Elect Respect Harassment Prevention

Statement Watch

Okay, thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Ali Wang. I'm a volunteer in Chinatown and a monthly donor to Union Gospel Mission in Vancouver's downtown Eastside for over 10 years. At this meeting today, I oppose expanding supportive housing under the current model. To be clear, I fully support helping people who are experiencing homelessness. However, I have concerns about how the current approach is working. I would like to make three points. First, homelessness is not just a housing issue. It is also a healthcare issue. Over 60% of people experience homelessness with mental health challenges. Housing alone cannot solve this problem. Proper medical treatment and long-term support are essential. Second, not everyone who is homeless use drugs. If supportive housing always allows drug using by default, people who don't use drugs may feel unsafe or unwilling to move in. Third, many people struggling with addiction want to recover. I think we should focus more on providing accessibility of that kind of treatment. Free treatment and more recovery beds are needed. not only the supportive housing. And that now is the bad model. People can use drug inside. So because of these concerns, many residents are worried. We already saw low barrier supportive housing that allows drug use can lead to safety risk, poor conditions, and drug-related activity in surrounding areas. So I think we should focus on this kind of problem. We should solve these things and organize well that the supportive housing, we already had it. Vancouver has 8,000 units of supportive housing, but the whole Vancouver area, we only have like 5,000 or 6,000 homelessness. So from this concern, I don't agree to... you know, build more supportive housing now in Vancouver. I think if the police don't distinguish between different needs, we risk spending significant resources without solving the problems and increase community tensions. Homelessness in Vancouver is also a provincial and national issue, not... and may require stronger federal support and provincial support, I think. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Good morning. Yes.

Hello, this is Jolie Chost. I lived in Vancouver before, but I moved out because it's becoming more and more toxic and chaotic. So I want to talk about the drug issue in the supportive housing, and I'm going to show you this. For example, this is the supportive housing project. Okay? And then what you will see from here, what you get, something coming out of it. It's unexpected. Okay? So the spider is not what we want. That's what I'm talking about. This is the drug issue we are not happy with. This is the supportive housing project we're happy with. OK, so what you get is not what you want. That's the issue. So I'm talking about the drug. That's not good. All right? Supportive housing, we support it. So I'd like to read a letter from a mom whose daughter died because of the drug issue. OK, she authorized me to read her letter. It's very heartbreaking. My name is Yan. I'm a mother. I'm here today because my 14-year-old daughter, Emily, lost her life to fentanyl poisoning in January last year. Before I speak about what happened, I want to briefly share who we are as a family. We're a hardworking, law-abiding family. I hold a master's degree in material science and engineering, and my husband holds a master's degree in statistics. We built our careers through years of dedication in Japan, and we came to Vancouver in 2007, believing it was a safe and hopeful place to raise our children. We raised our daughters with care, responsibility, and faith. We do not smoke, drink, or use any drugs. We believed the drugs were far from our lives, but we were wrong. Despite every effort we make, we made, we could not protect our younger daughter. Emily was only 14 years old. She was bright, creative, and full of curiosity. She loved painting music and reading fantasy adventure novels. She was active and energetic. She excelled in skiing, swimming, and mountain activities. She cared about others and even shared food with people experiencing homelessness. She is a pure-hearted and nice girl, and she should still have been here today. Over the past year, I have had to face a painful truth. What happened to my daughter was not just a personal tragedy. It reflects a much larger crisis affecting our children and our community. I will not go through every detail today, but I want to highlight a few critical points. An adult man who groomed her supplied strong alcohol and committed sexual assault against her. Early exposure to substances like vaping and alcohol, increasing access to drugs, including methamphetamine and cannabis edibles.

Sorry, speaker. I'm very sorry, but you're over time, and we have to go to the next speaker. I apologize.

Statement Watch

Okay. My name is Cynthia. I'm not living in the city of Calgary, but I go to the Chinatown in Vancouver very often. Since the city I'm living in does not have a Chinatown, going to Chinatown in Vancouver is becoming part of my life now. I used to be a registered social worker before my retirement, working with people with different barriers. When thinking of this proposal to remove the costly ban on supportive housing, I felt it was very hard to simply say yes or no. Because we care about people with disability, women who were abused, seniors in poverty, and people with different barriers. But when it comes to the word costly, that brings the key issue. In the workplace, we have yearly job performance review. Then does the city have yearly job performance review? Where the taxpayer funds go? How effective was the investment? Was the government accountable? The evolving... of the East Hastings street hurt me too much. With the time going, the situation was going worse. It seems that it is not only a housing issue, but health care, education, employment, economic development, and city management issues. Everyone knows that if someone is getting an... infectious disease, he or she needs to be admitted into the hospital until he or she is no more infectious and can be released into the community to live with normal or vulnerable people like youth and seniors. I hope that people can accept that drug abuse is infectious. If so, is mixing people using drugs voluntarily? With most vulnerable people, a good practice can help to make the situation better. A 14-year-old lovely girl died from drug overdose shocked us. She was influenced by people near her and was able to get drug from the street with only a couple of dollars. Imagine she did not die from overdose and was still alive. What her future will be like if she kept addicted? Will she be better off by just providing her with a room, or she needs to get taught education, proper training to put her back into track? Then it comes to the question on the strategy we need to review. how to deal with the situation of the East Huffington Street in a practical and a sustainable way. Sorry, Cynthia.

Statement Watch

Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I'm speaking for myself. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and also I'm speaking on behalf of my family members and the friends who shared the same concerns, which I will list below. I'd like to urge you not to lift the current pause on supportive housing. The pause under discussion was never a blanket ban. That's what we believe. It was a targeted pause on new city land or funding contributions for certain homelessness response with supportive housing projects, while still allowing projects already underway, like a replacement housing, health-related housing, housing for seniors, women, family, and youth, et cetera. So we believe this was a policy about priorities and accountability, not a rejection of compassion. Vancouver and the BC have invested heavily in supportive housing for years. Vancouver already has almost 8,000 supportive housing units, as the previous speaker indicated, and more units already in the pipeline. Yet homelessness remains at a record high in Vancouver. That tells us that the issue is no longer whether we have tried enough. It is whether the current model is producing strong enough results to justify more expansion. Vancouver, according to data, we also know Vancouver is carrying more than their share. We know that Vancouver has 25% of natural Vancouver's population. However, more than 77% of the region's supportive housing and more than 67% of the shelter spaces are located in Vancouver. So keeping this pause is one of the few ways to insist that other municipalities finally do their part instead of... continuing to rely on Vancouver to absorb more of the region's unmet needs. We also need to be realistic about limited resources. From a financial perspective, the city is undergoing pressure. Vancouver faces rising operating and a capital cost infrastructure funding gap, relief in a five-budget shortfall, and continued property tax increases. That's what I've experienced as a homeowner in Vancouver. At the same time, BC and Canada are also facing As a result, government no longer, I believe we believe the government no longer have the same room to keep expanding expensive programs without clear evidence of effectiveness. In this environment, we think the priority should be to replace unsafe housing first, improve management, and expand treatment, mental health care, and addiction recovery. The 2095 motion itself called for stronger mental health and drug use responses alongside housing, and we believe that ABC Party made a very wise decision. That's also how public opposition can be reduced. When people see unsafe housing replaced, better care in place, and better public outcomes, they're more likely to support supportive housing. Sorry, speaker. It's a little hard to hear you.

We just have a bit of trouble hearing you.

You cannot hear me? It's a little muffled. Okay. Is it better now?

It's better. Yep.

Okay. So at present, people from many different communities and cultural backgrounds are raising concerns about safety, drug-related issues, and mental health challenges associated with supportive housing. This shows that public confidence in the current system is weak and that many residents are not convinced that existing model is working effectively. We do not help vulnerable people by repeating a model without proving it works. We help them by making housing safer, care stronger, and public investment more effective. Compassion matters, but compassion must also be effective, accountable, and fair. So please do not lift this pause until there is real regional responsibility, real replacement of unsafe housing, and the real evidence that the system is working better. Thank you so much. If you missed my previous part, I will be willing to wait until the end. to do my, deliver my thoughts again. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Hi, good morning, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Vicky Wei. Today I'm here to oppose the motion reversing the costly bang on the supportive housing. I'm a mother of an 11-year-old child. Near my house, there's a supportive housing building. For years, drug dealing has taken place in the alley behind my house. I volunteer with my community safety patrols and regularly walk through the neighborhood. Even so, I no longer allow my child to play freely in the alley the way I did when I was young. The sense of safe safety is gone. In the evening, when I walk my dog in the alley, the drug dealer used their car height being highlights to warn me that I'm not welcome. This is the reality residents are living with. My neighbors have reported drug transactions to the police multiple times, even providing evidence with a video camera. Nothing changes. This deeply frustrating our law-binding residents. One day, I saw a teenager look like a high school student still wearing a backpack. laying on the ground in front of my neighbor garage where the drug dealing frequently occurs the child appeared to be serious distress that image has stayed with me my community was not like this before the supportive housing was built my family is not heartless we regularly volunteer with organizations that support people experience homelessness preparing food and helping where we can I want my child to understand compassion and responsibility. But my child has asked a difficult question to me. Mom, after years of helping, why does the situation not seem to improve? Homelessness is not simply about lacking housing. It deeply connects to addiction. Building more housing without confronting drug use and trafficking does not solve the problem. I urge elected officials to face this reality honestly, focusing resources on addressing addictions and drugs in the most compassionate way to protect community and truly help Vancouver's most vulnerable people. Thank you for listening.

Statement Watch

Morning. Let's be direct. I'm the founder of Vivo, which has connected more than 15 cities all around the BC communities. We shouldn't be here arguing if the BC supportive housing policy is successful. Opposition to this supportive housing project is not a lack of compassion. It is a refusal to accept policies that repeatedly failed both vulnerable individuals and the surrounding communities. Ask yourself, have you done due diligence before you come here today? Ask yourself, do you support one living? whether you support one housing like this within 150 meters of your own home, your kids' school. Think and study the truth of the consequences of your votes, and we should represent the people who give you the votes. Have you asked yourself, your own neighbors, have you done your due diligence before you come here today? Jesse Affleck. a 22-year-old recovered former drug addiction victim. And he's running the Richmond Council now because he really thinks, okay, his real experience told him that the current provincial supportive housing policy is not working, but instead keeping the drug addiction victims in the sea of the drugs. He strongly wants the government to use the resources to build detox programs and facilities instead of failing supportive housing programs. Community safety is not negotiable. It is the most basic responsibility of government. Without safety, there is no real compassion, no quality of life, no stable communities. Public safety concerns are not theoretical. They are not driven by prejudice. The negative impact associated with many supportive housing and low-barrier facilities are widely reported, documented. Please check, okay? It's everywhere. and easily verified. Residents are not imagining these risks. They are responding to observable patterns. Over the past three months, the former Surrey, South Surrey, to Richmond, to Burnaby, Albersville, a lot of cities, all right, reached me to help to express their concerns, their opinions to the governments. The problem about this policy is bigger than only the housing facilities. It's only about the democratic procedures. It's being harmed. The people, the residents, their right of consultation has been taken away. Yet the government continues to present housing as a simple... simplified solution to deeply complicated problems.

Sorry, Wallace.

Severe addiction and mental health crisis.

Statement Watch

Hello.

Hi, Bonnie.

Please go ahead. Good morning. Yes, hi. Yeah, good morning, everyone. So I think the reason that I'm using has been mentioned by previous speakers, but I'm still going to say that. So I strongly oppose the Motion 3. City of Vancouver has approximately 25% of Metro Vancouver's population. However, it has already contained about 77% of the region's supportive housing, far more than its proportional share. Given this imbalance, it is reasonable to pause the construction of additional supportive housing within the City of Vancouver. Homelessness is a regional issue across Metro Vancouver. So therefore, supportive housing should be more... EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE METRO VANCOUVER REGION RATHER THAN CONCENTRATED IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER. THE CITY OF VANCOUVER ONLY HAS LIMITED RESOURCES. AND IT SERVES THE ENTIRE CITY RESIDENTS. SO IT SHOULD WISELY USE ITS LIMITED RESOURCES. THANK YOU. Yeah, thank you for the council's patience of listening to our reasons.

Statement Watch

Hi, I'm David Ray, a Vancouver resident, and I'm here to speak in support of Councillor Bligh's motion to reverse the ban on new supportive housing in Vancouver. I would assume we are all well aware that Vancouver is in a housing crisis. It's getting harder for people to afford a place to live, as Councillor Bligh stated, whether we earn $200,000 a year or $20,000 a year. And at the very bottom of that crisis are people who have no place to live at all. Homelessness is rising across the region, with the most recent count showing a 9% increase since 2003 and a staggering 26% increase in unsheltered homelessness here in Vancouver. Those are our neighbors. They're not just numbers. Those are the people sleeping in parks, in doorways, and in tents across the city. Supportive housing is one of the most proven tools we have to address that reality. It provides not only housing, but access to the services people need to stabilize their lives. including health care, mental health support, and addiction services. Supportive housing works. That's why it's so concerning that Vancouver currently has this policy that prevents new supportive housing investments, a decision that effectively blocks provincial and federal funding from being used here in our own city. At a time when governments are prepared to fund hundreds of supportive homes across BC, while we are in need of thousands, Vancouver, who faces some of the most visible impacts of the housing crisis, has chosen to step aside. That doesn't make any sense. If we are serious about addressing homelessness, if we are serious about improving safety and stability in our communities, then we must be willing to use every tool that's available to us. Supportive housing is about something very basic. The belief that everyone deserves a home. Not just people who are already doing well. Not just people who can compete in an increasingly unaffordable housing market. It's for everyone. Because housing isn't just a commodity or an investment. Housing is a foundation for dignity, for stability, and for community. This motion offers Council an opportunity to correct that course and allow Vancouver to once again partner with provincial and federal governments to build the supportive housing our city urgently needs. Council, Mayor, I urge you to support this motion. Vancouver is strongest when we take care of each other. Thank you again for your time.

Statement Watch

Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Iona Bonamy, and my Chinese name is Tosi Wing. I'm speaking in support of this motion, and I want to clarify that I am speaking on behalf of myself, who is a concerned Rom and Vancouverite, born and raised here in Vancouver, and have seen Vancouver, how it's changed over the last few decades. Over the last few months, a lot of misinformation has been spread about what supportive housing is. They've been characterized as drug houses instead of what they truly are, which are affordable housing with on-site essential services to help people experiencing homelessness, violence, trauma, and mental health problems get back on their feet. When the motion to have a temporary ban on net new supportive housing projects was passed, the rationale given was that other municipalities would step up and build more supportive housing. But we know that is not actually the case. Instead, municipalities are looking to Vancouver and saying, well, look, Vancouver is not building it, so why should we? Given the ban has not worked as planned, we need to act responsibly and reverse it. We know more affordable housing would boost public safety. Studies show that affordable housing cuts substance use and enhances mental health. So to improve public safety in our city, we must reduce the number of people who are forced to live on the streets. We also know that homelessness costs taxpayers more than providing housing. According to a 2024 study, annual health care costs for people experiencing homelessness in Canada are six times higher than those of housed people. Furthermore, people who are experiencing homelessness often end up in the hospital because of the health issues they face as a result of being homeless. This places a lot of stress on our medical system and makes it harder for other people to receive medical attention. So, in conclusion, I strongly encourage you to vote in favor of this motion. We need to make sure that no one is left behind and that our communities are truly safe and affordable for everyone. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

Hi. Yeah, I'm Jean Swanson. Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Okay, I'm Jean Swanson. I'm representing the Carnegie Housing Project, which is a project of the board of the Carnegie Community Center Association. Vancouver residents support the motion. First, the motion is consistent with the MOU that you signed with the province about the Granville Street SROs, even though it makes no sense to us to close down 280 SRO rooms while over 2,000 precious humans are homeless in the streets. But second, there is a desperate need for housing to get people off the streets. You can't recover from physical or mental illness or stabilize an addiction without housing. And homelessness contributes to and causes physical and mental illness and causes people to use drugs. A lot of speakers have spoken out about the evils of drug use. Yes, it's hard to get off drugs. The question is... Will we help people get off or stabilize if they don't have housing? If you can't get housing, your chance of getting off drugs or stabilizing is pretty low. People on the street have told me that they turn to drugs to cope with being homeless, so housing is a key. So if I were you, I would not only pass this motion, I'd get down on my knees and beg the feds and province for funds for enough supportive housing. to get everyone off the street so they don't have to sleep on sidewalks and in front of businesses. And I bet if you did that, a lot of other folks in the city, including community groups and businesses, would join you.

Statement Watch

Okay. I may end the council. My name is Tom Xin. I'm here today to voice my strong opposition to the motion seeking to reverse the ban on new supportive housing. I support maintaining the present because the current model is fundamentally flawed. It does not solve the crisis. It is a dependent divide in our society. The biggest mistake is It's a one-size-fits-all grouping. We are forcing vulnerable women, children, and seniors into the same building as individuals with mental health issues and heart drug addiction. And this kind of low-barrier housing usually allows that kind of person to use a heart drug inside freely. This is not a sport. It's a social warehouse. And council member, let's be honest, the drug addiction clusters in our city are not something Vancouver is proud of, especially as we host FIFA 2026 World Cup. We can see a repeated interesting pattern. Whenever a major international event arrived here, The city's first response is to clear up and hide the problem. If this model were truly a success, we would be showcasing it to the world, not rushing to hide it from international visitors. If we have to hide it, it is the third model. For those suffering from illness, medical care first. is the only helmet solution. A house is not a hospital. Placing individuals in community housing without a 24-hour clinical intervention only allows drug trafficking and violence to fester in our neighborhood. Vancouver needs real healing, not more buildings filled with conflict. Supporting the present is not about a lack of empath. It is about the to fund a dangerous and infective system. I urge you to vote against this motion. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Thank you. Go ahead. Good morning, everyone. My name is Yang, and I'm here today with other attendees coming from a small community of alumni association in Vancouver. And yes, I'm a resident of City of Vancouver. We would like to state a post as our comment on motion three. Here's the logic behind the scenes. First, we thoroughly reviewed the previous note of implementation of the temporary housing net new supportive housing motion on March 13th, 2025. Since it's supported by most of the decision makers, the next steps should be followed as stated in the note. We noticed that there is a bi-annual review on progress, which should be next year in 2027. So the policy is still on schedule and we should wait until it's ready for a change. Second, we also paid fairly patience on motion three, trying to understand the logic behind the scenes. Clearly, there's a big misunderstanding of the difference between supportive housing and affordable housing. I am sorry to see City of Vancouver has let this motion go public. At last, I would personally point out that the writer of Motion 3 should consider exploring English 12 lessons in our city's adult education program. I believe most of the committee members...

Apologies. Point of order, Councillor.

He said the mover of the motion should learn English 12. I believe that's disparaging. Well, I think you should wait.

Speaker, I'm just going to caution you against comments like that against counsel.

I believe most of the committee members have the same feeling about this title was written in such a misleading way. We all know that misleading comes from manipulation. I am not a native. English speaker, so I asked for help from human intelligence, my daughter, who's attending elementary school in District 39. She explained to me that pausing means stop for a while, but you can come back.

And ban means never come back.

I agree with her. Again, we state opposed to Motion 3. Thank you for your time. And I'm sorry. I hope you don't mind if this statement sounds offended. But I mean it.

Statement Watch

Good morning, Mayor and the City Council. My name is Christina, and I am here to oppose restarting any new supportive housing projects at this time. Last year, Council made the decision to oppose new supportive housing development, recognizing that Vancouver already carries a disproportionate share compared to other municipalities. That decision reflected the importance of thoughtful planning, adequate support system, and a fair distribution of responsibility across communities. I would also like to share my firsthand experience. My office is located near two supportive housing sites. Since their opening, we have had to devote significant time and resources to addressing ongoing issues such as gravity removal and maintaining the cleanliness of our entrance area, which has frequently become dirty and unwelcome. These challenges have had a tangible impact on our workplace environment and increased our operating costs. Furthermore, 2026 has already proven to be a difficult year for many small businesses and low-income families who are facing rising costs and economic uncertainty. Moving forward with new projects under these conditions, without comprehensive planning and consideration of community impact would be premature. I urge council to remain consistent with last year's decision and instead prioritize improving the management of and the effectiveness of existing supportive housing, such as fixing and filling the large amount of empty units that we already have as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Statement Watch

speaker 24 jenny yang hi everyone uh this is jenny i am a um resident of vancouver eastside and i oppose strongly oppose the um the uh the supportive housing the motion three because uh obviously the um people can see the um The supportive housing is unsexy. They increase the violence, crime, and the public safety risk, like the house and the vehicle break-in and the second-hand drugs or needles on the street are unsafe for the residents, the seniors, and the children. Also, they affect business around the neighborhood. And also, it drains the public service, like emergency service, health care costs, which means less hospital, police, firefighter service. for the residents in the community. That's why I strongly oppose the supportive housing.

Statement Watch

Hi, good morning. Good morning, City Council and the Mayor. I'm a Vancouver resident, a mother of two. So I'm speaking representing my husband, my daughter, and my son. I work in downtown. I walk those streets every day, and I see the same people in the same doorways, in the same classes, week after week. I'm not here because I don't care about people experiencing homelessness. I'm here because I do, and because what I see every day tells me that what we are doing and what Mancora taxpayer funding is not working. Let me be clear. Supportive housing was created with compassion to help people experiencing homelessness, especially those struggling with mental health and addiction. No one here is against helping people, but compassion must also be effective. After years of building with thousands of units across the city, We still see the same problem on our streets. Homelessness persists, public safety concern remains, and then community are feeling the pressure. So we must ask honestly, if the problem hasn't improved, why are we rushing to do more of the same? This is about accountability and management. This is about whether we're addressing the real issues. including mental health, addiction, and long-term support, or simply shifting the burden onto neighborhoods. This is an entire ecosystem of organizations, contractors, and service providers. Those fundings depend on this problem continuing, not on solving it. Contracts renews, reports get written, press releases go out, and the people those systems are meant to help remain on the street. When success is measured by beds filled rather than lives rebuilt, we should not be surprised that lives are not being rebuilt. A roof is not recovery. A bed in an SRO is not treatment. Placing someone in a unit without addressing addiction, without real mental health support, without any pathway forward is no solution. It is a way of managing a problem without appearing to solve it, and it's not compassionate. This is contentment. It is dehumanizing for homeless. We treat it as a mass tactic. And this voting is being rushed forward months before municipal elections. This is not being brought forward because new evidence shows the approach is working. It is being brought forward because some councillors want to continue working in the city hall past this October in some cases.

Statement Watch

I am Daisy Wong, the chair of Victoria Drive Safety Society Airlines. Why we established this airline?

Because now it's getting more and more drug addicts at this area. I support helping vulnerable operations, but I oppose moving forward with supporting housing in a rust manner without strong management. It's partly this not opposition to compassion is a call for responsibility, governance, If we're helping drug detoxification, it's better than supporting housing.

Drug detoxification is save someone's life.

Supporting house will slowly, slowly give up the person who live there. I'm also a four children's mom.

I'm lucky three children finish university in UBC. This year, my young boy also go in university. But we hope not only our children, all our grandchildren, grand grandchildren will have a good environment. We don't want to see one day when we're holding our grandchildren's hand and walk into a street or a park and see the leader strange around.

Study history against insights. I want to ask why Richmond and Burnaby don't want this kind of housing, but Vancouver wants it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you for speaking. Speaker 28, Amy Shang. Okay, we'll come back to them.

Statement Watch

Good morning, Councillor Meiszner and council members.

My name is Erin Seeley. I'm the CEO of YWCABC and a longtime Vancouver resident speaking in support of this motion to overturn the city's effective ban on net new supportive housing. YWCA is a longtime nonprofit housing provider. We operate across the region, opening the first second stage transition home for women fleeing violence in 1979 here in Vancouver. And since that time, we've dedicated our operations to serving women, gender diverse individuals and families. We now operate more than 500 units of housing across 21 different communities in the region. We work every day alongside women who are unhoused, precariously housed, or cycling through shelters, hospitals, and the justice system. We see the way these systems have let them down and have let other neighbors down repeatedly. Our hub model includes wraparound supports. And while we do not offer low barrier supportive housing specifically, we offer housing with supports because we know firsthand housing is a critical component and supportive housing is essential in the continuum. We rely on the expertise of so many other supportive housing operators to be part of a system to address issues such as substance use and homelessness in concert. In the midst of the inequality, the interconnectedness of mental health, substance use, gender-based violence, housing crises, we know that many issues faced by the city require policies outside of your control. And we continue to agree that the status quo is not acceptable. There is an urgent need for other municipalities to provide more housing and services as well. But as we've seen over the last year, the pause is not the answer. We must take a both-and approach. We owe a duty of care to our most vulnerable neighbors, and we must work together across the region to improve safety, justice, and equity. Doing more, not less. Housing is safety. We see this every day. The current ban has effectively closed the door to other levels of government funding. And it's had a chill effect for other metro municipalities that are now joining Vancouver to push out vulnerable people and exacerbate our homelessness crisis. Lifting the ban enables the city to engage in positive approaches, not those rooted in fear, to expand the ways that housing can improve lives, can prevent strain on our health care system, can stabilize, and to have ability to advocate for solutions that will have a demonstrated measurable impact. We know that many people need low barrier housing and harm reduction before they can access addiction treatment if they choose to and consider any path to independent living. Supportive housing works in tandem with health and substance use. While refurbishing existing SROs is a critical priority, without new units, we will see more homelessness. We will see people pushed into neighborhoods with fewer support, creating conditions that make safety and progress more difficult. Until this motion was passed last year, Vancouver had been a national leader. As an East Vancouver resident for more than 20 years, I've seen supportive housing make our community safer, providing access to supports and services for residents where they need it, and preventing further pressure on our emergency rooms and our care providers in the healthcare system. I want to continue to be part of a community that cares for those who are most at risk and ensures they have the dignity and the safety they deserve.

Statement Watch

Perfect. Thank you. Can everyone hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

Okay, perfect. Good afternoon. My name is Emily, and I'm a Vancouver resident calling in to oppose Motion 3. 20 years, billions of dollars, and homelessness in Vancouver is still going up every single year. And that is what Motion 3 is asking us to double down on. We have been building supportive housing for two decades. Homelessness has increased every single year, and behind every one of those thousands of counted individuals is a person who needed real help and didn't get it in time. And that is not a funding problem. That is a strategy problem. We have very limited resources, and every dollar poured into net new supportive housing is a dollar taken away from addiction treatment, mental health care, and recovery programs. which are the interventions that actually change lives. And here's what makes the choice even more costly. Real treatment does not just help people who are already on the street. It prevents the next person from ending up there. It breaks the cycle before it starts. Supportive housing reacts to the crisis, but real treatment prevents it. People become homeless because of untreated addiction, mental illness, and a cost of living that is crushing ordinary working people. And until we treat those root causes, more people will fall through the same crack every single year, no matter how many buildings we build. We're not really solving the crisis. We're just building bigger buckets while the tap stays wide open. And while all this unfolds, all these neighborhoods pay the price. Residents deal with open drug use and safety concerns every single day. Families, seniors, children. Everyone nearby suffers the consequences of a policy that is just not working. So we need to do better, and these vulnerable people deserve real addiction treatment, real mental health care, and housing that they can actually afford. And when these resources are limited, we must spend them on what actually works. what actually helps people recover, and what actually stops more people from becoming homeless in the first place. And I believe doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results is not compassion. It is a failure of leadership. And we can do better, and we must do better. So I'm asking that you please reject Motion 3, invest in real solutions, and give people a real path forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Emily, for speaking to council.

Statement Watch

I'm here today to highlight. Eileen?

Hi. Hi. Sorry, we just want to make sure we can hear you, and we cut out the beginning, so I'm just going to invite you to start now, if you can start again. Thank you.

Okay, thanks. Hi, Mayor and the council. Hi, Mayor and Council. My name is Eileen, and I have been living in Vancouver for over 10 years, and I have been living in Canada for over 23 years. I'm here today to highlight a significant imbalance in our city's housing strategy. I'm here to speak in opposition to Motion 3 and support the continued pause on new supportive housing projects in our city. So currently, Vancouver carries a disproportionate burden of region's supportive housing. With 8,000 units plus, We represent 77% of the entire metro region supply, despite having only 25% of the population. Our ratio is one supportive unit for every 41 households in the city of Vancouver. That is nearly double the concentration of Toronto and triple that of New York City. And we over-index on crisis management and under-index on economic resilience. So empathy alone is not a housing strategy. We must take an economic first model. Vancouver's GDP per capita is only half of Toronto's, but our cost of living is 6% higher. We cannot afford to warehouse poverty at a cost of $500,000 per unit, while our core workforce is priced out. We need to prioritize vocational training and workforce initiatives that move people towards independence rather than permanent subsidy. We urge council to maintain the current pause on the new supportive housing approvals. Let us demand that our regional neighbors take their fair share while we focus on Vancouver's land and the capital on job creating infrastructure and attainable workforce housing. Let's build an economy that prevents homelessness. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Sure.

My name is Stephen Tan, and I'm a resident of Vancouver living in Marple. I'm here to speak in opposition to motion three. So first of all, we must ask, is the current model working? Despite the rapid expansion of supportive housing, many of us feel less safe in our own neighborhoods. We see an increase in homelessness on our street and a rise in street-level crime. If we are to invest millions of taxpayer dollars into high costs, supportive housing, there must be a transparent data-driven proof that this project actually reduced homelessness and improved public safety. Without such evidence, doubling down on the failing strategy is not a compassion. It's a policy failure. Second of all, we must address the issue of regional equity. Vancouver accounts for only about 25% of the metro Vancouver population. Yet, we currently shoulder the burden of approximately 77% of the region's supportive housing. This is an absolute imbalance. Homelessness is a regional crisis, not just a Vancouver crisis. This concentration creates a magnetic effect that overwhelms our local community emergency services and community resources. A post is not a ban on helping people. It's a necessary demand for fairness. We need a regional fair share model where every city in Metro Vancouver contributes according to its population. Vancouver has already done more than its fair share.

Statement Watch

My name is Sean. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm here today to speak in strong opposition to Motion 3 submitted by Councillor Bligh. First, I must address the misleading logic in the motion's first preamble. The motion claims that housing is unaffordable whether one earns $200,000 or $20,000. According to the latest official data from Statist Canada, The median after-tax household income in the city of Vancouver was $82,000. Recent tax statistics for 2024 indicate that the median for Metro Vancouver sits between $95,000 and $100,000, which places Vancouver's current median at approximately $90,000. The $200,000 income group mentioned by Councillor Bligh represents the top tier of owners in the city. Linking the home ownership barriers of the wealthy to the homelessness crisis of those earning $20,000 is not only statistically dishonest, it is a gross distortion of urgency required for supportive housing. We should not be conflating middle-class real estates. as LT with a literal survivor crisis. Second, we must address the manipulative use of the word ban. The Mooner repeatedly labors the current policy of ban. This is fundamentally misleading. The motion passed on February 26, 2025 was explicitly a temporary pause intended to promote regional equity. A pause is a tool for better planning and accountability, not a permanent rejection. The call for a reversal before we have seen any progress on regional balance is extremely reckless. Finally, I have a series... procedural concerns regarding the timing of this motion. The February motion directed staff to provide detailed reports on regional distribution trends and the progress of SRO replacements. As of today, those scientific report facts have not been fully evaluated by this Council. So my request is simple.

Council should not be misled by emotional

into a hasty policy reversal, we must wait for the data-driven staff report before making decisions that impact our most vulnerable residents and the long-term equity for our region.

Statement Watch

All right. Good afternoon, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Mona Sun. I am a resident of Vancouver. I'm calling to oppose this motion. I live here. I raise my child here. and I want this city to be a city where compassion and safety coexist. Supportive house is often discussed in big policy language, but for us, residents, the impact is very real and it's very local. It affects how safe our streets feel. It affects whether parks are usable. It affects the kind of environment our children grown up in. When supportive housing is introduced without strong safeguards, the impact does not start inside, only happened inside the building. It spreads into nearby streets, into schools, into playgrounds, into transit routes. As parents and the caregivers, We think about simple things. Can our children walk to school safely? Can they play in parks without seeing open drug use? Can families feel at ease in their own neighborhoods? There are not political questions. There are everyday concerns. Housing alone does not solve addiction. It does not solve serious mental health challenges. If support housing operates without proper treatment, supervision, and accountability, it can create unstable conditions. That affects the people inside, and it affects the surrounding community. Most importantly, it affects the children. Children are not equipped well to process consistent crisis. They are not equipped to normalize disorder. Parks and schools should feel safe. They should feel predictable. Actually wanting that does not mean lacking compassion. It means wanting solutions that actually work. Compassion must be effective. not just well-intentioned, right? Supportive housing should only move forward when there is real treatment, real oversight, and careful placement that respects families and community spaces.

Statement Watch

Yeah. My name is Robert Bita. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm... speaking in support of motion three to rescind the cap on assisted housing. I mean, in my political analysis, i tend to start from the premise that human needs are human rights uh everybody needs food everybody needs clean water everybody needs a safe bed to sleep in at night and that includes all of our neighbors and i mean all of our neighbors in the city we call home i have heard a lot of complaints from people opposed to the motion at the meeting so far that seem to object that assistive housing is insufficient to solve the problems of homelessness and mental illness and drug addiction that plague our community. I agree. But insufficiency does not mean that assistive housing is not necessary. for that reason i challenge the council and my fellow residents to demonstrate to me that assisted housing is not necessary i think it is i think in fact uh that it is essential for the accessibility by the most vulnerable members of our community, some of the most vulnerable members of our community, to the health care and related services that they so desperately need. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Okay, thank you. Dear counselors, my name is Xiao Zhang. I live in Vancouver for 20 years, and I'm speaking in opposition to Motion 3. As a parent of two, I want to share something I just heard. My daughter told me that students are already talking about drug-related issues in local schools. including concerns about increasing drug usage and even dealing in schools like Keith Leno Secondary. I cannot verify every detail. However, the fact the children are having these conversations is deeply concerning. We were told supportive housing would reduce the harm, but what we are seeing is the opposite. Harm is no... It is spreading into our communities. Families feel unsafe. Parents like me are being forced to normalize situations that should never be normal for children. Supportive housing without strict safeguard and real accountability is not solving the crisis. It's shifting the burden onto neighborhoods. As Vancouver residents, we were never asked to carry these consequences, yet we are the ones living with them every day.

I also want to...

I know this motion was previously brought forward in February. You know, when hundreds of residents are signed up to speak, it wasn't withdrawn on the day. Now it's reintroduced. Whether it's intentional or not, this raises serious concern about meaningful public engagement because now we have, you know, fewer participants. Many of us, you know, have to take time away from work, again, just to make our voices heard. Please do not move forward until existing EXRs and the trust is restored. Compassion without boundaries is not compassion. Thank you for listening. I'm done.

Statement Watch

Good day. I'm Mae Wickham from Vancouver, and I oppose this motion. This motion doesn't follow a cohesive thread and has false equivalencies. One, homelessness in Vancouver is primarily about substance use disorder and mental illness, not affordability. Most people with these issues arrive in Vancouver from other locations. Two, regular people that can't afford to live in Vancouver move elsewhere in the lower mainland or to some place where property rights aren't affected. Three, supportive housing does not prevent crime or business closures. Otherwise, the three SROs on the Granville Strip would not be facing closure. In fact, the Lugat sheltered violent offender Jordan Conway and our current Minister of BC Housing deflected questions and responsibility for this egregious act. 4. Crime is prevented through proven environmental principles, societal cohesion, proper use of law enforcement through police and courts, and the use of the Mental Health Act and forensic psychiatry. 5. People are tired of hearing about the elusive wraparound services. and they don't want to be in a community watch group around supportive housing. The province of BC is $156 billion in debt and growing fast. They've cancelled seven long-term care projects. I doubt that there is funding for wraparound services. Six, Mayor Sim is right to pause further projects in Vancouver. There are many cost issues not addressed in this motion, plus metrics for accountability from BC Housing, A, Critical services provided by VPD, fire and paramedics are expensive. Supportive housing consumes a disproportionate number of services. The city needs a cost agreement with BC Housing so that these expenses do not come out of the City of Vancouver budget. Non-profits could be incentivized financially to keep better order in their buildings. There should be police liaisons assigned to buildings, just like in schools, so that staff and residents can share concerns about crime and personal safety. This should be paid for by BC Housing. The City of Vancouver should produce a cost analysis of business-as-usual supportive housing with its consultation fees, many architectural designs, marketing and PR campaigns, building costs, and secretive non-profit servicing agreements versus addiction psychologist Dr. Julian Summers' proposal of having a few units set aside in already built apartment buildings with dedicated outreach mental health services. With Mayor Sims' accounting prowess, he should see that Dr. Summers' proposal is the more cost-effective one and can be immediately implemented. D. The City of Vancouver should require uniform reports on prescribed metrics from BC Housing. E. The possibility of modular housing units promised by PM Mark Carney does not override responsible social and housing policy. Also, Vancouver should stop taking funding away from rural BC. Help people stay in their own communities with their families. And F, council should demand bail reform from PM Mark Carney instead. Thank you for your time.

Statement Watch

Good afternoon, Mayor Sim and Rose Council. My name is Dickens Chung. I'm a community leader from Richmond and a father of young children. I spent a decade living in Falls Creek and Marple neighborhoods, so... And I also graduated from UBC, so this city is very dear to me. The future of it is also very deeply personal to me. I'm here today because our two cities, Richmond and Vancouver, are connected by this Canada line. And three bridges and what Vancouver decides about supportive housing has direct consequences for communities like mine. Last year, Mayor Sim and this council made a difficult but necessary decision to pause net new supportive housing and focus on evaluating what was actually working. That took courage because it challenged the assumption that simply building more units was solving the problem. The data tells us a sobering story. By the city's own account, Vancouver already has approximately 8,000 supportive housing units. 2025 homeless count found 2,715 people experiencing homelessness in Vancouver. That means this city has nearly three units for every person without a home. And yet a Freedom of Information request found vacancy rates exceeding 9%, with units sitting empty for nearly a full year on average. So this is not a supply problem. This is a management, placement, and treatment problem. I know this personally. As a child, I attended Chinese school every Saturday at the Chinese Cultural Center in Chinatown in the early 1990s. Chinatown was vibrant and prosperous, full of families, full of life. And over the years, I watched that community deteriorate as the drug crisis and homelessness crisis consumed block after block. That decline did not happen because we lacked supportive housing units. It happened because we failed to invest in mental health care and addiction treatment for the people who needed it the most. The homelessness crisis is at its core a mental health and addiction treatment crisis. Health Canada's own data shows illegal drug use among students rises from 4% in grade 7 to 27% in grade 12. We are failing an entire generation upstream, and then we're warehousing the consequences downstream. Until we address the root causes, untreated psychosis, lack of detox and rehabilitation beds, and severe addictions, no amount of construction will solve this problem. Supportive housing without proper wraparound treatment services is not a solution. It is warehousing. And I think some people in this room know that. So I would respectfully encourage this council to stay the course. I would urge this council to prioritize working with all levels of government to sufficiently invest in the mental health infrastructure, the detox and rehabilitation beds, and the long-term treatment pathways that are the only proven way to move people from chronic homelessness to stability and dignity. So consider this. Since 2005, homelessness in Greater Vancouver has increased by 141%. That is the same two decades in which billions of dollars were spent building supportive housing. Spending went up, construction went up, and homelessness more than doubled. So the model is not working. The data says so. Housing without treatment is warehousing. And treatment without housing is incomplete. So we need both. Our communities deserve both. Done properly, funded adequately, and managed with accountability. Thank you.

Statement Watch

good afternoon councillor kirby young and council i oppose Councillor Bligh's motion 3 and support maintaining the direction set by mayor kensim vancouver is about a quarter of the region's population yet we carry majority of the supportive housing and shelter spaces this is not balance it's over concentration compassion should be shared across the region we also need to look at reality a bcit news report recently found nearly 1,700 supportive housing units in BC sitting empty, not from lack of demand, but because operators lack resources for maintenance, repairs, and staffing. This isn't just a supply issue. It's a system issue. If we're investing public dollars, we need both support and accountability. Operators need funding, but taxpayers deserve transparency, clear outcomes and the ability to address serious tenancy issues. The original motion recognizes this. It didn't eliminate housing. It paused new projects so we could fix what isn't working. replace unsafe SROs, and move toward a fairer regional approach. We also have to be honest. In the downtown east side, housing without adequate treatment hasn't resolved the crisis. Housing alone is not recovery. If we lift the pause without fixing these gaps, we repeat the same approach. We can be compassionate while demanding better. and a more balanced regional response. I urge council to vote against motion three. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Thank you, Mayor and Council. I know you guys are probably tired, so I'm just going to keep it short, maybe even within the three minutes. While I appreciate, while I'm sympathetic to Councillor Bligh's motion and a lot of homeless folks who are drug users, like need a lot of housing, I do oppose to this motion. This is one of the things where I do actually agree with the crypto mayor on other cities needing to pull their weight, even though I don't know whether that's the best way to leverage the carrots and sticks. Also, I think this motion tackles a lot of things that aren't within the city's scope in terms of... in terms of funding from senior levels of government to just a plain math problem in terms of businesses being tapped out. Also residents are already being tapped out in terms of shouldering additional taxes to deal with this.

And not to mention, I think there are a lot of things that need to be done that's outside of the scope of the city.

So therefore, I do not agree with this motion. And I would hope the city council votes that way. The city's debt broke. We can't handle any more costs that's outside of the scope. Thank you.

Statement Watch

My answer is opposed for this motion because the City of Vancouver basically need from the property tax to run and if we build more unit It will be need to increase the property tax to support this, but we already have 8,000 units. It's more than other cities in the Lower Mainland. But this problem needs the provincial and federal government to face. And so some of the... the people need to support is from other province and they because they come here for the weather is better but the lower mainland the weather is the same so we should have the other city from the lower mainland to build a support unit. Yeah, this is my answer. Thank you.

Statement Watch

My name is Jinghua Zhao. I live in Westminster. Sorry, I don't speak English, but I want to say stop drug, please, for our kids, for our country. Stop drug, please.

Statement Watch

Okay. Thank you. I'm Christina Chu. I'm a coordinator of a program for homeless and low-income people. I have seen the difference that it makes for people with stable housing. So I'll give you one example. Mike Ealing. He had been a Coast Guard serving to protect people. He was injured on the job and then unable to work and in constant pain. He slipped into alcohol addiction and then left his family in shame because he did not want his son to experience what he did growing up. He became a megaphone vendor and was known for his good sense of humor. And he came weekly to our program to get his laundry done for free and to get some baked goodies and coffee. But he could not afford housing. During a snowy winter, he huddled behind a store close to the laundromat where our program was and also a store that was kind to him. He froze to death. He had tried to find room at a couple of local shelters, but they were already full. He's just one of other tragic stories. I've also seen a group of people who came weekly from one of the shelters nearby. When they first started coming, they were in rough shape, looking haggard. that they had not slept well even in the shelter. And after several months, a couple of the women got supportive housing, and I saw the difference when they came back to visit to say hello. They had new haircuts and makeup and were dressed beautifully. They looked healthy and hopeful with smiles on their face, and the transformation was incredible. And they were looking forward to being in even better housing. It was a transitional house they were in. And I saw some of the guys the same. We need supportive housing. We also need for there to be services for that housing. And we need better services in the city. And all of you have sworn an oath to take care of all the residents, all the residents of Vancouver. and to provide good services. We are all part of this human family. Everyone deserves dignity and worth and respect and care. We need to be a city known for kindness and goodness for all people. Thank you, Christina.

Statement Watch

Okay. Good afternoon, mayors and councillors and fellow Vancouverites. My name is Ema Sun, founder of YouthWay Foundation. I'm a young Vancouver resident, and I'm speaking in opposition to Motion 3. because this is not about housing policy. It's also about what kind of city our generation inherits. Let me be direct. Vancouver holds 25% of Metro Vancouver's population, yet carries 77% of the region's entire supportive housing stock. That is not compassion. It's an imbalance that has pushed our neighbourhoods past their limits and asked Vancouver taxpayers and residents to absorb consequences the rest of the region has simply walked away from. It was a long overdue demand for regional fairness. Supporters in Motion 3 argued that the pause is costly. So let's talk about what has actually been costly. It has been costly to watch the downtown Eastside become one of the most dangerous urban zones in Canada. It has been costly for small business owners who can no longer operate safely. It has been costly for families, including young people like me, to watch open drug use, violence, and disorder become normalized in their public spaces. Now I want to name something that I often get lost in this. Homelessness and drug addiction are not the same problem, and we do want to give people a grave disservice when we treat them as if they are. There are homeless people in this city who need stable housing, mental health support, and a genuine path forward. They deserve real help, but when we build facilities that allow active drug use to continue unchecked inside them, what we're actually building are places where addiction is accommodated, not treated. Some supporters of the model openly advocate for providing regulated drugs inside these facilities. As a young person, I have to we have for our neighbors in crisis. Addiction is not a housing problem. It is a health crisis and deserves a health solution. People struggling with drug dependency should have access to real structured treatment and rehabilitation, not a room where they can continue using undisturbed while the cycle deepens. Centralized treatment-focused recovery not only saves lives, it protects the children and families of those individuals too. Because behind every person's addiction is often a family, including kids who are also suffering. I urge Mayor and the Council to vote no on Motion 3, demand regional accountability, invest in general treatment and recovery, and build a Vancouver that is safer and healthier for the people who need real help. And for the generation that will call the city home, long after today is over. Thank you.

Statement Watch

Thanks for the question, Sandra Singh, Deputy City Manager. Certainly, we have spoken to each of these items in the action plan and have provisional plans and responses in place to them. In some cases, there's still discussions underway with focused community groups relative to very focused items. This is a relatively modest hosting event for the city. We're hosting seven soccer games over a three and a half week period at intermittent times, like this is not the Olympics, so we're really focusing our work in key areas and discussing with the province areas that are within their jurisdiction. But for the most part, yes, we've discussed these. We're taking a different approach than what is proposed in the motion.