News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.4K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8K     4 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.7K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

My main issue with housing first is there is a significant chunk of the homeless population is unwilling or uncapable of following basic rules, leading to chaos for everyone nearby. Here in Vancouver, some druggies were starting fires in the SROs every couple weeks (via genius moves like using a blowtorch to do meth indoors, or creating a jerry rigged charging system for their stolen ebike collection). This closed down nearby businesses and in general many people started to avoid Granville Street. If this type of person is getting free housing, free food, free everything on the taxpayer dime, then we should do the rest of society a favor and move them somewhere far outside the city where they aren't going to harm everyone else along the way.

As a society, we've become unwilling to enforce any sort of lasting consequences for the subset of homeless people who are anti-social "agents of chaos". All compassion and no toughness is just called foolishness. We need to be both compassionate for those who need help and tough to those who are abusing the system. And if we can reduce the anti-social behavior that's harming communities, there will be more support and acceptance for programs giving housing and help for people who need it and appreciate it.
 
We have a winner! Thank you jhappy77 I couldn’t agree more with your statement. I’m all for assisting the people who need it most and want/willing to be helped. Those that are agents of chaos and do not want any assistance should be forcibly removed from our streets and exiled as would have been the case in years gone by. No time or patience for these types of people anymore.
 
jhappy77 said:
My main issue with housing first is there is a significant chunk of the homeless population is unwilling or uncapable of following basic rules, leading to chaos for everyone nearby. Here in Vancouver, some druggies were starting fires in the SROs every couple weeks (via genius moves like using a blowtorch to do meth indoors, or creating a jerry rigged charging system for their stolen ebike collection). This closed down nearby businesses and in general many people started to avoid Granville Street. If this type of person is getting free housing, free food, free everything on the taxpayer dime, then we should do the rest of society a favor and move them somewhere far outside the city where they aren't going to harm everyone else along the way.

As a society, we've become unwilling to enforce any sort of lasting consequences for the subset of homeless people who are anti-social "agents of chaos". All compassion and no toughness is just called foolishness. We need to be both compassionate for those who need help and tough to those who are abusing the system. And if we can reduce the anti-social behavior that's harming communities, there will be more support and acceptance for programs giving housing and help for people who need it and appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I think the trick would be to do as good of a screening process as you can when to decide who moves in. There's no question, not all homeless people can be helped, by housing, or any method really, but if we can get the ones who can be helped into housing and separated from the rest, it's a good start.
Of course it's all easier said than done. I'm not sure what has been done in Vancouver. Maybe they tried to screen people before housing them as well?
 
Last edited:
Silence&Motion said:
This is blatantly false. The issue is not that society's too full of bleeding heart liberals. The police are constantly harassing homeless people.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Silence&Motion said:
Are you suggesting that Vancouver is somehow an easy place to find affordable housing? I accept that drugs are a big part of the problem, but housing is also part of the problem. There are plenty of people with addictions who live seemingly stable lives in a private home, but they're only one eviction away from ending up on the streets and becoming completely consumed by their addiction. The tighter the housing market, the more likely that eviction becomes. It's not a complete coincidence that the places with the most expensive housing also have the largest homeless populations.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Chinook Arch said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
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...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Mountain Man said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Surrealplaces said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Surrealplaces said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top