Gravity's done a lot of work around Calgary. Sad for the loss.
|
|
|
Urban Development and Proposals Discussion
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Red Star
Active Member
How do you know that? You live in Marda Loop and drive to the University every day. You're completely removed from the reality of the homeless crisis. You don't live and work in the Beltline. You don't have to walk by a machete wielding shirtless man practicing Tai-Chi and yelling at the top of his lungs in fluent Crack-a-nese on your way to work. You don't have have to walk by people ODing. You don't have to worry about the safety of your girlfriend walking to your place at night. No. You live in Disneyland. Please save the sermon for the next faculty cocktail party. Regular people with 9-5 jobs like myself don't appreciate being proselytized to.
I think the issue with our society is that too many people in power have a luxury belief system and never have to live with the ramifications of their ideology. I wish every politician and their family could live across the street the the DIC and Alpha House for one month.
Chinook Arch
Active Member
Housing is part of the solution, and I am all for the various levels of government throwing money at some sort of housing solution.
Anyone who thinks housing is going to fix the homeless problem is living in dreamland.
It’s going to help some people, but there’s a large number of people it’s not going to help. That’s where things are going to get interesting. What’s the next step for the people housing doesn’t help?
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Heard about the Gravity guy last week, was going to post but wasn't 100% sure it was him. Know a few people there, sure it's a somber time for all of them.
Calgcouver
Active Member
Trent was an excellent guy, truly a tragedy and shame.
I agree not everyone will be able to be helped, but getting a proper housing program going, and see who's left after we've worked the housing program will get us a step further than we are. It'll be frustrating for a while. Homes will be damaged and abused, etc.. and it will be hard for the public to take, but it's a necessary step IMO.
Once we get help for the people who can be helped, it gets difficult. What do we do with that segment? forced rehab?
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Housing needs to be paired with treatment. The Vancouver examples of meth heads starting fires and flushing stuff down the toilets that affect the businesses below them are a good example why. If you are given housing, you need to be stable enough to not fuck it up for you and everyone else. Addiction is a bitch though, once you are that level you never fully kick it...
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I've said this before, give every resource possible to the people who want and or ask for help, spare no expense, it will be worth it. Housing, treatment, etc. Just watched the quick little doc. on men in prison in the US making quilts, not to ruin it but one of the men loses the privilege of being able to participate in that program, reward good behaviour in this housing and punish poor behaviour.
On the subject of what to do with the difficult few... At some point, the majority of people need to be prioritized over the few. I hate to bring this up as I enjoy that it is becoming less and less part of conversations but the government could restrict access to places based on vaccination status because in the Canadian Charter it protects the majority from the few. That same thinking needs to be applied here, also what exactly are you protecting them from by not putting them into a facility? In there they'll be protected from themselves and the people who don't really care about them and are happy to profit off of their addiction. Afterall, public consumption of drugs is illegal.
On the subject of what to do with the difficult few... At some point, the majority of people need to be prioritized over the few. I hate to bring this up as I enjoy that it is becoming less and less part of conversations but the government could restrict access to places based on vaccination status because in the Canadian Charter it protects the majority from the few. That same thinking needs to be applied here, also what exactly are you protecting them from by not putting them into a facility? In there they'll be protected from themselves and the people who don't really care about them and are happy to profit off of their addiction. Afterall, public consumption of drugs is illegal.
Last edited:
100% needs to be paired with treatment, also I strongly believe that screening needs to be done before housing people. There's no point in putting someone who's beyond help or extremely difficult to help, into a home. Not only does it not help that type of person, but it ruins it for others who can use the housing.
For sure. At some point a decision has to be made with what to do with those who can't be helped. I mentioned forced rehab, mainly because it's probably the best of the remaining solutions. Other options would be jail or left on the street. Neither of those are better.
Some question people's rights and freedoms around forced rehab, but we already do that with the mentally ill. We do it with them, because it's the only reasonable option.
trtcttc
Senior Member
Agree with the screening, but actually defining the screening criteria is very difficult, and opens to a lot of potential lawsuits and advocacy from organizations involved in this space. Claims of bias against certain groups, lack of options for others, etc. makes it much easier to keep the DIC where it's just a free for all with very limited exceptions.
Forced rehab should be done, but it'll only work in a few specific cases, there's just too many people that need it compared to the funding available. Unless non-rehab people are ok with the government diverting healthcare resources from other areas to build more forced rehab spaces, which is very unlikely. Providing all these services are very expensive, and frankly I think society's compassion and willingness to help also has its limits.
I don't believe the screening would be an issue TBH. We already do screening for various subsidized housing. This would be a level down from the current housing options that have screening, but the precedent exists. You're probably right about the advocacy groups complaining.
I agree about the costs of forced rehab. I think people would be against spending the money, but if it can be framed as a way to get homeless people off the street at the same cost as what they're likely already spending, it may sway people.
If we can get a decent lists of current costs that include everything including costs such as strain on health care system or police services, general public safety, the potential for more transit use if the problem was dealt with, etc..
Last edited:
InfrastructureEnthusiast
Active Member
I seen to recall reading about an old unused mining or forestry camp that was up for sale. I tried searching but couldn't find the story, maybe someone here knows what I'm referring to?
But a repurposed work camp seems like it would be a cost effective way of housing a rehab center. Would offer most of the services needed and would be far outside the city.
Or perhaps it could be a good way of putting some of the smaller dying farm towns to good use. Don't recall the names off hand but I remember reading about a few places with $10,000 homes back in the early 2000s.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Issue with this list is that it includes things that are the responsibility of different levels of government. Need everyone pulling on the same rope, could be difficult to convince the province that the city saving money on policing is a good thing while they spend more on healthcare. The issue costs policing resources but the root cause is a healthcare issue so it is a little complicated.
Definitely complicated. The other approach would be to try and combat the root of the issue, in the end another approach that is difficult to solve and comes with costs.