City must enforce
clean-up of hotels

The upgrading of the
Downtown Eastside area and the
enforcement of the city’s bylaws in
this area remain a continuous and
nagging problem for city council.
While some progress has been
made, the shortcomings are still
enormous and a disgrace to the
whole city.

The area is bounded by Burrard
St. on the west, Clark Drive on the
east, Broadway on the south and
Water St. on the north. Most of the
problems are centered in a relative-
ly small area, a few blocks from
Main and Hastings.

A total of 6,770 people live in
this area. Of these 5,500 live in
lodging houses. Half of them are
on GAIN, handicapped or on old
age pensions.

The rents they pay average out to
$2.62 per square foot.

This is three times as high as the
luxury West End where rents are
$.75 to $.80 per square foot. Many
pay around $200 a month rent
which means they live in rooms that
have less than 80 square feet. That
works out to 2.4 metres by 3 metres
(8 ft. by 10 ft.)

Many of these rooms have no
cooking or washing facilities, are
unclean, poorly maintained and
pest ridden. They have broken win-
_ dows, soiled rugs, leaky faucets,
faulty locks on doors and inade-
quate sanitary facilities. They have
to do their wash by hand and there
are no dryers:

How can this go on in Van-
couver, you may well ask. Haven’t
we bylaws against such things? Yes
we have — the standards of
maintenance bylaw and also fire
protection bylaws. But they are not
being strictly enforced.

For example, of the 1,500 orders
issued by the fire department re-
quiring upgrading to provide fire
protection to the residents, only
800 have been carried out. The
other 700 have been simply ignored
by the owners.

Furthermore these residents do
not come under the protection of
the Residential Tenancy Act passed
by the provincial legislature, even

though many of them have lived in
the same area and often in the same
rooms for 10-20 years. As a result
they can be thrown out if they pro-
test their conditions.

The owners could upgrade these
rooms with little cost to themselves
by taking advantage of the various
grants provided by federal and pro-
vincial legislation for this purpose.
But they don’t bother. Their profits
are high now, since their taxes are
low and they spend almost nothing
on maintenance and repairs.

Harry
Rankin

What can or should be done

about this situation?

Some of the proposals being
made by the Downtown Eastside
Residents Association (DERA)
which speaks for the people of this
area, include:

¢ Make more inspections and
investigations. Hire more inspec-
tors if necessary;

e Enforce city health and fire
bylaws. Provide heavier penalities
for violators;

® Take away the liquor licences
of the hotels which refuse to clean
up théir rooms;

e Require these rooming houses
to provide lounges and lobbies,
TVs, washing machines and

e Bring the tenants under the
protection of the Residential
Tenancy Act;

e Build more affordable hous-
ing in this area. There are 1,800
people on the waiting list now for
housing;

e Impose rent controls to stop
these landlords from raising rents
every time rent allowances are in-
creased by the government.

The owners of these rooming
houses have been breaking the law
with impunity for far too long. It’s
time the city cracked down on them
— and hard.

Coalition calls for public

input into port development

A 30-year federal government plan into the
development of Vancouver harbor paves over the
threat of chemical hazards and ignores the recrea-
tional needs of citizens and the development objec-
tives of regional municipalities, said the Vancouver
Waterfront Coalition Tuesday.

Coalition spokesman Jack Allen and Jim Green
said input from community organizations and trade
unions is essential if the Port Master Plan is to reflect
“the needs of working people on the waterfront, the
efficient operation of the port, and the future shape
of Vancouver.”

The 30-group-member coalition was formed in
January ‘‘from a feeling of frustration as individual
groups that our voice wasn’t being heard — since
then, we feel we’ve made considerable progress,”
said Allen to a press conference at the Carnegie com-
munity centre in Vancouver.

Allen, a representative of the Hastings-Sunrise
Area Citizens Planning Committee, said the coali-
tion has four areas of concern around the “‘short-
comings”’ in the port plan.

These include the transhipment and storage of
dangerous cargoes (petrochemicals and explosives),
public access to the waterfront, a proposed four-
lane service road along the shoreline and a general
“ack of public input’’ on the port plan itself, said
Allen.

Allen was basing his remarks on the draft port
master plan, released late last year. A final version,
delayed from its original May deadline following re-
quests from the coalition and Vancouver city coun-
cil, has yet to appear. :

The plan, even in its completed form, is supposed
to be simply a guide to the development and restruc-
turing of the port’s commercial facilities during the
next 30 years, according to project manager Ray
Gainer. But the coalition fears that ‘‘while the
development will not proceed immediately upon en-
dorsation of the master plan, a great deal of plann-
ing and much money will have been committed,
making amendments difficult if not impossible.’’

The coalition includes such diverse members as
the port unions — including the Marineworkers and
Boilermakers Industrial Union Local 1, locals of the
International Longshoremen’s and
Warehousemen’s Union and the United Fishermen
and Allied Workers Union, as well as the Pacific
Coast Maritime Council — and community groups,
ranging from the Burrard View Wall Street

- Residents’ Association in the east to the Downtown

Eastside Residents Association in the city core.

Collectively they produced a position paper,
released at Tuesday’s press conference, which
criticizes the process under which public consulta-
tion into the plan’s development has taken place,
and which raises concern about safety and public ac-
cess to the south shore of the Burrard Inlet.

It quotes documents from the Greater Vancouvel
Regional District and the city of Vancouver showilg
others share the coalition’s concern that publicinpt!
process “‘has been less than adequate until only
recently.”

The coalition devotes considerable space to thé
transshipment and storage of dangerous cargoes, 4!
area of utmost concern to the participating pot
unions and the residents along the south shore of
Burrard Inlet. a a

Their paper accuses the port planners of glossil
over such incidents as the collision of the ves |
Japan Erica with the Second Narrows Railway
crossing last year, as stated in the draft plan’s asse™
tion that ‘‘the dangers of accident have been reduced
to a minimum” since then. The coalition also také
issue with the document’s claim that vessels carr)
dangerous goods are required to follow “‘regulatio™
which are very explicit and stringent.””

The coalition counters that regulations have bee#
cited as being far from adequate, in a report last y#
from federal planner Joe Marston. The Marsto?
Report, as it came to be known, cited numerous i
stances of dangerous combinations of chemicals bé
ing shipped together, inadequate safety facilities fo!
the storage and shipment of chemicals, and not
that the port fire department was unprepared to deal
with any catastrophe that might arise.

In addressing these and related concerns, th
coalition demands ‘‘a well defined list of plannié
objections . . . for the transportation, producto?
and storage of hazardous materials” and ‘an
dependent public inquiry into the whole matter of
marine and land transportation, storage and pro
duction of hazardous commodities within the pot
of Vancouver,” echoing a demand in the Marsto#
‘Report. = :

Coalition spokesmen stress that they support thé
primary role of the port as a commercial facility, but
argue that public access to the waterfront is igno
in the draft plan. The group calls for the creation of
new parks and the expansion of existing facilities.

Noting that a proposed four-land service 104
along the waterfront could become a major com”
muter route and thus constitute a freeway thro
Vancouer — which civic groups have vigorously OP: |
posed — the coalition report outlines sevel® —
measures to limit such development, and preservé
existing neighborhoods, while still allowing com
mercial traffic access to the waterfront.

The report concludes with recommendations !
increase public input into port plan deliverations, ”

' cluding the creation of ‘‘permanent committees « « °

of representatives of municipalities, waterfront!
trade unions and businesses, and communtl

organizations.” The group also calls for represent®
tion on the new Canada Ports Corporation adviso?
committee.

Ss

Probably no issue has more glaringly revealed the
manipulating huckster approach of Social Credit than

PEOPLE AND ISSUES

and a new drain on jobs. :
Moreover, it was a maze of contradictions — which

the latest events surrounding the application by Delta
council and Dawn Development (Canada) Corp. to have
the former Spetifore lands in South Delta designated as
urban rather than agricultural property.

The latest incident, of course, was sparked by Delta
Socred MLA and legislature speaker Walter Davidson
who screeched in indignation over the GVRD vote June
29, charging that it was result of a ““Communist-socialist
conspiracy’’, and vowing to seek some legislative restric-
tions on the GVRD’s powers.

The fact that the GVRD was only reaffirming — and by
a more decisive 40-28 vote — a decision that was made
- more than two years ago and was based on the advice of
both GVRD staff and the provincial government’s own
environmental land use committee, was immaterial to
Davidson. What was important was that the original
development proposal was made by one of his big cam-
paign donors George Spetifore and the latest proposal was
hatched by a friend, F. James MacDonald, the formal
chairman of Dawn Development.

(A bit player in the scenario was new Socred MLA for
Coquitlam-Maillardville John Parks who was secretary
of Dawn Development until he resigned to take the Socred
nomination. He remains as a shareholder, however, and
the question remains as to whether he will take part when
the shareholders decide whether or not to appeal the
GVRD ruling to cabinet.) "

Given the high politics of the Dawn Development
scheme, the Socreds are likely to do something for their
friends. And municipal affairs minister Bill Ritchie has
also indicated that amendments to the Municipal Act to .
diminish regional authority and expend municipal powers
in zoning and development are a distinct possibility.

Whatever happens, we can be relatively sure of two
things: 1) the Socreds will not rap Davidson over the
knuckles despite his obvious breach of speaker impartiali-
ty and; 2) the idiotic ‘‘conspiracy”’ charge will be taken up
in full cry by the Socreds’ cronies in the Non-Partisan
Association when the 1984 Vancouver civic elections roll
around. -

* * *

C anadian members of the Ironworkers should be more
alarmed than impressed when they read the final
paragraph of the column in The Ironworker by their inter-
national president John Lyons since it is apparently aimed
— although as something of an afterthought — at them.

«deploying the MX missile in the Minuteman II silos
as quickly as possibleis of vital importance,” Lyons wrote,
‘not only to the U.S. but to this continent as well.”’

The Building Trades leader wasn’t just writing an
editorial either. Actually, he served on Reagan’s National
Commission on Strategic Forces, set up by the U.S. presi-
dent to salvage his troubled MX missile program.

Lyon’s membership on the commission is an example of
just how captive some trade union leaders are to the
Reagan administration’s policy of massive arms buildup.

With him on the commission were people like Richard
Helms, former CIA director; James Schlesinger, the

. former defence secretary; Henry Kissinger and various

generals and admirals. Lyons was the sole labor represen-
tative.

For trade unionists on both sides of the border, the
report can only mean a heightened danger of nuclear war

Lyons dutifully repeats and defends.

On the one hand, the report made it clear that the U.S-
air and submarine based nuclear weapons provide ‘“‘a?
adequate deterrent for 1983’’ and, in fact, for approx
imately a dozen years. But having refuted Reagan §
““window of vulnerability” theory — Reagan’s pretext for
development of the MX — the commission went on t0
recommend the MX anyway.

It’s apparent that Lyons wanted to assure his members
that he really was interested in arms control, but it obvious”
ly never occurred to him that if the existing deterrent is ade
quate for the next dozen years as the commission
acknowledged, then arms control could best be achiev!
bya freeze followed by negotiation of arms reductions. It”
stead he argues for more missiles at a staggering cost of
$19.8 billion.

Canadian Ironworkers should write and tell Lyons that ~
he doesn’t speak for them when he sits as a labor booste!
for Reagan’s costly and dangerous missiles programs —
and they should remind him as well that Canadian tradé
unionists have been demanding genuine disarmament, nO!
another initiative in the arms race.

* * *

Iso on the disarmament theme we have a brief bu!

important letter to the editor from Fernie alderma”
Kevin Neish noting that city council recently voted to pu!
the disarmament referendum on the ballot for thé
November municipal elections and to adopt a resolutior
similar to that passed in Vancouver declaring the city ©
6,000 a nuclear weapons freeze zone. a

Neish adds that heis hopeful that this action ‘“‘will bee?”
couraging to other small: community councils to take
positive action against the arms race.”’ ae

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JULY 8, 1983—Page 2