25967 replies to this topic

[G-Man]

I just can't fathom how it is that the EA act which provides assistance to the disabled is exploited by derelicts. They get the money for a medical disability but refuse treatment or can't get treatment for the disability under the health act -- and yet they can still keep the money and demand even more and demand a home on the government teat too? And the majority of Canadians believe this is the right thing to do? And I'm being silly for having a harsh opinion on the matter and expressing incredulity at all of this?

Actually the EA Act does not provide money for the disabled. That is a seperate act, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act

[Rorschach]

G-Man: Can you explain how the EA Act enables homeless people? How exactly does it apply to them? What is the basis for them getting money based upon it? Do you wrok in this area of government perhaps?

Day 2 of the Times Colonist Series was useless. In summary, it says we have homeless and we need more homes for them. Wow! I'm glad we have crack reporters investigating and reporting.

Day 3 of the Times Colonist series highlights two people who were helped by the system and claims that only 25% of homeless have mental illness.

First of all, obviously some homeless people can be helped and are helped. And I don't begrudge helping people completely. What I oppose is "help" that perpetuates the source problem with no incentive to change. When the help is gone, the problem remains. It goes back to giving someone a fish rather than teaching them to fish.

I am of the opinion that nearly all of the homeless that are causing the downtown problems are mentally ill. So maybe only one in four of our homeless are the problem downtown and the majority of the others are invisible.

So, my solution is not to give unconditional assistance, but to tailor assistance to success at addressing the core problem.

So, provide housing and or money where needed, but require regular drug and alcohol testing. Any positive test ends assistance until they test clean. If they are mentally ill, provide aid conditioned upon their seeking medical treatment and cut it off if they don't get treatment and resuming it only upon resuming treatment.

And you have to have a time limit on the whole program. One year has got to be the absolute maximum assistance time limit. By then, they have to be on their own. I don't think we owe all these homeless unlimited housing and money such that they can live in the best city in Canada. Canada is an immense place and there are less expensive places they can relocate to live cheaper.

A time limit provides a goal, a target, something. What's the point of giving a bum a free home and money and have him or her spend all his money getting drunk or high and crashing in some **** hole every night forever until they eventually kill themselves -- to save the rest of us the bother of looking at them camping on the street.

I can't see how exempting homeless people or first nations people or anyone from the laws of trespass or obstructing public right of ways is the right way to go. The law must apply to everyone or there is no law.

We can't solve the homeless problem with free homes for life to drunks, bums, drug addicts, or nut cases and give them money to keep them in stuck in their habit. I realize we are very wealthy here in Victoria and very liberal and compassionate and that we feel enourmous guilt because of our prosperity and want to assuage that guilt by helping these people. Nothing is stopping you from helping anyone you want.

The latest protesters were not helping any homeless, they want the government, i.e., you and me -- everyone -- to be forced into helping. Regardless of good motives, it's insane to throw money and good will at a problem like this with no incentives or plan to address the core issues causing the problem. The symptoms are not the cause. Until those people who want to help others realize that, no solution will result no matter what level and scope of compassion and kindness is provided.

The vast majority of people trying to "help" are casting their pearls before the swine and directly enabling the behaivour they are trying to abate. And I'm sure they feel good about it anyway in blissful ignorance as they boast about how much they have done. The more pride people have in their desire to help, the more certain it is that their efforts are utterly worthless and likely exascerbate the situation.

So that's my reality check on the situation. The Times Colonist reporters writing the series have completely missed the boat. Their writing is on the level of the brain dead people calling into talk radio and repeating back what the host just said and then having the host agree with them and compliment them on their insight.

This problem can be solved but not by sympathy and compassion. Solve the problem by directly addressing the cause and providing incentives directed at success. Do not reward bad behaviour. They can help themselves and they must. First, they must choose to. They will not choose to unless it is the ONLY choice. All efforts must be funneled into such a goal: Making the solution the only choice.

[VicHockeyFan]

^ What he said. Especially the point that if YOU want to help by giving money, or housing or whatever, that's just fine. But don't lobby the government to force ME to give (through taxes) to a program I don't believe helps.

[Baro]

If we lived in a system where people could opt-out paying taxes for anything they don't like or don't think would work, government programs as we know it wouldn't work anymore.

"I don't live in the mainland! Why do I need to pay for their roads?!"

"I don't have any kids yet! I don't want to pay for OTHER people's school!"

"I don't like the army! I'm not going to pay any taxes towards that!"

"women's shelters? I'm not a woman!"

There's always need for reform, streamlining, and re-evaluation of any government program. So vote for what ever politician lies the best into tricking you into thinking they'll look into it, it's all any of us can do.

[VicHockeyFan]

If we lived in a system where people could opt-out paying taxes for anything they don't like or don't think would work, government programs as we know it wouldn't work anymore.

"I don't live in the mainland! Why do I need to pay for their roads?!"

"I don't have any kids yet! I don't want to pay for OTHER people's school!"

"I don't like the army! I'm not going to pay any taxes towards that!"

"women's shelters? I'm not a woman!"

There's always need for reform, streamlining, and re-evaluation of any government program. So vote for what ever politician lies the best into tricking you into thinking they'll look into it, it's all any of us can do.

I'll pay taxes for military, emergency services, roads etc., even hospitals. I'm a Libertarian:

The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of self-ownership. To libertarians, an individual human being is sovereign over his/her body, extending to life, liberty and property. As such, libertarians define liberty as being completely free in action, whilst not initiating force or fraud against the life, liberty or property of another human being. This is otherwise known as the non-aggression principle.

Libertarians generally view constraints imposed by the state on persons or their property (if applicable), beyond the need to penalize infringement of one's rights by another, as a violation of liberty. Anarchist libertarians favor no governmental constraints at all, based on the assumption that rulers and laws are unnecessary because in the absence of government individuals will naturally form self-governing social bonds and rules. In contrast, minarchist libertarians consider government necessary for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the people. This includes protecting people and their property from the criminal acts of others, as well as providing for national defense.

Libertarians generally defend the ideal of freedom from the perspective of how little one is constrained by authority, that is, how much one is allowed to do, which is referred to as negative liberty. This ideal is distinguished from a view of freedom focused on how much one is able to do, which is termed positive liberty, a distinction first noted by John Stuart Mill, and later described in fuller detail by Isaiah Berlin.

Many libertarians view life, liberty, and property as the ultimate rights possessed by individuals, and that compromising one necessarily endangers the rest. In democracies, they consider compromise of these individual rights by political action to be "tyranny by the majority", a term first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville, and made famous by John Stuart Mill, which emphasizes the threat of the majority to impose majority norms on minorities, and violating their rights in the process. "...There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them..."

Some libertarians favor common law, which they see as less arbitrary and more adaptable than statutory law. The relative benefits of common law evolving toward ever-finer definitions of property rights were articulated by thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick, and Randy Barnett. Some libertarian thinkers believe that this evolution can define away various "commons" such as pollution or other interactions viewed by some as externalities. "A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility."[2]

[Rorschach]

I'm not saying we shouldn't pay our taxes or condition payment on our personal agreement with the expenditures. That's not the way it works. I cast my vote and I want my say. In a democracy, the minority has a right to convince the majority that the laws should be changed. My conscience is just one among many and I believe that if enough people have clarity on what the issue is, the problem can be solved. All man-made problems can be solved by men.

The fourth article in the Times Colonist today is yet another useless bit of writing that states the obvious thus making no point at all and does absolutely nothing to advance the discussion toward any solution.

Truly, what is the point of writing a long newspaper article such as today's that says, "If you don't have enough income, you can't pay for a home." And the "solution" is we should be giving more and doing more for the homeless because they can't get a job because they have to spend all their time foraging food and surviving and can't wait in line for a bed -- or the multiple-layers of lame, worthless, excuses we hear ad nauseum.

It's just this kind of belief system I am trying to alter. The solution I tried to outline, will assist "the majority of homeless" who supposedly want to get out of the cycle of poverty they are in. That is the claim right? Most of these people need and want help and want a job and on and on? But that really isn't true is it? It's true that a lot of homeless say it and it's true that a lot of people believe that. But that simply is not the case.

I want to really solve the problem. It's insane to perpetuate methods of assistance that do not assist and exacerbate the problem. In fact, our existing approach penalizes the people who are truly needy and rewards the people who are exploiting the system and exploiting the overwhelming guilt and charity of the good people in Victoria.

Victoria without any doubt has the smartest, most generous, most compassionate, most public spirited and involved population anywhere in Canada. What Victoria lacks is clarity of thought. There is a gaping lack in critical thinking ability, logic, reason, thoughtfullness. The tremendous prosperity has had the unintended consequence of tremendous guilt that overwhelms reason. And that is the nature of good people.

It is the unintended consequences of the kindness and compassion outpour that cause and perpetuate the homeless problem. A new paradigm must occur for any progress to occur. I'm not being cruel, heartless, or unsympathetic. I'm simply tring to think clearly and come up with an idea. I may be completely wrong. There's many things I have not considered or thought about. My idea won't apply to every person in every situation. I do believe it will address the problem and actually help the people who deserve the unimaginable level of compassion in Victoria.

But chances are, we'll continue to be saps. We'll continue throwing money at it and we'll all feel so good about the good we have done to help our fellow man in his time of need. We will positively beam with pride at satisfaction about what good people we are. But, unfortunately, it can't and won't change a thing and the problem will persist and expand.

[Mike K.]

Quit pandering to street people
The victim culture dominating our downtown is becoming absurd. The police have stated that they have only enforced the property bylaw a few times to clear sidewalks. Street agencies should teach their clients rules of engagement instead of criticizing police for upholding a basic level of order.

We are constantly being urged by street advocates to prove our compassion, but this is not an issue of poverty. It’s about contempt for authority by those who act as if they’re living in some unreal back-to-the-land community miles from civilization. Not only do we get intimidated to meet their needs for cash handouts at every corner, but the media are used to compromise the relationship between law-abiding citizens and the police.

An acquaintance was recently asked for food money by two youths sitting outside a grocery store. She declined to give cash but purchased an extra loaf of bread and went outside to give it to them. They cursed her and flung the loaf onto Yates Street.

Last week another acquaintance was punched in the face by a dumpster diver behind his office. As he pulled out his cellphone to call police, the offender begged him not to, claiming his behaviour was due to hunger. The victim put away his phone and offered the young man a job for a week to clean debris away from his building. They agreed that he would start the next morning for $10 per hour. He never showed up.

Susan Woods,
Victoria.

TC May 14 2007

[m0nkyman]

I've been back in town for two days now, and have had to yell at three street people who were using my beautiful front garden as a urinal.

Civil society is taking a beating in this town.

[Rorschach]

I suggest you install a Porta-Potty for their use. The right to life cannot exclude a right to uriate or defecate in your garden. Where is your sympathy? What if you had to go to the can couldn't find a facility? Put yourself in the shoes of the homeless. A welfare check does not buy as much fortified wine as it used to and that stuff goes right through you. You're a cruel and bitter person and Karma will catch up with you eventually if you don't lighten up. Someday, it could be you digging through a dumpster for knawed chicken wings and rummaging through restaurant patios for cigarette butts.

Seriously though, you can install a "Scarecrow" motion activated sprinkler. They are used for startling off birds that come into your garden and emit a three second burst of water. It will save you the hassle and possible heart attack of charging outside and confronting the weenie wagger directly.

[Holden West]

Clearly, some (not all) of these people are simply unemployable. This is a service economy--loser jobs like [url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0011673:e8a70]lifting boxes are history[/url:e8a70]. You can't scrounge $800 a month for rent with odd jobs. Landlords will hardly look at you unless you have steady, full time employment. You think you can get an apartment by stating "daffodil picker" on the application?

Church enrollment continues to decline--meaning most charities aren't a sustainable solution.

What do we do with that tiny (a few hundred out of 350,000!) that nobody will hire yet aren't mental enough for the Institution?

Well?

[Rorschach]

I used to manage a very large winery. We were always looking for labor. I spent weeks and months handing out cards to the homeless wherever I found them. I promised 40 hours of work a week at $15 an hour, three square meals a day, and free on-site housing and extended medical coverage. Just show up at the address on the card. Out of about 200 cards handed out to the homeless, not even one showed up. Not a one. Over five years I must have handed out over a thousand cards. Never, not even once ever, did any homeless person show up to work.

Every homeless person "unemployable"? No. That is not the problem. Even so if there are a few as you describe, society can have a clear conscience that a good failth effort was made to help, rather than a waste of time, money and effort.

I do not believe "give up" is a viable alternative. You are again falling into the symptoms are the problem problem. If such people as you describe exist, they can't be helped by any government effort no matter the size and scope. They are drug-free, with no medical problems? After all they've spent their year getting benefits and getting medical treatment and having that house provided for them -- and they are still unemployable? I simply don't believe it.

For them I say we can continue benefits only at the expense of depriving their living relatives of future entitlements. We throw the burden onto the relatives of the derelicts and if they don't care for their family members, then the families lose their benefits. What family member is going to agree to that? If your own family won't pay to support you, why should I, a stranger pay?

There is a limit to the public's generosity. If there is no limit, then there is no motivation for a solution. We can't justify doing nothing and changing nothing simply because a theoretical possibility exists that some are beyond all help.

We owe them a good faith effort. But there's no benefit to anyone for being naive about it. The thinking evident in your post would reward the worst behaviour making a real solution even more difficult.

As far as charities, I must beg to differ. Canadians are the most generous in the world. The Charities are not fulfilling their obligations and we keep giving. People should be more discriminating concerning which charities they contribute rather than contributing less. I don't send in money to feed starving children in Africa. Even if "only a penny will help." Appeals to guilt are usually manipulation. Charitable organizations can be motivated to act in the same way as derelicts could be -- only contribute to charities that do make a difference locally.

If "the majority of Canadians" truly believe the homeless deserve unconditional money and homes provided to them-- nothing is stopping them from donating to charities that provide that kind of thing. If they don't, well maybe the fact is that the majority of Canadians don't think that way. Ever thought of that? Who is denying reality here?

[Caramia]

Actually, there is something in what you said there that could be expanded further... for anyone who has actually tried to be a caregiver of a mentally ill or addicted person (or a person who is both), the burden can be staggering, and ultimately, you can end up dragged down with it. Yet that is in my experience the most effective rehab is the one that is done by mom, wife, girl-friend, or Aunty Gives-a-Crap.

The current system makes it almost impossible to provide this sort of help to a relative or close friend. There are very few support services for people who are in this position, and frequently, it becomes more effective to abandon the loved one so that the "system" will kick in. (I am speaking from personal experience).

What might be a good avenue and middle road would be finding a way to support the caregivers. Having schizophrenic Uncle Mikey live in might be more feasible with relaxed secondary suite by-laws, a visitation social worker, family support councillors, some training on how to deal with episodes, and a bit of an allowance so it isn't a choice between Suzy's braces and Uncle Mikey's groceries. Same deal with alcoholics and drug addicts, but with some sort of provision that would discourage enabling environments.

[Rorschach]

Very good points Caramia. The present system is an incentive for family members to abandon homeless relatives. There's an area that can and should be changed.

I'm wondering if there really is a legitimate church anywhere in town that would turn away someone who showed up there asking for help. Are there religious leaders saying, "Get a job!"? Are they nudging the homeless along and doing nothing to help? Can that really be possible?

I'm just so disappointed with the Times Colonist series of articles. This is the top of mind issue in Victoria and the reporters have done a superficial and banal job with the subject matter. Fish wrap if I ever saw it.

The newspaper is so used to giving the appearance of "balance" and to print "both sides" of any issue that they universally neglect to provide facts that would allow a reader to make an informed judgment on the matter.

Supposedly, a future article is on things that have worked in other cities. The only place I can think of off-hand is New York City. My memory of their solution was to strictly enforce "quality of life" laws. These are minor things like littering, and public urination and removing property placed in the public right of way. The Victoria Police are not re-inventing the wheel with some of the things they are doing. And with the overwhelming compassion and charity out there, it is a shame that the Times Colonist has framed the issue as one of police oppression against the helpless poor. I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that this is as far from the truth or the facts as any newspaper can get away with printing and still stay in business.

The Times Colonist is passing off editorial comment as news even though they would deny it to the death.

What the Times Colonist should do is bring to everyone's attention those local charities that actually do help those who really need it and do not enable derelicts exploiting the good will and compassion of Victoria. An in-depth focus on local Victoria charities and churches -- as if it was a best hamburger or best pizza article, would do a world of good. If only they would just tell people not to give money to panhandlers directly and direct them to the places where that spare change actually might make a difference.

At the same time, they could expose the multi-million dollar charity orginizations that pocket 90% of the money they take in. Believe me the best way to rip off people and make a lot of money is to start a non-profit or a charitable orginization. Identity theft and fraud pale in comparison to the money generated by supposed charities.

How about some best bets in local charity? And a list of charities that pocket more than they give away? Ask some hard questions and print that story. Put the issue in context and let people know what they should be doing or where the smart money should go.

The local newspaper has done a great disservice to the community. Reality has been distorted to pander and patronize the readership.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Today's T-C article from the series is pretty good, for a change. For one thing, it suggests some concrete approaches (and includes an interview with Philip Mangano, the fellow I referenced in that lengthy post of mine a ways up, which featured the quotes from Malcolm Gladwell's "Million Dollar Murrary" article in the Feb.2006 issue of The New Yorker).

The T-C seems to have broken the online bit in two, although there's an overlap. The feature article is available as [url=http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=e70d0ab1-2a2b-4c83-a931-70c70c74756f&k=15227:0f2d2]Vancouver 'a decade' ahead of us; Crisis caught Victoria politicians off guard, despite years of warning[/url:0f2d2], by Judith Lavoie. And that's also the lead article for [url=http://communities.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/blogs/news/pages/no-place-to-call-home-part-5.aspx:0f2d2]No place to call home - Part 5[/url:0f2d2], which includes the report on how US cities are dealing with the homelessness crisis, and an interview with Mangano.

In the lead article, Mayor Lowe is quoted as follows:

"I need some treatment facilities, I need detox, I need group homes with support services. I need to build subsidized housing units so that those on the verge of homelessness can afford a home. I need to build transition units for those who come out of detox," he said.

"I need to look at wet housing for chronic alcoholics, I need youth shelters and youth housing. I need Vancouver Island Health Authority to come on board and assist with treatment. I need a court system to be tougher on repeat offenders and I need a community court so we can actually deal with petty crimes."

That sounds like a pretty reasonable wish list, and a reasonable approach.

I know this is unpopular with many folks, but I'm glad he left "safe injection site" out of the mix quoted here. Unless the government actually gives people the drugs to shoot up, I really don't understand how anyone can call it a "safe" injection site: it's another one of those oxymoronic terms we use to fudge things over. After all, how do you know the addict isn't injecting rat poison? So what's the answer? Giving addicts the drugs?, selling them via government outlets? No way. And I don't buy the alcohol comparison, either, which doesn't differentiate the issue enough. While I can very safely enjoy wine with dinner on a daily basis, there's no such thing for heroin or other "injectables."



caption: John Crean, Henry Kamphof and Jeremy Tate are among officials dealing with homelessness.

[Rorschach]

Why didn't the newspaper article come up with a city in Canada that solved the problem by such methods? The United States has a population tax base of over 300 million people! Canada has just 32 million people.

The huge amounts of money thrown at the problem "unconditionally" is beyond the means of Canadians -- unless you want even higher taxes on an unimaginable scale. Our taxes are high to begin with because there are so few people to support the government.

The other problem with Seattle and Portland's supposed solution is that it addresses our problem: having to look at the derelicts. It doesn't solve their problem, i.e., mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. Sure a few recover, but the Times Colonist neglects to tell you that the recovery rate even given such massive expendatures is under 5%. Again, the same rate of recovery as would be expected if left alone. If the unconditional approach has the same rate of effect as doing nothing, why spend the money?

Anyone who has visited Seattle or Portland recently would not tell you they have fixed the problem. There are a lot of bums -- way more than here and they are a lot more violent and dangerous.

Another flaw in the article is that they only published about cities who "solved" the problem by throwing money to the beggars unconditionally. What about the example in New York I'd mentoned? New York's homeless problem has probably been relocated rather than solved in all fairness. However, the lack of coverage of other methods is a good example of my claim that the Times Colonist is disguising editorial comment as news. The T/C is advocating plain and simple. It's not proper journalism.

[m0nkyman]

The T/C is advocating plain and simple. It's not proper journalism.

Wow. There's a shocker. :roll:

[Caramia]

Rorschach the New York example had a lot more than just cleaning up litter and leaving people who rode the subways without paying with criminal records. In fact there is no evidence that those methods contributed towards any of the advances in dealing with social ills. All that can be proven that did was make yuppies and tourists feel more comfortable on the streets. Which I think in the end is all Victoria really wants too.

A few other elements of the New York example:

- the idea that you can't "externalise" any aspect of the problem. So, if there are 100 bums moved off the street in a certain district, then they must be found houses and jobs in that district... rather than "moved on" or pushed over to the next.

- A huge investment in harm reduction methods, which include safe injection sites and syringe exchanges.

- The forced closure of much of Alphabet City, in some cases using tanks and helicopters to shut down squats that had been running for up to 30 years. In essence, a sort of urban clearcutting; scattering clusters of the poorest and most addicted people to disperse them throughout the community. The closest we could come to that would be to take out View Towers.

I know there is more but I haven't been able to choke my way through the rest of Giuliani's self congratulatory book to get to it, and the rest of my research is dated.

Regarding the "broken window" theory of policing, the relationship between how safe people FEEL and how safe it really is, is an interesting one. An article in the New York Times explores this relationship, showing how people are willing to tolerate and overlook certain levels of crime if the streets are clean and look 'safe.' There will always be anecdotal evidence of crime and public disorder, but how frequently that evidence is repeated and what weight it is given has little relationship with the actual levels of social health and crime statistics. It does however seem to directly depend on factors such as if there is graffiti, or if you can see teenagers hanging out on the corner.

Deepening Shadows
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: November 17, 2002

SOMETHING in the air seems to be changing. Once again, it's not uncommon to feel a vague sense of dread when walking down a shadowy street. Strangers look slightly menacing. The sound of footsteps provokes a sense of unease.

It's not as bad as it was a decade ago, when crime was every New Yorker's waking nightmare. But New Yorkers are more fearful these days, and that is odd, given the city's dropping crime rate.

Police statistics show that crime is the lowest it has been in four decades. For the first time since the early 60's, the annual murder rate is on pace to fall below 600.

Yet a new New York Times poll, taken late last month, shows that a growing percentage of New Yorkers feel that their city is less safe today than it was four years ago... [url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E4DA1530F934A25752C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1:163cf]Full article[/url:163cf]

One thing I found interesting was the theory that the relationship between perception and crime can be a self fufilling prophecy. Regardless of the actual crime rate, if people feel safe they will take ownership of the streets, which ends up making the streets safer. If they feel unsafe, they will avoid the streets and will allow behaviour that they wouldn't tolerate unremarked in "their" territory. That subtle shift as to whose streets they are has more to do with perception than anything else, and that is where the broken window theory works.

[m0nkyman]

Regardless of the actual crime rate, if people feel safe they will take ownership of the streets, which ends up making the streets safer. If they feel unsafe, they will avoid the streets and will allow behaviour that they wouldn't tolerate unremarked in "their" territory. That subtle shift as to whose streets they are has more to do with perception than anything else, and that is where the broken window theory works.

The broken window theory, and take back the night marches have a root philosophy in common.... "Whose streets? Our streets."

[Rorschach]

Again, some very good points Caramia. I personally think New York's approach is lest costly and doable here because of that. The "unlimited free housing" options in Seattle and Portland had the same type of results as New York, but clearly this is beyond the means of Canadians unless we tax ourselves even more. Each approach solves our problems without addressing the cause. It's possible that my idea would address the problem itself rather than the idea that the symptoms are the cause type solutions we are reading about.

Victoria's problem is a fear of crime, rather than any startling rise in actual crime. The elderly couple who don't go out anymore because of the street people and skateboard punks are just as much a victim even if they are not directly victimized by a criminal. New York's approach addresed this kind of thing. People are walking the streets and going out and "feel" safer because the quality of life issues were prioritized.

Victoria's downtown is such a nice place if you could just get the derelicts and punks removed. You may have to mobilize a lot of police and chicken-**** them all to death to get them out -- but that approach does work.

If you parked in front of the Parliament building there is a 100% chance you'll get a ticket. But if you murdered someone there, you'll probably get away with it. I think it's a good idea to take control of those things you have control over and make an effort or just try something. If you fail, try something else, and keep trying something else. Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results is madness.

The 6th part of the Times Colonist article was just pull quotes of spokespersons who all believed that the same old same old would make a difference if we did it some more or spent more in it. Someone has to get outside the box. Is there such a person in authority? I doubt it.

I'm just trying to come up with ideas. Victoria is far from hopeless. There are just too many smart people around here. I personally think the problem could be solved simply by a decision to solve it. In this respect I agree with he Times Colonist's editorial today. I disagree that such a decision is "obviously" spending United States federal government levels of money on it in Canada. It's not possible unless we bump ourselves up to 50% of our incomes to taxes the way the social democracies in Europe do.

They're giving the bums about $30,000 a year and free housing and free medical -- and all over the European Union the bums are gravitating to the best welfare states. Expanding welfare is a zero-sum effort and I do not want to pay.

If "the majority of Canadians" want to help, there is nothing stopping them. If that was true, the homeless would get the help voluntarily. I'm working half a year to break even. What is tax freedom day now? June 20? Just about half of my work year is just to pay taxes. And you want more? To help the bums? Forget it.

[Caramia]

Hehe you had me until you wanted to get rid of the punks. Having spent a good deal of my younger years as a punk-hippy hybrid hanging out downtown in the era of skateboard confiscation and McBouncers I would be seriously furious if we started victimizing the kids down there that cause no real harm but make uptight people feel uncomfortable. Lets focus on the criminals.