25967 replies to this topic

[Rob Randall]

Ensuring safety and security in these environments would be job #1 if this mission were anything close to legitimate. Zero chance for assault, zero chance for sexual assault, zero chance for robbery, zero chance for exposure to gangs or drug dealers or pimps, etc.

 

Remember the olden days of the Cormorant needle exchange? You had a permanent cluster of anti-social activity just a couple of metres beside the entrance to the Pacifica Housing apartments, filled with residents that had some degree of stability in their lives, enough to get their own place. Then they have to navigate a drug supermarket just to enter their home.

[spanky123]

PHS used to (may still have) have its 'sober' clients on the third floor while the junkies lived on one and two. 

[martini]

There's the concept of Housing First which is that unless you have a secure home (basic need) you can't even try to address other issues. But it doesn't take into account the mass congregation of the very thing that a person wishing to escape shouldn't be around. Housing a bunch of these people in one geographic area doesn't work. Would work better if it could happen in smaller facilities in their home communities. 

Seems we've known this model hasn't worked for decades, yet here we are. 

I remember when the shelter was to go in Rock Bay. We argued that fact back then. 

Nothing has changed except a thriving homeless 'industry'. which will be defended fiercely. 

[rmpeers]

Seems we've known this model hasn't worked for decades, yet here we are.
I remember when the shelter was to go in Rock Bay. We argued that fact back then.
Nothing has changed except a thriving homeless 'industry'. which will be defended fiercely.

It's hard to interpret the current approach as anything other than an attempt to keep that industry going, whatever the cost.

[On the Level]

The CRAB park encampment in Vancouver, but relevant for us here too.

 

 

Judge says he hasn't decided on whether criminal contempt proceeding are justified for protesters, but he's clearly leaning that way.

 

In a stern ruling sparked by an application from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Hinkson has asked Attorney General David Eby to consider criminal contempt charges for 11 of the about 45 protesters arrested in June at the CRAB Park encampment beside Burrard Inlet.

 

"when the element of public defiance of the court’s process in a way calculated to lessen societal respect for the courts is added to the breach, it becomes criminal.”

 

https://vancouversun...b-fc6ae5b6fa99/

[JimV]

Hinkson’s come to Jesus moment?  He’s the one who decreed camping in the parks in the first place.  But I’ll curb my enthusiasm until any of these contempt charges are actually laid.

[A Girl is No one]

Hinkson’s come to Jesus moment? He’s the one who decreed camping in the parks in the first place. But I’ll curb my enthusiasm until any of these contempt charges are actually laid.

Maybe the mess got close to his home.... most people don’t care and prefer to appear virtuous until they actually have to live with it...

[Awaiting Juno]

Hinkson’s come to Jesus moment?  He’s the one who decreed camping in the parks in the first place.  But I’ll curb my enthusiasm until any of these contempt charges are actually laid.

 

I don't think he ever intended the original decision to mean entrenched camping in large groups, rather, as a call to provide appropriate shelter spaces so that cities could be enabled to enforce their reasonable bylaws.  What's unfolded since is entirely a mile being taken after being given an inch - and putting a lid on it is challenging.

[A Girl is No one]

I don't think he ever intended the original decision to mean entrenched camping in large groups, rather, as a call to provide appropriate shelter spaces so that cities could be enabled to enforce their reasonable bylaws. What's unfolded since is entirely a mile being taken after being given an inch - and putting a lid on it is challenging.

If I remember correctly he made a few decisions that were in favour of the court house tent city ... until the fire dept said it was a danger to all living in there...

Edited by A Girl is No one, 19 September 2020 - 04:09 PM.

[JimV]

I don't think he ever intended the original decision to mean entrenched camping in large groups, rather, as a call to provide appropriate shelter spaces so that cities could be enabled to enforce their reasonable bylaws.  What's unfolded since is entirely a mile being taken after being given an inch - and putting a lid on it is challenging.

Road to hell, etc.  Hinkson didn’t think it through.  He found a hitherto unknown right in the Charter to free accommodation curtesy of the public purse.  Anyone should have seen where that was heading.  Where were these appropriate shelter spaces going to come from, especially since the decision invited an influx of nonresidents?  Again, entirely predictable.

 

The municipalities, as you suggest, have been complicit and have made a bad situation worse.  But Hinkson opened the door.  The decision should have been appealed immediately.  The legal costs would be trivial compared to what has happened since.

[Midnightly]

you would think there is more then enough low barrier shelters and housing that has popped up.. maybe it's time to have a high barrier shelter.. one for those who are clean or trying to stay clean... one that can have AA meetings regularly in a public area, support to help people stay clean so they can get their life back on track.. a building for people to transition to when they are trying to escape the low barrier and stay clean

[Victoria Watcher]

that sounds OK in theory. but I’m not so sure there are many in that category.

those people often have friends and family that save them from homelessness.

and for some that are marginal I think they like the freedom/fun that low barrier offers.

[Awaiting Juno]

you would think there is more then enough low barrier shelters and housing that has popped up.. maybe it's time to have a high barrier shelter.. one for those who are clean or trying to stay clean... one that can have AA meetings regularly in a public area, support to help people stay clean so they can get their life back on track.. a building for people to transition to when they are trying to escape the low barrier and stay clean

 

Anawim house being an example.  Need more "roads out of dependence" than shackles to poverty.

[Victoria Watcher]

By the day it becomes ever more clear that our governments, federal, provincial and municipal, have no idea how to deal with homelessness.

 

 

City council in Victoria recently gave a demonstration of that when, just two days after ordering homeless campers to vacate Centennial Square, council reversed itself and allowed them to return.

 

https://www.timescol...ness-1.24205283

 

 

this essentially concludes that the way out might be to give the homeless more cash.  as it points out single unemployed mothers-of-two are able to take home $31,000+/yr.

 

i'm not sure that's the solution.  quite frankly i'd rather set up a jobs program where they paint over graffiti or collect garbage or help build park trails etc.  rather than just a cash raise.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 20 September 2020 - 06:24 AM.

[Awaiting Juno]

Single moms also get child support (or should, assuming the fathers aren't dead beats) - and mothering is not a low demand activity (particularly if the kids are young) and with childcare often nearing $1000 per month per kid, the net impact of working can be marginal.  Single moms must also feed, house and clothe their children and as such face increased costs of living.  On the other hand, single, childless people face few barriers to employment and even lower costs of living.

 

As demonstrated by the CERB, more money isn't the answer.  More drugs, likely isn't the answer either. Rehabilitation, job training, small scale assisted housing (thinking half-way houses with room mates and a mentor/monitor), and housing search is likely more effective.  More money? Sure - if it's earned, like the rest of us.  

[Awaiting Juno]

Also, single moms are responsible for other people - that tends to make certain lifestyles incompatible (unless you're C. Brett).

[A Girl is No one]

If a single mom has housing issues, the government will make sure there is housing for her and her child. Period.

If the mother suffers from mental illness or has substance use issues to the point that it impacts her abilities to look after her child, the child would be looked after by family members or in a foster home. So the mother and child are not likely to ever be living in a park unless they want to.

[Victoria Watcher]

^ ^ that type of housing sounds fine but it’s unlikely to work if tenants are afforded all the rights of standard tenancy agreements. we need something a bit hybrid.

we should not be funding 100% of the housing at the same time as giving tenants the same rights as if it were private non subsidy housing. that’s why we never get enough turnover in government housing. people settle into the lifestyle.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 20 September 2020 - 08:02 AM.

[VIResident]

Juno, 

 

If a single person cannot get housing, it makes no difference what the 'lower costs of living are'.

 

As to the 'few barriers to employment' lack of housing is a barrier to employment.

 

 

On the other hand, single, childless people face few barriers to employment and even lower costs of living.

 

 

Edited by VIResident, 20 September 2020 - 08:25 AM.

[VIResident]

If a single mom has housing issues, the government will make sure there is housing for her and her child. Period.

If the mother suffers from mental illness or has substance use issues to the point that it impacts her abilities to look after her child, the child would be looked after by family members or in a foster home. So the mother and child are not likely to ever be living in a park unless they want to.

 

Addicted and mental health go hand-in-hand and there most certainly are single mothers living in the various camps around town.  Their children are with family or social services.  Do not think for one minute a single mom with issues gets top priority - they do not especially if the child/children are well placed.  That mom is left for the garbage heap.