Thoughts on Key election issues
————————————————————————–
A major focus for me in this election is that the city of Calgary asked us what kind of city we wanted, we told them, they did up the plans, and then the Aldermen voted to change those plans without saying much more in some cases than that the UDI (a Calgary developer think tank/ lobby group) told them to. There is something wrong with private interests overriding public interest- especially in an issue like neighbourhood development where there is so much at stake.
Through the huge public consultation process of ‘Imagine Calgary’ we told the City what we wanted with remarkable consistency of opinion. We want safe streets, we want walkable communities, we want a vibrant small business community, we want more green space, we want great public transit and we want an active core. City planners drafted the documents outlining how to follow through on what we asked for. The Municipal Development Plan, for example, is a great document. When it came time for the vote on density requirements in ‘new communities’/green-field development, council decided to instead reduce previously existing required density levels. Higher density is important in the creation of the types of neighbourhoods that Calgarians asked for- and it happens to save us a lot of tax dollars. Lower density is important to sprawl developers because it makes them the most money- it also happens to cost us a lot of tax dollars to service.
Council decided to continue allowing one specific industry to make millions of dollars in profits selling Calgarians homes in neighbourhoods that are incredibly expensive to service. Our public consultation made it very clear that Calgarians do NOT want this type of city.
The density requirement vote was passed with a majority due to the vote of the incumbent Ward 8 alderman- who has said that he agrees to the principals raised by the Imagine Calgary process. This type of duplicity is not unknown to Calgarians and it should make us angry that we cannot trust our council to do what we ask of them despite what they tell us. Being lied to makes people tune out from the political process.
The people who live in the inner city pay higher taxes because we pay based on property value instead of servicing costs. This makes living in the most easy to service, efficient part of the city, also the most expensive option for people. Money is missing from this equation and its going to the companies selling us sprawl. Their argument is that this is a customer choice issue. This flawed argument is perpetuated to justify building neighbourhoods with the cheapest land costs that generate the highest profits for the companies that develop them.
I would argue that many customers would choose to spend less time in their car every day if they were given affordable, interesting, safe, inner city options. There are smaller profits to be made pursuing this type of development because land costs are higher. I would like to see real costs of servicing tied to new development so that customers are choosing from a level playing field that is fair to all tax payers.
The development industry has many very reasonable players who understand that some rules should apply to how communities are built so that they are the most efficient for tax payers and are responsive to the wants of Calgarians. I would hope that with the right policies in place developers would find attractive ways to make profits by filling in our street level parking lots and the open pits that are destroying street life in the downtown and inner city with new places for people to live.
If real costs were passed on to the sprawl developers, and taxes were spent in the city relative to where they were generated, I believe customers would be more likely to choose to live in an efficient, safe, well serviced inner city.
I think inner city development and bringing our suburbs up to higher density instead of continuing to build out in new communities is not only the most economically responsible policy for Calgarian’s tax dollars, it also makes for the best type of city that is most responsive to what Calgarians have asked for.
Somehow council after council agrees to the rules that sprawl developers tell them they have to play by. This happens with little or no public involvement. The closed door meetings that resulted in the lowering of density requirements in new communities is a key example of this unfair influence.
Despite what some on council may be convinced of- we don’t need to be afraid that if we don’t spread out as largely as possible people will choose to live in Okotoks and pay taxes to that municipality. With safe streets, different market entry points to home ownership, excellent inner city public transit and a vibrant small business culture we can expect a rise in the number of people wanting to live in the core. Calgary stretches out far enough- there will always be plenty of single family houses here. There is no need for us to spread into any more of our surrounding farm land.
I want to focus on a positive direction for Ward 8 and the inner city, and I also want to be positive about all of Calgary. We all know and love people who have made the choice to live in the suburbs. We should be mad that in order to appease one industry Calgary is set up so that affordable places to live happen to be found in neighbourhoods that require people to spend a lot of time in a car. No one really wins in that system except the people who sell those houses. We have told our elected officials what we want to see and they haven’t followed through.
I do not want to inflame people against developers. In this country most development projects are handled by private development companies. If we are going to build the inner city we want in Calgary it will done by the development industry. Finding allies interested in looking at new, successful, efficient, sustainable development projects will be crucial for an effective council. We must find developers who understand that the 1960’s view of a perfect neighbourhood was based on the assumption of an endless supply of oil and an indestructible environment. We are in a vastly different reality in 2010 and we need to start adapting how we build cities.
To build the strongest possible Calgary we need to focus on improving the core. We can do this by developing a strong inner city public transit network, keeping Calgary one of the safest cities in Canada with police foot patrols and neighbourhood policing and by encouraging small business development bringing vibrancy and unique local character to the city. In other words- following through on what Calgarians have already asked for.
How We Took Back Our Apartment Building
When I lived in Chinatown, I lived in a subsidized apartment building that had a reputation with the police for crime. The building had drug dealers, homeless people living in the laundry rooms and lots of drug trafficking. With drug trafficking came prostitution, strewn hypodermic needles and an occasional murder.
It seemed like a hopeless situation. The tenants were society’s most vulnerable people. Most of them had disabilities, many were senior citizens and some of them were immigrants. There were also a lot of ex-convicts living there. Most of the ex-convicts were turning their lives around, but occasionally one would turn to crime.
I had seen a booklet called the “Calgary Safety Audit Handbook.” It was part of a safety program called the Safety Audit Task Force (S.A.T.F.). Former Alderman Bev Longstaff introduced the program to the City Council of Calgary, but unfortunately this program has been cut. I wish city council would bring it back. The booklet was a crucial turning point for reducing the crime in the building.
The Manager of the S.A.T.F. gave me a few safety audit booklets and the tenants wrote their opinions in it anonymously. By allowing tenants to have their say anonymously, they were enabled the freedom to express their opinions honestly without fear of any backlash. These tenants brought to light problems which management and the police had never thought about. For example, there was a heavy steel door to the parkade, which led to another heavy steel door to the outside. Each door had a tiny window at the top of the door. If people on both sides of the door weren’t tall enough or careful enough to look through the window there could be an accident. Short people, people in wheelchairs and seniors riding motor scooters could be hit by the door when someone on the other side of the door opened it. One tenant was hit in the face this way. Also a man in a wheelchair tried to open one of these heavy doors and fell. He waited a long time before someone found him and helped him back into his wheelchair. The only other door to the outside, other than the garage door was the front door. It was inaccessible for persons with mobility disabilities because the passageway to the door was surrounded by stairs.
The Manager of the S.A.F.T. called on one of the managers of our apartment building for a meeting with tenants, police and herself to discuss the results of the safety audit. I wouldn’t have had the courage to do this myself back then. Because this building was a place of terror, I had fears that if I made waves I’d either be evicted or I’d be harmed by one of the criminals. I needed the support of the S.A.F.T. As it turned out I wasn’t evicted and no harm came to me, except five years later a visitor pushed me aside to get into the building.
I compiled the tenants’ opinions into one report and we set a weekday afternoon for the meeting. About 50 tenants showed up in a building that could hold 250 tenants at maximum capacity. One of the tenants read out the results of the safety audit and I chaired the meeting. The District One Community Liaison Officer (C.L.O.) who was a policeman, suggested the tenants start Apartment Watch. One of the apartment managers respectfully took the report.
After the meeting there was a tour of the building led by the C.L.O. The Manager of S.A.T.F., the Resident Manager and three tenants followed. The C.L.O. analyzed the building and the surrounding area according to the principles of C.P.T.E.D. (pronounced “sep-ted”). The acronym stands for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. The policeman pointed out ways to discourage drug dealing such as better lighting and fencing. He had numerous ideas that no one had ever thought about. The most important concept we learned was that a well kept area discourages criminals because it shows them the people living there care about their community. To this day tenants and management participate in programs to beautify the building and surrounding area.
The C.P.T.E.D. audit is not a program the City Council of Calgary has cut. However, not everyone who asks their C.L.O. can expect to have a C.P.T.E.D. audit done. Gerry Baily of the Calgary Police Service explained why. He said that each situation is different and must be prioritized. Preserving life and keeping the peace are the first priorities of the police and must come first. He also said, “I can assure you, if there is an apartment building, condo building, business or private residence, I will do everything in my power with the resources I have to assist with crime prevention and C.P.T.E.D., by communicating directly with the C.L.O or doing it myself.” His contact information is: Gerry Bailey, C.P.T.E.D. Specialist, Calgary Police Service, Crime Prevention Unit. Call 403-206-8141 anytime between 7:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. daily from Monday to Thursday or contact GBailey@calgarypolice.ca. Gerry Bailey coordinates and completes C.P.T.E.D. audits. He will be the new C.P.T.E.D. instructor for the police.
After the safety audit and the C.P.T.E.D. audit, the management for our building started right away to improve the environment. The first change was to put doors on the laundry rooms and to lock them at 10:00 p.m. every night. Over the years, as the budget allowed, many more improvements were made. There were new fences, new lighting and keyless locks installed to name a few. Later, there was a wheelchair ramp built for people with mobility disabilities to access the front area and the front door.
A Sharps Container was mounted outside the building on the sidewalk. Our Sharps Container was a mailbox painted yellow. It was for drug users to drop in their used hypodermic needles. This is preferable to having drug users leave their needles on the floor or on a bench. Once I sat down in the laundry room and narrowly missed sitting down on a dirty needle.
I started Apartment Watch with the help of the police, the apartment management and a couple of social workers. The police didn’t run the group, but we invited our C.L.O. from time to time. We also received stickers from the Calgary Apartment Association. On them was printed, “Apartment Watch” and “Don’t Know Them? Don’t Let Them In!” These stickers were handy to put on the front door.
We would walk in pairs every night starting at the top floor, down floor by floor, and ending at the parkade. Later we’d pick strategic times to walk such as around 1:00 a.m. when nearby bars were closing. We reported noise and fights to the apartment management. In one month thirteen tenants were evicted. The building was much quieter ever after. The tenants who invited prostitutes were discouraged by Apartment Watch and police working together. We also tracked crime with P.A.C.T. (Police And Community Telephone System) and reported crime statistics drawn up just for our building. The crime rate in our building dropped.
I wish I could say these changes were all that were needed, but the reality is we needed a security guard. The drug dealers living in the building were polite and careful. Only their “guests” would cause trouble and they mostly came in around 3:30 a.m. However, the timing could vary day or night. The risks of getting in their way could be dangerous. The Apartment Watch tenants had to link the crime and suspicious behavior from “guests” with the dealer living in the building.
We had training from the police on how to report drug traffickers and for a long time it was like living in a cold war. The police introduced new ideas to management and everyone did their part: Apartment Watch, management and police. It is possible to get a drug dealer evicted, but in this particular building I believe there will always be at least one drug dealer. The consequences of having a drug dealer in the building can be devasting. We could link one drug dealer to 50% of the crime in the building.
As I mentioned before I was pushed out of the way by a visitor coming through the front door. We had two signs on the door to tell visitors they aren’t allowed in the building if we don’t know them unless someone on the intercom allows them inside. One sign was the Apartment Watch sticker and the other was a sign from management explaining the policy of the building. The man who pushed me aside didn’t care about signs, intercom or policy; he just bullied his way through the door. This incident led directly to getting a security guard.
At the next Apartment Watch meeting with a new Community Liaison Officer, some tenants and the Tenant Representative Manager present, I reported that I had been assaulted at the door. The C.L.O. then asked the manager why we didn’t have a security guard. Because of this recommendation at the right place and the right time, in front of the right people, we were finally able to get one. The provincial government was supposed to pay for any security guard. A security guard was employed for six weeks. By this time I had moved out, but I was invited back to an Apartment Watch meeting and I encouraged the tenants to petition their M.L.A. for a permanent security guard. The tenants petitioned and management hired two security guards to work together. Later on the management let one go.
It was a bittersweet victory. An employee for the Office of the M.L.A. told us that in order to pay for the security guards the apartment management laid off five resident managers in other apartment buildings. The Resident Manager of our building played a key role in providing security. This is all I know about the situation and I wonder how the tenants of those other apartment buildings were affected. Perhaps this article will help some of them.
Today a security guard is an ongoing presence in the apartment building 24 hours a day. To get into the building a visitor is under surveillance at the front door by a security camera. He must show a photo identification card to the security guard. Each visitor must print out his name, the suite number he will be visiting, and the name of the tenant he will be visiting. He also has to write down the time he comes into the building and the time he leaves. The security guard is in a transparent booth. I suspect it’s made of bullet proof glass because I know of a time a tenant was threatened by a visitor with a gun in order to get into the building. It’s the security guard that tours the building now and considering the risks and the varying hours of drug trafficking, that’s the way it should be.
The apartment building is safer now than it has been in years. Tenants will go into the lobby again to socialize and watch television. They’ll also help out when they can. I know one tenant who shuts the fire exit doors which are propped open by drug traffickers. Whenever there’s a way there will be someone trying to break the law. However, it’s a lot harder to do that in this apartment building now.
Marlene Yanchula