Your letters on safer supply and short-term rentals

The PGSS 1974 graduating class is still looking for some members

Let’s go back to the mailbag.

In the comments section, readers have voiced their displeausre with Supt. SShawn Wright’s comments on safer supply and decriminalization, which as a refresher included:

“It seems ironic that we’re vilifying cigarettes to the extent we do but we’re increasing the availability of smoking methamphetamine and opioids in public.”

And

“Drug use and mental health issues directly contribute to a significant amount of criminal offences, particularly violent offences. We’ve noticed an increase in a lot of drug trafficking to support the open drug use.”

4streegrrl writes:

"vilifying cigarettes"

But they're legal, addictive, people smoke outside my office during their breaks (and still have to be reminded to shuffle away from the doors and air intakes), and cigarettes injure and kill people and we collect taxes on their sale, and pay for that healthcare through taxes when smokers need it. And people *still* smoke, a fairly significant number depending where you live in Canada and in BC, and the number is much higher up here in central and northern BC. Smoking is more significant than open drug use.

Heather adds:

It’s funny because cigarettes are “safe supply” (or as safe as cigarettes can be). When you go to the store and buy a pack, you can rest assured that you aren’t going to drop dead from a fentanyl overdose. Alcohol is safe supply.

And Mandi says:

I really wish that PG RCMP via Wright had come to the table with statistics instead of an anecdote from one person (who may very well be experiencing the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon, where someone notices things once they start thinking of them - the reason I began seeing Nissan Muranos everywhere once I bought one for myself, statistically the same number of Muranos were driving the streets in town and I just happened to be paying attention to them more). And of course, news and politicians are going to cling to that statistically-unfounded anecdote instead of sharing the actual, much smaller, numbers of safe supply prescriptions being diverted to the illegal market.

For what it’s worth, I also notice my type of car more after buying it.

I also received an email that I hope to share in full once I hear back from the author as a guest post, but here is a sample:

I have also worked with many women who have accessed a variety of safe supply substances, and the difference to me was tangible. Women I worked with who were on hydromorphone, Methadone, Suboxone, were stable, calm, and clear thinking enough to plan their recovery. None of these drugs caused erratic behaviour, violence, or sickness like the street supply drugs did. The women I saw access safe supply were stable enough that they could plan for recovery, attend AA and NA meetings, apply for and receive housing, and even get sober. These things were all almost impossible under the effects of the benzo-fentanyl you can get on the street. And just to be clear, regular users cannot just stop taking fentanyl cold turkey—this is incredibly dangerous, if not fatal. Just to survive, a user needs to access the drug market, and the current drug market is so unpredictable that nobody can be stable enough to get clean. Safe supply narcotics create that stability that leads to life improvement, AND increases the safety of frontline workers interacting with populations who use drugs.

And to cap things off on this discussion, Joe Shea says:

One thing that stood out for me is how desperately we need dedicated investigative journalism. Parroting RCMP media lines is very definitely not that.

I also want to highlight a comment from last week on short-term rentals that I haven’t yet put in a letter. It comes from solar_flare and is in response to this paragraph that I wrote:

Imagine, for example, that council were presented with a request to tear down 150 single-family homes or apartments and replace them with a really nice resort community catering to people visiting for a few days or weeks: Would they be eager to allow it to happen? Conversely, if given the ability to add 150 new dwellings to the city, distributed in various desireable neighbourhoods, without any capital costs, is it something they would embrace? And if they did embrace it, is it likely to be something they would trumpet as an example of the work being done to improve housing needs and affordability in the city? Basically, do we need 150 new homes, or not?

solar_flare responds:

When I saw this piece yesterday regarding short-term rentals (again) and it contained the sentence "what if this were framed differently", I had high hopes that as an investigative journalist whose work I admire for being thought-provoking may be finally exploring the perspective on the other side of this debate more thoroughly. Admittedly I was a little disappointed, so here is a quick blurb of how I'd imagined it could have gone.

"What if this were framed even more differently. Imagine, for example, that Council were presented with a request to remove 150 hotel/motel/short-term rental units that have catered to people visiting Prince George for a few days or weeks. Would they be eager to allow it to happen?"

Just a few months ago it was announced by the provincial government that 123 units are slated to be officially converted to housing for lower income people in Prince George. This announcement and number does not include multiple other locations that used to be for travelers which have already morphed into longer-terms rentals (think Brother's Inn on the Hart, 1201 1st Ave before BC Housing took it over, the Prince Motel, The Fraser Inn, the list goes on).

Now I'm not saying that visiting medical professionals, work crews, or someone accessing medical care in PG would have opted to stay at one of these above listed locations. However, on the flip side, me being a long-term renter I can also guarantee that an ex-airbnb located in upper College Heights is also not a location someone like me would (or could) ever consider either. The rental costs throughout the city are obscene compared to 5 years ago, regardless.

Adding 150 new rental units on either end of the spectrum is a drop in the bucket benefitting very few, while paying lip service to the masses carrying pitchforks, and making the government of the day either very popular, or very unpopular. Either way, someone such as myself isn't affected in any meaningful, positive way by the provincial government freeing up rooms that are not suitable for my lower middle-class bracket. We need housing but will never be able to afford to purchase in this financial climate, regardless if 150 previous airbnbs go on either the rental market or become available for purchase. It's such a multi-faceted issue and yet it seems that one small subsection is being focused on and persecuted for, locally. Are we angry at the post-secondary schools for allowing international students? How about businesses who encourage work permit immigration? Or our medical system for actively marketing in other countries across the world to bring in medical professionals? This all affects housing equally or more so than a handful of short to medium-term rentals, who also already service some of this "here for a good time, but not a long time" demographic.

I whole-heartedly agree that this legislation has the ability to have significant positive impacts in various populated areas of BC. However it is not a "one size fits all" for our province, much like countless other initiatives any government of the day enacts province-wide which frustrate people in the north.

I do not own any airbnbs and am generally an "eat the rich" type gal, but to me, local media going after 0.4% so furiously seems almost like click-bait.

The only quibble I have with this is I am not, by my reckoning, an investigative journalist — getting back to Joe Shea’s comment above, investigative journalism is time-consuming and requires real resources. This newsletter is something I do in an hour or less every night. If we want investigative journalism, we have to support it (which, I admit, is increasingly difficult to do given the dearth of options).

In other news, new Prince George Citizen owner Cameron Stolz is making some sort of an announcement today. Maybe it will be for an investigative journalist position!

---

---

News roundup:

• The drive-in theatre is opening early.

• Accessibility advocate challenges city council to take a ride in a wheelchair.

• City Council to push for advocacy meetings in Victoria.

• Early morning car-jacking ends in arrests.

• Aboriginal History Day held at CNC.

• Bridget Moran Award handed out.

• The politics and study of safe supply.

• YXS bracing for influx of air travellers during Spring Break.

• Bearmaggedon. Northern Bear Awareness Society says additional Conservation Officers only part of solution.

• Miracle Theatre’s “A Comedy of Tenors” opens.

• District of Mackenzie secures high-speed internet service.

• Checking out ‘Refuge Canada’ the latest exhibit to visit The Exploration Place.

Today’s song:

Northern Capital News is a free, daily newsletter about life in Prince George. Please consider subscribing or, if you have, sharing with someone else.

Send feedback by replying to this email. Find me online at akurjata.ca.