Response to the Georgia Straight

The Georgia StraightI find it intriguing that the Straight found it appropriate to print two responses disagreeing with my comment on the “Vancouver’s Homeless Demand Solutions” story, yet didn’t see fit to print my original comment itself. As I recall, quoting responses without context is poor journalistic form. Nevertheless, despite that oversight, I think it worthwhile to respond to these comments.

For the record, my original comment:

I think a bit of perspective is required here: Let’s assume that the number of homeless is 15K, as suggested above. BC’s population is an estimate 4.4M according to BC Stats, which means that the homeless comprise 1/3 of a percent of the population. Even if the number is doubled, it’s still only 2/3 of a percent.

Am I happy there’s people who are homeless? Of course not. But by the same token, I think it’s unrealistic to expect nobody to be homeless, much in the same way it’s unrealistic to expect 100% employment.

I don’t have a solution to this problem and, in all honesty, I’m not sure one exists. However, I don’t think giving people cheap housing is going to solve the problem – it’s a hand-out that doesn’t solve the fundamental underlying issues, and it insults the rest of the hard-working population in the interim.

First, let me be clear: I’m in favour of programs to reduce homelessness. However, I have a problem with programs that choose to throw money at symptoms rather than causes. If history is any guide, these programs will not provide the desired results (one only needs to look at the $1.4B invested in the Downtown Eastside with few results), which does a disservice to those working hard to pay their taxes to pay for these ill-conceived projects.

According to the original Straight article, there are between 12,000 and 15,000 homeless people (note that we’re talking about genuinely homeless people here, not those who are struggling with housing affordability – I’ll come to them in a moment). Contrary to popular belief, the problem for these individuals is not a lack of housing – that’s a symptom. For the majority, the root cause is untreated mental health issues and substance abuse. These factors limit employment options and create the conditions that lead to homelessness.

The real solution is not to throw money at cheap housing, the solution is to provide proper, comprehensive mental healthcare in BC. Proper mental heath treatment can reduce or eliminate the factors that limit these individuals’ ability to be fully functioning members of society. That is the real solution.

Unfortunately, even comprehensive mental heath services are not sufficient to cure homelessness. Although one commenter called it “disgusting” for me to state that it’s unrealistic to expect nobody to be homeless, I stand by this statement. Even when adequate mental heath services are available, there are some individuals that simply will not adhere to treatment regimens required to enable them remain functioning members of society. For example, some schizophrenics complain that they don’t feel themselves when they’re on their medications, and choose to stop taking their treatment. My mother, a psychiatric nurse for twenty years, can attest to this phenomenon.

Unless we discover a way to cure mental health issues instantaneously or choose to, as one commenter suggested, put individuals who aren’t capable of functioning in society under the care of the state, the root cause of homelessness will remain. And as long as there is one person without a home, there will be homelessness. It’s an unfortunate, horrible thing to say. But it’s also reality.

Of course, housing affordability is also a major problem. Proponents of social housing projects, such as Wendy Pedersen of the Carnegie Community Action Project, are quick to point out that money spent on the new convention center could have bought 4,250 deluxe inner-city homes. So let’s pretend that happened –what would be the result? Without the convention center project, we would have missed out on the benefits of the project:

  • 4500 direct and indirect jobs
  • $1.6B economic activity during the convention construction
  • 61 events between now and 2012 (which could not have been accommodated without the new facility)
  • $2 billion additional economic activity in the province between now and 2012

Not constructing the convention center would have eliminated a recurring source of jobs and economic stability. In other words, the very things that enable people to afford housing in the first place and that decrease the likelihood of people slipping into homelessness. The very result organizations such as the Carnegie Community Action Project would like to see.

The solution here is not simply to build some subsidized housing and pat ourselves on the back. It’s addressing the real problems, namely lack of proper mental healthcare. And the money required to provide that solution has to come from somewhere – namely income generated from new economic activity.

Given the dire economic straits we find ourselves in, I would argue that it’s more prudent for the government to focus on addressing the 7.6% unemployed British Columbians, rather than 1/3 of a percent homeless. After all, the money for all of these social programs has to come from somewhere, and lack of employment only increases the possibility of people becoming homeless in the first place.

These are not nice choices for a society to have to make. But in a world of constrained resources, you can’t have it all. You need to focus on the root problems, not symptoms, and try to generate the best result for the most people. To do otherwise is impractical.

BookCamp Vancouver 2009 Wrapup

BookCamp Vancouver 2009The atmosphere at this weekend’s excellent BookCamp Vancouver 2009 was quite different than other unconferences I’ve attended in the past. For one thing, people there were taking notes using pencil and paper. And unlike other unconferences, there was an absence of laptops, cameras, and ubiquitous social media coverage; even the #bcvan09 hashtag traffic on Twitter was attenuated versus other unconferences I’ve attended.

If I were to summarize the tone of the conference in one word, that word would be ‘fear‘. The publishing world is rapidly approaching a crossroads, and it doesn’t seem like its inhabitants are any better prepared for the transition to digital media than their brethren in the music and movie industries. Sean Cranbury‘s session on digital rights management could have been about the music industry if you replaced the word ‘book’ with the word ‘song’ in the discussion. This is somewhat disturbing, since there have been numerous examples of what works and doesn’t work in digital media.

The concerns of publishers boil down to economics. Publishers are struggling to reconcile the costs of book production with consumers’ unwillingness to pay for content. Regardless of whether the content is delivered via the Internet, or as an electronic book, consumers are less and less willing to pay for content, much to publishers’ chagrin. For many attendees, I think the real shock came from comments by publishers on the time and costs associated with producing physical books:

  • Profit margins in the publishing industry are about 4%. For those of us from the software industry, 4% is an amazingly low number (software profitability runs around 30% depending on industry).
  • The timeline on book production, once a complete manuscript has been received from the author? A year and a half on average.
  • Book printing costs only account for about 20% of the cost of a book. This is surprising to many consumers who, judging by audience reactions at the conference, believe that physical production and distribution is a major component of the price of a book.
  • Author royalties comprise only 10% of the cost of a book, another fact that shocked the audience.

The part I found most concerning: a professed lack of willingness on the part of publishers to experiment. Despite widespread agreement that technology publisher O’Reilly is leading the way in revolutionizing the publishing industry, few publishers professed a willingness to take a chance and undertake experiments of their own to determine how to chart a course through these new waters. It’s disappointing, especially when O’Reilly has already created many of the new models publishers might employ to stave off extinction, such as monetizing books through new formats (finely sliced content offered as PDFs, subscription-based reference libraries), and partnering with readers during the production process.

One conversation I had with a publisher highlighted the extent of the tunnel vision: the publisher admitted that they would not only be unwilling to accept any price cut when offering books in electronic form on devices such as the Kindle, but also that they weren’t even willing to try offering books in electronic form at all. If this attitude is widespread in the industry, the publishers’ fates are already sealed. The future of publishing may rely on a new breed of author-entrepreneurs adhering to the tenets of “lean publishing” to continue in their stead.