Skip to content

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered


  1. The author of the Star’s “safe injection site” story included some of my comments in her piece. I’ve asked the paper for a clarification because I feel i’m made to sound more positive than I am about this initiative.

    In the story, I am quoted as saying: “If this (supervised consumption site) enhances the health of the community it would be a positive.” However, in speaking with the reporter, I quickly added: “But, it would be hard to see how this might be the case given negative impact on the community that seems to have taken place in Vancouver East.”

    I stressed that this proposal would be highly controversial and that there was need for an open and transparent consultation process with the community, particulary since this was an area where decision makers tended to railroad projects through without listening to the concerns of locals. (ie no more “door to door surveys” by our local Councillor Giambrone).

    I also acknowledged that some studies showed positive health outcomes for addicts with these sites — but I also added that my understanding was these studies tended to be authored by those who received funding for these sites (ie had a vested interest).

    Finally, I suggested that the appropriateness of a site should be judged not only in terms of “health outcomes for addicts” BUT also in terms of its impact on the “health (physical, economic and social) of the community”.

    I don’t expect to have everything I said quoted… but while I don’t reject/accept things without knowing the details, I don’t like to be made to seem positive about something when I’m not.