Is our City safe?

 

If you have a stable family and regular job, the odds are that your closest brush with crime will be the unsolicited offers showing up in your inbox. According to figures released last month by Statistics Canada, Toronto’s rate of violent crime was the eighth lowest out of nine Canadian cities with populations over half a million. In terms of property crime and the total crime rate, our rate was the lowest. Overall Toronto is the safest large city in Canada.

 

Thinking of moving to a smaller town to avoid crime? Don’t. A newly published study of police-reported data shows that smaller urban centres have a crime rate on average 43% higher than in large urban areas.

 

But for those without stable families or regular jobs, reality is different. Statisticians find a firm link between criminal behaviour and unemployment, age and addiction. On the other hand, the correlation between mental illness and violence is very low.

 

As a society, you and I have decided that treatment for mental health is best outside of institutions. We have also decided to put funding for health and policing as the top priorities in provincial and municipal spending.

 

Our city’s social safety net is one of the most comprehensive in the country. It offers shelters and outreach workers. Medical attention is available from public health, meals from charitable organizations and community resources are financed through grant programs.

 

For those who decide to act unsocially the police have a number of tools. If anyone is ‘soliciting in an aggressive manner,’ then Police can hassle, ticket and otherwise discourage such behaviour through the Safe Streets Act. Charges under the Act have risen from 368 in 2004, to about 1 250 in 2006, and will probably exceed 2 200 this year. The downtown Police division sees enforcement of the Act as a priority.

 

So was the murder committed a couple of weeks ago by four youth soliciting money simply a crime of opportunity? Or was it a symptom of some greater problem that needs attention?

 

Almost immediately two opposite viewpoints hit the talk shows and news groups. One is that our governments have “essentially done nothing” to address the problem of aggressive soliciting.  It is position held by a number of downtown merchants and in the hospitality industry. As one Councillor said “It's been out of control for quite some time and it continues to escalate out of control.”

 

The other side has stepped up to the media with their position: "Toronto's a compassionate city and it doesn't believe in punishing people … for their situation."

 

Lost in all of the debate is a review of what could be done to have prevented the crime. Since serious charges will need to be proven in court, making major policy decisions based on this case are best left until a jury has reached its verdict.

 

At the same time it is fair to review what Toronto is doing to address both the underlying social need, and what many see as antisocial activity. In the last couple of years the City has stepped up its strategy to find homes for those without shelter.  Continued coordination of services and sensitivity to the underlying problems remain the practical and realistic foundations to this approach.

 

We have also made progress in acknowledging that certain activities are unacceptable. Examples include sleeping in Nathan Philips Square, blocking sidewalks and aggressive solicitation. As long as we continue to invest to help those less fortunate, it is important to strike a balance by ensuring that activity that we define as antisocial is not condoned.