|
|
|
When you say re-offending, does that include simply using drugs? I agree for violent offences, they should be held without bail. If for simply using drugs, that's not possible unless we spend an ungodly amount of money. It's not just judges, you'd need more court rooms, prosecutors, support staff, prison space, operation cost for prisons. And the question comes where does this money come from? Where would you cut? Reality is most people would rather avoid downtown than divert money from Healthcare or education to fix it.
I'm ready to do drastic things. There's nuance in what I'm saying but it is time to start spending more on this issue. Where does the money come from, we're overdue for a PST. It is just dumb that we don't have one. Trying to do high-tax things like public healthcare and education in a low tax environment is just poor fiscal management.
The costs wouldn’t be cheap, but neither is our healthcare system, prison system, education, system, transit system, or any other public service that we have to fund.
And if it is tied to solving the problem, I think people will pay for it. Too often these promises of higher taxes to "solve" these issues but the issue doesn't improve and the additional taxes collected simply become the new baseline. That's why when people say increase housing density will lower taxes, yet taxes keep going up above inflation. If someone raises taxes and says the problem will be solved in 5 years, if not, then taxes will be cut by the equivalent amount it was raised, people would go for it.
What if, a PST were tied specifically to this? I think if the NDP wanted to try a moon shot, they put a PST on the table and say it will, specifically, be spent on this.
I don't really think that is true. They incur costs when they access the healthcare system, and maybe utilize some public safety services. Realistically, a 24/7 healthcare facility to hold these people would be incredibly expensive, and each individual will likely live longer. If it was so cheap to do, you wouldn't see cities like LA spend billions on the problem, without it getting much better.
You dismissing the cost of people not wanting to be downtown (whether that's living, spending time after work, or coming downtown for a night out. Not to mention peace officers moving them along, police investigating and arresting users and dealers, dispatching fire crews for overdoses, the healthcare costs of keeping someone alive in hospital who has overdosed. The system is doing a lot anyways.
But what's the cost of avoiding downtown? Are they simply spending money elsewhere? There's also an argument if people really are avoiding downtown. Beltline has had a huge increase in residents, Vancouver downtown real estate is incredibly expensive despite the drug problem. I'm not denying those costs exist, but if we spend 100 million building the facilities for these people, will a equal part of the budget be cut from the police? from ambulance services? Very unlikely for those cost savings to be realized.
I don't believe those savings can be realized. We are not going to reduce spending on those public services. If it really was the case we can save money while building these facilities, seems like we can do this without any increase in taxes. Which begs the question why not a single North American city has effectively saved money while resolving their homelessness or drug issues.
