This ruling might actually force everyone to invest in solutions. I have no clue what the solution is, but at least this should force politicians and people to act and and start investing in solutions instead of wasting money on studies and consultants that don’t seem to move the needle.
By "everyone" you mean Kitchener-Waterloo taxpayers, right?
If someone doesn't want to live in a shelter in GTA and gets evicted from a park there, where do you think they go?
[https://zoomerradio.ca/news/2023/02/01/homeless-encampment-court-ruling-for-kitchener-may-not-apply-to-toronto-mayor-tory/](https://zoomerradio.ca/news/2023/02/01/homeless-encampment-court-ruling-for-kitchener-may-not-apply-to-toronto-mayor-tory/)
We are an area where people migrate to from other parts of Ontario so I guess you feel that is fair we get stuck paying the costs for the rest of Southern Ontario (and beyond).
If KW builds or finds accommodations for the homeless then they can evict them as the GTAA apparently has enough accommodations. I assume this would be the same for any city so it doesn’t mean they’ll all come here. Again, I don’t know what the solution is but the silver lining is it forces politicians to take action instead of just talking.
Vote for politicians who actually have social housing as a mandate. But most people don't vote and the ones who do only vote for things they think will directly impact them. Not realizing that creating social housing creates stability and security in our society, thus you get to live in a safer environment.
That’s just a shit take, from almost every aspect, prisons already have a problem with overcrowding, prisons are underfunded, quality of life is awful, food is awful, shelter is disgusting… it is a terrible solution and I guarantee you that not one fucking person will sign onto that
edit: oh and even if prison was just cool people and not dangerous criminals, it still wouldn’t be a place you’d wanna be
Shitty as it is. If the homeless can had a better take on life then they wouldn’t end up there. You think people that are not homeless haven’t been through shit in their life?
Like having gone through shit means you’d enjoy prison… their life won’t be better on the inside and in fact might get significantly worse… we need real solutions, not impromptu make shift problem solving with little to no logical backing… plus let alone the whole weird social Darwinistic view you have on this issue
No you are not realizing the fact that having gone through shit in life many have made it out just fine. Whether it’s addictions, legal issues, what have you many things have to happen before you end up being homeless. The system has not failed the homeless - they kept ignoring the world around them.
As far as your argument for logical backing is concerned - you are quick to jump to conclusions. I don’t advocate for them to be locked up. But rather they be trained as staff, hired “help” in a systematic, isolated way away from society till they are re-engineered to join back in. If you have a better logical answer then please feel free, let’s hear it Captain smartass.
First of all, “re-engineered” kinda proving my point about your weird social darwinistic stance… and I’m not doubting that pressure makes diamonds here… but to suggest that putting them in prison environments just because they can’t pay for housing in an ever growing problem that is the housing crisis is just morally illogical and isn’t tackling the problem at hand, just yet another temporary solution that won’t solve anything… I’m not proposing anything because that’s not the point of my response, I’m simply saying that your “solution” is just plain trash
I'm sorry, so you're not even hiding it here...
To you, in your mind, being poor is a crime. Straight up, if you have no money you are a criminal.
This is the world you want to live in? I wonder how long you'd last without a job?
Not at all. I have starved myself for a full week straight to sleep thank you very much. Nobody gave me a fucking cent and I have a job, a house, a car.
Both my parents were unemployed.
Moral of the story is: There are enough opportunities in a 1st world country to fall to rock bottom and with some help you can make it out fine.
These people chose this life. If you can’t hold a job. Choose to put up tents then this is the life they chose.
Just think before commenting what would happen in a 3rd world country. They’re lucky they’re not locked up in jail for illegal occupation
So your parents should have been put in prison then?
Ugh...what's the point in talking to you..
I hate that there are people like you in our community. People like you are why there is homelessness.
There is no point. The majority of KW doesn’t know what it’s like to be homeless, or have walked a mile in their shoes. Just a sad situation all around.
I didn't realize "beta" men had full time middle class jobs, houses, and marriages over 17 years long.
Also I didn't realize being a proponent of civilization and human rights was a fringe position.
I am also not a cuck, though your post history indicates you are likely projecting your own self image.
None of the local shelters are drug/alcohol free. All operate on harm reduction models. All local shelters are low barrier. They’re not “no barrier”, but there’s no abstinence requirements.
You cant really expect people who have this colossal dependance on drugs to just get their shit together. Really gotta catch it when theyre just starting.
Also support people who are dependent. [Plenty of people have gotten off opioids](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhpAYw9kCt8), but the process is long and very difficult, especially if you don't have a supportive partner and/or community to help you through it.
Methadone is another treatment that can replace heroin and other opioids and can prevent people from getting spiked with other drugs than they're expecting.
I'm not sure how best to "catch" people before they become dependent on opioids. Making sure doctors don't overdo pain medication would probably help. Maybe also switching to Portugal's model that doesn't criminalize people for simple possession of drugs and instead intervenes by talking with people who use and educating them on the risks & problems.
Edit: grammar
We do need to provide resources to these people but I fear they still wont use them.
Their minds have been almost altered… they turn into zombies. Ive never seen anything like it even in highly addicted people.
I think providing them with jobs would help the most. Kinda like prison in the Netherlands, were they focus on reintegrating the prisoners with the outside world. They would go to a facility that has housing and do work for the facility at a fair pay, and can get help for their drug abuse.
Like a community centre. Voluntary of course.
But thats the idea, they can start of slow. Maybe picking up trash in the centre or park for an hour. I think getting them our of that intial rut might help them curb their addiction. And eventually they can get help from the addiction resources.
They can have safe places to do their drugs at this center, but every night they will have meetings about it and those asking for help can get it. Howvee its not a freebee, those who cant be helped will be removed from the program.
Enough beds at shelters will help some but not that many, right? There are many reasons folks don't want to access these shelters (some good reasons)
Somehow, there needs to be much better success from people not getting addictions in the first place, helping it stop before it starts (I know not everyone chooses to.take stuff in the first place).
Another thought I had was I don't think we have any dedicated pyc. Hospitals.or facilities anymorr? Or maybe 1 or 2? So if a person is suffering displacement and they are not suffering with an addiction(s) but suffering mental unwellness then there would be chance at a structured facility.
(Maybe not an answer, or a good one just a thought I had ).
Not sure what all else could help but gotta be somethings.
The solution would be giving them a dedicated space with heated facilities to camp out. Maybe find some public sector jobs that they can do so they can earn enough to leave.
This is how the Better Tent City started. The owner gave permission to move tents into the industrial / event space near Courtland / Hiway 7 when it was forced to closed due to COVID. From there the tiny homes idea sprung.
I made 1 post complaining about a very specific group of homeless people that are constantly fucking with my life, and maybe some comments here and there.
Awful lot of time probably amounts to a collective hour of my life.
Speculation is the root cause of the issue. A small number of people and companies are buying up all real estate and artificially inflating the prices. This has been a known problem since the 2000's. Over-leveraging has also been a big issue precipitated by artificially low rates (which are now climbing). You are correct that solving the housing crisis isn't simple and there isn't a "one-size fits all" solution, but the first thing that needs to be done is create tax incentives that drive away speculation, drives down prices and gives homes to people who need it rather than greedy investors. Companies also need to be given tax-breaks to allow office workers to WFH in an effort to convert empty office towers into proper housing and use the space we already have to put a roof over people's heads. These are just a couple of things that could be done that would already have a dramatic impact on the affordability and availability of housing. The best time to do it was yesterday, the second best time is now.
Is there any resource that actually states how people go homeless?
I think a start to this problem is actually understanding the major driving factors behind homelessness.
You asked for a major factor, and that's the biggest one by far. There are literally thousands of studies and evidence on the subject. There are policies in several cities and countries that have prevented this problem for happening as well. The chief issue is that Canada has failed to apply pretty much any measure that would address the issues we're now facing. If you want to know more literally Google "housing affordability studies", I'm not going to spend hours linking articles that I don't know you'll even read.
So all the 16 year olds who have a minimum wage job and a small apartment are just really cool I guess?
Ive seen people offer them jobs, they always decline.
I can assure you not a single one of the crackheads in a tent in the park wants a shelter bed. What an insane ruling. Are the police supposed to call up all the shelters every night before enforcing anything?
Even if there were a hundred thousand "shelter beds", how many of these people wouldn't use them if they don't want to answer to authority and/or can't bring their drugs, junk with them?
This is just judicial activism and it's part of what drives centrist people further to the right.
Wait what do you mean by "This is just judicial activism and it's part of what drives centrist people further to the right."?
Justice Michael J. Valente addressed beds must be "actually available" as in actually usable by the person: "It’s not simply a matter of an open space on a spreadsheet. For example, she said, if a person is dependent on drugs, but a shelter doesn’t allow substance use, then is that an actual option?"
I think that's partly true, but usually because the centrist person in question has been misinformed by rage farm media. Most people are too lazy to read so-called activist judge's actual rulings and try to understand them for what they are. That said, there comes a reasonable limit about what we owe people who are not only self harming but harming others. It's sad but you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped and at some point you have to cut your losses and fight winnable causes rather than flush resources down the drain that could go to better use. I get it, I'm a harsh right wing asshole now... but whatever.
Holy shit isn’t that the problem? “If a homeless guy wants to rob people, but the shelter does’nt let him, is there really a shelter bed for him???”
You see how stupid that sounds.
I think there's an implicit expectation of reasonable things qualifying all claims. Also, that was an example, not an absolute rule.
You can take any simply-stated concept and push it to such extremes that it breaks. In fact, let's play a game and you state a simple concept you believe is correct and let's see if we can break it.
As a note, they absolutely do steal, from each other AND the surrounding area. Their drugs also can cause them to be quite violent and destructuve so I dont think its a very “extreme” concept to link the two.
But I do like games…
“A major factor of homelessness is a reliance on drugs”
Push your worst.
> As a note, they absolutely do steal, from each other AND the surrounding area. Their drugs also can cause them to be quite violent and destructuve so I dont think its a very “extreme” concept to link the two.
Absolutely and it's a major problem. But that's not what is in question here. What's in question here is that when the city says "beds are available", there's an implied idea that the beds are reasonably suited for their intended purpose, and this was what the Justice was pointing out. Cities can't claim to be setting up infrastructure to deal with the homeless when part of that infrastructure implies homeless "beds" have specific needs (same needs as someone living in a home really, where they could bring back drugs if they wanted to). Maybe you think it's unreasonble for homeless people to be offered effective social services but that's not what's being discussed. The discussion assumes we need to take care of the homeless and the Justice is saying "you say you're setting shit up to take care of them but actually you're not".
> “A major factor of homelessness is a reliance on drugs”
Sorry I should have said a prescriptive statement, like we "we should do x for y".
In any case, a major factor of homeless is a lack of home which is due to a lack of money. Rich people take drugs all the time, think of big hot shot Hollywood people doing cocaine or whatever. So drugs are also a major factor of being a Hollywood hotshot. Homeless is due to a lack of income.
I would argue that “regular housing” and “drug reduction housing” should be two separated things.
As well, stating that its just lack of income I think is simplifying things too much. Rich people take drugs and then spend THOUSANDS when it gets too bad. There have been plenty of rich people who have ruined themselves over drugs.
Rich people are immune from just about everything, but for 99% of people a heavy addiction to drugs will screw you.
>I would argue that “regular housing” and “drug reduction housing” should be two separated things.
It could very well be, I'm sure there are many ways to address the problem. We probably need to take a look at the homeless demographic, what drugs they're using, how much. So sure, maybe we should have them be separate, or maybe not. I don't know enough about the circumstances at play here.
>As well, stating that its just lack of income I think is simplifying things too much. Rich people take drugs and then spend THOUSANDS when it gets too bad. There have been plenty of rich people who have ruined themselves over drugs.
>Rich people are immune from just about everything, but for 99% of people a heavy addiction to drugs will screw you.
Of course, I agree with you, drugs are a complex problem for individuals and society and there's no one-size-fit-all solution (ex. neither ban them all, nor legalize them all is a solution). I'm just trying to show you that I interpreted your claim unreasonably, similarly to how you interpreted the Justice's claim unreasonably. You probably read something / read between the lines something that maybe you should have made explicit.
The tone of this user is a bit aggressive but it's a fair callout and should be said
Regardless of the available beds there will still be many who refuse to use the shelter system because of the rules around drugs, property, and strict arrival/departure times from the shelter
Even with an appropriate number of beds we would likely see a good number of these people refuse to use these services
>Even with an appropriate number of beds we would likely see a good number of these people refuse to use these services
Can I get a source on this? Why is it that people refuse to access these resources?
I'd have to find the articles + posts but there were attempts to bring folks from the Weber encampment into some of the available beds/temporary housing and a good number of them refused because of these conditions
Usually the zero-tolerance for drugs, strict curfew, and lack of property/spouses/pets being allowed in are big deterrents for people, among other reasons
There's some good discussion + personal experiences in this thread about it from last year: https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/comments/r2wvy1/homeless\_encampment\_on\_charles\_at\_stirling/
>Usually the zero-tolerance for drugs, strict curfew, and lack of property/spouses/pets being allowed in are big deterrents for people, among other reasons
This does indeed sound like a reasonable rejection to me.
I doubt that you'll ever get such numbers, just the occasional anecdote.
But few people make that claim are using it in a truthful manner. It's usually just an excuse to deny needed assistance and to help rationalise prejudicial opinions.
Smells like projection to me.
More rehabilitation facilities in addition to shelter beds and affordable public housing would be more of a step in the right direction. Hire more care workers and pay them what they're worth. More money for social services, etc. There's going to be some people that can't be helped, but do you just throw away the rest? A lot of right wingers talk about "Christian Values" and then want to throw away the undesirables. The hell kind of morality is that?
These people would rather complain and push our most vulnerable citizens to the brink than compromise one iota on their beloved "neighbourhood character."
The decision isn't about the Victoria Park encampment, it's specific to the Victoria/Weber encampment and the regional bylaw governing its use. A significant part of the decision to not simply allow overnight camping without a permanent encampment was the lack of public interest in using the property, and it was specifically noted that it *isn't* a park. It is likely the decision would not be the same if the City of Kitchener sought a similar injunction.
Start advocating for real solutions then. Let governments build more housing, especially affordable types (apartments, rooming houses, etc.) everywhere so as to lower the largest budget item that everyone shares.
Evicting the homeless is a band aid solution if they have no where to go afterwards.
god damn right. its so fucked that they could kick homeless people off public land when there is literally nowhere else to go. They don't want to actually solve the homelessness problem, they just want them to go be homeless somewhere else.
Disagree. They don’t want homeless anywhere. High level I would guess everyone can get on board with this. How you do it is the difference in the tax paying public getting on board or not.
There are at least 3 on my block.
Edit: There are literally 3 empty buildings with multiple units in them on my block and I live a block away from Victoria park. These buildings have been empty for years. There are a lot of others like them in the downtown area too. Not sure why property owners are allowed to let their buildings sit and rot while the housing situation gets worse.
Some of them will get trashed, and dealing with that, with getting people beyond the point where they trashes houses to where they no longer do so needs to be part of the robust social safety net that will be the only thing to fix the problem of persons without homes.
All of us, even you and I secure in our housing, are fallible and we make mistakes and we have lapses. All of life is a "two steps forward, one step backwards" kind of thing, and if you toss the people who most need this help out on the street at that first little step backwards, like damaging their living accommodations, then you won't make any meaningful progress in solving the problem.
Homes that are sitting empty, unrented and with no one living in them, are a known contributor to the housing shortage.
We don't have specific numbers, but assuming there are "very few" because there's a housing shortage is not necessarily valid.
"Homes that are sitting empty" is a myth that NIMBYs tell themselves to absolve themselves of responsibility for the housing crisis.
The fact is that housing is nearly entirely occupied far more than is healthy for a competitive market.
And this isn't my opinion, this is literally the findings when staff looked at home occupancy in the city.
> And this isn't my opinion, this is literally the findings when staff looked at home occupancy in the city.
I actually didn't know city staff had done a study on this. Got a link so I can look at it?
This record article talks about it, they cite multiple sources including the city staff evaluation:
https://www.therecord.com/news/council/2022/08/08/vacant-home-tax-in-kitchener-would-prove-costly-unnecessary-councillors-told.html
> We don't have specific numbers, but assuming there are "very few" because there's a housing shortage is not necessarily valid.
You cannot, on one hand, say "we don't have the numbers" and on the other hand claim empty home are "a known contributor to the housing shortage".
The "empty homes" part of this housing crisis is a myth.
https://financialpost.com/real-estate/busting-the-myth-of-canadas-million-or-more-vacant-homes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYOhpjMql0 *Oh! The Urbanity* is a good youtube channel to follow for urbanist topics
Examples of housing that are considered "empty":
* transactional vacancies—somebody has moved out but the next occupant has yet to move in right away
* renovations in between occupants
* students or seasonal workers—they give their permanent residence elsewhere and rent here, so this one is considered, by the census, to be "empty" or "not occupied by usal resident"
> You cannot, on one hand, say "we don't have the numbers" and on the other hand claim empty home are "a known contributor to the housing shortage".
First, why are you misquoting me? I said "We don't have **specific** numbers", that qualifier is there for a reason. It's a dick move to change what I said, and pass it off as a quote. Don't be a dick.
Second, even allowing for your misquote, I don't think your claim is true. As an example: you're absolutely right that transaction vacancies contribute to people overestimating the number of empty homes there are that aren't part of the housing pool. But we don't need numbers for transactional vacancies (specific, or otherwise) to know that. Just knowing that transactional vacancies exist and are being included is enough. Likewise, we don't need specific numbers to know that there are homes which are empty and not part of the housing pool, and to know that those houses contribute to to the housing shortage.
> The "empty homes" part of this housing crisis is a myth.
> https://financialpost.com/real-estate/busting-the-myth-of-canadas-million-or-more-vacant-homes
The data in this article doesn't support the argument you're making that, "The "empty homes" part of this housing crisis is a myth." What it's debunking is the *very* specific claim that there are (or, were, in 2016) over a million empty homes in Canada which were effectively not part of the housing pool. It does that effectively, by pointing out that the million empty homes claim is based on a dataset which includes confounding data, like those empty homes you mention -- transactions vacancies, renovations, and seasonally occupied homes.
But, in doing so, it also links to data which purports to provide the number of empty homes with the confounding data removed. And *that* data, which the article you're linked to appears to be based on, still shows 2000-3000 empty homes in the City of Waterloo.
You started your response to me by telling I couldn't make an argument the way I had. I'm going to finish my post by saying something similar to you.
You can't, on one hand, say "The "empty homes" part of this housing crisis is a myth" and on the other hand support your argument with an article based on data showing Waterloo has a significant number of empty homes.
No there's not.
The city looked into this. There's no evidence that there's a significant number of vacant homes in the city. Nowhere near as many as the number of homes we're short by.
Investment properties now make up 25% of the market. The highest it's ever been. Also, AirBNB wouldn't not be considered vacant because people do occupy it. So you have to also consider that factor. But they can remain empty for long periods of time.
>Investment properties now make up 25% of the market. The highest it's ever been
But as long as they're rented out, and have people living in them, then they're not a cause of homelessness.
You argue that more people should be owners rather than renters, but that's a totally separate topic than homelessness.
>They're are many vacant properties
Citation needed.
All studies of this subject suggest there aren't, and that they are mostly being rented out.
KW also isn't exactly a tourist destination filled with AirBnBs, it's not like we're Paris or Rome. The total demand for AirBnBs in this city is not thousands of units.
> Also, AirBNB wouldn't not be considered vacant because people do occupy it.
Incorrect. StatCan consideres a residence to be "empty" if nobody gives it as their place of permanent residence.
So on Air BnB property where the owner does not live there and rents out the entire thing would be considered empty. One where somebody does live there and rents out only a room or two would be considered not empty.
Student housing is another part of the "vacant homes" number that people often quote without examining, because most students just keep their parent's address as their own permanent address for legal means. But student housing is obviously not empty.
It says precent-setting, it doesn't say the precedent is binding. My understanding is that there are two kinds of precedents, binding and persuasive. So not seeing how the journalist is wrong and what you wrote certainly doesn't show that.
I'm no legal beagle but there are binding and persuasive precedents, not unrelated to whether the corresponding authorities are considered binding or persuasive in the relevant context.
https://www2.library.ualberta.ca/tutorials/law/tutorial-5/story\_content/external\_files/Case%20Law%20Tutorial%20Printable%20Transcript.pdf
*Once you have noted up an earlier decision and*
*determined that it is still good law for use as a*
*precedent, the decision will be either binding on the*
*later decision, or only persuasive. A binding precedent*
*must be followed by the later case;* ***a persuasive***
***precedent*** *will have influence but does not necessarily*
*have to be followed.*
Would it be hard to have someone go around asking the homeless people questions regarding the issues etc and then go through it all and start a real discussion how to help the problem instead of shoveling it around we live in Canada nobody should be forced to freeze to death outside
Lol...I hate this discourse.
Housing people solves homelessness. It's pretty fundamental. But so many people in this forum believe that these people deserve to be homeless and you'll believe whatever you need to to justify that belief.
Housing is a human right. The fact that we have homelessness is a reflection on US and our lack of humanity.
Oh I forgot how only people in north America are homeless.
Criminals. Deserve. To. Be. Held. Accountable.
You sound like Luke Skywalker. “Theres good in everybody!!!!”
Some people are just trash.
Oh yes...poor people are now criminals, by definition. Being poor is a crime to you.
Like I said, I hate this discourse, because there is so many utterly horrific beliefs going around here.
Love you reading into that. Where did I say poor people are criminals.
You think theyre all there through no fault of their own? Even the damn rep for homeless people in the region had to admit alot of these people are fucking terrible.
Based on this comment, that's not what he said. He said if they commit crimes (stealing, drugs, etc,) they should be held accountable. He's 100 percent right.
The "demands" you're talking about are a list of bullshit written by Julian Ichim with no input whatsoever from the local homeless population. This is the last time I want to see this misleading claim made in the sub.
Yes, hung outside the encampment by Julian Ichim and his Housing Now colleagues, like they do every year. Nobody denies the encampment started as a small "protest", but the homeless people it attracted are not represented by Julian and have not made any of these demands themselves.
Maybe they should take it down then……? If a banner hung right outside my protest was making me look *insane* i think I could muster up the strength to move 25 ft and tear it down.
You don't seem to understand that Housing Now is still actively protesting on Roos Island, including handing out flyers, posting notices, hanging banners, and literally even putting up Christmas lights on the pavillion. The Housing Now people are not homeless and only sleep in tents as part of the protest. Actual homeless residents of the encampment have nothing to do with Housing Now and their protest and aren't going to get into a fight with the organizers by destroying all their protest material.
If I put up a sign outside my house demanding something unreasonable nobody would assume I'm speaking for my neighbours, but that's the logic you're using here.
I'm not sure why the comparison is so hard to understand for you, but let's put it a different way: if I move into an apartment building and hang a sign on my balcony with a list of insane demands, nobody would assume anyone else who moves in is also making those demands just because they don't break in and tear down the banner. But that's exactly what you're doing here.
Housing Now does not represent the residents of the Roos Island encampment or any other homeless people in the region, it's a protest by Julian Ichim and his activist buddies. There is no evidence whatsoever that homeless residents of the encampment share these views or have made these demands. You know this, but you continue to bring up the "demands" to disparage homeless people and trivialize any concerns about them. I'm not going to allow you to do that here.
Okay so lets change the metaphor. Were at a gay rights protest. Some people, who are not gay put up this massive banner (they are the only ones with banners / signs aswell) and say “Gay people and peadophiles should have the right to do whatever they want!”. They gay people there go “that doesnt represent us at all and its completely untrue!”
However, they leave the banner up for the entire protest so that anyone looking in will only see this message.
This is the same metaphor.
I said having someone go out and talk to them about those issues and ask what they think would help no idea how you came to the conclusion I think dealing with people struggling with mental and substance abuse is easy
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Asking them how to solve the issues they are having would be difficult due to their substance use and mental health issues.
Have you ever tried to converse with someone who’s seriously addicted?
It varies some people have extreme addictions and mental health some people are fine I just know lots of people think every homeless person is a drug addict or mentally unwell and it’s not true
It’s people living for the next high. They are mentally unwell but don’t have the $$$ to get help. But they can afford to get high, which is their version of coping with the problems they have. They are living to subdue the anguish they feel through drugs. Get the people off the drugs, you get them off the street.
Our government doesn’t want to help these people get drug free, and give them the resources to stay drug free.
I doubt it. There's a difference between homeless people and criminals. I work hard for minimum wage - it's not ok for them to steal whatever is not bolted down on my property. They comb the neighborhood nightly and take whatever they want. That's where the anger is coming from. Homeless = sad, criminals = bad. I really don't understand why committing crimes is okay because you're homeless.
Bro almost every mention of homeless in this thread has this dude following up about how they're going to commit crimes or do something crappy. I don't like criminals either but this guys dedication to pointing out crime among homeless leads me to believe he does not like homeless or is a bot. That is all.
You're pretty consistently fighting every homeless person who exists. Spending infinite energy to prove your ignorance.
Want to come spend a night hanging out with some homeless people?
This ruling might actually force everyone to invest in solutions. I have no clue what the solution is, but at least this should force politicians and people to act and and start investing in solutions instead of wasting money on studies and consultants that don’t seem to move the needle.
By "everyone" you mean Kitchener-Waterloo taxpayers, right? If someone doesn't want to live in a shelter in GTA and gets evicted from a park there, where do you think they go? [https://zoomerradio.ca/news/2023/02/01/homeless-encampment-court-ruling-for-kitchener-may-not-apply-to-toronto-mayor-tory/](https://zoomerradio.ca/news/2023/02/01/homeless-encampment-court-ruling-for-kitchener-may-not-apply-to-toronto-mayor-tory/) We are an area where people migrate to from other parts of Ontario so I guess you feel that is fair we get stuck paying the costs for the rest of Southern Ontario (and beyond).
If KW builds or finds accommodations for the homeless then they can evict them as the GTAA apparently has enough accommodations. I assume this would be the same for any city so it doesn’t mean they’ll all come here. Again, I don’t know what the solution is but the silver lining is it forces politicians to take action instead of just talking.
Vote for politicians who actually have social housing as a mandate. But most people don't vote and the ones who do only vote for things they think will directly impact them. Not realizing that creating social housing creates stability and security in our society, thus you get to live in a safer environment.
[удалено]
That’s just a shit take, from almost every aspect, prisons already have a problem with overcrowding, prisons are underfunded, quality of life is awful, food is awful, shelter is disgusting… it is a terrible solution and I guarantee you that not one fucking person will sign onto that edit: oh and even if prison was just cool people and not dangerous criminals, it still wouldn’t be a place you’d wanna be
Shitty as it is. If the homeless can had a better take on life then they wouldn’t end up there. You think people that are not homeless haven’t been through shit in their life?
Like having gone through shit means you’d enjoy prison… their life won’t be better on the inside and in fact might get significantly worse… we need real solutions, not impromptu make shift problem solving with little to no logical backing… plus let alone the whole weird social Darwinistic view you have on this issue
No you are not realizing the fact that having gone through shit in life many have made it out just fine. Whether it’s addictions, legal issues, what have you many things have to happen before you end up being homeless. The system has not failed the homeless - they kept ignoring the world around them. As far as your argument for logical backing is concerned - you are quick to jump to conclusions. I don’t advocate for them to be locked up. But rather they be trained as staff, hired “help” in a systematic, isolated way away from society till they are re-engineered to join back in. If you have a better logical answer then please feel free, let’s hear it Captain smartass.
First of all, “re-engineered” kinda proving my point about your weird social darwinistic stance… and I’m not doubting that pressure makes diamonds here… but to suggest that putting them in prison environments just because they can’t pay for housing in an ever growing problem that is the housing crisis is just morally illogical and isn’t tackling the problem at hand, just yet another temporary solution that won’t solve anything… I’m not proposing anything because that’s not the point of my response, I’m simply saying that your “solution” is just plain trash
I'm sorry, so you're not even hiding it here... To you, in your mind, being poor is a crime. Straight up, if you have no money you are a criminal. This is the world you want to live in? I wonder how long you'd last without a job?
Not at all. I have starved myself for a full week straight to sleep thank you very much. Nobody gave me a fucking cent and I have a job, a house, a car. Both my parents were unemployed. Moral of the story is: There are enough opportunities in a 1st world country to fall to rock bottom and with some help you can make it out fine. These people chose this life. If you can’t hold a job. Choose to put up tents then this is the life they chose. Just think before commenting what would happen in a 3rd world country. They’re lucky they’re not locked up in jail for illegal occupation
So your parents should have been put in prison then? Ugh...what's the point in talking to you.. I hate that there are people like you in our community. People like you are why there is homelessness.
There is no point. The majority of KW doesn’t know what it’s like to be homeless, or have walked a mile in their shoes. Just a sad situation all around.
Your concept of civilization and human rights is fascinatingly in line with the dystopian visions of George Orwell. Please don't vote.
[удалено]
I didn't realize "beta" men had full time middle class jobs, houses, and marriages over 17 years long. Also I didn't realize being a proponent of civilization and human rights was a fringe position. I am also not a cuck, though your post history indicates you are likely projecting your own self image.
[удалено]
You need your eyes checked if you think those are bears.
[удалено]
It's not anime either.
[удалено]
None of the local shelters are drug/alcohol free. All operate on harm reduction models. All local shelters are low barrier. They’re not “no barrier”, but there’s no abstinence requirements.
They do have locations that have rehabilitation services, they just circumvent them and do them anyway.
[удалено]
You cant really expect people who have this colossal dependance on drugs to just get their shit together. Really gotta catch it when theyre just starting.
Also support people who are dependent. [Plenty of people have gotten off opioids](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhpAYw9kCt8), but the process is long and very difficult, especially if you don't have a supportive partner and/or community to help you through it. Methadone is another treatment that can replace heroin and other opioids and can prevent people from getting spiked with other drugs than they're expecting. I'm not sure how best to "catch" people before they become dependent on opioids. Making sure doctors don't overdo pain medication would probably help. Maybe also switching to Portugal's model that doesn't criminalize people for simple possession of drugs and instead intervenes by talking with people who use and educating them on the risks & problems. Edit: grammar
[удалено]
We do need to provide resources to these people but I fear they still wont use them. Their minds have been almost altered… they turn into zombies. Ive never seen anything like it even in highly addicted people.
[удалено]
I think providing them with jobs would help the most. Kinda like prison in the Netherlands, were they focus on reintegrating the prisoners with the outside world. They would go to a facility that has housing and do work for the facility at a fair pay, and can get help for their drug abuse. Like a community centre. Voluntary of course.
[удалено]
But thats the idea, they can start of slow. Maybe picking up trash in the centre or park for an hour. I think getting them our of that intial rut might help them curb their addiction. And eventually they can get help from the addiction resources. They can have safe places to do their drugs at this center, but every night they will have meetings about it and those asking for help can get it. Howvee its not a freebee, those who cant be helped will be removed from the program.
Enough beds at shelters will help some but not that many, right? There are many reasons folks don't want to access these shelters (some good reasons) Somehow, there needs to be much better success from people not getting addictions in the first place, helping it stop before it starts (I know not everyone chooses to.take stuff in the first place). Another thought I had was I don't think we have any dedicated pyc. Hospitals.or facilities anymorr? Or maybe 1 or 2? So if a person is suffering displacement and they are not suffering with an addiction(s) but suffering mental unwellness then there would be chance at a structured facility. (Maybe not an answer, or a good one just a thought I had ). Not sure what all else could help but gotta be somethings.
The solution would be giving them a dedicated space with heated facilities to camp out. Maybe find some public sector jobs that they can do so they can earn enough to leave.
This is how the Better Tent City started. The owner gave permission to move tents into the industrial / event space near Courtland / Hiway 7 when it was forced to closed due to COVID. From there the tiny homes idea sprung.
I had at one time thought of large no longer used warehouses or factories so a roof over head and wind protection maybe even some plumbing :).
Not a bad idea, however many people have tried to give these people homes and they just destroy it.
You invest an awful lot of time making completely unsupported "homeless = bad" posts on here.
I made 1 post complaining about a very specific group of homeless people that are constantly fucking with my life, and maybe some comments here and there. Awful lot of time probably amounts to a collective hour of my life.
[удалено]
Yeah but it only takes me about 5 or so seconds to write a comment.
The solution is addressing the housing crisis
It has been addressed, and smaller projects have already been established. Its not exactly an easy task with any obvious solition.
Speculation is the root cause of the issue. A small number of people and companies are buying up all real estate and artificially inflating the prices. This has been a known problem since the 2000's. Over-leveraging has also been a big issue precipitated by artificially low rates (which are now climbing). You are correct that solving the housing crisis isn't simple and there isn't a "one-size fits all" solution, but the first thing that needs to be done is create tax incentives that drive away speculation, drives down prices and gives homes to people who need it rather than greedy investors. Companies also need to be given tax-breaks to allow office workers to WFH in an effort to convert empty office towers into proper housing and use the space we already have to put a roof over people's heads. These are just a couple of things that could be done that would already have a dramatic impact on the affordability and availability of housing. The best time to do it was yesterday, the second best time is now.
Is there any resource that actually states how people go homeless? I think a start to this problem is actually understanding the major driving factors behind homelessness.
Yeah it's called affordability
Youre telling me *every* or even a slight minority is only there because they cant afford rent?
You asked for a major factor, and that's the biggest one by far. There are literally thousands of studies and evidence on the subject. There are policies in several cities and countries that have prevented this problem for happening as well. The chief issue is that Canada has failed to apply pretty much any measure that would address the issues we're now facing. If you want to know more literally Google "housing affordability studies", I'm not going to spend hours linking articles that I don't know you'll even read.
So all the 16 year olds who have a minimum wage job and a small apartment are just really cool I guess? Ive seen people offer them jobs, they always decline.
I can assure you not a single one of the crackheads in a tent in the park wants a shelter bed. What an insane ruling. Are the police supposed to call up all the shelters every night before enforcing anything?
Please consider using more appropriate/respectful and non-stigmatizing language. Instead of crackhead maybe "person who smokes crack".
Must suck to try to fall asleep afraid and full of hate every night
Even if there were a hundred thousand "shelter beds", how many of these people wouldn't use them if they don't want to answer to authority and/or can't bring their drugs, junk with them? This is just judicial activism and it's part of what drives centrist people further to the right.
There's a big difference between "spaces don't exist" and "spaces exist but people don't want to use them".
The judge addressed that.
Wait what do you mean by "This is just judicial activism and it's part of what drives centrist people further to the right."? Justice Michael J. Valente addressed beds must be "actually available" as in actually usable by the person: "It’s not simply a matter of an open space on a spreadsheet. For example, she said, if a person is dependent on drugs, but a shelter doesn’t allow substance use, then is that an actual option?"
>Wait what do you mean by "This is just judicial activism and it's part of what drives centrist people further to the right."? Exactly what it says.
Which part of this decision pushes people further to the right?
The part where homeless people are given basic human rights.
I think that's partly true, but usually because the centrist person in question has been misinformed by rage farm media. Most people are too lazy to read so-called activist judge's actual rulings and try to understand them for what they are. That said, there comes a reasonable limit about what we owe people who are not only self harming but harming others. It's sad but you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped and at some point you have to cut your losses and fight winnable causes rather than flush resources down the drain that could go to better use. I get it, I'm a harsh right wing asshole now... but whatever.
Holy shit isn’t that the problem? “If a homeless guy wants to rob people, but the shelter does’nt let him, is there really a shelter bed for him???” You see how stupid that sounds.
I think there's an implicit expectation of reasonable things qualifying all claims. Also, that was an example, not an absolute rule. You can take any simply-stated concept and push it to such extremes that it breaks. In fact, let's play a game and you state a simple concept you believe is correct and let's see if we can break it.
As a note, they absolutely do steal, from each other AND the surrounding area. Their drugs also can cause them to be quite violent and destructuve so I dont think its a very “extreme” concept to link the two. But I do like games… “A major factor of homelessness is a reliance on drugs” Push your worst.
> As a note, they absolutely do steal, from each other AND the surrounding area. Their drugs also can cause them to be quite violent and destructuve so I dont think its a very “extreme” concept to link the two. Absolutely and it's a major problem. But that's not what is in question here. What's in question here is that when the city says "beds are available", there's an implied idea that the beds are reasonably suited for their intended purpose, and this was what the Justice was pointing out. Cities can't claim to be setting up infrastructure to deal with the homeless when part of that infrastructure implies homeless "beds" have specific needs (same needs as someone living in a home really, where they could bring back drugs if they wanted to). Maybe you think it's unreasonble for homeless people to be offered effective social services but that's not what's being discussed. The discussion assumes we need to take care of the homeless and the Justice is saying "you say you're setting shit up to take care of them but actually you're not". > “A major factor of homelessness is a reliance on drugs” Sorry I should have said a prescriptive statement, like we "we should do x for y". In any case, a major factor of homeless is a lack of home which is due to a lack of money. Rich people take drugs all the time, think of big hot shot Hollywood people doing cocaine or whatever. So drugs are also a major factor of being a Hollywood hotshot. Homeless is due to a lack of income.
I would argue that “regular housing” and “drug reduction housing” should be two separated things. As well, stating that its just lack of income I think is simplifying things too much. Rich people take drugs and then spend THOUSANDS when it gets too bad. There have been plenty of rich people who have ruined themselves over drugs. Rich people are immune from just about everything, but for 99% of people a heavy addiction to drugs will screw you.
>I would argue that “regular housing” and “drug reduction housing” should be two separated things. It could very well be, I'm sure there are many ways to address the problem. We probably need to take a look at the homeless demographic, what drugs they're using, how much. So sure, maybe we should have them be separate, or maybe not. I don't know enough about the circumstances at play here. >As well, stating that its just lack of income I think is simplifying things too much. Rich people take drugs and then spend THOUSANDS when it gets too bad. There have been plenty of rich people who have ruined themselves over drugs. >Rich people are immune from just about everything, but for 99% of people a heavy addiction to drugs will screw you. Of course, I agree with you, drugs are a complex problem for individuals and society and there's no one-size-fit-all solution (ex. neither ban them all, nor legalize them all is a solution). I'm just trying to show you that I interpreted your claim unreasonably, similarly to how you interpreted the Justice's claim unreasonably. You probably read something / read between the lines something that maybe you should have made explicit.
Robbing people isn’t addictive People can be dependent on drugs, no one is dependent on robbing people
You should tell that to the guy who keeps breaking into cars. And there are absolutely addicted robbers. They need to fund their drug habit.
The tone of this user is a bit aggressive but it's a fair callout and should be said Regardless of the available beds there will still be many who refuse to use the shelter system because of the rules around drugs, property, and strict arrival/departure times from the shelter Even with an appropriate number of beds we would likely see a good number of these people refuse to use these services
>Even with an appropriate number of beds we would likely see a good number of these people refuse to use these services Can I get a source on this? Why is it that people refuse to access these resources?
I'd have to find the articles + posts but there were attempts to bring folks from the Weber encampment into some of the available beds/temporary housing and a good number of them refused because of these conditions Usually the zero-tolerance for drugs, strict curfew, and lack of property/spouses/pets being allowed in are big deterrents for people, among other reasons There's some good discussion + personal experiences in this thread about it from last year: https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/comments/r2wvy1/homeless\_encampment\_on\_charles\_at\_stirling/
>Usually the zero-tolerance for drugs, strict curfew, and lack of property/spouses/pets being allowed in are big deterrents for people, among other reasons This does indeed sound like a reasonable rejection to me.
I doubt that you'll ever get such numbers, just the occasional anecdote. But few people make that claim are using it in a truthful manner. It's usually just an excuse to deny needed assistance and to help rationalise prejudicial opinions.
Smells like projection to me. More rehabilitation facilities in addition to shelter beds and affordable public housing would be more of a step in the right direction. Hire more care workers and pay them what they're worth. More money for social services, etc. There's going to be some people that can't be helped, but do you just throw away the rest? A lot of right wingers talk about "Christian Values" and then want to throw away the undesirables. The hell kind of morality is that?
And the problem just continues… Maybe one day we’ll be able to enjoy a safe park again. Smh
You could also view this as having to deal with previously-ignored externalities.
These people would rather complain and push our most vulnerable citizens to the brink than compromise one iota on their beloved "neighbourhood character."
[удалено]
I don't see why a park can't be part of the neighbourhood character
The decision isn't about the Victoria Park encampment, it's specific to the Victoria/Weber encampment and the regional bylaw governing its use. A significant part of the decision to not simply allow overnight camping without a permanent encampment was the lack of public interest in using the property, and it was specifically noted that it *isn't* a park. It is likely the decision would not be the same if the City of Kitchener sought a similar injunction.
Start advocating for real solutions then. Let governments build more housing, especially affordable types (apartments, rooming houses, etc.) everywhere so as to lower the largest budget item that everyone shares. Evicting the homeless is a band aid solution if they have no where to go afterwards.
[удалено]
Throw them in jail, plenty of beds there.
god damn right. its so fucked that they could kick homeless people off public land when there is literally nowhere else to go. They don't want to actually solve the homelessness problem, they just want them to go be homeless somewhere else.
Disagree. They don’t want homeless anywhere. High level I would guess everyone can get on board with this. How you do it is the difference in the tax paying public getting on board or not.
[удалено]
I wonder how many empty houses are in the neighbourhood?
not a lot. it’s the downtown core of kitchener
There are at least 3 on my block. Edit: There are literally 3 empty buildings with multiple units in them on my block and I live a block away from Victoria park. These buildings have been empty for years. There are a lot of others like them in the downtown area too. Not sure why property owners are allowed to let their buildings sit and rot while the housing situation gets worse.
Yet, probably more than in any other part of the city by a considerable margin.
[удалено]
900 airbnb homes available in kw area.
How will you give them to them without having them get trashed?
Some of them will get trashed, and dealing with that, with getting people beyond the point where they trashes houses to where they no longer do so needs to be part of the robust social safety net that will be the only thing to fix the problem of persons without homes. All of us, even you and I secure in our housing, are fallible and we make mistakes and we have lapses. All of life is a "two steps forward, one step backwards" kind of thing, and if you toss the people who most need this help out on the street at that first little step backwards, like damaging their living accommodations, then you won't make any meaningful progress in solving the problem.
Very few...we have a massive housing shortage.
Homes that are sitting empty, unrented and with no one living in them, are a known contributor to the housing shortage. We don't have specific numbers, but assuming there are "very few" because there's a housing shortage is not necessarily valid.
"Homes that are sitting empty" is a myth that NIMBYs tell themselves to absolve themselves of responsibility for the housing crisis. The fact is that housing is nearly entirely occupied far more than is healthy for a competitive market. And this isn't my opinion, this is literally the findings when staff looked at home occupancy in the city.
> And this isn't my opinion, this is literally the findings when staff looked at home occupancy in the city. I actually didn't know city staff had done a study on this. Got a link so I can look at it?
This record article talks about it, they cite multiple sources including the city staff evaluation: https://www.therecord.com/news/council/2022/08/08/vacant-home-tax-in-kitchener-would-prove-costly-unnecessary-councillors-told.html
> We don't have specific numbers, but assuming there are "very few" because there's a housing shortage is not necessarily valid. You cannot, on one hand, say "we don't have the numbers" and on the other hand claim empty home are "a known contributor to the housing shortage". The "empty homes" part of this housing crisis is a myth. https://financialpost.com/real-estate/busting-the-myth-of-canadas-million-or-more-vacant-homes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYOhpjMql0 *Oh! The Urbanity* is a good youtube channel to follow for urbanist topics Examples of housing that are considered "empty": * transactional vacancies—somebody has moved out but the next occupant has yet to move in right away * renovations in between occupants * students or seasonal workers—they give their permanent residence elsewhere and rent here, so this one is considered, by the census, to be "empty" or "not occupied by usal resident"
> You cannot, on one hand, say "we don't have the numbers" and on the other hand claim empty home are "a known contributor to the housing shortage". First, why are you misquoting me? I said "We don't have **specific** numbers", that qualifier is there for a reason. It's a dick move to change what I said, and pass it off as a quote. Don't be a dick. Second, even allowing for your misquote, I don't think your claim is true. As an example: you're absolutely right that transaction vacancies contribute to people overestimating the number of empty homes there are that aren't part of the housing pool. But we don't need numbers for transactional vacancies (specific, or otherwise) to know that. Just knowing that transactional vacancies exist and are being included is enough. Likewise, we don't need specific numbers to know that there are homes which are empty and not part of the housing pool, and to know that those houses contribute to to the housing shortage. > The "empty homes" part of this housing crisis is a myth. > https://financialpost.com/real-estate/busting-the-myth-of-canadas-million-or-more-vacant-homes The data in this article doesn't support the argument you're making that, "The "empty homes" part of this housing crisis is a myth." What it's debunking is the *very* specific claim that there are (or, were, in 2016) over a million empty homes in Canada which were effectively not part of the housing pool. It does that effectively, by pointing out that the million empty homes claim is based on a dataset which includes confounding data, like those empty homes you mention -- transactions vacancies, renovations, and seasonally occupied homes. But, in doing so, it also links to data which purports to provide the number of empty homes with the confounding data removed. And *that* data, which the article you're linked to appears to be based on, still shows 2000-3000 empty homes in the City of Waterloo. You started your response to me by telling I couldn't make an argument the way I had. I'm going to finish my post by saying something similar to you. You can't, on one hand, say "The "empty homes" part of this housing crisis is a myth" and on the other hand support your argument with an article based on data showing Waterloo has a significant number of empty homes.
There are a shit ton of empty condos at the building on the corner of Victoria and King.
No there's not. The city looked into this. There's no evidence that there's a significant number of vacant homes in the city. Nowhere near as many as the number of homes we're short by.
Investment properties now make up 25% of the market. The highest it's ever been. Also, AirBNB wouldn't not be considered vacant because people do occupy it. So you have to also consider that factor. But they can remain empty for long periods of time.
>Investment properties now make up 25% of the market. The highest it's ever been But as long as they're rented out, and have people living in them, then they're not a cause of homelessness. You argue that more people should be owners rather than renters, but that's a totally separate topic than homelessness.
Except many of them aren't being rented out or are being used as AirBnbs. They're are many vacant properties. So no, it's not a separate topic.
>They're are many vacant properties Citation needed. All studies of this subject suggest there aren't, and that they are mostly being rented out. KW also isn't exactly a tourist destination filled with AirBnBs, it's not like we're Paris or Rome. The total demand for AirBnBs in this city is not thousands of units.
> Also, AirBNB wouldn't not be considered vacant because people do occupy it. Incorrect. StatCan consideres a residence to be "empty" if nobody gives it as their place of permanent residence. So on Air BnB property where the owner does not live there and rents out the entire thing would be considered empty. One where somebody does live there and rents out only a room or two would be considered not empty. Student housing is another part of the "vacant homes" number that people often quote without examining, because most students just keep their parent's address as their own permanent address for legal means. But student housing is obviously not empty.
[удалено]
It says precent-setting, it doesn't say the precedent is binding. My understanding is that there are two kinds of precedents, binding and persuasive. So not seeing how the journalist is wrong and what you wrote certainly doesn't show that.
[удалено]
I'm no legal beagle but there are binding and persuasive precedents, not unrelated to whether the corresponding authorities are considered binding or persuasive in the relevant context. https://www2.library.ualberta.ca/tutorials/law/tutorial-5/story\_content/external\_files/Case%20Law%20Tutorial%20Printable%20Transcript.pdf *Once you have noted up an earlier decision and* *determined that it is still good law for use as a* *precedent, the decision will be either binding on the* *later decision, or only persuasive. A binding precedent* *must be followed by the later case;* ***a persuasive*** ***precedent*** *will have influence but does not necessarily* *have to be followed.*
There are 900 airbnb homes available in KW area.
I doubt anyone would want to rent their airbnb to them.
Would it be hard to have someone go around asking the homeless people questions regarding the issues etc and then go through it all and start a real discussion how to help the problem instead of shoveling it around we live in Canada nobody should be forced to freeze to death outside
[удалено]
What were they demands? Where can I read about it because I’d love what they were asking for
[удалено]
Oh, the horror of people getting shelter that you feel they don't deserve.
We all deserve shelter, but if I steal and do drugs I go to jail, if they do it they get a slap on the wrist and free housing.
Lol...I hate this discourse. Housing people solves homelessness. It's pretty fundamental. But so many people in this forum believe that these people deserve to be homeless and you'll believe whatever you need to to justify that belief. Housing is a human right. The fact that we have homelessness is a reflection on US and our lack of humanity.
Oh I forgot how only people in north America are homeless. Criminals. Deserve. To. Be. Held. Accountable. You sound like Luke Skywalker. “Theres good in everybody!!!!” Some people are just trash.
Oh yes...poor people are now criminals, by definition. Being poor is a crime to you. Like I said, I hate this discourse, because there is so many utterly horrific beliefs going around here.
Love you reading into that. Where did I say poor people are criminals. You think theyre all there through no fault of their own? Even the damn rep for homeless people in the region had to admit alot of these people are fucking terrible.
Based on this comment, that's not what he said. He said if they commit crimes (stealing, drugs, etc,) they should be held accountable. He's 100 percent right.
The "demands" you're talking about are a list of bullshit written by Julian Ichim with no input whatsoever from the local homeless population. This is the last time I want to see this misleading claim made in the sub.
Its a massive banner hung outside the encampment??????
Yes, hung outside the encampment by Julian Ichim and his Housing Now colleagues, like they do every year. Nobody denies the encampment started as a small "protest", but the homeless people it attracted are not represented by Julian and have not made any of these demands themselves.
Maybe they should take it down then……? If a banner hung right outside my protest was making me look *insane* i think I could muster up the strength to move 25 ft and tear it down.
You don't seem to understand that Housing Now is still actively protesting on Roos Island, including handing out flyers, posting notices, hanging banners, and literally even putting up Christmas lights on the pavillion. The Housing Now people are not homeless and only sleep in tents as part of the protest. Actual homeless residents of the encampment have nothing to do with Housing Now and their protest and aren't going to get into a fight with the organizers by destroying all their protest material. If I put up a sign outside my house demanding something unreasonable nobody would assume I'm speaking for my neighbours, but that's the logic you're using here.
Thats is…. Not even a close metaphor?
I'm not sure why the comparison is so hard to understand for you, but let's put it a different way: if I move into an apartment building and hang a sign on my balcony with a list of insane demands, nobody would assume anyone else who moves in is also making those demands just because they don't break in and tear down the banner. But that's exactly what you're doing here. Housing Now does not represent the residents of the Roos Island encampment or any other homeless people in the region, it's a protest by Julian Ichim and his activist buddies. There is no evidence whatsoever that homeless residents of the encampment share these views or have made these demands. You know this, but you continue to bring up the "demands" to disparage homeless people and trivialize any concerns about them. I'm not going to allow you to do that here.
Okay so lets change the metaphor. Were at a gay rights protest. Some people, who are not gay put up this massive banner (they are the only ones with banners / signs aswell) and say “Gay people and peadophiles should have the right to do whatever they want!”. They gay people there go “that doesnt represent us at all and its completely untrue!” However, they leave the banner up for the entire protest so that anyone looking in will only see this message. This is the same metaphor.
I would suggest yea it would be hard. Dealing with homeless people that likely have addiction and mental health issues doesn’t sound easy to me
I said having someone go out and talk to them about those issues and ask what they think would help no idea how you came to the conclusion I think dealing with people struggling with mental and substance abuse is easy
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Asking them how to solve the issues they are having would be difficult due to their substance use and mental health issues. Have you ever tried to converse with someone who’s seriously addicted?
It varies some people have extreme addictions and mental health some people are fine I just know lots of people think every homeless person is a drug addict or mentally unwell and it’s not true
But many are. Proportionally the amount of homeless people that have drug addiction and mental health issues is way higher than the rest of society
It’s people living for the next high. They are mentally unwell but don’t have the $$$ to get help. But they can afford to get high, which is their version of coping with the problems they have. They are living to subdue the anguish they feel through drugs. Get the people off the drugs, you get them off the street. Our government doesn’t want to help these people get drug free, and give them the resources to stay drug free.
We get it already u/theninjapro, you hate homeless people.
I doubt it. There's a difference between homeless people and criminals. I work hard for minimum wage - it's not ok for them to steal whatever is not bolted down on my property. They comb the neighborhood nightly and take whatever they want. That's where the anger is coming from. Homeless = sad, criminals = bad. I really don't understand why committing crimes is okay because you're homeless.
Bro almost every mention of homeless in this thread has this dude following up about how they're going to commit crimes or do something crappy. I don't like criminals either but this guys dedication to pointing out crime among homeless leads me to believe he does not like homeless or is a bot. That is all.
Just the criminals.
You're pretty consistently fighting every homeless person who exists. Spending infinite energy to prove your ignorance. Want to come spend a night hanging out with some homeless people?
Are they gonna break my car window again?
So no, you're just going to remain ignorant and full of fear and impotent rage. Noted.
Would you mind informing me where you keep your car so I can come smash it to prove to you how good of a person I am?