Libby Davies, Sequel 138, Vancouver’s DTES And The Old-Left Saviour Industrial Complex®

Naomi Klein & Harsha Walia poverty pimpin’ it in the DTES…

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of when I attended my first Harsha Walia protest– I’ve been confounded by it ever since. The protest was in front of a development named Sequel 138 in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES).   It seemed like a sound project to me- the developer was taking down a derelict, unused, building and putting up a mixed-use condo with 89 reasonably priced (for Vancouver) private suites and 18 social housing suites.

I lived in a very similar building on the Uilenburg when I first moved to Amsterdam. It’s a great concept, and it works. What impressed me most was how equalizing these kinds of buildings are. There were separate entrances for the residents, but they acknowledged each other and engaged in lively discussions. Their conversations migrated from the sidewalk, to each other’s apartments- kids from both sides of the building had a large part in bridging the gap.

So, if this works elsewhere- why are Vancouver’s radical left so hell bent against it?

The DTES is in the Vancouver-East riding- currently held by NDP MP Libby Davies. Here there’s a mix of some expensive condos, middle-class homes and some of the poorest people in Canada. Along with it’s sister riding, Vancouver-Kingsway, these neighbourhoods have become the power base for the NDP’s radical Old-Left.

The social services & housing industry is a large part of the Old-Left’s power. There are many good people working in the industry- but, equally, there’s a significant number of people & organizations taking special benefits. This is particularly true of Vancouver’s anarcho-socialist community. People like Harsha Walia and Lauren Gill who both work in the industry and organize clients of their employer’s for political demonstrations.

Many people believe that this is a conflict of interest. It would be considered highly-unacceptable if those working with marginalized people were selling them religion, right? It’s equally unacceptable for them to be selling their political beliefs. They may not see this- but, they’d be the first ones at the bullhorn if a state-funded church handed out pro-life pamphlets at a DTES soup kitchen.

The unions are strong supporters of the poverty industry- the shelters, community spaces, clinics, drop-ins and food banks provide jobs to a lot of their members. They push hard for the expansion of what I’ll label the Old-Left Saviour Industrial Complex® (OLSIC®).

The radicals circulated a petition with the following demands:

  • The city should buy-back the property from Marc Williams (the developer)
  • Build a 100% resident controlled social housing that’s exclusively for low-income people
  • Provide a low-income community space (perfect for sadomasochist parties!)

One of the signatories, and well-known DTES radicals, Gregory Williams,  summed-up his expectations quite well in his comment on the petition:

Most of the radicals aren’t so transparent about it- but, a good chunk of the people who work in the OLSIC® believe this. But, even those who aren’t so radical have one thing in common with them- they all believe in the expansion of the OLSIC®. More facilities means more jobs, this means more union members, and more people to recruit for their political goals. Everybody wins.

Except, of course, the poor…

There’s another big conflict of interest. It’s more economically beneficial for the OLSIC® to help people in poverty maintain their status than it is to help them get out of it. This is another reason why people working in the industry shouldn’t be engaging in political evangelism with their clients. It’s scary to think that it happens.

The radicals want this property to be turned into a 100% resident controlled building. People like Harsha Walia, Naomi Klein and Gregory Williams are hardcore socialists who believe that all property should be owned by the state. They’re not only campaigning for the type of residences that should be built- they’re looking to make a small-scale socialist revolution.

As much as they hate the developers, they have a full scale hate-on for BC Housing- the government agency that’s providing a $23 million loan to the developer. The loan is at a favourable 1.29% and is payable when the construction is finished and the residents move in. Jean Swanson wrote an article expressing her displeasure about it in her article in The Mainlander last week.

Swanson was a founding member of the Downtown Eastside Resident’s Association (DERA)- along with Libby Davies and Bruce Erickson. DERA was a community run social housing organization that’s the poster child for what happens when an organization is overrun by radicals.

They were invaded by the entryist Anti-Poverty Committee- the same group whose violence Harsha Walia bravely defended after the 2010 Olympics when DERA’s offices were raided by the police in a search for a stolen giant Olympic flag. Eventually, DERA was shut-down after allegations of misuse of government funds and failing to pay rents and taxes. They were sued by BC Housing.

It’s the same crowd who were behind DERA who are against the Sequel 138 development today.

Besides the fact that it’s not a socialist cooperative, there’s one other detail about Sequel 138 the Old-Left hates. Mixed-use buildings produce less jobs, and subsequently less political power. Dan Maxwell, the CFO of BC Housing explained it best when comparing Sequel 138 with the OSLIC®:

Unlike those investments, projects like Sequel 138 don’t require grants or ongoing subsidies from taxpayers, Maxwell said.”

Projects like this can also build healthy communities. Kids who live in mixed-use buildings aren’t stigmatized for living in ‘the projects’. Ideas and communities intermingle- people learn to better tolerate and accept each other. This isn’t a utopian ideal- it actually works in many cities. Sequel 138 won’t bring us salvation- but it’s an important step forwards.

So, considering this- why are the radicals so hell-bent against this project? Is it just the jobs?

Of course not, it’s about their base of power. Think about it- if developers build 20 Sequel 138’s in Vancouver-East they will bring a significant change to the riding’s demographics. Despite creating 360 high-quality (and low maintenance) social housing units, they’ll bring hundreds of less radical (and less malleable) home owners. Many of those home owners will be less likely to vote for fringe candidates like Libby Davies.

The Old-Left fights so hard against Sequel 138 because they have no other choice. It’s unfortunate they have to do it on the backs of the poor…

Note: None of this implies an endorsement for BC Housing. In my opinion, they’re corrupt, and just as much a part of the problem. The whole system needs to be fixed- I’ll be writing more about them in the future.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.genuinewitty.com/2012/12/06/libby-davies-sequel-138-vancouvers-dtes-the-old-left-saviour-industrial-complex-feat-harsha-walia-ruth-meta-naomi-klein/

4 comments

Skip to comment form

    • The Hammer on December 6, 2012 at 10:44
    • Reply

    So they want US style housing projects to be build. Like Pruitt–Igoe. Where the poor can be segregated or ghettoized from the rest of society. And they are protesting a progressive approach to social housing. A similar approach was proposed in Toronto and of course the union funded protest groups went nuts. Toronto has a bad shortage of social housing. Those who do live in social housing often live in squalor. Which is right where the unions want them. God forbid they ever fix the problems. Then there would be no longer be a need for them.

    Similar programs are working very well in my area. There are both public and private initiatives. In the public ones the government rents a certain percentage of their units to the general public at a regular market rate. Money made of these tennets helps cover the costs of those whose rent is subsidized, or geared to income. I lived in one such building a couple years. It was all 1 bedroom units so most of those on subsidized housing were elderly people who were a few bricks short of a load along with some disabled people. Those paying full rent were generally younger and single. The entire neighbourhood was this way. Mix of social and regular housing. Oddly enough it is the neighbourhood where Julian Ichim now lives lol.

    The point is that it is a great little community. People know each other and get along and feel comfortable there. Some of the people are a little wacky or different but everyone feels safe and gets along. It is certainly better than warehousing people in US style housing projects where people do not feel safe or comefortable.

    There is a reason why US cities have been moving away from this failed approach.

    • Standing Water on December 6, 2012 at 13:52
    • Reply

    An excellent article, spot-on. My take on why they don’t want integrated, diverse communities is that homogeneous populations are easier for Totalitarians to manage. That’s why every Totalitarian/Communist/Fascist society tends to execute outliers—to homogenize the population. And make no mistake, in all of these housing projects, the Nannies with University degrees are accustomed to a parental style of control. That is much harder to maintain when you’ve got some tenants in the building who are not subject to a Totalitarian system of control. They ghettoize the poor for their own benefit, to control them.

    1. The more I look at what’s happening, the more that appears to be true. It’s hard to believe what’s happening- I think half of the battle to fixing it is going to be helping people through the pain of realizing how the system currently works.

      It’s shameful…

    • The Hammer on December 6, 2012 at 14:04
    • Reply

    Love the article on the White Savior Industrial Complex. The article focuses on Africa where they have been very active. They are also responsible for much of the harm done to the native people of North America. Professor Don Cherry is active with this group. Appointing himself to speak on behalf of the natives, tell them what they should beleive and to speak for them.

    One of the more entertaining examples I found in a documentary on the American West: http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/program/episodes/eight/ourearnest.htm

    I find the response the native people gave these do gooders hillarious.

What's your opinion?

%d bloggers like this: