3521 replies to this topic

[spanky123]

The housing crisis has been dragging on for ~70 years but until today nobody had ever considered more government involvement as a possible remedy. Kudos to Eby for being innovative enough to think outside the box.

 

Just what we need, Lisa as housing czar delivering the same quality service as we get in health care - lots of service for MLAs and their friends but not so much for everyone else aside from footing the bill.

[JimV]

It sounds pretty good.  All incomes, all abilities nestled together in cozy 6-plexes (electrically heated to fend off climate change) scattered throughout the older neighbourhoods.  Perhaps a few clusters of temporary tiny home encampments on oversized back yards and parks.  What could possibly go wrong.

[Nparker]

On paper, it also sounded good to close down mental health facilities and integrate the severely mentally into the larger community. 

[Mike K.]

It was more of a legal issue, to be fair.

The courts decided the threshold to institutionalize someone was too low, and ultimately it was decided to shut down facilities like Riverview.

I think we also had a similar facility at Eric Martin, where residents were free to head out into town but had to return in the evening. Was that the case?

[Sparky]

^ I think you will find that in days of old, there were some residents that were not permitted to leave their ward.

[Mike K.]

Yes, absolutely. But did EM have a similar operation to Riverview?

[Sparky]

^ Not sure. I had a family member reside in EMI for a time, but I’m not familiar with Riverview.

[Matt R.]

I worked at the EMP off and on, never heard about the patients being allowed to leave on their own. They were there all day, every day as far as I could tell. Obviously patients come and go. Some were there temporarily while they balanced new meds.

Never got too chummy with them, and it was a hard place to work.

[Mike K.]

I know a few people who used to work there, and there were different wards based on the level of illness/instability. The stories from there, let me tell you.

So what happened to the marginally difficult to manage occupants at EMI? Were they just released back into the general population?

[Victoria Watcher]

So what happened to the marginally difficult to manage occupants at EMI? 

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 09 August 2022 - 09:22 AM.

[Nparker]

My apologies for apparently being the catalyst that took this thread off-topic. Mea culpa. 

[aastra]

We all know there's a desperate shortage of physical space that requires drastic zoning changes in order to address the undeniable emergency... but then again we still have empty spaces like this one tucked away on the side streets...

 

Come on, this property could easily accommodate dozens of apartment/townhouse units with a large area leftover for a new-and-better park or playground. Not to mention the old elementary school building/property on the other side of the creek, which represents an impressively inefficient use of space.

[Victoria Watcher]

This area alone can easily house 15,000 people.

 

 

[Nparker]

Everyone seems to be forgetting the inherent racism of single family housing. This must not be allowed to continue! 

[aastra]

Everybody seems to be forgetting the underdeveloped lots, the empty lots, and the surface parking lots. That's why I've surreptitiously been advocating for the slogan: "Never forget all the things you've forgotten". (But please forget you heard me say it.)

 

Seriously though, nothing betrays the insincerity of efforts related to the housing issue or environmental issues or any issue quite like these elephants-in-the-room that people want to ignore.

 

But aastra! If you put townhouses on that empty property it would ruin the neighbourhood! It would be preferable to tear down the houses all around that empty property and put townhouses there instead.

[aastra]

 

This area alone can easily house 15,000 people.

 

Says Mr. pro-development mouthpiece stooge of developers. (The evil kind of developer, I mean. Not the good kind.)

[aastra]

 

This area alone can easily house 15,000 people.

 

In a sane reality the powers that be would be incentivizing and fast-tracking redevelopment in areas like that, where the transformative impact would be 100% positive and where the redevelopment process wouldn't be so controversial or such a drawn-out slog.

[Nparker]

When the citizenry is at odds with each other bad government is able to flourish.

[aastra]

They're manipulating new/young buyers into thinking there's something sensible about the expectation to purchase in a desirable & established SFD neighbourhood in Fairfield or Gonzales. (But not in Oak Bay, right? This noble mission to house people just terminates abruptly at the Oak Bay border?)

 

The upper Douglas area could be great if the right kind of redevelopment were to happen over many years. Back in the day that's how the process worked for anyone who wasn't flush with cash. You started off by buying in an area that wasn't currently desirable, but over time it would change and improve.

[Mike K.]

^like the rest of the CoV?

 

Need I remind you guys what James Bay was like up until the 70s? Or Vic West up until the 90s? Or Fernwood up until the 00s?

 

Remember what Langford was an eye-roll dogpatch?

When Colwood was a gravel pit with a commercial strip?

 

When Sidney was full of drunken fishermen?

 

When Esquimalt was worse than Compton?

 

Our parents bought in those places, when they sort of sucked. Now the 20-somethings say watch out at council meetings, we'll get you millionaire homeowners when you're real old, for being millionaire scumbags with everything handed to you.