Changing the Name Doesn't Make It Go Away

​Apparently I'm not suited as a Councillor because I called Cannery Row "Skid Row" - which, by definition, it is.

By definition: "Skid row typically refers to an impoverished, often urban, area characterized by high rates of homelessness, drug addiction, and vagrancy. It's also sometimes associated with red-light districts or areas with poor maintenance. In Los Angeles, Skid Row is a specific area known for its large homeless population.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Impoverished District:
Skid rows are usually found in the heart of cities and are marked by poverty and a lack of basic amenities.

Homelessness and Addiction:
A defining characteristic of skid rows is the presence of a large number of individuals experiencing homelessness and substance abuse issues.

Other Characteristics:
Skid rows can also include areas with high rates of vagrancy, poorly maintained infrastructure, and a history of red-light activities."

Cannery Row is home to a safe injection site, a drug overdose site, a homeless shelter, there was a soup kitchen, there's drugs, homelessness, petty crime, and a collapsing infrastructure. Please feel free to tell me how it is not Skid Row and why we should just pretend it doesn't exist.

---
Facebook discussion for a week now. I mentioned that the used bookstore was in skid row, which led to a week long rant by a person who, my guess is, has probably never even been north on 53rd Avenue from Superstore.

My responses:

Like I said before, ignoring the issue doesn’t make it disappear. What exactly are you genuinely concerned about—that I referred to the area as 'skid row'? Anyone familiar with this part of the city knows that’s a fair description. I want to address the problem, improve services, and create better housing solutions for the homeless. What’s your plan—get offended over a label for a neglected area with crumbling buildings, drugs, petty crimes, and visible poverty? If more people focused on fixing the actual issues instead of getting hung up on terminology, maybe we'd see real change. And by all means, go ahead and vote for the same councillors who helped create this mess in the first place—because that’s clearly worked out so far.
​
​--
OK well you have a right to your opinion, like I said feel free to preserve the status quo. And while you do, in between wholesome people trying to lure your dog (response to her recent rant that someone must have been paid to try and lure her dog from her home), why not park down at the Alberta Blue Cross building parking lot and take a little stroll south on the trail, down 53 Avenue to Superstore, and tell me that this is how you want our city to continue. I want to clean up our city, make it safer, and house the homeless, but please, tell me this area is how you'd like to see every district in our city. Early afternoon is probably best before people start migrating north to the Mustard Seed soup kitchen. Good luck.
​
-----
I'm not going to gloss over the truth or ignore real problems just to make things sound better. Our city is facing serious challenges that current council members have failed to address. Around 800 people are living in or facing homelessness. Drug use and crime are on the rise—regardless of what the polished Crime Map stats claim. People are avoiding downtown because they’re afraid of being robbed or assaulted. Our emergency services are underfunded and stretched thin, yet we're prioritizing old pedestrian bridges over life-saving resources. Now we're pushing to pack in multi-storey housing, cramming more people into dense areas that will worsen traffic, strain infrastructure, and increase risks like fire and crime. Meanwhile, the housing being built is still out of reach for many, and rents keep climbing. Graffiti and petty crime happen almost nightly. But we’re expected to stay quiet and not identify the serious problems we have—because acknowledging them might make someone uncomfortable.