My experience with the Carnegie Housing Project
by Nicolas
I joined the Carnegie Housing Project in December 2024, first every Friday for the meeting lunch, then regularly to organize town halls and lately, in February 2025, a rally at Vancouver City Hall to fight a motion put forward by the mayor. This motion aimed at ending investments in supportive housing in Vancouver.
Although the motion was passed, I have been able to participate, which makes me very glad, to a collective work fighting for social housing in Vancouver.
The Carnegie Housing Project is firmly opposed to the gentrification of the city and we are doing our best not to be pushed away by very conservative forces.
I had never expressed myself in a foreign language on such a sensitive topic for me.
It was made possible thanks to the collective, inclusive and open minded preparation of the speech in a workshop at the Carnegie Community Center, in a warm classroom on the third floor.
Advices and support, especially from Jean and Devin, but also other friends, were so important.
Experiencing poverty, unemployment, homelessness, being marginalized often leads to despair, feelings of isolation, rage, impatience, loss of sense and shame.
Being part of a group like Carnegie Housing Project has allowed me to reconnect with people.
In the coming weeks, we are organizing an event, an Ambassador’s meeting at Spartacus Bookstore, in order to let people know about homelessness in Vancouver and how to fight this issue, that is (indeed?) a housing issue. A class struggle against a powerful minority who has decided to get rid of poor people in the city.
This task is very demanding, but very exciting, makes me busy and feel included.
We are thinking of what we will be saying, how we will promote the event and how we can give it some (solemnity?).
Always keeping in mind that housing is a human right.
City election: Get ready to vote on April 5
by Jean Swanson
There’s a city by-election on April 5 and you can vote for two candidates for City Council to replace Adriane Carr of the Greens and Christine Boyle of One City who resigned. 13 candidates are running for the seats. This comes before the regular election for all Council and mayor seats in October, 2026.
Why it's important to vote
City Council can do things that help the low-income DTES community or hurt it. They can pass zoning laws that will gentrify the neighbourhood, bringing in condos or expensive rental towers. They can “pause” supportive housing. They can fund or refuse funding for services like the Aboriginal Front Door, the Women’s Centre, and the SRO Collaborative. They can lobby to get money from the feds and province to build decent housing that low-income folks can afford. They decide how many cops will be in the DTES and what they will do.
If you live in the DTES and care about the community its important to vote for candidates who will stick up for the community.
To vote in the by-election, you must meet these criteria
Be at least 18 years old on election day
Be a Canadian citizen
Have lived in BC for at least six months immediately before registration day
Live in Vancouver
Not be disqualified by law from voting
How to register to vote
You are already on Vancouver’s voters list if you voted in the October 2024 BC provincial election.
You can register when you vote in-person or by mail
If you registering when you vote in person, bring 2 pieces of identification (ID):
Both must show your name
One must include your address
One must include your signature
If you only have 1 piece of ID? You can make a solemn declaration to confirm your identity and residence.
If you have no fixed address, register by providing a general location (example: intersection names) or the address of a shelter or social agency you use in Vancouver.
You can vote in advance on March 26 and April 1 between 8am and 8pm at City Hall
Voting on election Day
On April 5, you can vote between 8 am and 8 pm at Carnegie Centre, at Main and Hastings. You can also vote in community centres at Britannia, Champlain Heights, Coal Harbour, Creekside, Douglas Park, Dunbar, False Creek, Hastings, Hillcrest, Kensington, Kerrisdale, Killarney, Kitsilano War Memorial, Marpole-Oakridge, Mount Pleasant, Renfrew Park, Roundhouse, Strathona, Sunset, Thunderbird, Trout Lake, West End, West Point Grey, and Vancouver City Hall
Carnegie Housing Speech to Council Opposing the Supportive Housing Pause Motion
by Devin O'Leary
We are so deep in crisis. And saying that we should reject the 3000 people on the supportive housing waitlist is digging the crisis deeper.
The city’s housing targets report last summer said we need 26,000 new shelter rate units in the next 10 years. But the target y’all agreed on was only 2,500 units. That’s wild. What do you think will happen to the 23,000 people who are being left out? Will they have to leave? Will they be policed on the streets?
You note in number 10 on this motion that “people need stable housing in their own communities, closer to family, cultural connections, and local services.” Does that not also apply to Vancouver?
What this motion seems to be saying is “too bad not my problem”. A much more reasonable motion would say “holy crap, what’s going on, how do we fix this? Let’s talk with people who understand this stuff.”
It could say “whereas for decades, Vancouver has lost 10x more affordable housing than we’re adding; whereas in the next decade we are only planning to build 1/10th of what’s needed; whereas the experience of not having housing and sleeping on the street for years destroys people; whereas people are surviving through addictions and precarious mental health who are rich and poor, housed and unhoused, desperate for connection that we are so deprived of in this society.
Therefore be it resolved: Give people a freaking break.
That we are all going through it and we shouldn’t abandon each other when we need some support. That we lead by example and stop the loss of affordable housing for profit. That we fight like hell for ways to fund housing that doesn’t discriminate against people based on income. Further that, for the thousands who have been burned up to now, put a roof over their head as fast as possible, no matter how expensive, cause it is a fraction of the collective financial and emotional cost of this status quo.”
Finally, some PR advice to get the rest of metro Vancouver more interested in supportive housing. Stop poorbashing. The more y’all mischaracterize the DTES, the more you freak out other neighbourhoods. That’s why Richmond couldn’t get their supportive housing project through and Kits has been fighting the one on Arbutus.
We can help with the rebranding. We know a lot of things to celebrate about the DTES and implementing a motion that actually commits to solutions would give us all a lot more to celebrate.
Work with us. We got this. Thank you. Please don’t do this.
City Council ignores about 70 speakers; votes to pause supportive housing
By Jean Swanson and Devin O'Leary
Feb. 26 was a big day for DTES residents and allies to fight for their community at City Hall. Over 300 people came to a rally and/or to speak to council to defend the neighbourhood from the ABC Council's motion to stop new supportive housing in the city. Even though the speakers were eloquent and many told Council that people will die if their motion passes, the Council passed the motion to stop new supportive housing.
Only three councillors seemed to hear to those speakers, with the majority of the ABC party voting with the Mayor to pass his motion.
While DTES residents and advocates lined up to speak at city council, about 300 people rallied outside to oppose the motion. They listened and cheered for over an hour while speakers talked about the welcoming DTES community and the desperate need for housing. The DTES Trojan Horse of gentrification made an appearance along with a skit about gentrification.
Speakers at Council from the Carnegie Housing Project included:
Nicholas who said the average age of homeless people when they die is 49 and noted that he is 47 and about to lose his housing;
Effy: People are on the BC housing list for a decade. They will die.
Phoenix Winter said it made a huge difference to have safe, secure housing. The DTES is not about the buildings. It's actually the people who are like family. People who are homeless are being used as a political football to get more housing in the outlying communities;
Mike McNeeley: showed a piece of charred wood and said this is what keeps people from freezing to death in the DTES in the winter;
Max Harper Campbell said If you're driving by the DTES in a car you can't see the density of social connections. If there's a problem in the neighbourhood everyone knows about it and very quickly forms a plan to deal with it. Concentration of social services is the outcome of people advocating for themselves.
Brianna: "To City Council and Mayor Sim... If you spent even one day in the shoes of a healthcare worker in the DTES, you would be appalled at this motion." "This motion refers to mental health and substance use as the root causes of homelessness... The root cause of homelessness is government neglect of purpose built housing."
Lance: "I need to speak for all the people across Canada, that we need social housing. That we need mental health support." Lance talked about being homeless, having disabilities and addiction, living in an SRO and having a therapist and doctor, and how we need these things for everybody now.
Other speakers included Bonnie Rose who said, "I finally have housing. I can't explain what housing does for your sanity. It changes your whole world"; Kathy Shimizu who warned: "If this motion passes lives will be lost;" and Chris Livingstone of Aboriginal Front Door who said pausing supportive housing is "taking away hope."
You can listen to what the speakers said on Youtube if you go to Vancouver city council, Feb. 26, 2025.
April 5 there will be a byelection in Vancouver to elect 2 new councillors. Hopefully this day at Council will show how important it is to elect folks who will stand up for the DTES. COPE, One City, and Green candidates for the April 5 byelection all came to speak in opposition of the motion.
Important decisions coming up at City Hall on Feb. 25, 26
by Jean Swanson
Will the city stop allowing supportive housing to be built? Will city staff recommend that the DTES Area Plan be scrapped and 30 story rental towers be allowed in the Oppenheimer area?
These are two things that could happen later this month. The Carnegie Housing Project (CHP) is gearing up to speak out for the DTES neighbourhood and for supportive housing.
The mayor announced late last month that he wants to pause "the construction of net new supportive housing units in Vancouver...." With 3000 people on the supportive housing wait list, and about 4000 who are homeless in the city this plan could condemn thousands to die on the housing wait list. Already the ABC City Council is allowing supportive modular housing to be lost when their land leases are up. 144 units are gone with over 600 more due to close by 2031.
The Mayor's code phrase for possibly putting 30 story towers in the DTES is "Updating the DTES Area Plan to encourage a mix of housing, businesses and services." Right now the plan stops condos in the Oppenheimer area and requires private rental housing to include 60 per cent social housing. In the rest of the DTES, buildings are restricted to about 12 stories. If 30 story towers are allowed (38 and 39 story towers are already proposed for E. Hastings near Raycam), property values would increase a lot and private SRO owners could sell the housing of last resort before homelessenss, leaving low income residents facing homelessness. Plus, with higher property values, desperately needed social houisng will be harder for non profits to build because land will cost so much.
Add to this, the Mayor also announced that he wants to use city land to build a 50 story rental tower in the West End for people earning $90,000 to $194,000 a year. People in this income group can afford rental housing in regular market housing. Plus using city land for richer people means it cant be used for low income folks. Usually when the city allows profit making developers to have very high buildings, it requires that 20 percent of the units rent at below market rents, but not in this city owned building.
It almost seems as if the Mayor is trying to drive low income people out of the city, even though there is no place for them to go and no housing they could afford.
Town hall on “uplifting” motion and the Mayor’s Rogue move
by Devin O’Leary
The house was packed on the night of January 30th. Passionate DTES residents and allies from around the city filtered into the Carnegie Theatre in a line that stretched out of the building. Volunteers and staff scrambled to gather additional chairs from around the centre to seat the 150-strong town hall crowd. Wendy Gaspard, a neighbourhood musician, activist, and Winter’s hotel fire survivor kept the room entertained and calm with 70’s folk ballads. She was accompanied by guitarist Sean Farrell.
Everyone was there to share their frustrations with Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim’s announcement at the January 23rd “Save Our Streets Forum”, where he announced plans to “Revitalize the DTES.” This is in slight contrast to Councilor Rebecca Bligh’s effort to “Uplift the DTES,” which we’ve been talking about a lot over the last year and this town hall was originally planned to discuss.
Makeda Martin, aka “Momma Bear”, opened the event with a passionate and rhythmic land acknowledgement. I read out a speech that was shared by Jean Swanson that explained the situation we find ourselves in, with a mayor who wants to pause new supportive housing development, break up the DTES, and address certain crime with not housing and regulated drugs, but more police. In her absence, the audience sustained a long applause of gratitude for her unwavering work and leadership for housing justice.
CHP member Lavern Kelly MC’ed the event and introduced the 3 panelists:
City Councilor Pete Fry who spoke about the potential type of buildings city hall is pushing for the DTES; 20-30 storey towers renting at mostly market rate. He acknowledged that the province wants to work with the city to build deeply affordable housing and improve health services, so he doesn’t understand why the mayor would want to reject that.
UBC Professor Kuni Kamizaki who spoke about research he has done that shows how the Oppenheimer District zoning has kept land values steady in the neighbourhood while the surrounding area has skyrocketed in value. This is because the Oppenheimer District essentially doesn’t allow condos and requires new buildings to be at least 60% social housing, reducing the amount a landlord can charge tenants and the amount they can afford to then pay for the land. This has stalled the wave of gentrification that is currently swirling around Woodwards. Kuni also showed that there is a pretty balanced mix of incomes in the buildings built in the last decade with a slant toward the people who need housing most. 44% of units are shelter rate, 28% are HILs (renting to households making $40k-$107k/year), and 28% at low-end of market (about $1500 for a one bedroom place).
Bev Ho, a Chinatown organizer who works with Yarrow, wrapped up the panel by talking about how expensive condo developments in Chinatown have increased property values and rents so much that Chinese seniors feel less and less welcome in the neighbourhood. They are rapidly losing community spaces that are affordable on a senior’s basic-pension. She talked about how government used to build affordable public housing before the ‘90s, and needs to return to that with a focus on intergenerational, culturally appropriate housing.
Following this was a raucous rendition of the Trojan Horse story, written and directed by Max Campbell, that depicted the developers and their political friends planning a deceptive siege on the DTES. A large cardboard horse was rolled onto the stage and “Odysseus”, played by Max, handpicked “brave warriors” from the audience to enter the horse, including Westbank, Holburn, and Low Tide Properties, son of Chip Wilson.
When confronted with the choice to let this speculative horse past the walls and into the neighbourhood, the audience shouted “NO!”, forcing the horse to retreat with its tail between its legs.
We finished the event by opening up to the audience and asked:
“What is something special about the DTES?”
“Community that takes care of each other”
“All kinds of people, young and old, families and seniors from all kinds of social and cultural backgrounds bringing their cultural practices with them.”
“Supportive”
“The spirit of the people. Best community for caring.”
“Lots of love”
“Community unity, positive like minded goals, consistency”
“How generous people are”
“Hidden gems/diamond in the rough”
“The socially aware community”
“People don’t leave each other behind. They help. They organize. DULF, VANDU etc.”
“The resources are stretched thin but community never withholds from each other”
“Resilience and community”
“The people! Community! This is our home. We live here!”“People are received as just who they are at that moment”
“Rich history of community building and action by the people”
“Strong sense of community and kind care”
“Its a great community. No one goes hungry. People care about each other”
“Get food and help for needed items”
“That we are one big family that watch over each other”
“The vibrant community! Kind, smart caring people everywhere”
“What I love: we look after each other”
“Its affordable”
“What is a change that would improve the DTES?
“More housing”
“Community safety starts with dignified and affordable housing”
“Getting rid of police”
“No more homelessness; safe supply”
“Housing, harm reduction, more help for the poor, less gentrification, community centres”
“An actual universal income and proper liveable housing; mental health support”
“Listening to people and getting feedback every once in a while”
“Stop city hall from sabotaging affordable housing; real help needed”
“More accessible housing now. Can’t wait; recreational programs for the diverse residents here that are sustainable”
“Keep the DEOD plan. We need more supportive housing, not less”
“Compassion and dignity for my fellow kin, housed and unhoused; less money for police harassment and more housing stock”
“Social housing for all”
“Safety structural building codes on the existing buildings (enforce, implement, mandate)”
“More affordable housing and food/shelter options for unhoused people”
“Everyone being able to have a home; a specific plan to protest this change; supportive and social housing”
“Self contained housing for all in the DTES at rates each can afford; more trees and birds; treatment on demand for all who need it; healing centre and canoe landing at CRAB park; space for Indigenous and other cultural practices”
“Stop trying to profit off the land; help people remain in their community and keep their stuff.”
Stopping the loss of supportive modulars
by Jean Swanson
Why is Vancouver losing supportive housing when thousands are homeless?
Back in November, 2023 Vancouver City Council passed a resolution called “Uplifting the Downtown Eastside” that mentioned at least 5 times that we need more supportive housing. The resolution was right about that. About 3000 Vancouver residents are on the wait list for supportive housing.
Supportive housing is housing that has support for residents like a meal, staff to connect them to services they may need, and harm reduction. Back in 2023 Vancouver had over 800 supportive modular housing units. But now in early 2025 we have lost 144 units at Little Mountain and Larwill Place, with another 39 tenants evicted this year at Powell and Jackson. All of these units are nice. People like them. They are about 3 times as big as an SRO room and have private bathrooms and kitchens.
The housing is being lost because the city has no plan to extend land leases or move the housing to other sites when current land leases expire.
Currently land leases are set to expire in 2025, 26, 27 and 28. So by 2028 all the supportive modular units, nearly 700 more, could be gone. The modular housing was designed to be moved but so far the city isn't finding sites for it. In fact, they even defeated a July, 2023 motion by Councillor Christine Boyle, now an MLA, to ask staff to look at finding sites and extending leases.
(https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-councillor-calls-decision-on-modular-housing-infuriating-and-unacceptable-1.6477833)
So why is the current council passing a motion that says 5 times that we need more supportive housing while, at the same time, refusing to extend leases or find land that would simply keep the supportive housing we have?
While BC Housing generally finds housing for folks evicted from the modulars, it is very stressful for them and the loss of the modulars, which can last for 30 or 40 years, means that Vancouver isn't getting enough supportive housing to meet the needs of thousands of residents. A housing target report from the city said that the city's target for new supportive housing in the next 5 years is 583.
(https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/housing-vancouver-10-year-targets-2024-2033.pdf)
So even if that new supportive housing gets built, we'll have fewer units in 2030 than we have now if we lose the modulars.
The Carnegie Housing Project is working with the Co-ordinated Community Response Network to try to stop the loss of the supportive modulars. We have also met with two MLA's, Christine Boyle and Joan Phillip. If you care about saving and getting housing for folks who are homeless, you could write to city council and your MLA asking them to act to preserve the modulars.
“Uplifting” Council motion town hall
by Devin O’Leary
If you’ve been following the Carnegie Housing Project (CHP) for the last several months, you might be pretty plugged into the “Uplifting the DTES” motion ordeal. If not, then I’m glad you’re reading this! Either way, this message is for you!
Back in November, CHP partnered up with some other neighbourhood groups including the SRO Collaborative and Heart of the City Festival to host a panel to discuss this city council motion. We even got the author, Councilor Rebecca Bligh to come! Community leaders like Phoenix Winter, Kathy Shimizu, Norm Leech, and our own Jean Swanson talked about the low-income community's struggle to get special zoning rules for the DTES back in 2014. These rules virtually exclude condos and require social housing in the central Oppenheimer District, as well as require social housing across most of the DTES to rent ⅓ of the units at shelter rate ($500/mo). The impact of these rules has been to limit land speculation and make it easier for non-profits and the government to build social housing.
The “Uplifting” motion proposes some ideas that might serve low-income DTES residents, but a couple lines mention changing these protective rules to allow developers to build 30-storey expensive towers in the DTES. This would increase land values and make it much harder for nonprofits to compete with for-profit developers and build social housing.
A bunch of groups are nervous about this, so we’re going around talking to residents and allies about how this motion could change the neighbourhood and what we can do to make sure the DTES stays for the people, not profit.
The next step for organizing around this is talking with each other at a town hall that we are hosting on Thursday, January 30th at 6pm in the Carnegie Theatre. This is where we can give updates about what the city is up to and share ideas about what we want to do in response. This is BIG. If anyone was around in 2014 for the DTES local area plan, which required a massive organizing effort, you know what it takes to go toe to toe with the city and their developer buddies. AND, maybe we can get some good things out of it, like a more urgent push from government to fund good housing for people on fixed incomes and the thousands of unhoused people in Vancouver.
We didn't think we won, but we did (sort of). Now we need to fight to keep what we won!
by Jean Swanson
Ten years ago about 300 low income Downtown Eastside residents rallied at Hastings and Main for about two hours. We shut down the intersection, drummed, chanted, and spoke about the need for a Social Justice Zone in the DTES. For ten days before the rally residents had knocked on thousands of doors and collected a petition with 3000 signatures calling for a 5 point plan for a DTES Social Justice Zone.
We delivered the petition to the city.
But then the City Council meeting happened. We weren't happy with the Local Area Plan that Council passed. We thought we had lost. But looking back, city staff did come up with some ways of protecting at least the Oppenheimer area (see map) or DEOD, from condos and expensive rentals. And that has helped us get social housing that low income residents can afford.
Council made the DEOD a virtual no condo zone, just like we wanted. And if a private developer wants to build rental housing in the DEOD, they have to partner with a non profit and make sure 60% of the building is social housing.
What happened? Ten years later, according to research by Kuni Kamizaki at UBC:
No new condos were built in the DEOD;
Only two market rental buildings (which are 60% social housing);
22 social housing buildings are now built, acquired, or in process in the DEOD. with 2251 units of social housing (988 will rent at welfare shelter rate);
Only 19 social housing buildings in the whole rest of the DTES with only 1150 social housing units;
Lower property values in the DEOD.
In other words, we got the rules that kept condos out of the DEOD, which kept most market rentals out of the DEOD, meaning that property values stayed low so that non profits could afford to build for lower income people. And we got lots of non market social housing. In fact, the DTES Plan calls for 1400 units of social housing in 10 years and we'll have over 2200 in the one DEOD zone alone when all the projects are finished. In other words, that part of the plan worked.
One of the 5 points in the old social justice zone plan was for two thirds of all social housing to be people on welfare, pension, and the working poor. We got one third. The DTES is the only place in the city where at least some units in each social housing building have to be affordable to low income people.
One of the 5 points of the Social Justice Zone project was a rent freeze. We don't have one yet but we did, finally this year, get SRO vacancy control which stops landlords from raising rents as much as they like when a tenant leaves.
Why is this history important? Right now city staff are working on a motion called "Uplifting the Downtown Eastside." The motion could result in condos and expensive rental towers in the DTES. It could change the definition of social housing so it would exclude low income people. If the city allows condos and/or expensive rentals, property values will go up and non profits, the DTES Community Land Trust, and governments won't be able to afford the land we need to house people who are homeless and to acquire and rehab or rebuild the SROS. If the definition of social housing is changed it could exclude low income people and we'll have more homelessness.
Getting the zoning right is just one part of building a DTES community that meets people's needs. We also need lots of government funding for social housing, higher welfare rates, safe supply. But zoning is one thing the city can do that doesn't cost anything and can have good results for our DTES.
Past Victories panel
by Max Campbell
When someone wants to change the DTES for the worse, they sometimes tell a certain story. They say that we are helpless and hopeless, and what we need is someone who will come in and fix things up for us. Don’t make me laugh. Have these people spent even one hour getting to know life around here? If they did, they would know... we are people who make things happen!
On Nov 2, we got to talk a bit about some of the things we made happen. In the Carnegie Theatre, a legendary group of activists and community leaders gathered to talk about our victories. Let’s learn from what we’ve already won, and keep winning.
First up, we had Wendy Pedersen, longtime DTES resident and the head of the SRO Collaborative. Starting in 2008, she was doing research into rising rents and loss of units in SROs. Pedersen and the SRO-C realized we needed SRO vacancy control to keep rents from rising. To get that, they needed someone on the inside of City Hall, so they helped get Jean Swanson elected. Swanson passed SRO vacancy control, which went to the courts and then the province, and this year it officially became law in Vancouver!
Next up was Ann Livingston, a founder of VANDU. She talked about how we got Insite, North America’s first legal injection site. At first it wasn’t legal---never ask permission!---but they fought to get it legalized. After it became legal, there were still battles and court cases to be fought. Stephen Harper’s government tried to target Insite. But we won a Supreme Court Victory and the idea of Insite is spreading.
We also heard from Libby Davies, longtime MP and a member of DERA back in the day.
She spoke about the battle to save Carnegie. DERA was determined that Carnegie be a community centre for public use. It took 6 years to convince the city to put aside money to buy the building, and the pivotal meeting took place right here at Carnegie.
Next was Chris Livingstone, a member of the Woodward squat back in the 2000s and at AFD today. He reminds us that just surviving is a victory. At AFD right now they store belongings of 500 people who are on the streets and give food Mondays to Fridays.
Then there was Phoenix Winter, former president of Carnegie’s board, member of CCAP and of the local area planning committee. It was important that when the city was drawing up a local area plan for the DTES, we got community members on the team. We made sure that the planners heard what we had to say, and didn’t just write down what they wanted to hear. In the end, we got the restrictions on condos in the Oppenheimer District, which has helped 22 social housing projects take off since then.
This short list doesn’t include every victory we won here. I also didn’t get to mention the late Sid Chow Tan, whose video we watched together.
Keep learning about DTES victories, and we can keep winning them!
“Uplifting” or Gentrifying? Panel w/ Heart of the City
by Devin O’Leary
On November 6th, the Carnegie Housing Project partnered up with other neighbourhood organizers to host a panel on the “Uplifting the DTES” city council motion that passed last year. We’ve talked about the motion a few times, and we’re going to keep talking about it so folks in the neighbourhood can think about what’s at stake.
It was written by councilor Rebecca Bligh, asking city staff to report back to council sometime this spring about potential changes to the DTES Local Area Plan (LAP). Note that we are just 10 years into its 30-year span. The panel talked about reasons why the plan shouldn’t be changed, with research showing that 41 social housing projects have been built in the neighbourhood or are in the process as a result of restrictions on expensive rental and condo projects within the neighbourhood.
Norm Leech opened the event with a beautiful land acknowledgement. If you’ve never heard his land acknowledgements, I recommend you search him up on YouTube. He clearly lays out where we came from and what we have to return to. Namely, our relationship with the land, our first Grandmother, who has given us everything unconditionally, teaching us what love is. And our duty is to return that love to her.
It’s an odd thing to hear before a discussion about land values and development potential. But I think it shows the two ways of being that are in tension in this city, with their concentration in our neighbourhood, this space around Oppenheimer and down Hastings to Columbia St. called the “Downtown Eastside Oppenheimer District,” or DEOD.
The DTES with the DEOD at the core, which, excludes condos, requires all new projects to be at least 60% social housing, and requires 1/3 of social housing units to rent at shelter rate ($500)
What do we want our relationship to be with land and each other? One that maximizes profit and restricts who can live in a place based on what they can afford to pay for housing? Or do we want to love the land and each other unconditionally? That sounds like a stretch in the dominant society, but Norm shared examples of how we are working to repair those relationships in this neighbourhood. Norm works with many others on building the DTES Community Land Trust, a group that is trying to buy privately owned SROs to be owned and managed by and for the residents. The city should understand and respect that.
Others who spoke on the panel included Wendy Pedersen, Phoenix Winter, Kathy Shimizu, Jean Swanson, Steve Johnston, Michelle Lackie, and councilor Bligh.
Wendy quizzed the audience on some technical pieces of the LAP, like zoning, which describes what can be built in any area of the city.
Phoenix talked about the LAP committee, with low-income residents meeting at the planning table to create plan from 2010-2014. They had to learn the technical language of the planners and figure out how to make sure that their stories made it past that language into the actual plan. Not an easy thing to do.
Kathy spoke about research by UBC professor Kuni Kamizaki, who found that the plan has actually been a success for achieving its main purpose, to keep land values low so non-profits and the government can build social housing.
Jean talked about how social housing outside the DTES actually excludes low-income people because it is funded mostly with loans that the housing provider needs to pay back. To do this, they’ll rent 1/3 of the units to households earning $40k-$107k a year, and the rest at market rate.
That’s about $2200 for a 1-bedroom. The only way to create housing for people making under $40k a year is with billions of dollars in government spending, something that the government refuses to own up to.
Steve and Michelle talked about how this motion could result in more space and contracts for social enterprises, which would improve the local economy. That shouldn’t come as a compromise for allowing a flood of expensive housing to enter the neighbourhood, though.
Norm bookended the panel by talking about how the DTES is like the end of the road. There’s nowhere else to go. And it’s getting tougher as this neighbourhood gets pushed in from all sides. Just like Indigenous people over hundreds of years have been pushed to smaller pieces of land by colonizers. And with no say in those policies. No say in designing this system.
His full speech, and all the others are totally worth listening to, so check out our Instagram @carnegie.housingproject where we’ll post the video.
Keep an eye out for updates about this and related projects like the Westbank towers proposal in future newsletters.
Will provincial “Transit Oriented Areas” gentrify the Downtown Eastside?
by Devin O’Leary
The provincial government says the city must allow 20-storey buildings within 200 metres of a Skytrain station, 12-storey buildings within 400 metres, and 8-storey buildings within 800 metres. If these requirements are higher than what is currently allowed in an area, the existing buildings become very attractive to developers wanting to demolish and build higher.
What concerns us is that privately-owned SROs might be sold off for redevelopment if the opportunity for big profit is there. The maps below show the two areas where we think tenants might be at risk. Gastown’s 14 private SROs with 757 rooms, and Strathcona’s 3 private SROs with 48 rooms will both by “upzoned” by this policy.
The city’s SRA by-law states that Council “may” require that each unit is replaced and offered to the previous tenant at the same amount they were paying before redevelopment. Or, the developer can pay the city $300k per unit and redevelop the building into whatever the zoning allows, which is condos and expensive rentals outside the DTES Oppenheimer District. Regardless, with a nearly 0% vacancy rate, current tenants would have nowhere to go if they were evicted. The new development would also likely add a significant number of market-rate units, continuing the pressure from higher-income residents to make the neighbourhood more hostile to lower-income residents.
We’ll keep an eye out for any news about this zoning and how it might impact the neighbourhood. Stay tuned.
Back off, Tom Davidoff!
by Max Campbell
I couldn’t believe my ears. Had I just heard what I thought I did?
“The question is, should the builders be responsible both for providing the homes and transferring resources to low-income households, and the answer is no.”
That was Tom Davidoff saying that poor people should never expect to move into new homes. And Tom Davidoff is a UBC professor who gives the province advice on housing, and he also talks to the media all the time about housing too. Is this what he’s telling them?
This was last month, August 7th to be exact. I was attending an event with a panel discussion on luxury housing. Tom Davidoff was one of the panelists, and so was the Carnegie’s own Jean Swanson. I was glad when she pushed back against what he was saying. Jean pointed out that when a new building goes up and nobody can afford to live there except rich people, it can make the whole neighbourhood unfriendly to poor people. Local businesses “start catering to wealthier people, and the people who don’t live in the towers, who aren’t wealthy, who depend on businesses that have lower prices, will start to get priced out.”
You can see that happen all the time in the DTES. Maybe you remember how different the neighbourhood around Woodward’s was before they redeveloped it. When wealthier people move in, the businesses become fancier too, and suddenly security guards and cops harass people on the street to get out of sight. The message is clear: “This is our neighbourhood now, and you don’t even deserve to be seen in it.”
But Davidoff isn’t concerned with that. He replied that “the ability to buy retail at a junky retailer is [not] really what’s helping people hold on.” According to him, who cares if you can shop at the local businesses? Who cares if they see you as part of the community, or as an eyesore to be moved along? As long as you have the money you need, and a home to spent that money renting, you’ll be okay. Low income people “need more money and they need more homes,” but that’s about it.
Well, I won’t say no to more money and more homes, but if he thinks that’s the end of the list, he is wrong. I have lived in the DTES and in suburban Richmond. While the DTES has so many problems, the power of community here is so strong. In Richmond, I felt totally alone as a poor person. I looked around and all I saw were happy, middle class people in their nice homes. I felt like the fly in everyone’s soup. In the DTES I feel like I matter to people.
That’s the importance of community. This is what we’re fighting for. We need homes and money, but nobody can use that as an excuse to break our community and tear us away from each other. So back off, Tom Davidoff!
Are market rental towers the new SRO replacement plan?
by Jean Swanson
Vancouver developer Westbank wants to build 3 towers in the 1000 and 1100 blocks of East Hastings. One tower would be 39 stories, one would be 38 stories (767 apartments total) and one would be 19 stories (157 units). The tallest two would be for rental apartments for mostly middle income and some higher income folks.
The shorter one (replacing the Vernon Hotel) would be seniors social housing with 52 units at shelter rate, and 105 units for middle income people. It's not clear how much money the government is putting into the social housing building. Because the city would be allowing the developer to build 2 towers much higher than the current zoning allows, the city can extract community benefits like social housing from the developer. It appears that the developer will pay for at least some of the social housing building and has handed it over to BC Housing.
Does the city want to use this strategy for the Oppenheimer District (DEOD)? In this area, surrounding Oppenheimer Park and with a finger going down Hastings to Columbia, the current zoning requires that privately owned rental housing buildings include social housing. Only 2 buildings have been built in 10 years under this condition. But, coupled with a condo restriction in the area, property values have been low and about 15, 100 per cent social housing buildings have recently opened or are in the planning and development stages.
Plus we have got some social housing and 20 percent of it at shelter rate in the two mixed private and social housing buildings.
Last year City Council passed a motion to "Explore options to update the DTES Area Plan, with the goal to deliver a greater number of social and supportive housing units in the DEOD." Does the E. Hastings tower proposal mean the city wants to allow huge market rental towers to replace SROs in the DEOD in order to extract enough funds from developers to replace a few SRO rooms?
Is this the new plan for the rest of the Downtown Eastside?
If you're concerned about the DTES getting more housing that mostly excludes low income residents, the city is holding a public information meeting on October 17th from 5pm to 7:30 pm at the Japanese Hall, 457 Alexander St. Or, if you are a DTES residents come to the regular Fri lunch Carnegie Housing Project meetings to learn more.
THE EARLY FIGHT FOR 58W HASTINGS
by Phoenix
July 2024
I remember my first days with CCAP, the Carnegie Community Action Project. I was coming out of homelessness and mental health issues. I didn't have a lot of confidence, but Wendy Pedersen and Jean Swanson were our fearless leaders in taking on Concord Pacific, the development company.
58W Hastings (currently dubbed "Bob and Michael's Place" by Chinatown Foundation) has been in the local eye these days but back then Terry Hui, the head of Concord Pacific, wanted to turn the site into condos. CCAP people were concerned it would be a gentrification bomb in the heart of the DTES. So we hatched a plan.
CCAP decided to pay them a visit at their downtown offices. We made them a "Welcome to the Neighbourhood" package. It included a bedbug and a cockroach, each in their own glass jar. We gave him a book of Hope in the Shadows stories. We got specially made a huge, waist-high card of a man with a shopping cart and we all signed it with messages for the prospective builders.
A group of us met at Carnegie on the appointed day for the trek to the downtown tower where Terry Hui had his upscale office. When we got there we were met by security and cops and told not to go inside.
A few brave souls pushed their way into the lobby of the building and Jean was one of them. She recalls security speaking into a radio handset and saying, "The building has been penetrated." The CCAP people in the lobby giggled hysterically at the thought. The receptionist wouldn't even take the welcome basket and we weren't allowed to meet with Mr. Hui.
The media took it all in and Wendy asked for volunteers to be interviewed. I very nervously agreed and it wasn't as bad as I thought. People I knew actually heard it. Wendy was also busy giving interviews.
Eventually everyone dispersed. Me and another person walked back to Carnegie with the rejected basket of goodies. A couple of Concord people followed us and called out. We explained our basket and with guilty looks they offered to take the welcome package to Hui, first making sure no one was watching. We gave it to them.
In the time that followed, Concord Pacific stopped its condo plan and swapped land with the city. The City promised social housing on the site.
And it all started with a room full of people at Carnegie and a basket with cockroach and bed bug.
And that was the Terry Hui caper.
DTES Community Land Trust Voted Top Priority for 2024 BC Budget at Carnegie Housing Project Town Hall #3
by Devin O’Leary
On November 15th, the Carnegie Housing Project hosted its 3rd town hall to discuss recommendations for the Province’s 2024 budget to support unhoused people in the DTES. Around 60 DTES residents and advocates joined for a lively discussion about the recommendations, resulting in a vote for the top priorities.
The leading choice with 30 votes was for the Province to fund the DTES Community Land Trust to purchase and operate 10 DTES SROs. Kathy Shimizu, a community organizer working with the Powell Street Festival and the land trust was present to explain the model. She described the unique governance structure that puts tenants in the driver’s seat to make decisions on how the building is managed. The land trust would also own the building for the benefit of the community, keeping the rent as cheap as possible and investing it directly into the operation of the building rather than trying to maximize profit like many private landlords. The land trust owning the building and land would also remove it from the private market, preventing investor speculation or sale to profit-seeking developers. The Provincial government purchased the Keefer Rooms in October to be operated by the DTES Community Land Trust, the first SRO to be run under this model. Kathy’s explanation sparked resounding applause.
Rounding out the top 5 recommendations were the requests to find sites for the 3 modular housing buildings whose leases have expired, fund enough low-barrier shelter spaces for everyone who needs them, require and fund all social housing to be 100% shelter rate, and to fund and speed up building self-contained 100% shelter rate housing at the Regent, Balmoral, and Gore and Hastings temple sites.
These recommendations will now be shared with groups around the DTES to give feedback before they are sent to the Premier and Housing Minister early in December. We expect the Province will announce their budget in March of next year.
If you would like to support these recommendations or advocate for your own, Premier David Eby has a phone line dedicated to housing concerns. Call him at 1.236.478.0431 and let him know what you want done to support our unhoused neighbours!
We will be hosting a 4th town hall early in the new year to talk about long-term recommendations. Updates will be posted in the Carnegie Newsletter and posters will be up along Hastings to let folks know when the town hall will take place.
As always, if you have any questions, email us at carnegiehousingproject@gmail.com, or come to our Friday housing lunch sessions from noon-1:30 at Carnegie. December 1st, we will be meeting in the 3rd floor classroom II. December 8th, we will be meeting in the Carnegie Theatre.
Province Moves Forward with Controversial Minimum Shelter Amendment
by Devin O’Leary
BC’s Minister of Housing Ravi Kahlon announced last week that a Provincial amendment which defines reasonable alternative shelter requirements that a municipality needs to demonstrate to legally evict people sheltering in tents will be decided on before the end of the month despite controversy. The amendment was introduced on November 6th by Attorney General Niki Sharma to allow courts to approve a decampment if there is available shelter that meeting these criteria:
(a) the person may stay overnight at the shelter,
(b) the person has access to a bathroom and shower at or near the shelter,
(c) the person is offered, without charge, one meal a day at or near the shelter, and
(d) the shelter is staffed when persons are sheltering at the shelter.
The amendment provoked heated criticism, but with two opposing messages. One came from the Union of BC Municipalities who stated that these criteria would make it too difficult for local governments to dismantle tent cities because no city has enough shelters or housing for the number of unhoused people. In their eyes, this bill will be a major protection for those sheltering outdoors because cities don’t believe they can meet this minimum requirement. The Housing Minister stated that the Province has the money to fund these spaces if cities would agree on suitable spaces.
On the other hand, a group of 155 lawyers and housing advocates signed a letter opposing the amendment on the grounds that it would make tent evictions easier for local governments. Some pointed out that under the Province’s definition, a 24-hour Tim Horton’s could qualify as alternative shelter. It also ignores the rights of people who are unhoused and failed to engage with those affected to ensure that the alternative shelter would be appropriate for their needs and the transition to the space would be dignified.
In reaction to the undemocratic nature of this decision, The Carnegie Housing Project partnered with the DTES Emergency Response Hub to check in with folks who have used the shelter system to let them know about the amendment and find out what they think a reasonable alternative shelter requires. So far, we have received 145 responses from the community outlining the current issues with Vancouver shelters and making it clear that the minimum definition set by the Province would put folks in dangerous situations. Many respondents stated that it was the unsafe conditions that led them to choose sheltering outside.
The top responses for minimum shelter requirements were:
Longer hours of operation and maximum permitted length of stay
Clean and bug-free facilities
Storage for belongings
Better security and safety
Well-trained staff with skills in crisis management, preferably with lived experience
Housing advocacy
More privacy
Good food
More locations
More couples spaces
There were another 26 common answers that were taken from detailed accounts of shelter experiences, indicating that people’s shelter and housing needs are quite extensive and setting an arbitrary minimum, especially at the abysmal standard defined by the Province, is likely to lead to more violent and dehumanizing experiences than what people are already subjected to.
It is our recommendation that the Province and City of Vancouver not evict people sheltering in tents and instead meet with folks to explore multiple options for rapidly increasing housing and shelter spaces in the DTES that people want. Our government has a responsibility to empower those harmed by the current housing system to participate in creating spaces that are safe and dignified. For a full list of the Carnegie Housing Project’s immediate housing recommendations, email carnegiehousingproject@gmail.com
Developing a DTES Community Plan to end homelessness
By Jean Swanson
February 2023
If you were the king or a person with a lot of power, what would you do to deal with the homeless situation in the DTES??
Right now we have at least about 500 unhoused people in the city who are literally living on the street and another 1500 minimum (another homeless count is happening in March) who use shelters. There is virtually no housing available that they can afford.
Some new social housing is being built, by my count, about 1071 units have been proposed just for the DTES. BUT only about 383 will be at shelter rate. UNLESS WE CAN CHANGE THAT! And it will take years for them all to be built.
More new social housing is in the works outside the DTES: 700 -800 units, but even less of that is at shelter rate, maybe 250 units.
So even if we look 4-5 years down the road, we don't have enough housing in the works to house folks who are homeless now, let alone anyone new who becomes homeless. And this doesn't count for the shelter rate units we lose, like the 46 units of modular housing that we lost at Little Mountain, the 71 units at Winters that burned down, and all the SRO units that are lost because landlords evict tenants so they can charge higher rents.
What can we do about this in the short term? Do we want better tent cities or tiny home villages? If so, what kind of management should they have? Or would this become acceptable and reduce the pressure for getting good housing? What can we do about the SRO's? Are there any good SRO's? How can we, as a DTES community, build pressure for the proper, dignified housing that everyone deserves?
At City Hall everyone talks about "wrap around services". Do we need more "services" and if so what kind?
And what about that $375 welfare and disability shelter rate? UGH!!!
Over the next few months I'm going to be working on behalf of the Carnegie Community Centre Association Board to try to develop a plan that hopefully we can all get behind, with short and long term goals, to end homelessness in the DTES. I'll be reporting to the Board through the Community Relations Committee that meets monthly. I hope to talk to folks living in the tents and doorways about what they want and need, and to folks in lots of the community-based groups to get their ideas too. Hopefully we can have a town hall meeting when we get some ideas and decide together what we want to push our governments to do.
If you have ideas on ending homelessness and want to get in touch with me, you can,
1. Email me at jean.swanson@gmail.com. Put "ending homelessness" in the subject line; or
2. Leave a note for me under the door of the Carnegie Association office on the second floor of Carnegie (just to the left of the stairs)
Thanks everyone. I hope we can work on this together and get a plan that governments can't resist or at least a plan that we all want to fight for.
New Carnegie Housing Project Staff Member
by Devin O’Leary
July 2023
Earlier this year, Jean Swanson talked with numerous folks sheltering outside on East Hastings to understand the barriers they experience being safely housed. Around the same time, a group of 8 other neighbourhood organizations were given some funds through SPARC BC to conduct similar interviews, gathering narratives describing the deficiencies of this housing system from some of those who are hit hardest by it.
I recently joined the Carnegie Community Centre Association to support this team and many others working for housing justice in building a DTES housing plan. The primary objectives of this plan will be to communicate the immediate and grave need for enough housing and the right housing management required to safely house the approximately 2,000* unhoused people surviving in the DTES. It seems ambitious and absolutely critical at this time when more affordable homes are being lost than gained**.
A little about where I come from: I originally moved here from the US in 2019 to study Community and Regional Planning at UBC. I came with very limited experience in activism and social justice movements. However, on arrival, I was educated on the elaborate ways domination of people and land have been institutionalized through colonization and capitalism. This led me to focus my studies on systems of direct democracy in community-led housing models and the power and importance of grassroots movements in returning agency to those who are disenfranchised by the ruling class.
In the Summer of 2021, I was graciously welcomed into the DTES to support neighbourhood groups operating the Emergency Supply Hub at Olivia Skye, where I also lived for the last year. At the Hub, I had the opportunity to work alongside and learn from community leaders who have been organizing within this neighbourhood for decades, fighting incessantly for themselves and their neighbours’ right to live. Everyday, I witnessed acts of self-determination and community care that I believe are sorely undervalued in areas outside of this neighbourhood.
I am sincerely honoured to continue working in the DTES and with Carnegie and its legacy of community organizers battling for life and dignity in this neighbourhood.
If you are curious or interested in a DTES housing plan or any aspect of this project, please feel free to contact me at carnegiehousingproject@gmail.com or visit me at Carnegie in the CCCA office on the second floor Monday-Thursday, 1-5 PM.
*This number comes from the number of people collecting the No Fixed Address subsidy from BC Employment Assistance as of March, 2023.
** From The Mainlander article “’Losing More Housing Than We Gain’: An Interview with Jean Swanson”