Comments on: 2010 Vancouver Olympics, and the two faces of the city

By: Jeff Kee

Jeff Kee — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:16:29 +0000

Being drug addicted homeless junkies, perhaps with mental illnesses, basically makes them unsuitable for survival and therefore they have less rights. And you’re a self-righteous, sympathy-driven moron just like the rest of sheltered and brainwashed North Americans.

By: Glyn Jones

Glyn Jones — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:27:59 +0000

you are so negative against the poor they live here too get over it what if someone was evicting you so they could benefit from the olympics WALK A MILE IN THERE SHOES BEFORE YOU STATE THINGS LIKE WHAT YOU SAY

By: Jeff Kee’s Blog » Blog Archive » The Sea-To-Sky Corridor and its development

Tue, 01 May 2007 07:55:00 +0000

[...] The Sea-To-Sky Corridor and its development April 30th, 2007 by Jeff Kee – Related Posts -5 of many of the reasons why I think the Vancouver Real Estate Market is still goodA one day pause of posts…2010 Vancouver Olympics, and the two faces of the city [...]

By: loolund

loolund — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:58:24 +0000

Well, I certainly agree that Olympics or not the downtown Eastside is threatened. The way I see it is that back in the eighties, when the govn’t of the day shut the doors of Riverview to all but the most desperate cases and sent the rest of the patients out to group homes was the beginning of the end. The DTES has always had a reputation, but how could a small city (as Vancouver was in the eighties) cope with the influx of group home drop-outs/kicked-out patients who refused to take their meds for all sorts of reasons (some valid some not). Before people could really manage to deal with this, Ontario and Alberta began to ship their welfare recipients off to the DTES. Want to get a picture – volunteer at a soup kitchen and ask the patrons where they are from (pre-nineties). It will amaze you how few are actually locals. I think Vancouver and BC are responsible for the patient they kicked out and lower mainland natives, but no one else. Am I heartless, no, I think the solution is for welfare recipients to return to their native provinces to pick up a welfare check. That would at least give BC a handle on how many homeless they can cope with. then get mad if they don’t. Right now, Olympics or not B.C. cannot provide welfare to ALL of Canada’s down and out; nor can Vancouver cope with ALL of BC’s down and out.

Check out London England for an idea of what happens when you attempt to give social housing to the poor, the system overloads, some poor get everything, raise their kids to live on dole and others get nothing (on a waitlist), the situation staggered London, and they got rid of all social housing in return for fair (market value) rent supplements welfare recipients ( but, the Recipient had to be Londoners – born or immigrated to the place).

So a fair question is, why should Vancouver have to subsidize housing for non-locals or out-of-province people who just choose the most expensive city in Canada? I personally am not able to afford a SFH in decent condition in Vancouver, so I live in the burbs, why should some who is not raised here get that privilage, there are many more affordable places to live. Reality is: beggars can’t be choosers. Somehow, I don’t feel this is unfair or heartless, just what we all live with.

By: JackYing

JackYing — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:50:55 +0000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: “The American Dream is a subjective term usually implying a successful and satisfying life. Perceptions of the American dream are usually framed in terms of American capitalism, its associated purported meritocracy, and the freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights. The term is not easily defined, and has subjective meaning to many who claim it. The term is used by many modern Americans to signify success in life as a result of hard work (as in, “living [or pursuing] the American Dream”).”
Ian, most of us came to this country as immigrants for one reason or another. We have different opinions about various issues and that is what make us unique individuals and this country great. I appreciate your concern with the future of the planet and applaud your efforts to preserve it for our children. What I do not appreciate is your assumption that my idea of ‘the American Dream’ is materialistic. You conveniently used a term I used to describe the freedoms Canada and the US guarantees all its citizens to label all the negative by-products of a capitalistic society. I suggest when you respond to someone’s comment, you stick to the subject and not twist it around so you can bring your perspectives on some other issues into the spotlight.

By: ian gregson

ian gregson — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:14:01 +0000

What we consume is what is largely responsible for killing the planet. All those cars, planes, plastic bags, big screen tv’s, computers, all come from somewhere – they do not magically appear on the store shelves.

What is the incentive to make more money if it is only to consume more and therefore degrade the planet even more ?

I make an effort to save the planet everyday, I don’t own a car, I don’t own a house [I live in a co-op].

The rewards I seek are to preserve this planet for future generations, however if we continue as you suggest I believe we will be killing our future generations; at the very least subjecting them to extreme conditions that make our lives heavenly.

By: Jeff Kee

Jeff Kee — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:00:20 +0000

The original “American Dream” was a world where your efforts and hard work was rewarded properly and proportionately, isntead of bieng taxed 50% once you make over $100,000 a year. It’s a joke. But oh well. The original American dream was to be able to self-sustain your family through legitimate means of hard and smart work, isntead of living in a place where there are no opportunities, everybody makes roughly the same, with no incentive to be better tahn others – AKA a communist society.

If we are to reward those who make the effort, we cannot reward those who didn’t. they should be punished.

By: ian gregson

ian gregson — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:57:52 +0000

Jack – if you are looking for the American dream in Vancouver, hmmm, you might need to go south somewhat. Although we may be annexed sometime soon.

What is the cost of your dream ? To drive around in an Escalade, polluting the environment or to make the world better than when you arrived.

To some people driving around in an Escalade or Hummer is all they need to realise the American dream. Some of us think the American dream is what is causing this global catastophe.

If the American dream means SUV and being an over weight chubby who easts fast food morning , noon and night then count me out.

By: JackYing

JackYing — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:36:13 +0000

I just can’t resist this debate. So I’ll jump right in. Coming from a country like Singapore; which is basically a dictatorship disguised as a democracy; to the United States and Canada, where personal freedom and rights are paramount, I have come to the conclusion that everything comes at a price. There is no perfect system. We have to give up something to get some other thing. So it comes down to what is more important to us individually. In the west, we get to express that individuality, somethimes to an extent that I think crosses the line of being good citizens. Just as the government has a responsibility to govern, the people living in that country has the responsibility to obey the laws. But governments anchored by the yoke of politics do not act in the best interests of its citizens just as governments which can dictate the actions of its people run the risk of leading them right over the edge of the cliff.

Take the criminal justice system for example. In Singapore, first time drug traffickers get the death penalty. The repeat offenders percentage is zero. The principle is they would rather have 9 innocent guys in prison than to let that one guilty one go free. In the west it is the exact opposite. 9 guilty criminal go free just so we can prevent the one innocent guy from being punished. In either scenario, there are sad and infuriating instances of injustice. Just depends on which you would prefer.

I think that for myself, since I have chosen to be Canadian, I will accept the pros and cons of this system. I understand it is not perfect and the roots of the problems are extremely deep and often very emotional, especially when it comes to sensitive issues like human rights, unions, the justice system, environment, health care, etc. I believe that I have a better chance of obtaining that so called ‘American Dream’ here than in Singapore. I believe that in the West, we live to enjoy life, not just to get through life working to pay for material things. I took the family on a shopping trip to Washington on a weekday last week. In Singapore? Ya right.

By: Jeff Kee

Jeff Kee — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:46:06 +0000

Hey ian,

before i go further I’d like to comment that you’re probably one of the more intelligent and proactive individuals I’ve met. Unlike that other Jessica bitch we saw on the Facebook group (where this all stemmed from) your arguments are valid, respectable. Whereas Jessica, I felt, was one of those unrealistic dreamy upper-class canadian trying to sound all humanitarian by being so freakin sweet etc.. kinda like that dumb woman from New Orleans who refused to leave with the evacuation team unless she coudl bring her dogs. Give me a break!!!

Anyhow.

Federally regulated income – I don’t agree. Some people are not fit to survive and that’s the law of nature as far as i’m concerned.

As for drug addiction campaigns – I agree. But most peopel who are already tehre are too late to get out of it. Education for those under 20 who still have the Y split ahead of them are the ones who do need to be targeted.

I’ve personally seen a friend (well, semi-quasi ex-gf sorta woman) turn from a wild child to a homeless person. I’ve seen the dynamics and psychology of those who are.. well. beyond help, beyond return. I know the Led Zeppelin song goes “there’s always time to change the road you’re on” but that’s a rarity, and I don’t see justification to pour that much resources on them.

Education and proper guidance to the future generation is what will solve this problem in the long run. I also support creating a city environment where it’s very difficult to survive without a proper lifestyle and a job – it will motivate more people to live a “proper” life.

I support our tax funds going into drug-busting. Hells Angels must go, really.

But then, I must make the point – compared to other places in the world, canada’s very very very very easy to succeed in. And I say that because I’ve lived outside of Canada most of my life! I’ve seen a tough world to make money in. I’ve seen a society where people try adn try but because of the lack of resources they can’t make it. Insurance frauds by getting hit by cars, suicide and such were so common in Korea, espeically druing the depression that happened in 1997 and spread all across asia.

As much as I may come across as a cold-hearted bastard, I’m not. I do believe in creating a world where corporates create a good balance with the people and the ecosystem. I do believe in creating a world with less crimes, less drugs, less beatings, less pollution.

I personally will never drive a large car, ever, unless it ran on electricity, or if I ended up in trades where I need to haul luggage (which i probabliy wont..).