Bruce Oake Recovery Centre (St.James)

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

You must live a sheltered life.

Myth: most addicts come from the inner city, especially the North End. They also are all over North Main, usually down and out.

Reality: The vast majority of clients in treatment centres come from the suburbs. Would you rather have these people attempt to heal themselves, and lead productive lives, or would you rather they stay hidden in suburbia maybe even next door to you residence?

Yikes, you missed the mark.

If I'm selling my house and there's a treatment centre next door, and it's patients walking about, how does that affect my asking price? It's the world's most obvious thing. If the problem is concealed enough that the "reality" above gets hidden, then my property value isn't affected.

Plus I'm merely transposing the complaints of St James onto myself when discussing this.

And now you're taking addicts from downtown or suburbs and concentrate them onto my neighbourhood. Doesn't matter where they came from, matters where they put them. Now they're around my family and affecting property value. Not saying anyone's gonna die, but if you asked almost any resident if this is a positive benefit to them, they'd say no. Is it a social good? Sure. But not in their backyard. Makes sense.

And lastly, there are tons of addicts around North Main (downtown), Inner City and North End. They're not getting checked into treatment necessarily and that skews your "reality". And while I wish them the best, there's a reason I am not raising my family there. Not because I think Armageddon awaits, but simply because there are nicer alternatives with less of that stuff.

Or atleast managed more orderly.

I want the centre to happen, but I wouldn't be for it if it was near me. This isn't an urbanism matter.

[bomberjet]

Lots of where it shouldn't go. Where should a place like this go? I'd like to hear ideas.

Placing it in the middle of a farmers field is not the answer.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Guess what, kids experiment with drugs in schools, maybe we shouldn't build schools near homes either!

They experiment with drugs every where, let's just carpet bomb it all

As per my other post, the centre is needed, but we can't equate urbanism/development related nimbyism with "don't put the treatment centre for our meth crisis behind my house".

Drug users are everywhere, unfortunately many of those downtown have been hit harder by it than those in the suburbs, but that doesn't matter either. Now you're taking them from everywhere and concentratin them beside people's houses.

As for "putting the centre downtown", I'd just say they're just seeing what sticks. Who wouldn't?

Originally Posted by buzzg

I like that idea – I don't want kids, why should I have to pay taxes for schools anyway?!

You shouldn't.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Lots of where it shouldn't go. Where should a place like this go? I'd like to hear ideas.

Placing it in the middle of a farmers field is not the answer.

I completely agree!

Maybe that's something the residents of St James should carefully do their research about and try to help. But we know they won't and their position is understandable.

What's an area that will have less complainers, isn't completely downtrodden, and probably still has users? West End?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

I completely agree!

Maybe that's something the residents of St James should carefully do their research about and try to help. But we know they won't and their position is understandable.

What's an area that will have less complainers, isn't completely downtrodden, and probably still has users? West End?

On one hand you're talking about being sensitive to the needs of the neighbourhood and on the other you want to put it into the West End. Well, is it a problem to have one of these in a residential neighbourhood or not?

[bomberjet]

I'm not 100% up to speed on the details of the Vimy redevelopment plan. But it's based on using an existing building, provided at no cost, and making upgrades from there. If they were required to go somewhere else into a purpose built facility, they'd run into funding issues and wouldn't be able to make a go of it.

The Vimy site allows them to create a facility that is sorely needed. Opponents of this plan have no plan other than NIMBY.

[drew]

NIMBYism on this treatment centre is understandable, but IMO not defensible.

It's gotta go somewhere. I get the "my property values might go down", but that is not a defensible reason why it shouldn't go where this land is available, to allow it to move forward.

I would be concerned if this was going up near my house, and I think people would be lying to suggest they wouldn't be concerned if it happened to be proposed near their own house.

I don't necessarily like the various rental properties on my block, or the Madison Supportive Housing block near our house either. But thems the breaks.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Yikes, you missed the mark.

If I'm selling my house and there's a treatment centre next door, and it's patients walking about, how does that affect my asking price? It's the world's most obvious thing. If the problem is concealed enough that the "reality" above gets hidden, then my property value isn't affected.

Have you ever been to Calgary? It's a city in Western Canada that has over a dozen treatment centres in close proximity, or even in residential communities. The centres have been there for decades, and property values never have significantly decreased. Here is one study done by the US National Institute of Health:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3205983/

Plus I'm merely transposing the complaints of St James onto myself when discussing this.

I think it is obvious most people in St.James support this initiative. You cannot look at 50 NIMBY's protesting, and call them the "majority of residents."

And now you're taking addicts from downtown or suburbs and concentrate them onto my neighbourhood. Doesn't matter where they came from, matters where they put them. Now they're around my family and affecting property value. Not saying anyone's gonna die, but if you asked almost any resident if this is a positive benefit to them, they'd say no. Is it a social good? Sure. But not in their backyard. Makes sense.

NIMBYism 101. Can you provide any proof neighborhoods with a treatment centre have had an increase in crime, or a decrease in property value?

And lastly, there are tons of addicts around North Main (downtown), Inner City and North End. They're not getting checked into treatment necessarily and that skews your "reality".

...and there are equal amounts of addicts in your area of Winnipeg. The addicts in North Main/Downtown just happen to do it out in the open. Meanwhile, there is probably someone you know a couple of houses down engaging in cocaine or meth. Perhaps even opiates. Many are not getting checked into treatment either, but as long as they do it indoors, you can always pretend it does not happen on your street.

One last note I should make. Were you aware that putting a liquor store up at the corner strip mall is far more damaging to a residential neighborhood than any proposed treatment centre, especially when it comes to criminal activity? However, when is the last time the community was up in arms, when a new liquor store was constructed by the local strip mall.

Source: https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2016/sp...ament-centers/

[optimusREIM]

^okay but hold on. Isn't someone's concern in their biggest investment and asset legitimate? I think this is one of those things where it would specifically affect those properties closest. Remember the free market doesn't care what the reasoning is nor if the risk is relatively low, they'll see something like this and knee jerk. Imagine being the realtor on a property on the same block: "we are required to inform all prospective buyers that there is an addictions treatment facility less than 200 meters away". Like what a pitch! That's not gonna do a whole lot for people who have their entire life savings tied up in a house nearby.

This is a necessary project but it's not a simple question whether or not the centre should be put in a specific location. Its certainly not a matter where ham-fistedness on the part of the city should be employed.

It's a very delicate question and the concerns of residents nearby shouldn't be ignored.

I do think that it would ultimately be a good choice but you do have to respect the residents of the area.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

^okay but hold on. Isn't someone's concern in their biggest investment and asset legitimate? I think this is one of those things where it would specifically affect those properties closest. Remember the free market doesn't care what the reasoning is nor if the risk is relatively low, they'll see something like this and knee jerk. Imagine being the realtor on a property on the same block: "we are required to inform all prospective buyers that there is an addictions treatment facility less than 200 meters away". Like what a pitch! That's not gonna do a whole lot for people who have their entire life savings tied up in a house nearby.

This is a necessary project but it's not a simple question whether or not the centre should be put in a specific location. Its certainly not a matter where ham-fistedness on the part of the city should be employed.

It's a very delicate question and the concerns of residents nearby shouldn't be ignored.

I do think that it would ultimately be a good choice but you do have to respect the residents of the area.

As I said in my last post, if residents really were that concerned about crime and decreased property value, they would picket the Manitoba Liquor Commission, in attempts to thwart building any drinking establishment or liquor store.

Why does this not happen? Alcohol is a socially acceptable drug. Even though over half of homicides occur when the participants are under the influence of alcohol, NIMBY's will turn a blind eye to this fact, and go after a person suffering from a meth problem, as there are more social constraints towards a person with an "illegal" addiction.

Once and for all, the NIMBY's are the vocal minority. Steven Fletcher is not representing the majority of people in his riding.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

As I said in my last post, if residents really were that concerned about crime and decreased property value, they would picket the Manitoba Liquor Commission, in attempts to thwart building any drinking establishment or liquor store.

Why does this not happen? Alcohol is a socially acceptable drug. Even though over half of homicides occur when the participants are under the influence of alcohol, NIMBY's will turn a blind eye to this fact, and go after a person suffering from a meth problem, as there are more social constraints towards a person with an "illegal" addiction.

Once and for all, the NIMBY's are the vocal minority. Steven Fletcher is not representing the majority of people in his riding. If he claims to be doing so, he is lying.

Your post makes no sense. You say people don't bat two eyes if a Liquor store was opening near by, so why pray tell would that affect property values? Peoples perception is what affects property values. If people don't care about living next to a liquor store, but do care about living next to a treatment centre, the treatment centre affects property values and liquor store would not.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Your post makes no sense. You say people don't bat two eyes if a Liquor store was opening near by, so why pray tell would that affect property values? Peoples perception is what affects property values. If people don't care about living next to a liquor store, but do care about living next to a treatment centre, the treatment centre affects property values and liquor store would not.

On the contrary, your post makes no sense. The NIMBYs are claiming that crime will go up, if a treatment centre is built in their neighborhood. I have provided sources that debunk that theory as a myth. As for property values, the effect of treatment centres being built close to a community is minimal, at best.

The crime theory is one of the main arguments the NIMBYs are making, to justify their opposition to the BORC being built.

BTW, I noticed you threw a figure around that "85% of addicts relapse within a year of leaving treatment centres." Care to elaborate on how that would effect the residents around the treatment centre?

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

On the contrary, your post makes no sense. The NIMBYs are claiming that crime will go up, if a treatment centre is built in their neighborhood. I have provided sources that debunk that theory as a myth. As for property values, the effect of treatment centres being built close to a community is minimal, at best.

The crime theory is one of the main arguments the NIMBYs are making, to justify their opposition to the BORC being built.

BTW, I noticed you threw a figure around that "85% of addicts relapse within a year of leaving treatment centres." Care to elaborate on how that would effect the residents around the treatment centre?

The fact that people think crime will go up, is what affects the property values. If it does or doesn't is irrelevant. If the perception is that there's increased crime around a treatment centre, there will be less demand to live there. Simple as that. That was my whole point. Perception is what drives demand.



I was making no comment on how that would affect the residents around the treatment centre. Simply stating a stat. Bruce Oake himself spent two stints in treatment prior to his passing, one lasting a full year.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by cheswick

The fact that people think crime will go up, is what affects the property values. If it does or doesn't is irrelevant. If the perception is that there's increased crime around a treatment centre, there will be less demand to live there. Simple as that. That was my whole point. Perception is what drives demand.

You do not seem to understand that the opposition to the treatment centre is not shared with other cities, especially in Alberta. When it came to Fresh Start Recovery Centre, which has won awards in North America for their facility, the same facility the BORC is being modeled after and run by?

Calgary has several treatment centres located in residential areas. I'm not saying there is no opposition to new treatment centres being built in Calgary, but not anything like the magnitude we see in Winnipeg. Why is that so?

I was making no comment on how that would affect the residents around the treatment centre. Simply stating a stat. Bruce Oake himself spent two stints in treatment prior to his passing, one lasting a full year.

In other words, you are implying that treatment centres do not work, and happen to be a waste of money. People with substance abuse issues already have dangerously low levels of self esteem. Why is there such a strong movement to push these people out of the community, and drop them in the middle of a rural area? How is that of benefit to the community? The benefits of having these types of facilities far outweigh any supposed minor depreciation of value of properties. I know this since I have had a family member and friends at one point go to treatment. They not only provide counselling services, but also links to support groups, and housing that will reintegrate them into society, and have them become productive members of the community.

We have to look at the big picture. IN the past five years, Canada has seen an opiate crisis, and most recently a crystal meth epidemic. People are dying of overdoses, unparalleled at any point in time in North America. The loss of loved ones to the family structure cannot be measured in monetary terms.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

You do not seem to understand that the opposition to the treatment centre is not shared with other cities, especially in Alberta. When it came to Fresh Start Recovery Centre, which has won awards in North America for their facility, the same facility the BORC is being modeled after and run by?

Calgary has several treatment centres located in residential areas. I'm not saying there is no opposition to new treatment centres being built in Calgary, but not anything like the magnitude we see in Winnipeg. Why is that so?






In other words, you are implying that treatment centres do not work, and happen to be a waste of money. People with substance abuse issues already have dangerously low levels of self esteem. Why is there such a strong movement to push these people out of the community, and drop them in the middle of a rural area? How is that of benefit to the community?

No idea. I’ve been to Calgary once. I pay no attention to the local news there so have no idea the amount of opposition to it.





I simply stated a fact. If you infer all that from that fact, that’s your opinion. I never said any of that.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

You do not seem to understand that the opposition to the treatment centre is not shared with other cities, especially in Alberta. When it came to Fresh Start Recovery Centre, which has won awards in North America for their facility, the same facility the BORC is being modeled after and run by?

Calgary has several treatment centres located in residential areas. I'm not saying there is no opposition to new treatment centres being built in Calgary, but not anything like the magnitude we see in Winnipeg. Why is that so?

Biggest reason is that Winnipeg is Winnipeg, it's sort of a weird thing that we seem to have for better or for worse, more frequently for worse.

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

In other words, you are implying that treatment centres do not work, and happen to be a waste of money. People with substance abuse issues already have dangerously low levels of self esteem. Why is there such a strong movement to push these people out of the community, and drop them in the middle of a rural area? How is that of benefit to the community?

I don't think that that's necessarily what's being implied. Treatment centres must have some benefit and therefore fulfill at least some of what their mission is since they keep on being built and used more and more. It may be a bit of a non-sequitur but it definitely does not imply that the centres do not work, but rather the independent fact that most addicts suffer relapses. I don't think that pointing that out is nefarious.

Listen, people who have substance abuse problems pose certain risks to a community, that's just a fact, so there is a very tangible benefit in removing the risk factor from the community. This doesn't make it right but it makes sense.

It also isn't fair to outsource the responsibility for dealing with a problem to the community, especially when substance abuse stems highly from a choice of behaviour. However, it is in the interest of society to help people recover from addictions, so that the whole can operate better.

There's really no right answer as to where the centre should go. I believe that it should go where it is being proposed to go, but to attack dissenters is unproductive and is a little insensitive to their concerns too.

[bomberjet]

I live across the street from two group homes and the biggest problem I have is my next door neighbour who is coming and going at all hours of the day with his buddies. The group homes would be perceived as a death knell for the street much like the recovery centre is. However it's just the locals causing trouble. The group homes are so quiet you wouldn't know they were there.

I can't fathom how the recovery centre would cause much of a problem. But as was mentioned, it's perception.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by cheswick

I simply stated a fact. If you infer all that from that fact, that’s your opinion. I never said any of that.

Now you are just being coy.

You cannot just post a statistic like that, and walk away from it. You certainly were implying that treatment centres do not work.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Now you are just being coy.

You cannot just post a statistic like that, and walk away from it. You certainly were implying that treatment centres do not work. It would help if you would not insult the intelligence of the forum.

No I was not and no ones intelligence was insulted by it except perhaps your own. I posted a statistic that relates to treatment centres. I made zero commentary on it. Your words are your own. Don’t put them on me.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Listen, people who have substance abuse problems pose certain risks to a community, that's just a fact, so there is a very tangible benefit in removing the risk factor from the community. This doesn't make it right but it makes sense.

The alternative, is to do nothing, and watch them either die or end up in jail, which is exponentially worse than having the addict reside in a recovery centre for a couple of months or longer. That is really the only way to remove them from the community.

It also isn't fair to outsource the responsibility for dealing with a problem to the community, especially when substance abuse stems highly from a choice of behaviour. However, it is in the interest of society to help people recover from addictions, so that the whole can operate better.

First Nations people have far higher substance abuse rates than the general population of Canada. That may have something to do with the Government forcing them on to reserves, then taking away their children, and placing them in residential schools. It's easy to say it's a "choice" when one has not dealt with generations of trauma.

PS...you are aware that people are genetically predisposed to addictions?