Transcript GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND, BC

GROUP HOMES IN
RICHMOND, BC
David W. Edgington
Department of Geography
University of British Columbia
1)
Research Objectives
2)
Literature Review
3)
The Group Homes Task
Force
4)
Conclusions
Ethnoburbs


Immigrants residents are more actively
involved in mainstream politics and
community affairs than the residents of
ghettos and enclaves
The `ethnoburb’ model challenges the
dominant view that suburban assimilation is
inevitable and the best solution for ethnic
minorities [Wei Li, 2006 “From Enclave to
Ethnoburb”, forthcoming]
Multicultural Planning:



“For planners, the practical imperative is no
longer whether planning ought to be
culturally sensitive, but how?
How do planners accommodate one group’s
view of the physical environment when it
conflicts with that of another group?
More importantly, the question remains
whether….planning can be sensitive to
diverse cultures and yet maintain a unified
public realm?
[Michael Burayidi, “Urban Planning in a Multicultural
Society”, 2000]
Group Homes:



Offer an important service to substance
dependent individuals and others needing
special care
Chinese traditional attitudes to “drug
addicts”
Canadian society and inclusiveness
Maps of Richmond
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND: I
“Turning Point” >>>>>> Setting up the
Task Force


1990-91 “Adam’s Place”, a group home for male
recovery from drug and alcohol addiction
1999 forced to relocate; chose a 6,000 sq ft
house in up-scale Odlin Road, Richmond;
“Turning Point Recovery Home” (10 beds)

seeks approval from Vancouver/Richmond Health
Board and Richmond City Council

pickets and public protests by local residents,
mainly members of the Chinese community
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND: I



March 2001. Planning Committee of Councl
considers a “made-in-Richmond” by-law to allow
7-10 person group homes without a public
hearing process
2-day hearing: ’00 of residents turn out; of those
who spoke, the overwhelming majority felt they
wanted a say on where the group homes should
be allowed to set up (preferably outside
residential neighbourhoods) and how they should
be run
by-law or not?? (drug rehabilitation vs battered
womens’ shelters, hospice homes, etc)
“INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION”

Against:
– “It is unfair to the children of Richmond since
they will be exposed to foreseeable danger”,
said Philip Tang, one of the speakers on
Tuesday.
– “We’re concerned about the drug dealers
coming into our area”, said Julie Lin. “How can
we protect our children? Our families?”
– “They should move out of residential areas”,
said Julie’s father, Simon Lin. “They can be set
up in restricted areas where they are not
harmful”
(quotes from the Richmond News, 11 March 2001)
“INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION”

For:
– “I can tell you, people with mental handicaps,
physical handicaps, people who suffer from
drug and alcohol addiction or mental illness,
will not hurt you or your family, I can say that
from my own experience,” said Brian Wardley,
a member of the Richmond community health
committee.
– “If those concerned with group homes spent
some time visiting or volunteering in one,
you’ll find the (residents) are good human
beings, just like you and me”, Wardley said.
(quotes from the Richmond News, 11 March 2001)
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND: II
The Task Force


March 2001: Group Homes Task Force Appointed
Composition:
– 3 members, Association of Richmond
Homeowners
– 2 members, Richmond Community Services
Advisory Council
– 1 member, Vancouver/Richmond Health Board
– 4 members, chosen at random from the
ratepayers list
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND: II



14 x meetings held between May – October, 2001
consultants appointed by city planning staff
(including Chinese media PR consultant)
$100,000 budget
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND: II



Task Force heard presentations from Group Home
operators and residents, social planners,
neighbours of “Turning Point”
it found that 32 residential groups were already
set up in the City (but that only 1 involved
drug/alcohol recovery)
found out that HK and China still have a punitive
model of addressing drug addiction, rather than
one focused on rehabilitation and education
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND:
III
Politics

June 2001. Betrayal!!!
– John Wong [Association of Richmond
Homeowners] quits the Task Force in
frustration that the group was operating on a
“city-driven agenda”
– 2 weeks later he is back on the Task Force
after the City’s Policy Planner [T. Crowe] is “reassigned” and the City’s Urban Development
Manager [D. McCllelan] steps down as Task
Force Chair.
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND:
III

October 2001. City By-election (issues are: Group
Homes; Traffic; and Gambling)
– eight Chinese Canadians out of 29 hopefuls on the
election ballot
– three run under a new “Richmond Canadian Voters
(RCV) Party
– none with a Chinese name or background was successful
in landing a seat on council
– 33.39% of Chinese-Canadian voters cast a ballot in the
by-election,
– c.f. 32.07% for the population-at-large [Civic Education
Society]
2001 Civic By-election
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND:
IV
The End?


September 2001. Information brochure produced
by Task Force/City Staff/Consultant - bilingual
version too
6 x community meetings
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND:
IV

October 2001. Final Report and
Recommendations given to Council
– Group Homes (7-10 bed facility) be allowed
`as of right’ in residential areas, but with
notification for new applications to neighbours
within five-house radius
– Overall process managed by the City and
Richmond Health Services
– Recommends establishment of a Cultural
Relations Advisory Committee
– John Wong refuses to “sign-off”
GROUP HOMES IN RICHMOND:
IV



November 2001. Council wants more control over
drug/alcohol recovery homes and seeks legal
advice
December 2001. BC Provincial Government
changes “Community Care Act” to withdraw
licensing requirement from 7-10 bed facilities
Therefore no longer any requirement for Group
Homes (7-10 bed facility) to be provincially (or
municipally) licensed
……..“stalemate”
CONCLUSIONS
 Richmond
City Council took a
leadership role
 Increasing
Chinese/HK political
participation
 What
prospects for municipal
`learning’?
Thank You!