Maybe this is the downtown vision

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 18/11/2023 (687 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Imagine a thriving commercial district in a city, with a range of amenities. And imagine that commercial district is surrounded by a vibrant residential neighbourhood with hundreds of safe, affordable housing units that are the homes of hundreds of families with young children.

Now imagine that same commercial district and residential neighbourhood with drug-addled people wandering the sidewalks day and night, many of them armed with weapons of various sizes. And imagine many of those same people puking, defecating and urinating on the those sidewalks, day and night, while others openly sell or consume dangerous drugs, or engage in a range of sexual activities not far from where children are playing.

Actually, you don’t need to use your imagination at all. All I’ve done is describe the difference between what it was like when I was a kid growing up in Brandon’s core area compared to the situation now.

The plight of downtown Brandon, its residents and business owners, has been an ongoing subject of news reports, editorials, columns and letters to the editor for at least the past 25 years. The latest chapter in this saga was a report in Wednesday’s Sun, which revealed that the Brandon Neighborhood Renewal Corporation’s variance application for a temporary homeless shelter on Rosser Avenue has been rejected by the city’s planning commission after significant opposition from downtown business owners.

The report further indicated that the BNRC is making arrangements with two churches that have apparently agreed to provide shelter for overnight clients. The locations of those churches have not yet been publicly revealed, meaning that nearby business owners and area residents have no idea what is about to happen to them.

On Thursday, it was reported that several city councillors acknowledge the problem downtown exists, but believe there is a need to “balance interests” after the planning commission’s decision — as if the situation plaguing the area and its merchants can be solved with a bit of tinkering.

Coun. Tyson Tame (Ward 10) had a more realistic response, saying that trying to serve the city’s vulnerable population in the downtown area, while also trying to promote economic revitalization, is a tightrope walk. “Are we looking at revitalization or are we a social hub?” he asked. “It’s hard to be both.”

Coun. Greg Hildebrand (Ward 5) appears to agree, saying “We need to make sure that all the voices are heard … We want to keep businesses downtown. We don’t want to develop any type of (an area) where businesses are scared to develop.”

That fear is real. Many merchants do not regard the downtown as a safe place for them and their staff to be, and their customers feel the same way. They are tired of the broken windows and locks, along with the used needles, poop, urine, vomit and used condoms they regularly see on downtown streets and sidewalks.

They don’t like having to keep their doors locked during business hours in order to prevent volatile, intoxicated people from entering their premises.

On the residential side, some real estate agents discourage their clients from buying homes in the downtown neighbourhood, and core area homes listed for sale often languish unsold for months — at a time when housing is in short supply and high demand.

Our city councillors know those problems can’t be fixed by “re-balancing” the interests of business owners, residents, social service providers and their clients. They have decades of evidence showing that it’s impossible for a downtown Brandon to thrive as both a commercial district and social services hub. They would be hard pressed to identify a single city in North America where such an approach is working.

Taking this a step further, what would that “re-balancing” actually entail? Do they seriously plan to reduce the number of social service providers in the downtown area, or more forcefully regulate the activities of the providers’ clients?

That’s impossible. If those providers are complying with their zoning designation and applicable laws, they can’t be forced out of the area, and there is zero desire to arrest our way out this problem.

The over-saturation of social service providers downtown may be a major contributor to the “downtown problem,” but note that none of our councillors are suggesting that the “re-balancing” include relocating some social service providers to other areas of the city. Can you imagine the public reaction in their wards if the idea was even floated?

In her letter to the editor, published yesterday, Kim Longstreet suggested the problems downtown are rooted in a clash of egos among social service providers, which is preventing the creation of a centralized wellness centre that could provide the panoply of services needed by the less fortunate in our city.

The location of such a centre outside of the downtown would have an immediate, positive impact on the core area, but even Longstreet acknowledges that there are huge obstacles standing in the way of such a facility being constructed in Brandon.

Thursday’s editorial (“Downtown needs vision for future”) suggested that the problems occurring downtown will only worsen until our elected leaders articulate a clear vision of what the city is trying to accomplish in the area. That may be true, but the implementation of such a vision needs to happen very quickly in order to make a difference. That’s because businesses continue to leave downtown, and more are planning to.

As that continues to occur, even more social service providers will likely occupy the empty commercial spaces, and downtown Brandon will continue its accelerating transformation from a commercial district to the social services hub many have called for over the years. The problems may worsen in the core area, but they will be largely kept out of the other nine wards.

Come to think of it, maybe that was the vision all along, and past city councils simply didn’t have courage to say so.