34 replies to this topic

[Ms. B. Havin]

Spanky123 repeats the story that RG owes the city money, to which VHF replies:

RG is not in default. I challenge you find me one shred of evidence that they owe the City money.

This town is such a rat's nest of innuendo, mud-slinging, and paranoia that it would be a public service of the highest order if someone put together a Victoria version of Snopes.

Once an urban legend starts here, it's almost impossible to put down.

[concorde]

CCC

To make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, the City of Victoria should sell the arena for top dollar, no less than $40M, thereby saving the wastage of $23M to retire the loan.

Build a new or renovate an existing facility to serve as a downtown residential addiction-recovery centre for homeless addicts.

Fund neighbourhood recovery houses run by recovering addicts.

No funding for so-called 'safe-injection sites,' nor for the needle exchanges.

-Hartnell

CCC

ok, seriously, I want to hear your solution to Victoria's homeless problem. How many homeless does the City of Victoria have? Where will these facilities be built and how will they be paid for? $23 million won't do anything. In rough numbers that will build about 95-100 one bedroom apartments including land costs.

[Phil McAvity]

Greg is right about one thing and Caramia said it, every time a drug addict gets high it is either Helen Hughes', Bea Holland's or Alan Lowe's fault. I like to think of them as the axis of evil. Once they are gone, drug addiction in this city will completely disappear. Speaking of drug addiction, i'd love to know what drugs Greg does that keeps him so out of touch with reality. If I didn't know better, i'd think he was joking. Selling the arena to pay for a treatment center is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. Firstly, there are already all kinds of programs in place to help addicts. If an addict has any desire to quit, they needn't go more than 80 feet in this town to get help. There are numerous 12 step programs available as well as numerous government-funded programs designed to help addicts. Save-On certainly isn't a perfect facility but it's also a hell of a lot better than what we had before so what do we do without all the money it brings in and all the jobs it's created and enjoyment people have had using it. All gone according to Greg's plan, in a fanatical and deluded attempt to clean the streets of addicts. Also, once you have sold the arena, what makes you think addicts are suddenly going to flock to treatment? Or is it.......the arena.......that's making them do drugs? You're probably right, once it's sold people will want to live clean, sober lives, free of the emotional torture and turmoil that facility brought! Of course trying to use the arena as a huge treatment facility won't work because that building seems to be what's causing the drug addiction. And what do we do with it once it's sold? Raze it? Yeah, that's a great plan. A fanatic is someone who will change neither the subject nor their mind. Or do you say these things just to get attention Greg?

[spanky123]

RG is not in default. I challenge you find me one shred of evidence that they owe the City money.

I never said RG was in default. The city quietly agreed to defer the payment of the debt 5 years. You can read the City of Victoria annual report to verify this and see that with interest the debt is now $1.092M.

All I am suggesting is that since the arena has been such a runaway success RG should pony up and pay the $$$.

The recent annual report also shows that the City had a much better year than expected financially. Although policing costs were over budget, the city saved a lot of money in other areas and came out millions of dollars in the black in 2007.

[Phil McAvity]

^ Which I believe the province will take and claim as their profit. If the province claims a big enough profit they throw money back at the municipalities to piss away on more things we don't need to justify their future budgets. Am I right or do the municipalities get to keep their loot?

[VicHockeyFan]

^ Which I believe the province will take and claim as their profit. If the province claims a big enough profit they throw money back at the municipalities to piss away on more things we don't need to justify their future budgets. Am I right or do the municipalities get to keep their loot?

They get to keep their money.

They can run a surplus, just not a deficit, except under special conditions (major capital projects that need a referendum or are subject to a counter-petition).

[groundlevel]

Why does anyone think that it is the city's responsibility to solve the homeless problem, help the addicted or assist with mental health issues?

The funding for mental health/addiction has to come from the province through the Health Authorities. Homelessness is the responsibility of the federal and provincial levels of government.

We pay federal and provincial taxes so that those levels of government will provide services they are responsible for.

Both those levels of government are doing a piss poor job of it.

Victoria's responsibility? That's like thinking churches/mosques/temples ought to be feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, running detox services and mental clinics. Man, does that let the province and Feds off the hook!

[Phil McAvity]

Churches already do a lot for the poor. That's why I shake my head at how much the government takes to help them as well. Not only that, but religion has a lot more experience at helping the poor than the government does, so leave it to them!

You can thank a guy named Pierre Elliot Trudeau for this current social scourge. His revocation of the vagrancy act opened the door to the homeless and panhandlers we see today. Before he encouraged people to be failures, there was actually a social stigma associated with being a tramp but that was removed under his regime so in many ways society was a lot better off before he arrived.

One way we could improve society is by bringing back those old laws and social stigmas that existed before Trudeau arrived. It should not just be considered a "lifestyle choice" to drop out of society and panhandle. There should be consequences for that type of behaviour, starting with the possibility of going to jail.

As for addicts, I really think you have to wait until they want help and sadly, many die before reaching that point.

[Caramia]

The problem with leaving it to religion is that we are living in an increasingly secular society.

That reminds me of when I was in Ireland some years ago and was told they were in a time of crises in their social service sector. Everything - from hospitals to orphanages to care for the elderly and young had been done by nuns. But the nuns are ageing, and they are not being replaced. So Ireland was in the midst of that realization that they will have to pay for these services. Ouch.

[UrbanRail]

Phil,
I hope you are not suggesting we go back to the old laws and social stigmas, where anyone who wasnt white, male, christian or rich was treated like crap.


The drug addiction problem is something that wont go away any time soon. Besides, if you think we have a problem, look at East Van, all of the money going to the Olympics could have helped.

Jailing addicts and the homeless is not the solution.

Actually I heard somewhere that 17% of the homeless do have jobs, just not enough money for a home.

[Phil McAvity]

Phil,
I hope you are not suggesting we go back to the old laws and social stigmas, where anyone who wasnt white, male, christian or rich was treated like crap.

How could you possibly deduce that from what I said?

The drug addiction problem is something that wont go away any time soon. Besides, if you think we have a problem, look at East Van, all of the money going to the Olympics could have helped.

As i've already said, there are copious programs out there to help addicts that want to quit. The problem is, they don't want to so it doesn't matter how much more we throw at the problem with taxes and government, it isn't going to get better or go away.

Jailing addicts and the homeless is not the solution.

Why not? It seemed to work pretty well in the past with alcoholics and addicts have a harder time getting drugs in jail than they do on the street.

Actually I heard somewhere that 17% of the homeless do have jobs, just not enough money for a home.

I'd like to see some proof of that statistic because I don't believe it.

[martini]

I'd like to see some proof of that statistic because I don't believe it.

I don't have proof at my fingertips right now, but it is happening here in Victoria.
I do recall some stats from the "Making Room" project by the Community Council a few years ago.
If there are families living in cars, there certainly are employed living in cars in this current housing situation.

[gumgum]

It seemed to work pretty well in the past with alcoholics and addicts have a harder time getting drugs in jail than they do on the street.

Are you sure about that?

[aastra]

Actually, even in the good ol' days there were plenty of white male Christians getting treated like crap. Rich guys generally make out okay, however.

[UrbanRail]

How could you possibly deduce that from what I said?

My appologies, I misinterrupted your statement.

As i've already said, there are copious programs out there to help addicts that want to quit. The problem is, they don't want to so it doesn't matter how much more we throw at the problem with taxes and government, it isn't going to get better or go away.

I would think that many addicts would want help.

Why not? It seemed to work pretty well in the past with alcoholics and addicts have a harder time getting drugs in jail than they do on the street.

Our jails are already full.

I'd like to see some proof of that statistic because I don't believe it.

I dont have any stats with me to back that up at this moment