"Doing the right thing" should not equate to experimenting with a new idea simply because it's suggested.
Doing the right thing should rely on an approach that is honest, transparent, realistic, and ensures that problems are addressed without creating more problems.
In 2023 a decision was made to co-locate the food bank with the warming centre.
This has not worked out well for local residents and business owners. Along with multiple crimes of violence (kidnapping, robbery, assault and stabbings), there have been thefts, property damage and more.
The functional centre of this community is downtown Duncan/North Cowichan, which is a small compact area. Such a concentrated area requires special attention to ensure that all of the land-use activities are complimentary.
Since 2023 the warming centre has been co-located with the food bank and situated very close to a daycare and the old and new high school (not to mention the community centre and other key populations). It is hard to make sense of the justification for what amounts to using several populations (students, food bank clients, seniors and small children) effectively as social “guinea pigs” in this unfolding social experiment that was intended to address problems related to a small tragic cohort of individuals with serious behavioural challenges and needs.
Whatever happened to the concept of the greatest good, for the greatest number of people?
I want to provide some rationale regarding the siting of the food bank and the warming centre. While both functions are important in terms of community service provision, it is my view that they are not compatible land uses when co-located in proximity to residential areas, family-oriented services, and community amenities. The warming centre is especially problematic because of the chaos and violence it has brought to the neighbourhood for all citizens.
The whole point of zoning is to separate activities that are inherently incompatible, whether due to noise, odour, traffic, or, in this case, social impacts, so that the health, safety, and well-being of residents are safeguarded. Just as heavy industry would not be permitted beside homes, schools, or seniors’ housing, for example, the same principle applies to institutional uses that bring with them elevated risks or behaviours that conflict with surrounding uses.
The food bank, as a service, is generally compatible with the community and can be sensitively integrated where it supports residents. However, the warming centre introduces challenges that are materially different. Vulnerable and street-entrenched populations accessing the centre often bring with them behaviours associated with untreated addiction, mental health crises, and social disorder. These realities, such as interpersonal violence, open drug use, health and fire emergencies, and public urination/defecation, create a heightened risk environment. Families, seniors, and other vulnerable users of the food bank must physically navigate and be exposed to this context, which undermines their sense of psychological safety.
The issue is not about denying service provision but about ensuring that it occurs in an appropriate land use setting. A warming centre located adjacent to residential and commercial areas, and in the very heart of the community intended to be welcoming and safe for all, is not appropriate from a land use planning or social well being perspective.
The central civic and commercial district must remain a place that supports positive social interaction, community confidence, and safe access to daily needs.
In my view, a warming centre should instead be situated in a location that avoids these direct land use conflicts, ideally in an area where the provision of services to individuals can occur without exposing other vulnerable populations to social disorder. In doing so, the community can meet its obligations to provide supportive services while also upholding the core planning principle of compatible land use.
Vicky Candor
North Cowichan
