the Martin Mars water bomber.
On one occasion during Logger Sports Day, people were invited to stand in a grove of trees and the water bomber would do a drop on them.
Tingling with excitement when I could hear the plane get closer, I was suddenly walloped with a great dose of water. I was soaked to the skin.
On another occasion I was waterskiing on Sproat Lake and we went close to the moored airplane.
A crew member invited us in for our own private tour. What an amazing feature of technology. I also remember standing up in the wing.
Incredible memories that I will never forget.
Al Niezen
Saanich
Ill-conceived bike lanes along Shelbourne
I live on Shelbourne and I am not at all opposed to bike lanes in the city.
Shelbourne is unsuitable for bike lanes for the following reasons; we drive cars for a multitude of reasons and will continue to do so; the city has actively encouraged increased density on this street, thereby increasing the number of people needing to park; people who live on this street require services (medical, home repair, delivery, gardening, emergency vehicles, utility companies, etc.) that may require on-street parking; people have visitors who need somewhere to park.
Multi-family housing often has one or no visitor parking space. Parking on the side streets is already at capacity.
Note this after people come home from work and that there are already unpleasant conflicts arising during the current construction work.
Shelbourne is a heavily used corridor. It is a major route for cars, buses, emergency and heavy construction vehicles.
Separated bike lanes won’t protect cyclists from conflict at intersections, bus stops, crosswalks, the many driveways and other interruptions in barriers that would be required.
How will traffic will be able to pull over to allow emergency vehicles to pass?
Bike lanes on Shelbourne will be disruptive and unsafe. Just because Saanich is installing bike lanes on this street does not mean that it is sensible for Victoria to follow suit as the situation here is very different.
Why not make Scott Street like Richardson Street, where parking is maintained and traffic is calmed? Why wasn’t there any neighbourhood consultation before this plan was made?
Janet Boyle
Victoria
Bring photo radar back to deal with speeding
While doing some mid-morning errands Sunday for our Blenkinsop Valley annual street party, I was returning on the Trans-乌鸦传媒 Highway about half a kilometre from the Helmcken exit when two high-end SUV/Crossover sedans raced past us (in the slow lane no less) moving around 160 km/h.
How did I calculate the speed you ask?
They passed the exit within eight seconds of blowing by us — that works out to around 45 metres a second or around 160 km/h.
Between us and the exit were 75 to 100 cars, each and every occupant of each and every vehicle placed in danger by these buffoons.
We don’t have photo radar that’s readily available for deployment. Let me guess: you decision makers are afraid of losing votes.
Well, my wife and I are afraid of lives lost.
Get with it before there’s a disaster on our highways.
Colin Newell
Victoria
SEND US YOUR LETTERS
• Email: [email protected]
• Mail: Letters to the editor, 乌鸦传媒, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, 乌鸦传媒 V9A 6X5
• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published. Avoid sending your letter as an email attachment.
