One would think that as a Mormon myself, I’d relish in the idea that Lethbridge is a Mormon town. However, this claim is rarely ever said in a celebratory way; it’s always accusatory.
I already knew that Mormons made up a minority of the population of the city—unlike some of the surrounding communities, Lethbridge was founded by coal miners, not by Mormon irrigation workers—so with the help of a friend, I decided to do some research recently and set this rumour to rest once and for all.
I found the religion data table for Lethbridge that is part of the 2011 National Household Survey conducted by Statistics Canada. This is the newest data available, since it’s conducted every 10 years, which means there should be an update next year.
Here are some interesting things I discovered in that survey.
When looking at religions as a whole (without breaking it down by their component sects and denominations), Christians make up, by far, the largest religious group in Lethbridge. Over 2 out of every 3 residents identify as some type of Christian.
The next largest group is all those who are not religious. This includes atheists, agnostics, humanists, and simply “no religion”. This makes up almost the other third of residents. Combined, Christians and those with no religion make up 97.55% of the population. The other 2.45% are religious, but not Christian; Hindus, Jewish people, Sikhs, Muslims, etc would fall under this group.
Here’s where it gets really interesting. If we break Christianity into its component denominations, we find that “non-religious” is actually the largest “religious” group in Lethbridge, being larger than any single Christian denomination. There are over 50% more non-religious people in Lethbridge than there are Catholics, which is the singlemost largest Christian group, making up roughly 30% of all Christians in Lethbridge.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is actually only the 4th largest Christian denomination in Lethbridge. Catholics, United, and non-denominational Christians are each larger than those claiming to be Mormon. And while they make up roughly 12% of the total number of Christians in Lethbridge, Mormons are only about 8% of the general population.
Now, there is a higher percentage of Mormons in Lethbridge than there is in any other metropolitan city in Canada. And they do make the top 10 largest religious groups in Lethbridge; heck, they even make the top 5. But that being said, there are 2.5 times as many Catholics in Lethbridge as there are Mormons.
In fact, there are roughly 400% more non-religious people in Lethbridge than there are Mormons.
So, it’s a bit of a stretch to really call Lethbridge a Mormon town. Especially when there are so many actual Mormon towns nearby.
For residential properties, technically, Wetaskiwin is higher, by about 1.15 points. As well, Lethbridge’s residential property tax rate of 11.30 is more than 2 points higher than the provincial average of 9.28.
However, for non-residential properties, Wetaskiwin’s tax rate is 1.31 points lower than Lethbridge. Its non-residential tax rate of 24.33 is nearly 9 points above the provincial average of 15.47.
Lethbridge has the highest non-residential property tax rate and the second-highest residential property tax rate. However, when you account for both residential and non-residential rates, Lethbridge has the highest overall property tax rate.
We often frame property taxes as affecting homeowners, but they affect renters, too. It’d be rare to find a property owner who rents out their home without adding the cost of the property tax to the rent. Arguably, such property owners aren’t affected by property taxes, since they simply pass them on to their tenants.
The last thing the lowest paid workers in the province need when trying to pay for unaffordable housing is having to foot the bill for the highest property taxes in Alberta.
And given that roughly 1 in 3 households in Lethbridge rents their home, it’s not a segment of the population that we can keep ignoring.
But there were a few comments from people saying how good we have it here in Lethbridge, that we should try living in Calgary if we think rent is high in Lethbridge.
Never mind the fact that I didn’t claim rent was high in Lethbridge, only that it was unaffordable, nor did I say it wasn’t unaffordable elsewhere. But those comments did get me thinking.
CMHC considers rent to be affordable if it’s less than 30% of your pre-tax (gross) income. So I wondered what the average income in Lethbridge was, and how that compared to the average income in other cities. So I checked the most recent federal census data.
And what I discovered shocked me: Lethbridge has the lowest average wage of all the cities in Alberta.
Okay, technically, it has the third lowest. Brooks and Wetaskiwn have an average wage lower than Lethbridge’s, but only by $18 and $82 per year, respectively. Lethbridge workers make $1.50 more per month than Brooks workers and $6.83 per month more than Wetaskiwin. For all intents and purposes, the three cities are tied for last place in Alberta.
Not only is Lethbridge tied for the lowest paid workers in the province, but workers here are paid $1,000 per month less than the average of all 18 cities.
I also compared the average income for Lethbridge to the average income of the 58 communities in Canada that are larger than it. Lethbridge isn’t the lowest, but it is below the average of all 59 municipalities. It’s also the second lowest of the 7 largest municipalities in the Prairies.
Calgary, on the other hand (since people said we should try living there), has the highest average salary in Alberta, the highest in the Prairies, and the third highest in Canada. Calgary workers make, on average, $1,646.75 more per month than Lethbridge workers.
Finally, Statistics Canada categorizes income earners in $10,000 increments (those making under $10K, those making $10–20K, etc). The 4 lowest paid categories (under $10K, $10–20K, $20–30K, $30–40K) together make up 53% of the workforce, and each category has over 8,000 people in it—over 21,000 workers make between $10,000 and $30,000 alone. The fifth most populated category has over 7,600 people in it, yet it’s still under $50,000. 64% of the workforce makes under $50,000. The highest paid category—those making more than $150,000—contains only 2.4% of Lethbridge workers.
When people tell you they’re having a difficult time getting by in Lethbridge, believe them.
The article then goes on to list the average cost of rent in Lethbridge: $923 for a 1-bedroom apartment and $1,051 for a 2-bedroom apartment.
However, it never goes on to say how those prices are “affordable” or “reasonable”. So, I decided to do the research the reporter didn’t do to see if rent in Lethbridge indeed is affordable.
CMHC says that “housing is considered “affordable” if it costs less than 30% of a household’s before-tax income.”
Well, $923 a month for 12 months comes to $11,076, which is a third of $36,920. For the average rent of a 1-bedroom apartment to be affordable in Lethbridge, the renter needs to make $36,920 a year, before tax. For reference, that’s about $17.75 an hour for full-time work.
I decided to check the census data for income level in Lethbridge. The most recent census we have is for 2016, so it may not be entirely representative of current numbers, but I haven’t been able to find anything closer.
What I discovered is that about 38,320 people in Lethbridge make under $40,000, which is less than the salary needed for the average rent of a 1-bedroom apartment to be affordable. That’s 53% of all those employed in Lethbridge.
That means more than half of those employed in Lethbridge cannot afford the average rent of a 1-bedroom apartment in Lethbridge.
Now, keep in mind that the 30% I mentioned above, which CMHC considers the cutoff for what is affordable, includes not only rent but also utilities (electricity, heating, water, etc). It’s not clear from the December 2019 Rent Report that the Herald cites whether their data includes utilities. If they don’t, then that likely changes the affordability of rent in Lethbridge.
The Utilities Consumer Advocate website shows a range of $250.62–257.90 a month for electricity and gas together for Lethbridge. My water, wastewater, recycling, and trash collection bill comes to just over $100 a month. So, assuming these rates can apply across the board, and we choose the UCA’s lowest rate, that’s about $350 more per month. That adds an extra $4,200 to our annual wage of $36,920, for a total of $41,120. That’s $19.77/hour, with full-time hours.
Statistics Canada groups workers in income levels in $10,000 increments, so it’s difficult to tell how many workers in Lethbridge make $41,120 or less. We do know 53% make under $40,000, and 64% make under $50,000, so the total percentage of the workforce unable to afford the average rent of a 1-bedroom apartment in Lethbridge is at least 53%, but possibly as high as 64%
Either way, the majority of workers in Lethbridge can’t afford it. So, in short, rent is not affordable in Lethbridge.
All it took was a bit of research to verify it, instead of just parroting the information in the press release.
Dr. Pijl’s research in general focuses on homeless, substance-using, and at-risk populations; social disorder in communities; health services for marginalized patient populations; and harm reduction services. This is important to note, as I’ve seen harm reduction advocates try to discredit the research she did for this study, mostly as a reaction to the media coverage of the study and not as a reaction to the study itself.
The study blew up on social media, with traditional media framing it as crime and so-called “social disorder” being on the rise since the SCS opened. Jason Kenney, likewise, latched onto that narrative, which boosted it among his followers, many of which oppose the SCS specifically and harm reduction generally.
However, there are a few findings that I thought were important to highlight, some of which others have covered some of which very few are discussing.
1. It studied perception of social disorder, not actual social disorder
This study did not study empirical data. It did not, for example, analyze actual crime data. What it did study was, according to the executive summary, “perceptions and observations of social disorder by business owners and operators in downtown Lethbridge”. This is important to highlight because, as others have noted, this is simply a measurement of what businesses in the area think they’ve seen. Not only that, but it required them to recall what they saw.
Take this question from the survey, for example, which was sent out 5 times:
In the area around your business, when did you, your staff or your customers see or experience the following activities?
Respondents were then asked to indicate whether they saw or experienced the activity never, more than 3 months ago, within the last 3 months, within the last month, or within the last day.
This relies on the business owners’ own perceptions, as well as their own memory, neither of which are testable or verifiable. And as the researcher noted, “experiences and observations were not consistent even between adjacent businesses, which suggests that observing, perceiving, and experiencing social disorder is impacted by many other factors.”
2. The top 5 observed activities were non-threatening
This study didn’t just ask about crime. It also asked about benign behaviour, such as people just standing around in an area. In fact, the most popular observation made by survey respondents was just that, people just hanging out, not doing anything particularly harmful or threatening. Of all the activities the survey asked about, loitering was the most most common observation.
As well, the top 5 behaviours reported—loitering, being intoxicated, yelling, sleeping, using drugs—are all benign activities, none of which are threatening to the general public, and are indicative of larger societal issues than whether the SCS exists. People have been loitering, intoxicated, sleeping, yelling, and using addictive substances in public for much longer than the SCS has existed.
3. Social disorder increased in all areas, not just around SCS
When you differentiate the activities based on the three sub-areas of the study—100 metres around the SCS, 500 metres around the SCS, and downtown proper—you find that the area closest to the SCS doesn’t actually have a significantly higher proportion of recalled observances of social disorder.
Take loitering for example. The mean for all three sub-areas is between 3 and 4. Same goes for the other top 4 behaviours: public intoxication between 3 and 4 for all sub-areas, drug usage between 2 and 3 for all sub-areas, and drug dealing between 1 and 2 for all areas.
In fact, some the behaviours measured by the study—drug dealing, urinating/defecating, panhandling, sex work, yelling, sleeping, and trespassing—increased in all three sub-areas. If the SCS was the cause of an increase in social disorder near the facility, we wouldn’t expect social disorder to increase for the 500-metre area or for the downtown proper area.
That tells me that something other than the SCS is causing the increase in activity (or more specifically the increase in recollected observation of the activities). One potential cause could be the drug crisis, which like so many other cities in Canada, Lethbridge is experiencing. The study’s author highlights that “the increasing incidence and prevalence of drug use is largely inseparable statistically from the impacts of the SCS.”
In other words, you can’t separate drug usage from the drug crisis and attribute it solely to the SCS.
4. The LPS refused to provide crime data
As I mentioned, this study focused on gathering observations, based on respondent recollection. While it did have some empirical data—DOT callouts, ARCHES needle pick-up, and EMS callouts—it lacked empirical crime data, which could have seriously augmented the findings. However, the lack of empirical crime data was not by design.
The researcher submitted three formal requests to the Lethbridge Police Service for crime and calls-for-service data for the study area. The lack of this information prompted Dr. Pijl to caution study readers that “the data is incomplete due to the failure of a key stakeholder to participate meaningfully. As such, the findings cannot be used in isolation for decision making.”
In conclusion, this study did not determine that crime or social disorder objectively increased downtown or near the SCS. Instead, it determined that people thought it was increasing. And while it might, indeed, be increasing objectively, this study did not find that. As well, those observations show increase in activity throughout the downtown and the Upper East Side, not just around the SCS, which indicates that something else is causing the increases (either separate from or in conjunction with the SCS).
Getting rid of the SCS, clearly, will not eliminate any of this behaviour—perceived or otherwise—from the downtown.
Naturally, the online version of the letter received negative feedback, many with the same, tired myths and rhetoric. I thought I’d address some of them here.
The quoted material is taken from one comment, the longest. I have not corrected the original spelling or punctuation.
“Prior to the SCS, the addicts here shot up wherever and whenever they wished. After the SCS the same is occurring but now because we have attracted more addicts, we now have more shooting up then attend SCS.”
This wording makes it seem as though the number of people using drugs in Lethbridge was stable prior to the SCS opening up. But drug usage has increased in Lethbridge consistently over the last 5 years before, and the SCS opened just last year. Drug usage was already rising prior to last year, and there is no evidence that the SCS accelerated that rise. If we do have more people using drugs in Lethbridge, it wouldn’t be that surprising, but that would’ve been the case even if the SCS hadn’t opened.
“What we now have is 300-500 addicts visiting the SCS ( assume our original 300-500) and the new 1000 NOT visiting the SCS.”
I don’t know where they get the idea that there are 1,000 people in Lethbridge using drugs but not in the SCS. How do you even keep track of that number? Is there a special census taker going around looking for people taking drugs? Are they all over the entire city at once to make sure they capture everyone in their enumeration, even in private homes?
“Residents still find needles all over the place”
This is just plain false. I, personally, have found a single needle in the year and a half that the SCS has been opened. If needles are all over the place, surely, I should be seeing more than that.
“find more people than before the SCS shooting up in bathroom stalls, malls, stores, behind stores etc etc.”
I doubt that data exists that has measure this empirically, so I’m taking this claim with a grain of salt. Even if it’s true, that number would be *much* higher if the SCS wasn’t open. There have been roughly 300,000 instances of drug use at the SCS since it opened, about 660 per day. If the SCS wasn’t opened, those instances would’ve been in public. The increase this writer claims has occurred would be significantly higher.
“Because Spearman gave up way too early and decided he would use his massive intelligence in this field and volunteer us as the “Regional Hub for addicts””
This is also just plain false. Chris Spearman never volunteered Lethbridge as a regional hub for drug addiction. First, the SCS was established through applications to the federal government and through Alberta Health Services. And second, Lethbridge was already experiencing the drug crisis at disproportionate amounts prior to the SCS opening. That’s what happens when you are the third largest city in the province but lack the treatment facilities that the two larger cities have.
“we have garnered about 1000 new visitors to Lethbridge all having your “dependency”.”
Again, I don’t know where the writer got this number, nor how it was calculated. This number seems difficult to determine.
“Now its well known that the 1000 that appeared did not come with a dowry from daddy, nor did they come here as self made millionaires.”
Is it? Well known how? Was there a study done? Was the data published somewhere? Or are you referring to what people simply believe?
“So this 1000, plus the ones who visit SCS all need money.”
Yes. Just like everyone else in the city. We live in a capitalist society, and it requires us to have money, for food, shelter, clothing, and even drugs.
“Where do you think they are getting it from”
Some of them will use money from their jobs. Some may borrow it from friends or family. Some may pawn their possessions. Some may steal.
“is that just a sidebar to your demand that Lethbridge residents just surrender their money, property, downtown, piece and serenity, and anything else a Meth Head needs?”
Of course not. But I’m glad your recognize that this is a poverty issue. If we can implement solutions that address poverty, we can reduce drug-related crime, especially property crime.
“Now let me explain why we do not want an SCS IN OUR CITY. First of All Patricia, if you frequent the SCS as you do now, then you could continue to do so but just NOT IN OUR CITY.”
If Lethbridge indeed is a regional hub for drug use, then how does it make sense to move the SCS outside of Lethbridge? As you point out earlier, not every person who uses drugs in Lethbridge does so at the SCS, and it’s already here in the city. Move it out of the city, and usage will drop. The location of the SCS was determined, in part, because of its proximity to the highest concentration of public drug usage. Getting rid of it will not stop people from using in the city.
“You could seek treatment if you want to or, continue to destroy your own life, that’s entirely up to you! But we want to remove your option of destroying our community, our homes and our property. So its not that we do not want you getting help, we just don’t want you getting it in our city.”
If you’re serious about reducing drug-related crime, I hope you’re advocating for solutions that prevent drug-related crime. Here are 5:
- Universal basic income
- Decriminalize all drugs
- Transfer funding for drug enforcement to treatment and prevention programmes
- Implement universal pharmacare
- Make drugs available in pharmacies and covered by pharmacare
This will put put drug dealers out of business, it will improve the quality of the drug supply, it will prevent more deaths, it will prevent more addictions, and it will reduce crime.
Increasing law enforcement certainly won’t work. We’ve been trying it for decades, and drug crime is worse now. Lethbridge Police Services receives 1 out of every 5 dollars of the municipal operating budget, receiving the most tax dollars of any single city-funded entity.
Law enforcement is reactive. We need proactive solutions. We need solutions that will finally address the issues behind the drug crisis.
“No one owes you a living, no one owes you their property, or their lives, because you chose to be a drug addict!”
No one chooses to be addicted. Heck, not even everyone who gets addicted chooses the drugs that start them on the path to addiction. Some people are prescribed those drugs by a licensed physician. And they take them without even realizing that they could become addicted to them.
This is the problem with people who are opposed to the SCS. To them it’s all about choice: people choose to be addicted, people choose to be poor, people choose to steal. And because they steal, they have less moral fortitude than the people criticizing them. And that’s why they feel entitled to treat them inhumanely.
“Now, before you suggest I do not know drug addicts, I have been around them (by employment) longer than you have been alive (a guess). “A choice was made by you, “I will stick this drug in my arm or sniff this up my nose”. I was around these people in every port,”
Every port? Like in the entire world? This writer has been to every port in the entire world? Canada alone has nearly 250 ports. This seems unlikely.
“I chose NOT to stick anything in my arm or sniff anything up my nose!”
It’s an easy choice to make when you don’t have an addiction.
“Now the next statement is most important, re-read it twice if you do not understand it:
“Society is more than willing to help but, Not at the cost of the society that’s helping”. If you do not understand that, then there is no hope because you obviously believe society owes you, and if it means the destruction of our society to get what you want, well that’s okay, or, do you think differently?”
It’s possible to address addiction responsibly, meaningfully, and successfully, without society needed to be destroyed in the process. Unfortunately, none of our governments are willing to do what it takes to address the causes of the drug crisis.
“The SCS should be in the region but should be on the border with the Blood Reserve.”
This makes no sense. No one will use it. It would be in the middle of the prairie (or on the bank of a river). And we will just get an increase of public drug usage in Lethbridge, as well as an increase in overdose deaths.
“Housing facilities should be set up and detox/intox as well.”
This is a point you and I agree on. These are facilities Lethbridge sorely lacks.
“Then you, and the rest of “our” society would be on the same page. But if you think you will get law abiding people to agree to an SCS, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.”
Law-abiding people already agree to the SCS. The hundreds that showed up to the counter rally. The hundreds that have shared my pro-SCS posts. The hundreds that have thanked me in person and through messages.
“I have been around drug addicts for over 50 years of my life. I have seen these Consumption sites all around the world”
Sure you have. Just like you’ve been to all the ports in the world.
“and the one common theme of an SCS is it creates the opportunity for like minded drug addicts who steal and mug for a living to meet up and co-ordinate that function.”
Nah. They can do that already. Like, literally, there are plenty of places for people to meet. They don’t need a consumption site to make plans. The one common them of consumption sites all around the world is that they save lives and reduce public drug usage. They improve the health and safety of the community, as well as that of those who use drugs.
“Now if the brilliance in City Hall had decided to learn that early perhaps we would not be here, but they know everything, so we are where we are!”
No, we’re where we are because despite knowing drug usage was on the rise in the province (and the country for that matter), governments refused to respond to it broadly. That’s why, in Lethbridge, we still lack the health care services we need to both prevent and treat addiction.
“You said it your self, addicts go to and use the SCS site,”
Well, yeah. That’s its point.
“however you incorrectly suggest that means they do not do drugs elsewhere.”
She never suggested this at all.
“The facts are they are doing drugs everywhere in this city!”
No, they’re not. No one is doing drugs in my house. Or in the aisle of the grocery store when I’m shopping. Or in the waiting room of the doctor’s office when I’m there. Or at Casa while I’m waiting for my children’s music lessons to finish. Or nearly everywhere I go in this city.
“Dealers are now more plentiful because of Spearmans narrow minded thinking”
Nope. They’re more plentiful because of supply and demand. As more people get addicted, the demand for drugs goes up. As the demand goes up, so does the supply. As the supply goes up, so does the number of people distributing the supply. It’s basic economics, and has nothing to do with the mayor.
“I am a guy who believes in every other aspect Spearman has been good for this city but he has built his legacy, for one stupid uniformed decision he will go down in history as “the Mayor that killed Lethbridge!” He will be remembered by the residents for nothing else! Unfortunately, rightfully so, out of all the fiasco’s I have seen in Scotland, Ireland, England, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Portugal, Eastern Seaboard of USA, Lessor and Greater Antilles, Mexico, Rio, etc etc…. Lethbridge is “the greatest fiasco”, led by the clueless, executed by the uninformed. Harsh but true.”
Spearman is not killing Lethbridge. If Lethbridge is being killed, why is it the top city in Alberta for business investment? The uninformed are people like you, fuelled by ideology, myth, feelings, and rhetoric.
“So here is what “your SCS” did for the residents of Lethbridge. It attracted 1000-1200 addicts that were not residents of Lethbridge to our city through clueless policy and immunity from police arrest. That number will balloon too 1700+ by fall of 2020.”
This is simply unprovable.
“Why did they come? Lethbridge declared that if you had illegal drugs on you and it was for personal use, you could do so unimpeded by the LAPD.”
Well, that’s probably because the LAPD is 2,300 kilometres away.
“Elsewhere you would have been arrested/harrassed and your high would have been ruined!”
This just isn’t true. There is an exemption in place, but it’s not for the entire city, and that federal exemption applies to all consumption sites in Canada, not just Lethbridge. Ottawa, for example, has four. Why isn’t this the case there then, since they have so many?
“so they came in droves!”
False.
“It did not “solve” OUR problem because a smaller percentage of the drug addicts now use the SCS then were on the streets before the SCS!”
This makes no sense. The people who use the SCS make up a smaller percentage than the people who were on the streets prior to the SCS? What were the people on the streets a percentage of?
“It appears to have solved YOUR problem but not Lethbridge’s.”
The SCS isn’t designed to solve the drug crisis. It’s designed to keep people alive and reduce the risk to public health and safety. Hats off to the ARCHES staff though, who have taken on more responsibility than they had originally planned, and are doing far more to help people who are addicted than just keeping them alive. Even so, without the other services you mentioned earlier, the drug crisis isn’t going anywhere soon. Even if we get rid of the SCS.
“So needles, muggings, thefts, B&Es rose because we became the GOTO place for addicts because of Spearman’s/Phillips inability to think farther than next week.”
This is plainly false. Crime in Lethbridge has been climbing for years. The SCS opened during the rise in crime rate. Even so, crime has been rising it a slower rate since the SCS came in. To say that it’s responsible for crime is just ignoring the data.
“Now Bourgue/ARCHES will argue the comment but I have seen that argument before as well, its not valid and never has been valid.”
Facts and science have always been valid, even if they don’t prove your feelings.
“Crime Index Severities are rarely skewed by petty thefts which tends to replace for the first few years, crimes of a higher severity ranking but that all departs when you enter the third phase of this fiasco which starts next summer.”
What on earth is this person babbling about? How does anyone take seriously anything in this comment?
“Trust me on this one, SCS is an enabler, they are the gasoline on the fire that is to be lit this summer.”
SCS doesn’t enable. People used drugs before they opened. People use drugs without it. And people would use drugs if it shut down. People use drugs independent of the SCS.
“Bourgue and Manning will continue to use pie and squiggly line charts to say they are not, but they are and they know it! Why? Because I know it, been there, done this, got 31 Tee Shirts, before either of them were born!”
They know they’re enabling because the writer knows they’re enabling? How is their knowledge tied up in his knowledge? And what exactly is “this” that he supposedly did and got 31 t-shirts for before Bourque and Manning were born? Opened and ran a consumption site?
“SCS now has the equivalent of the 300 users that the Chief of Police would not lock up. However based on his STUPIDITY we now have 1000-1200 more and growing every day that do not use the SCS.”
Again, no proof of this. You can’t keep tabs on how many people are using drugs in Lethbridge. It’d be a logistical nightmare.
“Here is the bottom line:
MOVE THE SCS OUT OF OUR CITY! You will still have access to services but ruining Lethbridge, as a City, will be removed from you.”
Again, no one will use it, and the problems you’re complaining about will worsen.
“Question for the Drug Users of Lethbridge :
“Do you think the DTES of Vancouver is a Ghetto because it was always destined to become one or, because they plopped all the services for drug addicts there 26 years ago?” Simple question, give it some thought.”
East Hastings is the way it is because of poverty, because we place enforcement higher than prevention and treatment, because we treat addiction as a crime instead of as a disease.
“In fact I encourage LETHBRIDGE give it some thought because once Spearman gets his Detox/Intox, Lodgings, etc…we are the DTES!!”
Oh, please. Lethbridge will be nothing like East Hastings.
“So is it “your dream and vision” that downtown Lethbridge become another DTES (Downtown East side)? Because its not the residents of Lethbridges dream! If Spearman/Phillips get their way, we will be, “absolutely guaranteed” and I mean ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED” we will be a DTES in 5 years. There is nothing they can do to stop it, if they continue down this path, period! Change or suffer the consequences of your foolishness, Now! Write that down, because its FACT!”
It’s not a fact. It’s a made up claim based on your feelings.
“PPS- You opened your letter with “I am sick and tired of hearing that the SCS facility is doing nothing but bad things to this community.” Do you know what I am sick and tired of? I am sick and tired of “Users and Non Profits” that make millions of dollars running these sites, telling me they do not ruin a city, when I have watched them ruin 31 cities before, that’s what I am sick and tired of!”
You have not seen consumption sites ruin 31 cities.
“I am tired of Council’s and Mayor’s and elected MLAs/MPs who consult with experts that have destroyed their own cities, and assume they are “truly experts or for that matter even have the slightest clue” , then do as the experts have done, and commence ruining our city?”
Our city is not being ruined by experts and politicians. Well, not in the way you think they are anyhow.
“I joined the Navy in the 60’s and let me tell you this so you can write it down in your forecast for Lethbridge. We are about 5 years from Rock Bottom on what the 2000 addicts will do to this city.”
What does being in the navy have to do with this prediction. Let alone enlisting 50 years ago? And where did the 2,000 number come from? And if you truly want fewer people with additions in Lethbridge, then I hope you’re putting as much effort into petitioning governments for treatment and prevention services as you are into typing angry comments at 6:00 in the morning.
“In 5 years from now Residents would give a testicle/ovary to be where we are today, thats how bad this City will get.”
No, it won’t.
“If a drastic reversal in approach is not taken in the next 4 months, its over!”
Agreed. Well, on the drastic reversal in approach, anyhow. See my 5 recommendations above.
“Thanks goes directly to Spearman, Council, Phillips and Fitzpatrick. I don’t blame Bourgue and Manning, all they did was see a cash cow that could be hidden under the guise of a “non-profit” while working the “Caring Lethbridge Card”!”
You know how non-profits work, right? They don’t run a profit. How can it be a cash cow if their expenses use up all their revenue?
This sort of rhetoric just goes to show how misinformed people are on this topic. They are completely ignorant to the science, data, and research on harm reduction. They ignore the facts of crime rates in favour of the impressions of their friends. The think that safety is important only for those who already have it, that health is important only for those who already have it.
If we’re going to see some real change, if we’re going to see some solutions that do more than just the superficial, there will need to be drastic action. And dealing with facts instead of feelings is a good place to start.
If you found this response helpful, please become a supporter for as little as $1/month. It will help me take time to develop other responses like this in the future.
I’m writing a book.
Since last week, I have been compiling a list of potential sources for information about labour in Lethbridge, and I’m convinced that there is enough data out there to warrant writing a book.
I’m super excited about it, and felt very inspired when the idea came to me last week.
I’ve never written a book before, but I’ve wanted to for a few years. I just never knew what to write it on. I’m looking forward to the process, learning a heckuva lot, and seeing the final product in print.
If you agree with me that this project needs to happen, please consider supporting me financially. Every little bit helps.
In the late 19th century, for example, the Union Western Federation of Miners had a local in Lethbridge, one of only four unions in the province at the time. The union lasted only a few years, but the Western Federation of Miners came to Lethbridge in 1899 from Montana to help organize against wage cuts. They also advocated for 8-hour workday legislation, which ended up passing and applied to all of the Northwest Territories (Alberta didn’t exist as a province yet).
In 1905, local labour councils were formed in Lethbridge and Medicine Hat. Also in that year, workers held strikes in Southern Alberta, including Lethbridge, so that their recent membership with the United Mine Workers would be recognized by their employers.
In February 1906, 363 Lethbridge miners joined United Mine Workers of America. The union submitted a contract to the Alberta Railway & Irrigation Company, one of the Galt companies (yes, those Galts). The company refused the demands (where have we heard that before?). When the company also refused the union’s recommendation for arbitration, the workers went on strike, only a month after joining the union. The strike lasted until the end of the year and included workers in surrounding communities. The company hired scabs, but never saw the same production output that they had with the unionized workers. After much pressure from politicians, the two sides eventually made concessions. The workers received some benefits: a small wage increase and the right to collective bargaining. Even so, the company continued to ignore the union, and workers staged additional work stoppages in 1909, 1911, 1919, 1922, 1923, and 1924 in an effort to fight for their rights. Each of those strikes lasted for months, some as long as 8 months.
The 1906 UMWA strike had far-reaching effects throughout Alberta and Canada. It led directly to the federal Industrial Disputes Investigation Act in 1907 and the provincial Workman’s Compensation Act in 1907, as well as a legislated 8-hour work day in 1909. It also lead to amendments to the Coal Mines Act.
Did you know that the Alberta Federation of Labour started in Lethbridge? At a 1912 convention in Lethbridge chaired by local miner and independent labour MLA Donald McNabb, 34 delegates from unions and the United Farmers of Alberta joined forces to form the Alberta Federation of Labour, which focused on protecting working conditions and improving salaries and benefits for workers throughout Alberta.
Today, there are over 20 unions in Lethbridge, some of which are part of the Lethbridge & District Labour Council, which has operated in Lethbridge for decades and belongs to the Canadian Labour Congress.
Lethbridge has not only a long labour history, but a history that includes work actions that made a difference to the broader labour movement and workers who were willing to take a stand.
It seems as though the aggressive, proactive, confident labour actions of the past have been forgotten. Certainly it’s not reflected in the government representatives elected in our ridings.
Obviously conservative governments don’t care about labour needs. Liberal governments aren’t any better when it comes to labour. We’ve spent decades watching voters cycle between Liberals and Conservatives. And it’s not working. Both parties care only for owners, not for labour.
Maybe it’s time to change that. Maybe it’s time to remind people of the importance of organized labour to Lethbridge. Maybe it’s time we remind everyone that Lethbridge was built on the backs of unionized labour. Maybe it’s time to finally put aside spats from the past, come together, and get behind candidates who have labour interests at heart.
This post inspired me to write a book about the labour history of Lethbridge. I’m in the process of writing it, but I’m not sure when it will be out. I’ve fleshed out about two chapters so far.
Here are two images for reference.
The first image is a table of calls for service for 2017 and 2018, and the other is a map for reference. The colours of the table rows match the zone colours on the map.
I shared a post from Lethbridge Supports Harm Reduction earlier that questions these stats from different perspectives, but there are a couple of points I wanted to highlight.
First, in speaking to the media, Acting Chief Scott Woods said the following:
“Quite frankly, we’re in that area more, which means that we’re putting more resources into that area, which means that in other areas of the city for example, or even in that same area of the city, outside it—depending on the priority of what we’re dealing with, our response times will suffer. As a result, we can’t get to some things as quickly as we’d like to. Obviously we do things on a priority system, so some of the lower level stuff is waiting longer, which is leading to some frustrations from people in the community. . . . From the standpoint of the police service, our people are starting to get tired, because we’ve been busy.”
“Significant increase” in calls for service at SCS and surrounding area strain LPS resources, Lethbridge News Now
I don’t understand this. If you look at the table, you’ll see that calls for service around the SCS have increased, but calls in the city overall have gone up by only 0.15%—less than 2/10 of 1%. The city, as a whole, saw an increase of only 52 calls in the second year, compared to the first year. That’s one extra call for service per week.
Maybe it’s just me, but one extra call for service per week doesn’t seem enough to strain resources. The LPS paid out over $1 million more in wages for their 2018 budget than their 2017 budget. Did they not spend this extra million dollars on more cops? If not, why not? I mean, if they feel strained by an extra call for service per week, you’d think using some of that million dollars for more cops might be something they’d do.
Second, It’s misleading to say that calls for service to the SCS increased by 6000% in 2018 over 2017. The building where the SCS sits now was vacant during the last 6 months of the first reporting period, and the nightclub that occupied it during the first 6 months of that reporting period was open only twice a week. So, of course there will be only 7 calls for service during that reporting period. Plus, half of the calls to the SCS originated from SCS staff, and many of those were related to the partnership agreement between LPS and Arches.
It always pays to analyze data critically, rather than using the data to justify your ideology.
]]>Except Hyggen doesn’t actually care whether Arches gets audited. Hyggen operates on confirmation bias: he seeks out frontline cops and paramedics whose claims support his ideological stance on harm reduction; he seeks out a statistician friend who agrees with his assessment that the numbers can’t be true; he accepts bunk documentaries, like “Seattle Is Dying”, as fact.
And when data or peer-reviewed, published research conflicts with his opinions, he dismisses them.
See, if the data Arches released to city council matched his perceptions, Hyggen wouldn’t be calling for an audit. Because it’s not about how Arches operates; it’s about facts disagreeing with his feelings.
To him, the only possible explanation for the discrepancy between the facts and his feelings is that Arches must be lying. To him, there’s no possibility that he might be wrong.