Skip to content

RADIA: Maximize good in Van's DTES

Idon't much like the term "anti-gentrification." I think we should call it what it really is: anti-development, anti-improvement, anti-betterment and anti-capitalism.

Idon't much like the term "anti-gentrification."

I think we should call it what it really is: anti-development, anti-improvement, anti-betterment and anti-capitalism.

I find it disconcerting to see what's happening on Vancouver's Downtown East Side these days. A group of yahoos have taken it upon themselves to protest any enhancements to their neighbourhood - such as new restaurants - because they say it will increase rents and then they'll have to find someplace else to live.

In other words, they want to restrict the rights of private landowners so that they can continue to live in what is known as Canada's poorest postal code.

I'll agree with the protestors - and my colleague opposite for that matter - that new businesses and new buildings will systematically price them out of the rental market in east Vancouver.

But at the risk of sounding like an insensitive jerk, tough petunias.

Rents within walking distance of the hub of a world-class city should be expensive.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have some affordable housing and social housing solutions in the downtown area but to have several blocks in the city centre dedicated to low-income renters is beyond the responsibility of city governments.

Where should these low-income renters go? How about to the suburbs?

The Tri-Cities, the Fraser Valley and beyond will all have cheaper rents than a rejuvenated East Van. Certainly, it will be incumbent upon provincial and municipal government to ensure that health, addiction and other services are offered in the 'burbs. And they can always take public transit back to the Downtown East Side to access services not available elsewhere.

Improvements to the area will also lead to what economists call "the maximization of the overall good." Community enhancement can create jobs, bring in tourists and enhance the city's tax base, which helps everybody - rich, poor or in between.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting we put low-income earners, the disabled or the sick out on the streets.

But they don't have a God-given right to live in one of the most geographically desirable areas in the country.