The Imperial Street Divide: Legitimate Concern or NIMBYism in Burnaby?

Burnaby’s Imperial Street has become a major flashpoint in the regional debate over how to solve homelessness. The proposed project at 5389 Imperial Street—a five-to-six-storey building featuring 40 supportive studio homes and 10 "complex-care" units—has split the community down the middle.

While the city and province frame this as an essential humanitarian step, a massive opposition movement led by groups like Burnaby Matters has gathered over 14,000 signatures to stop it. The central question looming over the project is a difficult one: Are these residents raising real, evidence-based concerns, or is this just another case of "Not In My Backyard"?

The Residents' Case: A Crisis of Trust

To many observers, community pushback looks like a simple lack of compassion. However, the opposition in Burnaby is increasingly rooted in a track record of failed promises by the government and BC Housing. Residents argue their concerns aren't theoretical; they are based on documented outcomes of similar projects.

1. The Shadow of Past Failures

Critics frequently point to the Marguerite Ford Apartments in Vancouver. Promised as a stable "Housing First" flagship, it instead generated over 700 police calls in its first 16 months. Neighbours saw an explosion of open drug dealing and violence, proving that without rigorous on-site management, "supportive" housing can quickly become a source of neighbourhood instability.

2. Proximity to Vulnerable Populations

The Imperial site is a short walk from Burnaby South Secondary School and several daycares. In a "low-barrier" model, harm reduction often includes on-site drug use. Parents worry that if the building's management is as loose as it has been in other B.C. projects, their children will be exposed to discarded needles and unpredictable behavior on their daily walk to school.

3. The Accountability Gap

In late 2025, the B.C. government was forced to launch a working group to address "problematic tenants" in supportive housing. They admitted that current laws (like the Residential Tenancy Act) make it nearly impossible for housing providers to evict residents who deal drugs or possess weapons inside the buildings. For neighbours on Imperial, this admission is a smoking gun: if the government admits it can’t control dangerous individuals inside, how can they guarantee safety outside?

The Counter-Argument: Stability is Safety

On the other side, the City of Burnaby and BC Housing argue that doing nothing is the most dangerous option of all.

* Ending Encampments: Proponents argue that bringing people indoors with 24/7 staffing and Fraser Health oversight is far safer for the public than leaving individuals in unmanaged street encampments.

* The Complex Care Difference: Unlike traditional shelters, these 10 "complex-care" units are designed for those with the highest needs, offering medical and clinical stabilization that the street cannot provide.

* Addressing the Crisis: With homelessness rates rising across Metro Vancouver, every municipality is being asked to step up. Proponents argue that if every neighbourhood says "not here," the crisis will only continue to spill into parks and public transit.

Is it NIMBYism or Due Diligence?

When we label a community "NIMBY," we suggest they are selfishly blocking progress. But in Burnaby, the conversation is more nuanced. Residents aren't just saying "no"; they are asking for specific safety guarantees that the government has historically failed to provide.

They look at the 1,700 empty supportive units currently sitting damaged and unmaintained across the province and ask: "Why build a new one in my neighbourhood if you can’t manage the ones you already have?"

The Imperial Street debate is no longer just about housing; it’s a referendum on government competence. Until BC Housing can prove that their buildings won't become the next Marguerite Ford, residents will continue to view "supportive housing" as a threat to their community’s well-being rather than a solution to a social ill.

What do you think? Is the government’s track record enough to justify the neighbourhood’s resistance, or is the need for housing so dire that we must move forward regardless?

Opposition to supportive housing development

https://youtu.be/b4mGOEvB0ig