I would actually like to thank you for your participation on the Facebook group No Night Clubs on Denman Street. I for one found it very informative and helpful. Since the conversation was largely between you and I, I felt the need to respond to your blog post.

There are two points I’d like to address about this post. First, I’m not sure why you would be surprised by the lack of supportive dialogue happening in a group that was set up for people who are opposed to night clubs on Denman. Although we’ve left membership open and anyone is able to post as long as it is done with respect and inclusiveness for all the neighbours who live in the area the main focus of the group was and is still a connection point for those opposed to night clubs on Denman Street. The group itself is very small (currently only 30 members) and there has been no major drive for growing it. It certainly does not include *all* of the neighbours opposed but rather started with those few who came together on their own to discuss the issue in our local coffee shop. The group is opposed to *any* night clubs on Denman, not the Odyssey in particular. Many people opposed are also people who regularly go to the Odyssey – this is not about the Odyssey itself for us, but about how our neighbourhood is being planned for now and in the future. And, just a heads-up, I have seen a lot of supportive comments on the Odyssey’s Facebook group page at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2361344947&topic=6691#/group.php?gid=2361344947. Although, oddly, they themselves have deleted some of their supportive comments – I don’t know why.

The second issue I’d like to address is NIMBYism and negotiation. In my opinion, this is the major red herring for both sides of the discussion. You are 100% correct that people respond emotionally in discussions like this. The use of NIMBYism is typically considered a pejorative label which tends to inflame a discussion as opposed to guide it into more neutral territory. We’ve thought about deleting the thread on our page regarding it because it creates such hostility, but I personally did not want to delete your useful comments and so it stays.

The issue is not no night clubs *anywhere* in the West End overall, it is that many neighbours would prefer not to see night clubs in high density residential areas or in buildings not suitable for that purpose. The development of any community that is healthy and inclusive means careful planning of how different parts of the community are used in order to make it the most sustainable and usable for all community members. People are bound to disagree on some uses of the neighbourhood but that is why we have such consultation systems in place – so people can have a voice whether it is pro or con. No matter what the outcome of this relocation application we all still end up being neighbours and it is OK for neighbours to respectfully disagree with one another. We are not at the point of negotiation in this process yet. We are at the point of people getting to voice their opinions. Once City Council decides the outcome, then (if they find in favour of the Odyssey) we move into the negotiation phase. One of the biggest problems many of us who are opposed had about this process is that the notification system the city uses is ridiculously flawed preventing people from participating no matter what their position may be. Much of the work we’ve done has simply been to just make sure that our neighbours received the City’s own notification flyer so they could voice their opinion even if it was not the same as ours … that’s how neighbourhood consultation processes should work.

Denman is a busy street. There is tons of foot traffic. Moving the Odessy there makes sense yet I do understand the resident’s concerns. The new space seems to be closer to the residential area. When I have lived in the West End, there were two night spots on Denman.

I needed to sleep with ear plugs in on certain nights. As long as it doesn’t turn into another Granville Street, I think we are safe. The question is will it? As long as a hot spot of clubs doesn’t fester in that area where many apartments are old with thin walls, it should be fine.

I love the Odessy and have had some wonderful times there. I hope it continues for future generations.

NIMBYism drives me absolutely crazy. What bothers me the most is that the people most vocal about not having something in their area are usually the same people complaining when there isn’t enough of something. Suburbanite: “The DTES is terrible, we need to do something about it!” Urbanite: “You’re right it is, there’s a large concentration of poverty, and drug abuse in that area, we need to get these people homes, and remove them from this terrible cycle” Suburbanite: “Not in my neighbourhood, those people are dangerous, and icky. They’re your problem you need to deal with them!” Urbanite: “If we try to build more housing in the DTES we can only provide 1/3 what we can in Surrey for the same price, and it’s harder for people to restart their lives when they’re close to the problem” Suburbanite: “Do something about it, put it anywhere, just not in my backyard!!”

…. Then it’s in someone else’s backyard! It’s got to go somewhere, and that should be wherever is most economical, and has the least societal impact. Whether it’s a water treatment plant, a prison, or a sport’s stadium, it has to go somewhere, and your backyard isn’t more important than anyone else’s so shut up and get on with it..

/end rant.

Hi Raul,
While NIMBYism is always likely, I appeciate that people want to be involved in how their community is shaped. That is part of how Vancouver has developed. People from other cities come to study our neighbourhood consultation process with regard to development.
Thanks for your comment about negotiation which is where not everyone will be totally satisfied with the outcome, but they have been heard, considered and involved. Hopefully each side gains an understanding of their “opponents” position and some middle ground is eventually reached.
The meeting at 911 Denman was for the purpose of the neighbours meeting the applicant and having an opportunity to voice their concerns. It was originally invitation only, by the City. But some people made it out to be a public event, and no one was turned away. Supporters were asked to stay away, however about 15% of the room was in favour. They were politely asked to not engage the crowd and to just listen. Listening is the first step, and tomorrow night, Wednesday at the WECC 6:30-9pm drop-in will be an actual public opportunity for all to have their say. Maybe you can drop by?

I have a question for you, since I’ve heard a lot of Nimby verbage being thrown around. I’m not saying its correct or not, since after viewing the wiki page on the word it does sound fairly descriptive for this case. My only problem with the word is that it doesn’t really help a negotiation to call someone a nimby. Anyway, my question is, is there a word for the supporters of an action that have nimby’s on the opposition side. And it can’t really be described as YIMBY, since many of the supporters are outside the neighborhood. YITBY?

So, lets say its YITBY. Someone calls me a NIMBY. So, I call them a YITBY. Now, that we have stated the obvious, it really hasn’t brought us closer to a negotiation at all.

Anyway, in this discussion, which is probably moot, since the cops are dead seat against it, I had offered compromises up (a lobby and ‘hood security guards as a way to deal with noise as a condition of acceptance) and I never heard any compromise whatsoever from the applicant. So, if anything, I would have to state that the supporters have been the most stubborn in the face of a large group of opposition.

I would ponder that perhaps its a shot in the dark and that perhaps an effort to pressure the city about another issue. Like, perhaps extending their stay at the current location.