Petition in favour of Brighton Terrace Drug Treatment centre

[IntoStella]

Does anybody have any evidence at all that drug treatment centres increase local incidence of theft from vehicles, etc?

They are only open during the day. Clients don't hang around them at night because they are shut.

What it really boils down to, as Bob touches on, is people wilfully burying their heads in the sand. They would rather have a worse situation with uncontrolled drug use/crime than have a treatment centre that acknowledges the fact that there is a problem. This stupid, selfish attitude is driven by property-price anxiety. If they want to sell up, they can always pray that there won't be too many crackheads around when potential buyers come to view the property. Drug problem? What drug problem?

 

[IntoStella]

There have been many very heated arguments on these boards in the past about the use of the term yuppie, what it means, is it prejudiced ( ) , etc.

OK, here's a working definition. A yuppie is somebody who deliberately and selfishly works to prevent the drugs/crime situation in the town centre from being improved -- and drug users being given a chance to sort themselves out -- because they are afraid of the effect on their property price. It's not about income, career or property ownership; it's about social responsibility.

If I was Anna Key -- and I'm not -- I would say the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens nimbies are the ones who are tormenting the central Brixton community.

 

[Orang Utan]

What it really boils down to, as Bob touches on, is people wilfully burying their heads in the sand. They would rather have a worse situation with uncontrolled drug use/crime than have a treatment centre that acknowledges the fact that there is a problem. This stupid, selfish attitude is driven by property-price anxiety.

NO, IT IS NOT! I have pointed this out many times, but people seem to have buried their heads in the sand - the vast majority of the people who have concerns IME, are council tenants with families. Capisce?

To address your other points, surely a drug treatment cnetre makes people better, therefore any problems associated with drug dependence, such as theft and violence would lessen? It's not rocket science. Anyway, as far as needles in playgrounds goes, I can't really see how much worse it could get than it is now, so think people's concerns are, while understandable, misplaced: you fix a problem by fixing the cause of it, rather than moving it somewhere else.

 

[Orang Utan]

OK, here's a working definition. A yuppie is somebody who deliberately and selfishly works to prevent the drugs/crime situation in the town centre from being improved -- and drug users being given a chance to sort themselves out -- because they are afraid of the effect on their property price. It's not about income, career or property ownership; it's about social responsibility.

I doubt you would find that definition in the dictionary. Anyway, get with the programme, it's not just property owners who have concerns with social problems in their area and these people are not just worried about prices - despite what you may think this is not the be all and end all when it comes to NIMBYism!

 

[Bob]

There have been many very heated arguments on these boards in the past about the use of the term yuppie, what it means, is it prejudiced ( ) , etc.

OK, here's a working definition. A yuppie is somebody who deliberately and selfishly works to prevent the drugs/crime situation in the town centre from being improved -- and drug users being given a chance to sort themselves out -- because they are afraid of the effect on their property price. It's not about income, career or property ownership; it's about social responsibility.

If I was Anna Key -- and I'm not -- I would say the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens nimbies are the ones who are tormenting the central Brixton community.

IS - I think you're wrong here. This really isn't about property prices.

I understand the unease of the Brighton Terrace residents - I think they are wrong but I can understand anyone being suspicious of Lambeth council given Lambeth's history. However I think the extra street warden, lighting, fixed doors & gates plus treatment for current local drug users that will lower crime.

 

[IntoStella]

To address your other points, surely a drug treatment cnetre makes people better, therefore any problems associated with drug dependence, such as theft and violence would lessen? It's not rocket science. Anyway, as far as needles in playgrounds goes, I can't really see how much worse it could get than it is now, so think people's concerns are, while understandable, misplaced: you fix a problem by fixing the cause of it, rather than moving it somewhere else.

Is that directed at me? In which case, why? It bears no relation to anything I've said.

Oh, and are you suggesting that the objectors are exclusively council tenants, not Trinity Gardens property owners?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I doubt you would find that definition in the dictionary.

Well, we could always alter the Wikipedia definition...

 

[Orang Utan]

Is that directed at me? In which case, why? It bears no relation to anything I've said.

I was agreeing with your other points ("Does anybody have any evidence at all that drug treatment centres increase local incidence of theft from vehicles, etc?" and "They would rather have a worse situation with uncontrolled drug use/crime than have a treatment centre that acknowledges the fact that there is a problem.")

Oh, and are you suggesting that the objectors are exclusively council tenants, not Trinity Gardens property owners?

No, but I live on the Brighton Terrace estate and the literature coming through my door voicing concerns about the centre are exclusively from the Tenants' Association - there are many more households in the estate than the twenty odd private houses that comprise the rest of Trinity Gardens

 

[netbob]

Regardless of whether it's true or not, I dont think the house price argument is one that can be used in favour of the centre. Those against will always be able to cite examples of people on the estate or under private landlords who support them.

 

[pooka]

I think in a debate such as this, there's little milage generally in assigning base motives to one side or the other of the argument - it's not the best way to win friends and influence people. On balance, the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens residents have reasonable concerns and are probably no more or less nimbyist or concerned about house prices than any other locality would be.

Which is entirely the point. Virtually anywhere in Brixton would elicit the same passionately and sincerely felt feelings. That's why we have a planning process, ultimately arbitrated by elected representatives, to balance the interests of the immediate locality against that of the greater good. Otherwise, we'd never have any motorways, hospitals, schools, power stations...whatever...built.

ANd why, therefore, it is so disappointing that the greater good was not represented by our elected representatives at the Planning Committee and that the Committee chose to sit on their hands and ask the officers to help them out by going away and standing on their heads. Small wonder only about a quarter of those registered to vote in Lambeth elections bother to turn out.

 

[IntoStella]

I think in a debate such as this, there's little milage generally in assigning base motives to one side or the other of the argument - it's not the best way to win friends and influence people.

Of course not. But we're not trying to win the argument here. I think there is an element of nimbyism and I think it sucks. Of course one cannot and would not say: ''You are a yuppie/nimby". The answer is "So what? I have the same democratic rights as you and I will exercise them." It's all too easy to approve of a drug treatment centre on somebody else's street.

And why, therefore, it is so disappointing that the greater good was not represented by our elected representatives at the Planning Committee and that the Committee chose to sit on their hands and ask the officers to help them out by going away and standing on their heads. Small wonder only about a quarter of those registered to vote in Lambeth elections bother to turn out.

Let's not forget also that there are elections in May. Every decision being made by our elected representatives will be increasingly influenced by that in the run-up to the elections. Not that they would ever admit it.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

the Committee chose to sit on their hands and ask the officers to help them out by going away and standing on their heads

I would pay to watch this.

 

[netbob]

Every decision being made by our elected representatives will be increasingly influenced by that in the run-up to the elections. Not that they would ever admit it.

Yep. Although judging by the petition there are many more people (all with votes) in favour than against. 167 at the last count.

 

[IntoStella]

The political parties will be looking at this in terms of publicity. The risk of bad publicity from railroading through a drug centre far outweighs the potential for good publicity from the same in the run-up to an election. The SLP has a significant influence and it's not exactly liberal. Not to mention what nationals such as the Mail might make of it. Junkies = evil is a much simpler message to get across than junkies = vulnerable people who deserve help.

 

[netbob]

The political parties will be looking at this in terms of publicity. The risk of bad publicity from railroading through a drug centre far outweighs the potential for good publicity from the same in the run-up to an election. The SLP has a significant influence and it's not exactly liberal. Not to mention what nationals such as the Mail might make of it. Junkies = evil is a much simpler message to get across than junkies = vulnerable people who deserve help.

I agree, adn it'll be interesting to see if SLP run with a scaremonger style story or not. I think the best publicity we can get is 'councillors = sitting on the fence' (with a couple of exceptions). There is a big hole in their argument if they fail to nominate their prefered locations, which few will do because it will cost them votes in the areas they nominate.

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

Drug Centre

There seems to be a whiff of hypocrisy on both the residents of brigthon terrace and the local politicians. Whether both parties ackwnoledge this or not, there is already a rampant drug problem in the Brixton area. I simply cannot see how placing a drug centre strategically (and conveniently for the recipients of the service) in the heart of Brixton can exhacerbate the problem. On the contrary, a drug centre located in the middle of the area where the 'problem' is occurring would certainly address it. At the planning permission the Brighton Terrace residents have vociferously admitted that their area is blighted by drug users and discarded needles. Having a drug centre on their street would undoubtedly address their concerns (unless they prefer to have sadomasotistically the same problem perpetuated ad infinitum).

The fact that the police have pledged better suirveillance, with outreach workers and police patrolling the area, would certainly increase safety. The council's pledge (and they must come good on this) for better lighting and security on the estates and properties is another added bonus.

The bottom line is that drug use always evokes emotive and irrational responses, particularly from the media and the government, who never fail in portraying and demonising drug users as sub-standard third rate imbecile citizens. Lest we forget, these 'drug crazed imbecile' individuals are people and they could be your sister, brother, mother, father, friend, colleague, partner etc.

I also suspect that the private owners of trinity gardens and brighton terrace have the ulterior motive of fearing their properties devalued. The councillors against the proposal have the usual motive of losing precious votes for their vain political careers. Isn't the ultimate role of councillors to provide the best service for the 'whole' community in the wide borough, rather than the needs of few (privileged) individuals? Yes, I know, I am still the rather naive individual person that I have been most of my life.

As a Lambeth resident of more than twelve years, I have signed the petition because I believe that a whole community must stand together to resolve whatever problem arises in their area. Placing the drug centre in hidden places would be a great disservice not only to needy drug users, but also placing heads firmly in the sand in the face of a problem that will not go away (not with the unenlightened drug policies adopted by our governments).

I welcome and will support to the full the drug centre proposed. Ultimately it will bring great benefits to both the residents and the recipients of this much needed service. Brixton should applaud SLAM NHS for having proposed such a service in the heart of Brixton. They are offering help and all they are getting are insults.

 

[happyshopper]

... a drug centre located in the middle of the area where the 'problem' is occurring would certainly address it. At the planning permission the Brighton Terrace residents have vociferously admitted that their area is blighted by drug users and discarded needles. Having a drug centre on their street would undoubtedly address their concerns (unless they prefer to have sadomasotistically the same problem perpetuated ad infinitum) .

The proposed centre is nothing to do with the problems from chaotic drug-users and discarded needles that the people who live in Brighton Terrace have to deal with. It is a Lambeth-wide service for people who have volunteered for treatment who cannot get treatment from a more local GP. Although it is frequently suggested that such people are concentrated in this particular part of Brixton, no hard information has been provided to back this up.

I also suspect that the private owners of trinity gardens and brighton terrace have the ulterior motive of fearing their properties devalued.

As has already been explained on this thread and is obvious to anyone who has actually walked down Brighton Terrace, most of the immediate area consists of a council estate and other social housing. To the extent that there is any local acceptance of the centre it is found more among the post-hippyish laid back owner-occupiers of Trinity Gardens, than it is among the tenants of Brighton Terrace. The idea that it's really all about property values simply cannot fly.

 

[Bob]

The proposed centre is nothing to do with the problems from chaotic drug-users and discarded needles that the people who live in Brighton Terrace have to deal with. It is a Lambeth-wide service for people who have volunteered for treatment who cannot get treatment from a more local GP. Although it is frequently suggested that such people are concentrated in this particular part of Brixton, no hard information has been provided to back this up.

Surely you'd accept though that there are more chaotic drug users in Brixton than elsewhere in the borough? And so there are probably more that cannot get the right treatment from their GP?

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

The proposed centre is nothing to do with the problems from chaotic drug-users and discarded needles that the people who live in Brighton Terrace have to deal with. It is a Lambeth-wide service for people who have volunteered for treatment who cannot get treatment from a more local GP. Although it is frequently suggested that such people are concentrated in this particular part of Brixton, no hard information has been provided to back this up.



As has already been explained on this thread and is obvious to anyone who has actually walked down Brighton Terrace, most of the immediate area consists of a council estate and other social housing. To the extent that there is any local acceptance of the centre it is found more among the post-hippyish laid back owner-occupiers of Trinity Gardens, than it is among the tenants of Brighton Terrace. The idea that it's really all about property values simply cannot fly.

Most drug users who attend GP surgery for treatment, do so only if they are in touch with drug services. Many GPs prescribe to drug users in Lambeth, but they, rightly, would not be able to cope or deal with their patients unless they attend a supportive drug centre. Hence the proposed centre in Brighton Terrace. Easily accessible to everyone.

As for the latter part of your response, I disagree with you. The loudest voices against the proposed centre in Brighton Terrace came from the "post-hippyish laid back owner-occupiers of Trinity Gardens", as you describe them.

 

[IntoStella]

The loudest voices against the proposed centre in Brighton Terrace came from the "post-hippyish laid back owner-occupiers of Trinity Gardens", as you describe them.

Interesting.

But don't discriminate against the poor yuppies. They are dreadfully oppressed, you know.

 

[Bob]

I think in a debate such as this, there's little milage generally in assigning base motives to one side or the other of the argument - it's not the best way to win friends and influence people. On balance, the Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens residents have reasonable concerns and are probably no more or less nimbyist or concerned about house prices than any other locality would be.

Which is entirely the point. Virtually anywhere in Brixton would elicit the same passionately and sincerely felt feelings. That's why we have a planning process, ultimately arbitrated by elected representatives, to balance the interests of the immediate locality against that of the greater good. Otherwise, we'd never have any motorways, hospitals, schools, power stations...whatever...built.

ANd why, therefore, it is so disappointing that the greater good was not represented by our elected representatives at the Planning Committee and that the Committee chose to sit on their hands and ask the officers to help them out by going away and standing on their heads. Small wonder only about a quarter of those registered to vote in Lambeth elections bother to turn out.

Such a good post that I think it's worth repeating.

 

[Ol Nick]

I think it's great that this thread has persuaded so many people to join Urban75. (All on the "side of the angels", bien sur)

The new poster (whose name eludes me) has merely taken an opposite point of view on all the gambles so I don't have any new response. Great debate though.

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

Interesting.

But don't discriminate against the poor yuppies. They are dreadfully oppressed, you know.

God, no, I wouldn't want to be so politically incorrect. Apologies for the obvious omission.

 

[Kiddo-Whizz]

Although it is frequently suggested that such people are concentrated in this particular part of Brixton, no hard information has been provided to back this up.

Are you serious? All you have to do is walk by Brixton tube and surrounding streets. Do you need a team of researchers to point out the obvious? I suggest an urgent visit to Specsavers.

 

[Bob]

I think it's great that this thread has persuaded so many people to join Urban75. (All on the "side of the angels", bien sur)

The new poster (whose name eludes me) has merely taken an opposite point of view on all the gambles so I don't have any new response. Great debate though.

Snap. I hope that whatever the decision we can continue to get everyone who has got involved with this involved with other local projects.

 

[JayDee2005]

Quoting from Louloubelle post

"I used to work at a project affiliated with a DDU and needle exhange, both of which had premises within a 2 minute walk of my office in a hospital.

Everyone in the hospital was extremely careful about leaving stuff in their car as there were lots of break ins. Perhaps it's the same everywhere, but to us it felt like an area where many of the addicts couldn't resist stealing stuff if it was there, so people were extra vigilant.

Certainly many of the addicts were on methadone, but they didn't want methadone, they wanted heroin and there was a lot of dealing going on just outside the DDU and the needle exchange (much more so at the needle exchange)."

This is an interesting point and I think this is the fear that most Brighton Terrace residents have.

It has been raised in two different public meetings, one the Planning Application Committee on the 6th Sept, where the motion to grant the planning application fell, and again at the CPCG meeting on the 1st November. The vast majority of opposition focuses on this really dumb idea to put a needle exchange for the entire borough right in the heart of drug dealer capital of the area. This is quite simply a silly idea. Talk about making Brixton a one stop shop!!.

I have to go back to person who quoted from the official guidelines in siting such a centre. I cant believe that no-one has commented on the obvious

"A suitable location for a service will depend on exactly what service is to be offered and how it will be used… Locating drug service in an area with an active drug market may put your service users at risk"

Considering this advice, I repeat whats being proposed - a needle exchange for chaotic drug users who are NOT in treatment, less than 60 seconds from main drug trade?? If this doesn’t constitute a risk I don’t know what does. A non residential drug treatment centre may seem like a good idea, but some of the arguments on this thread see to be very misguided in the belief that having one with a needle exchange will lessen the problem of chaotic drug users in the area, if they are coming here from all around the borough to get clean needles so they can carry-on using..

Is it really such an enormous leap of the imagination to see how this would end up.??

It is SLaMs refusal to even acknowledge this significant concern, amongst others, that is generating so much distrust amongst local residents.I want to make that clear. For the residents, the argument must at least be considered. To dismiss it outright, is arrogant, naïve, and downright stupid.

 

[Blagsta]

I'll ask again - has the needle exchange at The Harbour at Loughborough Junction led to more problems in the area?

 

[netbob]

"A suitable location for a service will depend on exactly what service is to be offered and how it will be used… Locating drug service in an area with an active drug market may put your service users at risk"

As I understand it the groups representing the service users for the centre are in favour of this site, including the ex user who spoke in favour at the CPCG meeting as well as several posts on this thread. Also as I read the guidelines, user safety is a consideration to be taken into account, not a defacto reason for refusal. Since the service users have been consulted and are in favour, is this still and issue?

Considering this advice, I repeat whats being proposed - a needle exchange for chaotic drug users who are NOT in treatment, less than 60 seconds from main drug trade?? If this doesn’t constitute a risk I don’t know what does. A non residential drug treatment centre may seem like a good idea, but some of the arguments on this thread see to be very misguided in the belief that having one with a needle exchange will lessen the problem of chaotic drug users in the area, if they are coming here from all around the borough to get clean needles so they can carry-on using..

This is precisely why a needle exchange is needed. I don’t know about you, but I regularly see disguarded needles and other drug paraphernalia lying around on the streets of brixton. A needle exchange is surely the best way of removing such items from circulation. It also exposes people to treatment services.

 

[JayDee2005]

As I understand it the groups representing the service users for the centre are in favour of this site, including the ex user who spoke in favour at the CPCG meeting as well as several posts on this thread...Since the service users have been consulted and are in favour, is this still and issue?.

Regardless of who wants it, there is are SERIOUS CONCERNS in the local area about the impact a NEEDLE EXCHANGE will have. This is a specific concern to do with the needle exchange, not the entire centre itself. And those who live close by are, rightly in my opinion dismayed that their concerns are not being listened to or dealt with properly. Instead what happens is exactly what you've done here. There is a real tendency to glaze over the argument, or absorb it into another one, or sideline it altogether, in exactly this way.

There is undisputable evidence from existing centres including the one in Camden that such need exchanges do cause serious issues. SLaM have not been able to disprove this, and this is one of the reasons the PAC comittee were not convinced by SLaM's insistence and that Brighton Terrace is a suitable location. It appears that they hadn't really thought this kind of thing through.

Also as I read the guidelines, user safety is a consideration to be taken into account, not a defacto reason for refusal

Precisely. Safety does need to be taken into account. These guidelines exist for a reason. They arent abstact. Just because they're not statutory, it doesnt mean they can or should be ignored. This is pretty arrogant of SLaM who seem to override such advice. Talking to local opposers, this kind of arrogance is what they have seen a great deal of, and are very concerned about in relation to the behaviour of project sponsors in general, who insist they know best, and that their view in this should override everything else.

I have been to some of the local meetings and there is evidence, albeit anecdotal. that SLaMs isnt managing what are legit concerns and worries from the BT Community in a constructuve way. They tend to simply deny residents their right to have such concerns. What residents see as at stake is not just the safety of the users, but also the safety of those who live in immediate surroundings.

This is precisely why a needle exchange is needed. I don’t know about you, but I regularly see disguarded needles and other drug paraphernalia lying around on the streets of brixton. A needle exchange is surely the best way of removing such items from circulation. It also exposes people to treatment services.

No, sorry - but there are already two big outdoor medical waste disposal bins in prominent locations in Bernays Grove and Brighton Terrace. And they havent thus far proved the effectiveness of the claim that such facilities reduce the problem. If you want an indication of whether a needle exchange will clean up the area, look at the impact these have had already on the current 'local' problem. I.E. None whatsoever.

Its also an interesting point to note that sponsors of the project have been remarkably quiet about the existence of these facilities, because, if you scrutinise it, the evidence is not good. On the Planning Application Committee meeting of Sept 6th, they even tried to deny their existence all together. This was a rather awkward moment. Now this could just have been deliberately duplicitous, or it could have been a mistake, or lack of awareness. Even if it is the latter, it further underlines the claims of local residents that the people who want to try to force this centre through are not at all in touch with the specific characteristics of Brigthon Terrace, which is another one of their complaints.

 

[JayDee2005]

Moving on...

Something that Bob said in response to Louloubelle's first hand and largely negative experince of what happens at a similar project:


Louloubelle - "Certainly many of the addicts were on methadone, but they didn't want methadone, they wanted heroin and there was a lot of dealing going on just outside the DDU and the needle exchange (much more so at the needle exchange)."

Bob (in response) - "The Stockwell Project (which treats heroin users among others) is the closest example we have of how the centre will work - and it is currently thought by residents in Stockwell not to cause problems - and this is why the 'Stockwell Partnership' has specifically written to support the Brighton Terrace centre. I can't speak for the place that Louloubelle worked at but it seems to me that the Stockwell Project is the closest example we have of what will happen..."


Bob. This is almost exactly the standard line that has been heard from the project sponsors at the public meetings. Its possible that you are not an independent commentator on this? If so, I think people on this forum should know exactly what your connection, and subsequently what your interests are. Do you have an affiliation to SLaM or one of the other bodies?

Lets just be honest about it and say that stockwell project is actually very different to the one poposed on Brigthon Terrace

It must be said that one of the reasons why the Stockwell project has been able to operate with apparent success is because of its scale. Its really small.
Another, is that its located on a busy main road (the A3) not tucked away on a residential side street, litterally, with the entrance to a childrens playground less than a 10 second walk away.
The proposed centre on B.T. is much much MUCH bigger and is that close to actively used childrens play facilities.

One could argue that a strategy of several smaller centres dotted around the area is currently and demostrably a successful one, based on evidence to date. If this is working, why do SLaM feel it necessary to deviate from this proven strategy in favour of a much larger centralised project that is unprecidented and largely experimental. It doesn’t demonstrate strategic thinking. Surely the intelligent thing to do is 'go with what you KNOW'

The real effects of a much much bigger proposed centre would have on the residents of the Brighton Terrance area cannot be known or predicted, because quite simply nothing else like it exists in a such a setting.

The stockwell project also doesn’t have a needle exchange, so I'm really amazed at your suggestion that "the Stockwell Project is the closest example we have of what will happen". I'm afraid that’s just not true! It's fundamentally different in this respect. Again, it really glazes over what is one of the principal concerns of the residents in the inclusion of the needle exchange in the proposal. And this is exactly the kind of thing that has caused them to loose trust and confidence of those behind the scheme. They dont like the way SLaM seems to want to at best downplay, at worst deceive people about this.

I have to say, I really can understand what they're worried about, when i read such responses