Category Archives: The Issues

Addiction, Federal, Issues, Municipal, Provincial

It is a BUSINESS.

Leave a comment

It is not about gangs and crime – it is about business.

Abbotsford Chief Constable Bob Rich’s statement at the recent gang forum in Abbotsford that one average-sized grow operation in the Fraser Valley can net a gang between $500,000 and $1 million a year underscores that above all else the illegal drug trade is not about gangs and crime but about BUSINESS.

Indeed the illegal drug trade is currently the big, highly profitable, international business whose operations and operating principles reflect pure unfettered capitalism. Indeed the illegal drug trade is more purely capitalistic than the legal drug trade.

Choosing to ignore the reality that the illegal drug trade is a business as the legal drug trade is, simply results in flawed public policy on the issues involved.

Consider that even though the cigarette business results in the death of one third of its users it continues to be profitable because, despite the negative health hazards (including death) people ignore the negative consequences and create a demand for cigarettes which the cigarette industry is happy to provide – corporate profit being more important to the business than the cost to people or society.

The alcohol industry also imposes heavy costs on users and society but again people ignore the negative consequences and create a demand which business is happy to provide – corporate profit being more important than the cost to people or society. Do not overlook the irony of the beer industry campaigning against California’s proposition 19 (legalize marijuana) to protect its profitability from a legal marijuana industry.

The financial services industry sold worthless paper to the public (and each other) all in the name of corporate profit, extravagant salaries and bonuses while ignoring the cost (in the end ¾ of a trillion dollar cost) to society and the disastrous cost that many individuals paid (bankruptcy and losing their homes).

Asbestos use is banned in 52 countries, including Canada. Yet the Canadian asbestos industry exports 200,000 tonnes of asbestos a year to developing countries and crusades to keep the substance off the international list of hazardous materials. These exports are killing people, giving them asbestosis, but what does that matter – it is profitable.

North America is dotted with toxic wastes sites; Abbotsford was stuck cleaning up a toxic waste site when the operators walked away after sucking all the profit out of the operation they could; illegal dumping of toxic waste continues to plaque the environment and governments – all in the pursuit of profit.

It is irrational to expect the illegal drug business to operate on principles, or lack of principles, any different than legal businesses – maximize profit at any cost.

It follows therefore, that to end the illegal drug trade requires taking the profit out of the business.

The cost of doing business must rise to a point it makes the business unprofitable or the cost of being in the business must rise to the point that no one wants to be employed in the business or the demand for the product must be reduced to the point that the costs of doing business are no longer covered.

Reality in the illegal drug business is the fixed nature of the demand (rising prices do not proportionally decrease demand) for the product (drugs). This results in an extremely elastic price; resulting in the price of the product rising to offset any increased costs of doing business and maintaining the high profit margins of the business.

More resources for the police, more success for the police simply drives the price of the product higher to cover the increase in costs, with the higher product prices resulting in increasing crime to cover the increased cost of drugs – a classic catch-22 situation.

The elastic nature of the price means that the cost of doing business cannot rise to the point of rendering the business of illegal drugs unprofitable.

The high profit margins, the decreased economic fairness/opportunity and the fact we have created a consumption society where individual’s worth is based not on the person but on the person’s possessions makes available an unlimited labour pool whose members are focused on attaining money/possessions at any cost. A labour pool to whom incarceration and other possible negative outcomes are simply part of the cost of doing business.

That as a society we have made human life the cheapest commodity on the planet and possessions the measure of a persons worth means that you can run all the ‘gang members are losers’ advertising campaigns one chooses – with the labour pool desperate for making big $$$$$ that our society has created, the illegal drug business will have no difficulty finding replacement and/or new employees.

The reality that you cannot render the illegal drug business unprofitable (or less than highly profitable) and that you cannot deny the business a ready supply of employees means that, in order to have any significant, long term effect on the illegal drug business you need to decrease demand to the point that the costs of doing business are no longer covered and/or the wages available are not sufficient to offset the costs of employment in the business.

Pouring ever more resources into police services, the courts and locking more and more people up for longer and longer periods will accomplish nothing except to steadily increase taxes (or fees, premiums, etc) and/or add substantially to the debt and/or force reductions in funding for other areas (healthcare, education).

An ironic twist is that cutting the social programs that governments consider soft or easy to cut will increase the demand for products supplied by the illegal drug business, resulting in increased costs far higher than any costs ‘saved’ through program cuts.

As Alcoholics Anonymous, an organization with a great deal of experience with addiction, says “Doing the same thing, the same way, over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity”.

Rather than learn and change what we are doing, governments, and far too many citizens, advocate spending more to do more of what isn’t working. Is that not insanity2?

This pointlessly insane and substantial resource wasting behaviour results from overlooking or ignoring the fact that whatever labels you choose to apply to the illegal drug trade, the trade is at its core a business.

In order to achieve positive desirable outcomes when dealing with this business, it is a MUST that policies reflect that it is a business.

It does not matter what we as a society believe or what we as a society want to be the case – an analysis of the illegal business reveals that the only effective approach that will make permanent, long term inroads in the illegal drug business is to focus our resources on reducing demand, getting customers of the business into recovery.

Analysis of illegal drugs as the business it is reveals that it is pointless insanity to continue to increase the resources we waste on current policies.

Reducing demand is the only approach that will reduce the illegal drug business by reducing demand.

[‘Only approach’ short of fundamentally changing the nature of the business through legalization; an approach that, no matter how rational, is unlikely to occur until current policies inflict so much financial cost, financial pain (and that point will come), that no other option is left but legalization.]

Unfortunately demand reduction, requiring patience, commitment and time, is not the fast, easy, miracle solution governments and citizens want.

Meaning both the problem and waste of resources will continue to grow, until financial pain forces policy change.

Addiction, Federal, Municipal, Provincial

“And how will you be paying for that?”

Leave a comment

The interesting thing about reading and watching the reporting on the Abbotsford town hall meeting was not what speakers such as Abbotsford’s Chief Constable Bob Rich or Ed Schellenberg’s brother-in-law Steve Brown had to say, nor the comments and statements from the public – it has been said before in other forums on crime and will be repeated again and again at future public forums on crime, often by the same people.

When boiled down the refrain from speaker after speaker was – more, more, more, more, more, more ……

The 800 pound gorilla that only one group raised and that everyone else ignored and/or failed to address, the 800 pound gorilla that renders all comments, statements and calls for action moot without it being addressed, is $$$$$$$. How are we going to pay for the more, more, more, more, more, more ……?

During Abbotsford’s budget process for the coming fiscal year a fiscal reality facing the City of Abbotsford is that leaving the funding for the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) at the same level as last year would necessitate cuts to the APD.

In order to just maintain the APD at the same level of operations as this year’s level will require an increase in the APD budget. Increasing the activities of the APD would require an even larger increase to the APD’s budget.

Increases to the APD budget are not measured in just the increased in property taxes; it is important to consider the costs to other city services that are forgone or cut to fund the APD budget appetite for yearly funding increases.

The Abbotsford Fire Department is undermanned for a city the size of Abbotsford. Yet the hiring of new firefighters is on indefinite hold because of the voracious appetite the APD (and the other lower mainland police departments) have for increases in funding.

Recall that in Vancouver, and other metro Vancouver cities, cuts were made to the staff and equipment of fire departments in order to have money to meet increase police funding needs.

At what point will the need to decrease the investment in fire departments to fund increases to police departments result in significant increases in fire losses and the cost of fire insurance?

It is not just the fire departments; cuts will need to be made across the board on city services to avoid large property tax increases – all to meet the increasingly voracious appetite of police services.

Cuts that will be required year after year as police costs devour an ever increasing percentage of city budgets.

And police costs are the cheap part.

Faster court processes, more trials, less plea bargains and more incarceration – these all require significant increases in resources both provincially and federally – resources that come at substantial cost.

The federal conservatives speak of spending $9 BILLION to build new prisons. And building the prisons is the cheap part. Operating the prisons is the costly part of increasing the prison space in the country, requiring as it will year after year after year of increasing expenditures.

Interestingly, at a time the federal Conservatives are speaking of the need to incarcerate ever increasing numbers of people, the conservative government has made cuts to the current years Corrections Canada’s budget. If the government finds it necessary to reduce the costs associated with the current levels of incarceration – just how do they propose to fund the ever increasing costs associated with increasing levels of incarceration?

The sizable funding increases needed to pay for substantial increases in incarceration levels have to be paid for somehow.

How will you choose to pay for increasing levels of incarceration – large tax increases to provide the $billions needed to fund this course of action OR do we fund the $billions needed through major cuts to healthcare and other programs?

Realistically healthcare and to a lesser degree education, are the only budget areas with sufficient funds to begin to offset the costs of a policy of incarcerate, incarcerate, incarcerate. Indeed, given that healthcare costs are consuming an ever increasing percentage of provincial budgets (threatening, at least mathematically, to require 100% of provincial budgets) and that a policy of ever increasing levels of incarceration will consume ever increasing levels of future provincial and federal budgets (unless taxpayers are willing to pay annual tax increases to cover the costs of incarceration) then at some point a decision, a choice, will be required between funding healthcare or funding the incarceration of increasing numbers of people.

“Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.” George Santayana

The only thing that kept the state of California from bankruptcy was the fact it was a government. The main driver of California’s budgetary debacle was its policy of incarceration, incarceration, incarceration and the prohibitive costs associated with that policy. Addressing California’s budget crisis is why governor Schwarzenegger proposed legalizing marijuana.

The state of New York recognized and publically acknowledged it too was on a path where, without massive tax increases, all the state’s budget would soon be spent on the policy of incarcerate, incarcerate, and incarcerate. New York State chose to back away from incarceration in order to avoid a financial/budgetary disaster.

Smaller states had already found that they could not afford to pursue a policy of incarceration, incarceration, incarceration and abandoned policies that require ever increasing levels of incarceration.

It would be … to be blunt … STUPID to waste resources, in particular the resource of time, to follow a policy that simple mathematics and results of following the policy in other political jurisdictions demonstrate to be economically unfeasible to the point of budgetary meltdown.

Abbotsford, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada cannot afford the massive waste of resources that being unwilling to learn from the experience of other jurisdictions who pursued policies of incarcerate, incarcerate, incarcerate – simply because they do not want to hear evidence that makes clear that giving into the desire for vengeance by incarcerating more and more people for longer and longer periods of time is financial and budgetary suicide.

We simply cannot afford to act like children, refusing to acknowledge what the cost of pursuing a policy of incarceration will be because we do not want to hear anything that would interfere with doing what we want to do – lock ever increasing numbers of people up.

Unless of course increased taxes, decreased healthcare and other services while dealing with continued increases in mental health, addiction and the crime associated with these health/social issues is what citizens and politicians are seeking to achieve?

The truth, unpalatable as it may be to many, is that as a society we lack the resources to continue to pursue policies that are ineffective simply because they are based on what people believe to be, or want to be, true.

Truthfully, we can no longer afford to pursue policies that are ineffectual period; our decreasing resources dictate pursuing policies based on effectiveness not on palatability or “but I want to”.

Municipal

???????

Leave a comment

These photographs were taken at 5PM on Tuesday October 26, 2010.

Can you find the “Traffic Pattern Change”?

Yes the road markings, the lines, painted onto the road to direct traffic flow are now gone rather than merely faded into obscurity. Given that road markings/lines that are hard to see in the day and invisible at night or in rain are the norm rather than the exception on roads in the City of Abbotsford the fact that the road markings are now gone does not constitute a “Traffic Pattern Change”. Driving on roads made dangerous by the poor quality or missing road markings/lines is certainly not a NEW condition in Abbotsford.

Of course this is the same intersection that had signs warning drivers to expect delays while the work of repaving this short section was being done.

Although I suppose that one could argue that technically a detour results in a delay in getting where you are going – especially when it is a total surprise sprung on drivers only when they reached the top of the hill on Blueridge (at Ridgeview) forcing them to turn around and seek other routes to their destinations.

If the goal was to cause problems, have people arrive late at their destination and to annoy as many drivers as possible – Abbotsford City Hall was very successful.

While a traffic pattern change will likely appear, it is this careless inattention to detail – be it road signage, planning, budgeting or the consequences of council’s actions on taxpayers – that has city council giving away future revenue to bring in revenue today; working to grow Abbotsford, thus increasing demand for water, at the same time the city rations water use to have water for the Fire Department to fight fires with and has the city burdened with debt at a time it needs to invest $200+ million in the water delivery system.

Emily Dickinson was quite correct when she said “If you take care of the small things, the big things take care of themselves. You can gain more control over your life by paying closer attention to the little things.”

The little things like asking your local MP for funding for Plan A instead of complaining that the city got no federal funding or ensuring an adequate water supply before increasing demand – or the need for severe rationing.

Federal, Issues, Media, Municipal, Provincial

Action speaks louder than words

Leave a comment

For years I have watched as businesses, organizations and other assemblages in Abbotsford, some of which one would have expected more character or compassionate behaviour from, have erected fences and gates on doorways, stairways, walkways, overhangs or other locations were the homeless had sought shelter from the relentless rain of our rainforest/rain-coast weather.

I have listened as governments, politicians, businessmen, unions, churches and people have all spoken about the need to do something about homelessness and poverty – or more accurately the need for SOMEONE ELSE to do something; pointing fingers and declaring it was not their responsibility.

Listened as people and assemblages evoked ‘undeserving’ and other such rationalizations as excuses for turning away from the need for action; ignoring the truth that action or inaction is not about the people in need but about us – our character, the essences of our souls/spirituality, the very nature of the society we have chosen to build.

Watched Abbotsford politicians scramble to say the right words, utter the proper catch phrases and language, while failing to provide leadership on housing – all the while managing NOT to have any affordable rental housing built or even break ground while the communities around Abbotsford have been building affordable rental housing.

Heard ad nauseum from Abbotsford’s politicians that they have no money to invest in housing that poor and homeless citizens can afford to rent; yet these same politicians have $millions$ to spend to buy a professional hockey team for a local hotelier and other wealthy (and housed) citizens.

Watched the gnashing and gnarring of teeth as people, politicians et al wring their hands and denounce society as defective, deficient. As thought the ills of society have no connection to or do not result from the choices made, actions taken (and untaken) of people. Our society did not, does not, spring from a void or the choices and actions of some mysterious group of ‘others’.

Society is the consequence of the additive effect of the choices and actions we all make and or take. Leaving one pondering whether people will ever understand that our society will not improve until we as individuals begin to ‘Let it begin with me’.

Pondering whether poverty and homelessness and other social ills will continue to grow and worsen as people, politicians, businesses, organizations, other assemblages seek to blame others and avoid taking personal responsibility for their choices and actions and the consequences of those and actions – and inactions.

Still, today …

B is one of the homeless living on the streets of Abbotsford. He had been taking shelter under the overhang at a warehouse that had remained empty since it was completed, but which had recently been leased.

As part of managing the move into this new location P had become aware that B was living sheltered by the building and had spoken with B about his situation, the realities of B’s life.

There were no demands that B leave the shelter provided him by the building; no fences or gates to deny B access to the shelter provided by the building; no calls to city hall demanding the city, the police, remove B.

Instead P provided a home for B. Looking at it most people would see a garden shed; unless they looked through B’s eyes or the eyes of those who are or have been homeless. There is drainage, a solid floor, a roof and walls proof against wind, rain and snow that will keep bedding, clothing, other belongings as well as a body dry.

There was no declaration that it was not his responsibility; no screaming about the need for SOMEONE ELSE to do something; no pointing of fingers to assign blame; no wringing of hands about the need for a ‘solution’. P simply took action and provided shelter for B.

Homelessness, addiction, mental illness are people problems and as such they are complex and troublesome issues without fast, easy solutions; looking for a miracle, arguing about who is responsible – someone else – and waiting for someone else to do something allow these problems to grow.

There are numerous best practices that we know work to address various aspects of these social issues; we know that we can, over time, reduce the numbers of homeless, addicts and mentally ill on our streets.

If we commit to addressing these issues, commit to doing what it takes for however long it takes, we can deal with these issues.

The key is, as P did, not to dither but to act.

Media

You call that News? Reporting?

Leave a comment

CBC News Vancouver was at the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre as part of being “on the road to visit communities around Metro Vancouver and in the Fraser Valley”. The promotions touted that they would be examining the stories of import to the citizens of the community they were visiting that day.

Did CBC News Vancouver address issues of local import or was their claim of addressing issues of local import simply more media hype?

I can only knowledgably address whether CBC News Vancouver addressed stories of import to the citizens of Abbotsford during their visit to the AE&SC.

During a record setting wet spring Abbotsford was the only lower mainland community to impose water rationing (or in politician speak: watering restrictions) beginning April 1st with the imposition of tighter rationing July 1st.

Given: Abbotsford city council is offering tax holidays to promote growth, even though the water delivery system is inadequate to meet current needs even under favourable (record wet spring) conditions; that council has stated they no intention of bringing needed upgrades to the water delivery system on line before 2018; the large capital cost involved in upgrading the water delivery system and the financial bind/disaster that city council has placed the City of Abbotsford in; the importance of water to the liveability of modern cities.

The issue of the water supply for the City of Abbotsford is of prime, if not the primary, interest to the citizens of Abbotsford. Did this item of considerable consequential importance receive even a mention on the CBC News Vancouver when they visited the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre?

No.

Given: Abbotsford city council has raised fees for sports fields, rinks and other sporting venues such that more and more children cannot afford the fees to participate in organized sports in Abbotsford; the fees for the cities exercise facilities are higher than the fees for private facilities; the city pleads poverty in addressing any of the growing social issues plaguing Abbotsford; that Abbotsford city council acknowledges that the act governing municipalities is designed to prevent the type of agreement entered into between the Abbotsford Heat and the City of Abbotsford but proudly claims to have legally circumvented this prohibition.

Did CBC News Vancouver ask mayor Peary about the fact Abbotsford City Council is purchasing, or at least contributing millions of dollars to the purchase, of a professional hockey team for a few wealthy, and obviously well connected, Abbotsford business people?

Did CBC News Vancouver ask Mayor Peary how or why a mayor would be proud of circumventing the intent of the act legislating municipal governance?

No and No.

Given: even the most cursory research on usage of the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre would reveal that the facility is seldom used; that the usage by other that the Abbotsford Heat is decreasing, tending to zero; that the AE&SC has become, for all intents and purposes a private facility for the Abbotsford Heat.

Did CBC News Vancouver do even minimal due diligence before professing the AE&SC ‘well-used’?

No.

No, No and No, No. Is CBC News Vancouver guilty of false advertising for the claim that they would be examining the stories of import to the citizens of Abbotsford when they broadcast from the AE&SC?

Is No, No and No, No merely further evidence that broadcast television has for years misused the term ‘news’ instead of the more accurate and reflective of reality: ‘stories that will sell the most advertising, maximizing the contribution of the stories department to the bottom line’?

Or does No, No and No, No attest that the over-the-air broadcast stories (aka ‘news’), in its focus on pursuit of profit over useful or needed information delivery, made itself as redundant1 as the over-the-air Canadian broadcast television currently is?

I would answer Yes, Yes, Yes. But Readers must consider the information and decide for themselves.

1Footnote: The over-the-air Canadian broadcast television is a Sunset Industry as it evolved to rebroadcast foreign, primarily US, television programming to Canadians in an era when there were no alternative ways to cost effectively deliver this programming. Cable, internet, phone lines and satellites can now deliver programming, more programming, more efficiently than over-the-air broadcast television. This is why maintaining the over-the-air Canadian broadcast television as it is currently constituted requires a permanent tax subsidy imposed on Canadians by the CRTC. Without this permanent subsidy the industry will be forced to contract and re-invent itself in alignment with the market for over-the-air broadcast television services in Canada.