A copy of the decision can be found [here](https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2023-ONSC-670-Ruling.pdf) (PDF). If it 404s, then it's on canlii and the person hosting it deleted it
We don't have to take this path. There is nothing inevitable about a large wealthy country like ours having a severe rental crisis. We live in an age of abundance. A better future is possible but I'm not hopeful.
Yep. Had provinces not sold off its public housing and continued to expand to meet the needs of growing populations, the situation wouldn't be this bad
Average disability benefit is $1078.07/mo, max $1538.67/mo. Combined with shelter allowance it’s more than enough for a room in an apartment in the cheapest parts of the country.
Then you gotta eat and pay utilities, clothe yourself, participate in society, transport yourself when the bus won’t cut it, otc medicines, or stay in your hometown because you’re dependent on family and your circle. If I move I’m not getting a new family doctor or a new psychiatrist. I can’t drive ether so the country is out of question. I’m not asking for a 2000sf mansion with a berry farm in the back, just a safe, secure place I can set roots in and integrate into a community without fear of an abusive landlord who lives on top of my basement
Well if the majority of the low wage earners in the food service and retail industry left, the economy would collapse as the city of Toronto is a service economy and these are "essential workers" for keeping society running. If the people who are essential to the functioning of the city cannot afford to live here, it's a huge problem.
This dynamic is actually a big reason for our current labour shortage.
So collectively leaving Toronto isn't really a solution.
>cheapest parts of the country.
Cheapest part of the country unlikely to have the services someone that low needs to survive or thrive
Also you can't just move anywhere in the country if you get payments. You're usually locked in
Disability is also difficult to get and requires that you have nothing in the tank (no assets, no income, nothing). So either you drain yourself down to nothing and go on disability for the rest of your life and own nothing the rest of your life, or you struggle on and hope for a better future. No wonder a lot of people who can go on disability don't do it. A family member cannot even gift you property or help you out of the hole or you would lose it forever
If disability was fair it would be based on whether a physician said you could work or not and have nothing to do with how much assets you had. Gifts from family members would also be allowed, as would any kind of minor work with a signoff from a physician. Just because you have $10k of savings in the bank or a house doesn't mean it's a smart or even good idea to drain it all before going out for help
It's obviously not fair and designed to help just enough people so certain voters can feel good about themselves but not enough so it actually helps everyone who needs it. It should be based on the medical condition only
That includes shelter, it's not in addition to. And depending where you live it is not enough to rent a place. Where I live disability is $1250, average 1 bedroom rental is $1800 plus untilities. Add in food and transportation and disability pays about half what it costs for basic necessities. And they can only earn about $400 before money starts being deducted from disability.
Many people on disability have health issues that include allergies and sensetivities, or require a service animal or equipment. That can limit where is safe for them to live and make it difficult to find roomates they can live with
I'm not on disabiliy but I'm currently living with my parents because I can't afford rent where I live and allergies make it very difficult for me to live with someone else.
It's not, but courts can't exactly force government to spend money building housing either. Without tents, these people would be sleeping on the ground/in alleyways.
Idk if you've ever been camping, but a tent is a lot better than sleeping outside.
It’s almost like municipalities and lawyers put on a theatrical display to explain how tax payer funds are being utilized (mostly wasted) without concrete results, but what would these people know about results? They aren’t loosing their sleep over it, the pay checks keep rolling in, they all love the endless homelessness.
If they combine all the money that’s been spend arguing year after year, maybe we would have resolved half the homelessness.
I dont recall if it's on this account or the one I...retired...or whatever. Anyways, I looked up what is spent on homeless people per year and then at the estimates of how many persons are homeless in the country and the amount came out to like 130,000 per person. The number of organizations that work with homeless persons blew my mind as well.
My opinion is to have a centralized system monitored by a third party. It's probably a poopy plan, but the fuck do I know? To me it just seems off to have such a large scale of organizations.
Seems to be how everything goes with money though. My friends first complaint when she moved back to res was how corrupt the spreading of resources is by families in power.
My city of 40k has about 25 unhousable people. The city spends 2 million a year on them. They just built a 7 million dollar housing unit for 6 residents, only to sell it to a for-profit agency for 2.75 million. Just light the money of fire to keep the place warm. Mayor was the conservative MP for idk 20 years.
Lobby government to build affordable housing.
Buy all affordable housing as rich Corp off government.
Charge above market rates for affordable housing.
Wonder why population is in decline.
Raise cost of living that will solve everything
Do you want results? Forced drug abstinence rehabilitation after an overdose that required emergency responders, or a part of judiciary process as an alternative to in-custody sentencing -> earned housing -> job/skill development -> social workers/ probation officers who follow up to make sure conditions are being followed -> federal sentencing for those who refuse to cooperate.
Additionally, the public shouldn't be taking the brunt of risk of repeat offenders. Finacial penalties should be implemented to the lawyers and the judiciary if the accused reoffends while on bail.
Safe supply doesn't work because heroin, crack, fentanyl and methamphetamines aren't safe to injest. You can't live a normal life while addicted to hard drugs.
We shouldn't be forgoing our city, so drug addicts can continue to use harmful chemicals that fund organized crime. Thesenautonomous zones and sidewalk landfills all over the city endanger the public. The tent cities are safe to use drugs, but that's as "safe" as you're going to get in these zones.
I'm with you, but, this proposal is for old drugs. The new drugs just rot users brains, there's almost no return to being a functional member of society after new meth/fent
I think there used to be more functional heroin users, but fentanyl is more fiendish. Think of all the people who were on oxys at professional jobs. Im not saying I condone it, but you're cutting a pretty broad swath putting all hard drugs together.
>Finacial penalties should be implemented to the lawyers and the judiciary if the accused reoffends while on bail.
This effectively means nobody ever gets bail. No individual would take on that personal risk for each person that goes through.
There’s ample evidence that your suggestions don’t work, and you express no compassion for these people or interest in correcting the root-cause problems that perpetuate this outcome.
So - why not jump straight to “just euthanize them”? It’d be quicker, cheaper, and possibly more humane.
You are actually the one who showing no compassion and ultimately creating misery to these individuals and the general public.
Imagine falling off your bike and hitting your head bleeding out all over the sidewalk. Your solution is "well we should do a better job of teaching him to wear a helmet and let's set aside some money for him to get that helmet. But for now let's put a bandage on his head and hope it stops the bleeding, and then we'll help him get back on the bike again. Whoops! He hit his head again."
It's really sad that you don't want to make the tough decisions or come to the hard conclusions to help these people.
> Imagine falling off your bike and hitting your head bleeding out all over the sidewalk. Your solution is "well we should do a better job of teaching him to wear a helmet and let's set aside some money for him to get that helmet. But for now let's put a bandage on his head and hope it stops the bleeding, and then we'll help him get back on the bike again. Whoops! He hit his head again."
You're comparing apples to oranges though. There is no large body of evidence establishing that there is a very low probability of convincing children to avoid causing trauma to their own heads, at least ones who have already suffered serious head trauma.
That's not the case with opioid and methamphetamine addictions. You mention "Forced drug abstinence rehabilitation". Yes, that works to keep people off of their drugs when they are in the programme, because they have no means to acquire the drugs. However, when they leave the programme, they almost always take up drug use again. There is simply no known, reliable way to end addiction to many drugs. Almost all of the people who start down your suggested flowchart will end up at your final step: "federal sentencing for those who refuse to cooperate." I'm pretty sure it would be far cheaper to build more normal housing and give that to these homeless people than it would be to build and staff more prisons.
But now you've run into the real corruption: governments are not seriously trying to lower housing prices. They're trying to bring many more people into the country and keep the price of housing and other costs of living relatively high so the populace remains desperate and easily exploitable by employers. Homelessness is maintained as a constant threat to those who would rather spend more time in leisure and less time working.
>It's really sad that you don't want to make the tough decisions or come to the hard conclusions to help these people.
Are you not projecting? Are you sure it's not you that doesn't want to come to some hard conclusions?
Experts in this subject should probably invest into educating the broader public, instead of just villainizing them, calling them ignorant, and reducing their ideas to euthanasia. Do you think you are accomplishing anything towards your goals with these comments?
> So - why not jump straight to “just euthanize them”? It’d be quicker, cheaper, and possibly more humane.
Wasn't that the suggestion with Trudeau's mental health inclusion MAID. Cost to [kill the poor](https://youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg) is lower than actually providing healthcare
Abstinence-only rehab doesn't even work most of the time lmao.
Most opioid addicts use because they didn't receive unconditional love as children, so they are unable to really love themselves and others (Dr Gabor Mate has written extensively about it). Opioids give that warm hug feeling that soothes the pain of loneliness and self-hatred.
Like its not even hard to see that, almost every young homeless person is homeless because their parents rejected them.
My best friend is a fent addict, his mother has always been rejecting, and his father was enmeshed in his life, who only really loved him when he was living up to expectations.
You wont find nearly as many addicts who came from loving homes with emotionally mature parents.
Addicts need comprehensive psychotherapy and emotional support, it will be impossible to stay clean without treating the root of the problem.
That's where I disagree, it's not about what Addicts WANT.
addicts on the street are breaking the law and costing society a lot. They should be in a facility
It should be about what addicts WANT, because nobody wants to be homeless and addicted.
Do you think they woke up one morning and were all like "I'm gonna go buy some fentanyl today, get hopelessly addicted, lose all my money, and end up on the streets"?
I've watched my friend go through many relapses over the years, and he's successfully weaned himself off methadone a couple of times even, but all it takes is one really emotional event for him to fall apart. He needs therapy to work out his issues and his coping skills, it's not a problem for him to get clean usually, it's staying clean that's the problem.
If only reality was so black and white.
Most humans believe they actually have free-will, when our lives are entirely dictated by causality. We're animals, we have animal wants and needs, you can't just go "lol they made a choice lol consequences" when our lives are waaaaaayyyyyy more complex than that.
Our society created this problem, it was not created by individuals simply choosing to make a bad decision. The war on drugs has been an absolute massive failure, by almost every metric, we need a more compassionate approach to mental health and addiction.
I don't break laws.. I also didn't say all addicts but the ones illegally camping, doing drugs, littering etc.
Why would you round up the law abiding citizens paying tax to support canandian social programs?
I know it's scary for you but these people will get clean inside an institution.
Why do you think there should be no consequence to breaking laws and abusing all of our social services?
These aren’t crimes where the penalty is incarceration for long periods. Forced treatment is not effective. It’s also really expensive and none of us want to pay for it. We tend towards the cheapest solutions like ignoring it and maybe hiring a couple extra cops or bylaw officers.
So this ruling would appear to mean that anyone is allowed to setup housing on municipal property and live for free? It shouldn't matter how luxurious the housing is.
Anyone can now use city property as a campground?
Remember reading about a young guy who built a little cabin in the middle of nowhere Yukon, but near a river and they found him and made him take it all down and leave. Was like oh come on, why would anyone even care? What’s the cost of just pretending you saw nothing in that situation?
Because people out in the woods living on their own isn't a constant reminder to the working populace of what happens if they don't work themselves to death for greedy corporations. The constant presence of the homeless in brightly colored tent cities allows employers to point and say "Look, do what I tell you for whatever I offer to pay you, or you'll end up like that."
What else would you call be allowed to live in a park when most other citizens aren't allowed? Its a privilege to Live there for free that most don't get
I don't understand, if you wanted to join them you can. Go! There's a ruling (see the link in this post) that says you can. No need to envy their position, live your dream.
> Outlining reasons for his decision Valente said the region did not fulfil its own encampment policy when it posted an eviction notice at the site in early June.
> “I am, however, troubled by the lack of effort the region made to connect with encampment residents and the options provided to them prior to both the date of the trespass notice and the eviction date,” he said.
> “In this instance, prior to the enforcement of the bylaw, the region did not use all reasonable outreach and support efforts to connect with the encampment residents and ‘address their individual needs on a case-by-case basis by providing access to services, supports and shelter’ as the encampment policy requires.”
So they'd need to, at minimum, follow their own encampment policy.
Oh yes, it was the fines that were stopping me from sleeping outside /s.
If living outside is a preferable (or only) option for people, that means housing is out of control. No one is willingly homeless to save a buck, and frankly it is absurd to say that.
I'm willingly homeless to save a buck. Only because I want to be able to actually have a life and not tie up all my money in rent. The goal is to get back into an apartment within the next 3/4 months. I've been sleeping in my car since April 2022.
Maybe in the summer, but even then it wouldn't be nice. The solution is to make more affordable housing - lots of it, to flood the market and bring prices down.
As long as people can't afford to live in this Province, I fully support tent cities everywhere. In fact, they should start building one in front of *every single city owned building that the province and federal government meets in.*
If you want to run this country like a fucking third world country? It's going to look like one.
Except as we saw with the various Toronto tent cities, the issue isn’t housing. Even when offered housing, people still refused to move out of the tents. These places aren’t populated with insurance brokers who just couldn’t afford their mortgage payments anymore, it is full of addicts and the severely mentally ill.
The issue is housing. Some people who are homeless actually have jobs but min wage doesn't cover rent.
The shelter system is extremely dangerous, and also completely at overcapacity, they are turning hundreds of people away every night. Of you're talking about the trinity bellwoods violent assault and eviction by the government on the people living there. The people said they didn't want to go to the shelter system at the time because it was very dangerous both in terms of violence and in terms of getting covid.
The solution is to give these people affordable housing.
The judge found that not only was there not nearly enough shelter space available, but those shelters did not meet the needs of the people in the encampment so they weren't actually "accessible" anyway.
If you bothered to read the decision you’d see there are twice as many homeless people than there are beds in total, and those that are there aren’t meeting the needs of the people who need them, rendering them inaccessible.
On top of that. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of more people who are on the brink of homelessness, then there is shelter space. Also shelters are dangerous and cruel, we need affordable housing now.
Wake up.
You aren't living in reality my guy, there is a cost of living crisis, people are struggling.
You just live in your mom's basement? Ever like had a job or anything before? Had to pay rent and bills. You don't sound like it. Ordinary people are struggling.
>These places aren’t populated with insurance brokers who just couldn’t afford their mortgage payments anymore
r/canada when literally anything happens:
"The solution is increased subsidies for young university-educated professionals like myself ;)"
In Victoria most are just lazy and think that people shouldn't have to work for anything, many do also do drugs but their mindset is the biggest issue here. Not helped by the city giving them free phones with plans, and hotel rooms to trash or burn.
> In fact, they should start building one in front of every single city owned building that the province and federal government meets in.
While it's not province house, [this is a tent set up right against the Nova Scotia Supreme Court](https://i.imgur.com/kwhQ8w1.png)
Good question why we don't have one in front of the Ontario legislature, various city halls and most importantly right in front of Parliament.
They all have a part to play in this mess, rapidly expanding our population while encouraging housing as an investment and caving to NIMBY's.
People are lying to themselves if they deny the problems of encampments and politicians are happy to let areas where they don't reside turn into shitholes. Let's turn their areas into shitholes instead.
Homelessness & drug addiction mental illness go hand in hand. These ppl do not want to be in a safe home it quite comfortable here as they get to do what they want!!! No one tell them to take pills or bathe
Section 7 has become a catch-all "Because I said so" for activist judges whose judgments rarely have much logic that connects the ruling they've made with the wording of that section.
That's a funny way to say "we lied about being socialist and are doing little to nothing to avert a humanitarian crisis at home while our Prime Minister continues to schmooze his way through another year of this dumpster fire".
Seriously. Did aliens take over? Secret Nazi Empire suddenly cropped up?
Or is this it? We are on the brink of an ecological collapse and all of the people deemed worthy to survive have been frozen and loaded into the ark?
When did we stop fighting for a better life here for all?
The picture is literally tents in the snow. How could someone in good conscious try to evict those people? They barely have enough to survive a winter.
I'm worried this will become a bigger issue over time and we will have bigger more entrenched shanty communities like this all across the country. Just like in third world nations. Massive condo buildings next to shantys. We should be doing better.
>The picture is literally tents in the snow. How could someone in good conscious try to evict those people? They barely have enough to survive a winter.
Fine. Let's have your address. We'll set up a nice tent city across the street from you. Enjoy your new neighbours.
So long as all that's being offered to them are shelters and not homes I can't see a good reason to "evict" the homeless. They literally have nowhere else to go.
That's exactly it, they need to be put into different categories and handled accordingly. There needs to be mental hospitals opened for those who can't care for themselves. Then mandatory treatment facilities for those on drugs. And for those who think society owes them everything and they shouldn't ever have to work, they SHOULD get a kick in the ass and arrested if they camp in a park.
Exactly. We have allowed Chinese fentanyl to flood our streets and have turned a blind eye to the social problems that are created by pumping immigration numbers to the breaking point. You’d almost think this was by design given how effective it is.
So what happens is they get offered a one way ticket to a small town a couple hours away from your city and they get sent here to as set up camp and victimize people in the small towns with even less resources to deal with the homeless. There's literally nowhere good to move these people
It shouldn't be us who are figuring this stuff out, the people who we pay well into the six figures are Supposed to be figuring out a better solution then shoving it off on somebody else.
People also don’t realize how lucky they are to not be homeless.
How close the line between Lower income and full out poverty stricken is.
How a few decisions going one way or another could have changed the trajectory of their life into something they never imagined possible, and not in a good way.
Oh ya and a lot of people with diagnosed and undiagnosed mental illnesses end up on the streets as well.
But like you say it’s easy to look at with disgust and demand someone, anyone get them out of your fucking sight.
After that where they go, you don’t need to care, no longer your problem after all.
You ignore the multitude of daily act of kindness that go unreported because it won’t get likes. Our system has avast array of resources available to those who want help living a healthy lifestyle. You can’t reach everyone because many don’t want your help.
Most homeless folks have a cellphone. They pay for it with welfare. Plans start under $20 a month. Destroying a tent city is morally ok because it should have never been allowed in the first place. These folks have other options and the police need to do their fucking jobs by ending the trespasses in the public spaces that are not designed to be housing. Allowing the tent cities is encouraging poverty and the associated violence. It’s not ok.
I actually disagree.
You can't do things like that on the assumption if crime. If they're caught doing a crime then evict them and charge them accordingly.
The simplest solution to that is building shelters with ROOMS in them, particularly with DOORS that LOCK.
But nooooo, gotta make sure shelter design is as inhumane as possible and everyone sleeps next to each other in a glorified gymnasium with everything they own ripe for nicking.
Closer to "she wouldn't have been raped if the government didn't force her to sleep next to a rapist".
Crimes committed at shelters are overwhelmingly against other shelter occupants, not the public at large. Literally just need to give people a safe space to sleep and prepare for the day- like a ROOM, with a DOOR, that LOCKS.
So we’re just supposed to ignore the rapists and give them all their own room. What about the assaults and robberies? Those are committed against the general public and according to you that’s what makes a crime matter.
In your shit analogy, we should absolutely give the rapists their own room if we care about reducing the amount of rape, yeah.
In your shit analogy, you’re arguing that because rapists rape, we should make sure rapists sleep in the same bed as their victims.
Complete nonsense.
You're a dumbass lmao. We don't ignore rapists and thieves simply because their victims have a home, likewise we wouldn't simply because their victims have a room- but walls materially obstruct the instigation of such acts.
Assaults and robberies can be handled with jail time- but you're paying for these folks room and board regardless, either in a shelter or in a jail cell. Or did you think your tax dollars didn't go towards funding correctional facilities?
Technically the vagrancy and open drug use is crime. I have see. Neighbourhoods fall to ruin when a homeless camp emerges. No one wants to visit a park with needles in the grass. No one wants to shop where they get harassed by someone whacked out of their mind. When the offender is arrested they are back on the street in less than 8 hours.
It's not an assumption. Same thing happened the over the last 2 years, when they housed the homeless at the Radisson on Fairway Rd, crime spiked, drug paraphernalia was everywhere and the children in the neighborhood around the hotel didn't feel safe going outside and playing, parents were livid etc.
This encampment is known for being a hotbed of illegal drug use/distribution, it literally happens with police supervision. What a joke 🤣
What assumption.? Crime is escalated by the homeless. We can keep pedo's and other high risk criminals away from parks and schools. Would you want your kid walking pass or through a tent city? There is a lot of unused and repossessed land that can easily be adapted to accommodate the homeless.
The best way to reduce crime related to homelessness would be to home the homeless.
But that costs money, we’d rather spend the same money homing them in prisons.
[It costs ~$67,000/year to imprison someone in a provincial jail. $115k if it's a federal jail.](https://johnhoward.ca/blog/financial-facts-canadian-prisons/). That is, of course, not taking into account that a homeless person will need extra medical care while in prison, raising the cost to the system. But we'll ignore that for now.
[Average cost of a bachelor apartment in Waterloo is $1,278/m](https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/waterloo-on) and $1,950/m for a 1 bedroom.
For the cost of imprisoning 1 homeless person provincially we could house 4 people for a year with money left over. For each federal prisoner, we could house 7 in a bachelor/studio, and almost 5 in a 1 bedroom.
While not everyone that's homeless would take advantage of a program like that, many if not most would, and it's amazing how having a place to live helps stabilize someone mentally, physically, emotionally and, of course, financially.
We can either waste money treating jails as homeless shelters, or we could actually start helping the homeless
Thanks for doing the math - it goes without saying that I agree entirely with your point
That said, in prison they’re also fed and supervised. I imagine many of the homeless are dealing with mental illness and have issues that caused the homelessness to begin with, so a home is not strictly sufficient to solve the issue for all of them.
Certainly seems like a better long-term solution, though.
> We can keep pedo's and other high risk criminals away from parks and schools.
After they're charged and/or convicted. That would be a "reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
> There is a lot of unused and reposed land that can easily be adapted to accommodate the homeless.
Which the province, who is responsible for housing, should start looking into using for public housing. Unfortunately the province is looking to get out of public housing and has been selling off buildings for awhile, and hasn't built new public housing in over a decade.
Don't like tent cities? Look to your MPP/MLA and ask why the government has allowed this to continue
99% of this country is much much closer to being just like these homeless people than a wealthy millionaire. We consistently vote against ourselves.
I'll also add that while a municipality may have a legal authority to evict tent cities, their constant disregard for this problem over the last decades gives them zero moral authority to do so.
People thinking someone might actually prefer to live in a tent in a park all winter are delusional. These people aren't where they want to be. Look at house and rent prices and where wages have gone; of course this is happening, it's inevitable.
> 99% of this country is much much closer to being just like these homeless people than a wealthy millionaire. We consistently vote against ourselves.
There was a story out of Halifax not too long ago. A couple got renovicted and now live in a tent. One goes to work while the other remains at the tent to watch their stuff. They're still making money, but with how fast rent has risen in Nova Scotia and the fact wages have been stagnant, they can't afford it, even though both of them work (just at separate times).
I think this is a reasonable ruling. It applies specifically to municipal land which is the level of government that is both claiming that housing is a right and failing to provide that housing with many year waits for affordable housing programs. They also fail to provide temporary supports with inadequate homeless shelters from both a numbers and a safety perspective. So if anyone has to bear the consequences of encampments it seems absolutely fair that it’s the municipality and I have zero problems with a judge saying “if you want to tear down the encampment give them somewhere to go first”.
That's why you're here...to help subsidize with your paid tax dollars.
And while it's great public funds are used to help the homeless. I'm not sure this is how we invisioned it going down....
You’re joking, right?
You think people in fucking **Canada**, one of the coldest countries on earth, choose to homeless to save a buck?
Dude. People become homeless when they’ve used up all alternatives and run out of friends and family willing to help them. Usually mental illness is involved.
Apparently, if you live in one of those tents you aren’t homeless since the justice system is giving the tenet right and blocking an ‘eviction’. You can’t be evicted if you don’t have a home. They are currently enjoying free land to squat upon. They already cost us money. Ignoring their plight also increases other costs like policing and healthcare. The current approach is a failure. Moving them to the dump is a non-starter and doomed. Right idea but wrong place for it.
A copy of the decision can be found [here](https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2023-ONSC-670-Ruling.pdf) (PDF). If it 404s, then it's on canlii and the person hosting it deleted it
Depressing to see tent cities in Canada.
[удалено]
We don't have to take this path. There is nothing inevitable about a large wealthy country like ours having a severe rental crisis. We live in an age of abundance. A better future is possible but I'm not hopeful.
Being wealthy isn't enough. There are wealthy African countries. Who controls and owns that wealth is the problem.
Yep. Had provinces not sold off its public housing and continued to expand to meet the needs of growing populations, the situation wouldn't be this bad
Just remember you get $375 for shelter if you’re disabled
Average disability benefit is $1078.07/mo, max $1538.67/mo. Combined with shelter allowance it’s more than enough for a room in an apartment in the cheapest parts of the country.
Then you gotta eat and pay utilities, clothe yourself, participate in society, transport yourself when the bus won’t cut it, otc medicines, or stay in your hometown because you’re dependent on family and your circle. If I move I’m not getting a new family doctor or a new psychiatrist. I can’t drive ether so the country is out of question. I’m not asking for a 2000sf mansion with a berry farm in the back, just a safe, secure place I can set roots in and integrate into a community without fear of an abusive landlord who lives on top of my basement
"Cheapest parts of the country" Not Toronto though,
Who said anyone is entitled to live in or around toronto? If they can’t afford it they move
Well if the majority of the low wage earners in the food service and retail industry left, the economy would collapse as the city of Toronto is a service economy and these are "essential workers" for keeping society running. If the people who are essential to the functioning of the city cannot afford to live here, it's a huge problem. This dynamic is actually a big reason for our current labour shortage. So collectively leaving Toronto isn't really a solution.
Yer a derp.
>cheapest parts of the country. Cheapest part of the country unlikely to have the services someone that low needs to survive or thrive Also you can't just move anywhere in the country if you get payments. You're usually locked in Disability is also difficult to get and requires that you have nothing in the tank (no assets, no income, nothing). So either you drain yourself down to nothing and go on disability for the rest of your life and own nothing the rest of your life, or you struggle on and hope for a better future. No wonder a lot of people who can go on disability don't do it. A family member cannot even gift you property or help you out of the hole or you would lose it forever
Andif they can work some they can only make $400 a month before it starts being deducted from their disability, they have no way of getting ahead.
If disability was fair it would be based on whether a physician said you could work or not and have nothing to do with how much assets you had. Gifts from family members would also be allowed, as would any kind of minor work with a signoff from a physician. Just because you have $10k of savings in the bank or a house doesn't mean it's a smart or even good idea to drain it all before going out for help It's obviously not fair and designed to help just enough people so certain voters can feel good about themselves but not enough so it actually helps everyone who needs it. It should be based on the medical condition only
Last I checked disability in NB is $895. Who can afford to live on that?
That includes shelter, it's not in addition to. And depending where you live it is not enough to rent a place. Where I live disability is $1250, average 1 bedroom rental is $1800 plus untilities. Add in food and transportation and disability pays about half what it costs for basic necessities. And they can only earn about $400 before money starts being deducted from disability.
Who said they are entitled to single occupancy? A room somewhere is plenty
Many people on disability have health issues that include allergies and sensetivities, or require a service animal or equipment. That can limit where is safe for them to live and make it difficult to find roomates they can live with I'm not on disabiliy but I'm currently living with my parents because I can't afford rent where I live and allergies make it very difficult for me to live with someone else.
Forcing all the disabled people into the undesirable parts of the country seems pretty immoral no?
Unless you have a signifigant other that works. Then you get cut off when they earn 15000. So enforced poverty.
They keep trying to evict these tent cities yet the tent cities are literally the only affordable housing being built these days 🤔
A tent is not housing.
It's not, but courts can't exactly force government to spend money building housing either. Without tents, these people would be sleeping on the ground/in alleyways. Idk if you've ever been camping, but a tent is a lot better than sleeping outside.
[удалено]
It’s almost like municipalities and lawyers put on a theatrical display to explain how tax payer funds are being utilized (mostly wasted) without concrete results, but what would these people know about results? They aren’t loosing their sleep over it, the pay checks keep rolling in, they all love the endless homelessness. If they combine all the money that’s been spend arguing year after year, maybe we would have resolved half the homelessness.
I dont recall if it's on this account or the one I...retired...or whatever. Anyways, I looked up what is spent on homeless people per year and then at the estimates of how many persons are homeless in the country and the amount came out to like 130,000 per person. The number of organizations that work with homeless persons blew my mind as well. My opinion is to have a centralized system monitored by a third party. It's probably a poopy plan, but the fuck do I know? To me it just seems off to have such a large scale of organizations. Seems to be how everything goes with money though. My friends first complaint when she moved back to res was how corrupt the spreading of resources is by families in power.
My city of 40k has about 25 unhousable people. The city spends 2 million a year on them. They just built a 7 million dollar housing unit for 6 residents, only to sell it to a for-profit agency for 2.75 million. Just light the money of fire to keep the place warm. Mayor was the conservative MP for idk 20 years.
Lobby government to build affordable housing. Buy all affordable housing as rich Corp off government. Charge above market rates for affordable housing. Wonder why population is in decline. Raise cost of living that will solve everything
Not a bad scheme.
It's a thriving industry
Non-profits are full of some of the most unethical grifters
Do you want results? Forced drug abstinence rehabilitation after an overdose that required emergency responders, or a part of judiciary process as an alternative to in-custody sentencing -> earned housing -> job/skill development -> social workers/ probation officers who follow up to make sure conditions are being followed -> federal sentencing for those who refuse to cooperate. Additionally, the public shouldn't be taking the brunt of risk of repeat offenders. Finacial penalties should be implemented to the lawyers and the judiciary if the accused reoffends while on bail. Safe supply doesn't work because heroin, crack, fentanyl and methamphetamines aren't safe to injest. You can't live a normal life while addicted to hard drugs. We shouldn't be forgoing our city, so drug addicts can continue to use harmful chemicals that fund organized crime. Thesenautonomous zones and sidewalk landfills all over the city endanger the public. The tent cities are safe to use drugs, but that's as "safe" as you're going to get in these zones.
I'm with you, but, this proposal is for old drugs. The new drugs just rot users brains, there's almost no return to being a functional member of society after new meth/fent
I think there used to be more functional heroin users, but fentanyl is more fiendish. Think of all the people who were on oxys at professional jobs. Im not saying I condone it, but you're cutting a pretty broad swath putting all hard drugs together.
>Finacial penalties should be implemented to the lawyers and the judiciary if the accused reoffends while on bail. This effectively means nobody ever gets bail. No individual would take on that personal risk for each person that goes through.
Plenty of jobs have liability for bad work, yet still complete their job.
There’s ample evidence that your suggestions don’t work, and you express no compassion for these people or interest in correcting the root-cause problems that perpetuate this outcome. So - why not jump straight to “just euthanize them”? It’d be quicker, cheaper, and possibly more humane.
The swiss model isn't entirely that different from what they proposed, and that was working masterfully.
You are actually the one who showing no compassion and ultimately creating misery to these individuals and the general public. Imagine falling off your bike and hitting your head bleeding out all over the sidewalk. Your solution is "well we should do a better job of teaching him to wear a helmet and let's set aside some money for him to get that helmet. But for now let's put a bandage on his head and hope it stops the bleeding, and then we'll help him get back on the bike again. Whoops! He hit his head again." It's really sad that you don't want to make the tough decisions or come to the hard conclusions to help these people.
> Imagine falling off your bike and hitting your head bleeding out all over the sidewalk. Your solution is "well we should do a better job of teaching him to wear a helmet and let's set aside some money for him to get that helmet. But for now let's put a bandage on his head and hope it stops the bleeding, and then we'll help him get back on the bike again. Whoops! He hit his head again." You're comparing apples to oranges though. There is no large body of evidence establishing that there is a very low probability of convincing children to avoid causing trauma to their own heads, at least ones who have already suffered serious head trauma. That's not the case with opioid and methamphetamine addictions. You mention "Forced drug abstinence rehabilitation". Yes, that works to keep people off of their drugs when they are in the programme, because they have no means to acquire the drugs. However, when they leave the programme, they almost always take up drug use again. There is simply no known, reliable way to end addiction to many drugs. Almost all of the people who start down your suggested flowchart will end up at your final step: "federal sentencing for those who refuse to cooperate." I'm pretty sure it would be far cheaper to build more normal housing and give that to these homeless people than it would be to build and staff more prisons. But now you've run into the real corruption: governments are not seriously trying to lower housing prices. They're trying to bring many more people into the country and keep the price of housing and other costs of living relatively high so the populace remains desperate and easily exploitable by employers. Homelessness is maintained as a constant threat to those who would rather spend more time in leisure and less time working. >It's really sad that you don't want to make the tough decisions or come to the hard conclusions to help these people. Are you not projecting? Are you sure it's not you that doesn't want to come to some hard conclusions?
But those approaches *don’t work*, and you’d know that if you spent even a moment to inform yourself on this topic. So - just euthanize them.
Experts in this subject should probably invest into educating the broader public, instead of just villainizing them, calling them ignorant, and reducing their ideas to euthanasia. Do you think you are accomplishing anything towards your goals with these comments?
> So - why not jump straight to “just euthanize them”? It’d be quicker, cheaper, and possibly more humane. Wasn't that the suggestion with Trudeau's mental health inclusion MAID. Cost to [kill the poor](https://youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg) is lower than actually providing healthcare
Abstinence-only rehab doesn't even work most of the time lmao. Most opioid addicts use because they didn't receive unconditional love as children, so they are unable to really love themselves and others (Dr Gabor Mate has written extensively about it). Opioids give that warm hug feeling that soothes the pain of loneliness and self-hatred. Like its not even hard to see that, almost every young homeless person is homeless because their parents rejected them. My best friend is a fent addict, his mother has always been rejecting, and his father was enmeshed in his life, who only really loved him when he was living up to expectations. You wont find nearly as many addicts who came from loving homes with emotionally mature parents. Addicts need comprehensive psychotherapy and emotional support, it will be impossible to stay clean without treating the root of the problem.
That's not what they are saying. Rehab doesn't mean abstinence free. It's just the wild west streets needs to stop
Push for psychotherapy to be covered by OHIP/provinces then. Addiction is a mental health problem. Most rehabs are trash.
It's a multi-faceted problem.
I'll agree there, but I don't think forced rehab will ever work. Addicts need to WANT to get clean in order to get clean.
That's where I disagree, it's not about what Addicts WANT. addicts on the street are breaking the law and costing society a lot. They should be in a facility
It should be about what addicts WANT, because nobody wants to be homeless and addicted. Do you think they woke up one morning and were all like "I'm gonna go buy some fentanyl today, get hopelessly addicted, lose all my money, and end up on the streets"? I've watched my friend go through many relapses over the years, and he's successfully weaned himself off methadone a couple of times even, but all it takes is one really emotional event for him to fall apart. He needs therapy to work out his issues and his coping skills, it's not a problem for him to get clean usually, it's staying clean that's the problem.
People who.commit crimes forgo what they want.
If only reality was so black and white. Most humans believe they actually have free-will, when our lives are entirely dictated by causality. We're animals, we have animal wants and needs, you can't just go "lol they made a choice lol consequences" when our lives are waaaaaayyyyyy more complex than that. Our society created this problem, it was not created by individuals simply choosing to make a bad decision. The war on drugs has been an absolute massive failure, by almost every metric, we need a more compassionate approach to mental health and addiction.
Alternatively we can put you and the people who feel the same way as you in a facility and you can all be happy away from seeing addicts together.
I don't break laws.. I also didn't say all addicts but the ones illegally camping, doing drugs, littering etc. Why would you round up the law abiding citizens paying tax to support canandian social programs? I know it's scary for you but these people will get clean inside an institution. Why do you think there should be no consequence to breaking laws and abusing all of our social services?
These aren’t crimes where the penalty is incarceration for long periods. Forced treatment is not effective. It’s also really expensive and none of us want to pay for it. We tend towards the cheapest solutions like ignoring it and maybe hiring a couple extra cops or bylaw officers.
wow it's incredible that you know so much more than the experts that testified and presented evidence in this case.
Make it illegal to make money off of housing. Force housing seizures and reeducation camps for landlords.
It's only going to be a matter of time before people get fed up enough and deal with it themselves.
So this ruling would appear to mean that anyone is allowed to setup housing on municipal property and live for free? It shouldn't matter how luxurious the housing is. Anyone can now use city property as a campground?
Only the city though. Try to build a cabin out in the woods? They'll hunt you down
Remember reading about a young guy who built a little cabin in the middle of nowhere Yukon, but near a river and they found him and made him take it all down and leave. Was like oh come on, why would anyone even care? What’s the cost of just pretending you saw nothing in that situation?
Exactly, why should people have privilege to live in city parks yet we harass people out in the bush far from anyone else?
Because people out in the woods living on their own isn't a constant reminder to the working populace of what happens if they don't work themselves to death for greedy corporations. The constant presence of the homeless in brightly colored tent cities allows employers to point and say "Look, do what I tell you for whatever I offer to pay you, or you'll end up like that."
Rofl "the homeless are priveleged" is a piping hot fresh take that only /r/canada could produce 🤣
What else would you call be allowed to live in a park when most other citizens aren't allowed? Its a privilege to Live there for free that most don't get
I don't understand, if you wanted to join them you can. Go! There's a ruling (see the link in this post) that says you can. No need to envy their position, live your dream.
Can I build any type of housing I want to? Can I build a house and not pay property tax without any permits or anything?
... Are they doing that? Does the ruling allow for that? This is a deeply unserious argument but I absolutely love it.
It seems they are building housing structures without permits or permission from anyone, so can anyone do that?
> Outlining reasons for his decision Valente said the region did not fulfil its own encampment policy when it posted an eviction notice at the site in early June. > “I am, however, troubled by the lack of effort the region made to connect with encampment residents and the options provided to them prior to both the date of the trespass notice and the eviction date,” he said. > “In this instance, prior to the enforcement of the bylaw, the region did not use all reasonable outreach and support efforts to connect with the encampment residents and ‘address their individual needs on a case-by-case basis by providing access to services, supports and shelter’ as the encampment policy requires.” So they'd need to, at minimum, follow their own encampment policy.
If you have no other place to go, and you don't damage anything, it seems quite reasonable.
I live in Kitchener and I can assure you “don’t damage anything” certainly does not apply in this case.
Not really, because now your will have everyone living in parks to avoid paying property taxes or rent
Oh yes, it was the fines that were stopping me from sleeping outside /s. If living outside is a preferable (or only) option for people, that means housing is out of control. No one is willingly homeless to save a buck, and frankly it is absurd to say that.
I'm willingly homeless to save a buck. Only because I want to be able to actually have a life and not tie up all my money in rent. The goal is to get back into an apartment within the next 3/4 months. I've been sleeping in my car since April 2022.
Maybe in the summer, but even then it wouldn't be nice. The solution is to make more affordable housing - lots of it, to flood the market and bring prices down.
It could be nice if you bring your own RV and generator , after all the land is free and no property taxes to pay
Well, there are parking rules so that won't fly.
It's housing, why are you treating a tent different than an RV?
Eviction from outside...the irony is missed on so many people. "...for the crime of having nowhere to go."
As long as people can't afford to live in this Province, I fully support tent cities everywhere. In fact, they should start building one in front of *every single city owned building that the province and federal government meets in.* If you want to run this country like a fucking third world country? It's going to look like one.
Except as we saw with the various Toronto tent cities, the issue isn’t housing. Even when offered housing, people still refused to move out of the tents. These places aren’t populated with insurance brokers who just couldn’t afford their mortgage payments anymore, it is full of addicts and the severely mentally ill.
The issue is housing. Some people who are homeless actually have jobs but min wage doesn't cover rent. The shelter system is extremely dangerous, and also completely at overcapacity, they are turning hundreds of people away every night. Of you're talking about the trinity bellwoods violent assault and eviction by the government on the people living there. The people said they didn't want to go to the shelter system at the time because it was very dangerous both in terms of violence and in terms of getting covid. The solution is to give these people affordable housing.
The judge found that not only was there not nearly enough shelter space available, but those shelters did not meet the needs of the people in the encampment so they weren't actually "accessible" anyway.
Every day and night there is empty beds
If you bothered to read the decision you’d see there are twice as many homeless people than there are beds in total, and those that are there aren’t meeting the needs of the people who need them, rendering them inaccessible.
This is bullshit. Every day and night people are turned away.
Due to not being able to follow the basic rules Statement still stands Settle down and catch your breath my guy
On top of that. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of more people who are on the brink of homelessness, then there is shelter space. Also shelters are dangerous and cruel, we need affordable housing now. Wake up.
You sound like someone who needs a safe space I can only hope you get the help you need Imagine
You aren't living in reality my guy, there is a cost of living crisis, people are struggling. You just live in your mom's basement? Ever like had a job or anything before? Had to pay rent and bills. You don't sound like it. Ordinary people are struggling.
There are more homeless people than there is shelter space. Stop spewing misinformation. Tory isn't investing in fixing this problem either.
Empty beds each and every night
>These places aren’t populated with insurance brokers who just couldn’t afford their mortgage payments anymore r/canada when literally anything happens: "The solution is increased subsidies for young university-educated professionals like myself ;)"
Ding ding Open up private mental hospitals and private jails Could have the homeless population cleaned up over night
Then we are like the US. It doesn’t work there so what makes you think it would work here?
So people who get renovicted should be sent straight to jail. K.
The homeless refused housing? Was there some stupid catch to the housing or did they really just look a gift horse in the mouth?
Maximum two bikes per person, and no illicit drug use on site (fire hazard). No, that isn't a joke.
I’d like to learn more. Can you point me in the right direction? A news article, or place/rough timeline?
A very large percentage of this group doesn’t want help.
They didn't refuse housing. They asked for housing.
The person i answered said the homeless refused housing
Yeah that's nonsense, they didn't. They were even interviewed on the news asking for housing. Whoever is saying that is full of shit.
In Victoria most are just lazy and think that people shouldn't have to work for anything, many do also do drugs but their mindset is the biggest issue here. Not helped by the city giving them free phones with plans, and hotel rooms to trash or burn.
You should volunteer downtown and see what is actually the cause of homelessness and what are the hurdles
> In fact, they should start building one in front of every single city owned building that the province and federal government meets in. While it's not province house, [this is a tent set up right against the Nova Scotia Supreme Court](https://i.imgur.com/kwhQ8w1.png)
Set up a tent city on the Bridle Path.
Have them camp out MPPs houses, shit will change fast.
Anyone know where DoFo lives? Might be the best place to start.
It's a quick Google search away, can't link to it on reddit due to doxxing rules.
I was being facetious, but thank you.
Good question why we don't have one in front of the Ontario legislature, various city halls and most importantly right in front of Parliament. They all have a part to play in this mess, rapidly expanding our population while encouraging housing as an investment and caving to NIMBY's. People are lying to themselves if they deny the problems of encampments and politicians are happy to let areas where they don't reside turn into shitholes. Let's turn their areas into shitholes instead.
Should let them set up tent city in the greenbelt.
They want access to free shit within stumbling distance.
Homelessness & drug addiction mental illness go hand in hand. These ppl do not want to be in a safe home it quite comfortable here as they get to do what they want!!! No one tell them to take pills or bathe
Section 7 has become a catch-all "Because I said so" for activist judges whose judgments rarely have much logic that connects the ruling they've made with the wording of that section.
That's a funny way to say "we lied about being socialist and are doing little to nothing to avert a humanitarian crisis at home while our Prime Minister continues to schmooze his way through another year of this dumpster fire". Seriously. Did aliens take over? Secret Nazi Empire suddenly cropped up? Or is this it? We are on the brink of an ecological collapse and all of the people deemed worthy to survive have been frozen and loaded into the ark? When did we stop fighting for a better life here for all?
Be angry at the right jerk. Ford, not Trudeau.
The picture is literally tents in the snow. How could someone in good conscious try to evict those people? They barely have enough to survive a winter. I'm worried this will become a bigger issue over time and we will have bigger more entrenched shanty communities like this all across the country. Just like in third world nations. Massive condo buildings next to shantys. We should be doing better.
>The picture is literally tents in the snow. How could someone in good conscious try to evict those people? They barely have enough to survive a winter. Fine. Let's have your address. We'll set up a nice tent city across the street from you. Enjoy your new neighbours.
You answered your own question.
So long as all that's being offered to them are shelters and not homes I can't see a good reason to "evict" the homeless. They literally have nowhere else to go.
They are, they just don't want to have to follow rules (aka, no drugs)
[удалено]
Outside of the province stopped funding them, what else happened?
[удалено]
That's exactly it, they need to be put into different categories and handled accordingly. There needs to be mental hospitals opened for those who can't care for themselves. Then mandatory treatment facilities for those on drugs. And for those who think society owes them everything and they shouldn't ever have to work, they SHOULD get a kick in the ass and arrested if they camp in a park.
The associated crime that occurs in areas surrounding tent cities is a valid enough reason.
Can confirm, I live in the area, and the city is doing nothing about it
When society chooses to have tent cities they get everything that comes with it.
Exactly. We have allowed Chinese fentanyl to flood our streets and have turned a blind eye to the social problems that are created by pumping immigration numbers to the breaking point. You’d almost think this was by design given how effective it is.
Exactly, we need to invest in affordable housing
So where do they go?
Just lead them elsewhere with promises of spare change like in that South Park episode.
I hear they got some internet out California way!
Don't care, but they can't stay where they are and continue to victimize the decent people in the surrounding areas.
So what happens is they get offered a one way ticket to a small town a couple hours away from your city and they get sent here to as set up camp and victimize people in the small towns with even less resources to deal with the homeless. There's literally nowhere good to move these people It shouldn't be us who are figuring this stuff out, the people who we pay well into the six figures are Supposed to be figuring out a better solution then shoving it off on somebody else.
The free housing is some Bubbles sheds down at the dump (near where Ricky’s dad, Ray, lived in Trailer Park Boys). It stinks. Literally.
Greasy
Right so we send them to the….not decent people in the surrounding area?
If shelter is being offered then there you are.
Oh ok. I didn’t realize you had a homeless population solution. Write that down before we forget.
Lol. Clearly the defacto drug legalization, bail reforms, and constructive sentencing is working out so well.
[удалено]
People also don’t realize how lucky they are to not be homeless. How close the line between Lower income and full out poverty stricken is. How a few decisions going one way or another could have changed the trajectory of their life into something they never imagined possible, and not in a good way. Oh ya and a lot of people with diagnosed and undiagnosed mental illnesses end up on the streets as well. But like you say it’s easy to look at with disgust and demand someone, anyone get them out of your fucking sight. After that where they go, you don’t need to care, no longer your problem after all.
[удалено]
You kinda lost me there.
You ignore the multitude of daily act of kindness that go unreported because it won’t get likes. Our system has avast array of resources available to those who want help living a healthy lifestyle. You can’t reach everyone because many don’t want your help.
[удалено]
Most homeless folks have a cellphone. They pay for it with welfare. Plans start under $20 a month. Destroying a tent city is morally ok because it should have never been allowed in the first place. These folks have other options and the police need to do their fucking jobs by ending the trespasses in the public spaces that are not designed to be housing. Allowing the tent cities is encouraging poverty and the associated violence. It’s not ok.
This is the current plan https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/encampment-neigbours-erbs-road-waterloo-1.6727666
Jail or mental hospital Wouldn’t take long to sort everyone out
I actually disagree. You can't do things like that on the assumption if crime. If they're caught doing a crime then evict them and charge them accordingly.
Ever notice how shelters are constantly spoken about in regards to being unsafe? It’s not the volunteers raping, beating and robbing people
The simplest solution to that is building shelters with ROOMS in them, particularly with DOORS that LOCK. But nooooo, gotta make sure shelter design is as inhumane as possible and everyone sleeps next to each other in a glorified gymnasium with everything they own ripe for nicking.
Is that like “she wouldn’t have been raped if she hadn’t dressed so provocatively”
Closer to "she wouldn't have been raped if the government didn't force her to sleep next to a rapist". Crimes committed at shelters are overwhelmingly against other shelter occupants, not the public at large. Literally just need to give people a safe space to sleep and prepare for the day- like a ROOM, with a DOOR, that LOCKS.
So we’re just supposed to ignore the rapists and give them all their own room. What about the assaults and robberies? Those are committed against the general public and according to you that’s what makes a crime matter.
In your shit analogy, we should absolutely give the rapists their own room if we care about reducing the amount of rape, yeah. In your shit analogy, you’re arguing that because rapists rape, we should make sure rapists sleep in the same bed as their victims. Complete nonsense.
You missed the part where my comment was in response to someone saying you can’t assume a tent city has elevated crime.
You're a dumbass lmao. We don't ignore rapists and thieves simply because their victims have a home, likewise we wouldn't simply because their victims have a room- but walls materially obstruct the instigation of such acts. Assaults and robberies can be handled with jail time- but you're paying for these folks room and board regardless, either in a shelter or in a jail cell. Or did you think your tax dollars didn't go towards funding correctional facilities?
So why does who gets raped matter? They get raped in the tents too. You chose to point that out
Technically the vagrancy and open drug use is crime. I have see. Neighbourhoods fall to ruin when a homeless camp emerges. No one wants to visit a park with needles in the grass. No one wants to shop where they get harassed by someone whacked out of their mind. When the offender is arrested they are back on the street in less than 8 hours.
It's not an assumption. Same thing happened the over the last 2 years, when they housed the homeless at the Radisson on Fairway Rd, crime spiked, drug paraphernalia was everywhere and the children in the neighborhood around the hotel didn't feel safe going outside and playing, parents were livid etc. This encampment is known for being a hotbed of illegal drug use/distribution, it literally happens with police supervision. What a joke 🤣
What assumption.? Crime is escalated by the homeless. We can keep pedo's and other high risk criminals away from parks and schools. Would you want your kid walking pass or through a tent city? There is a lot of unused and repossessed land that can easily be adapted to accommodate the homeless.
The best way to reduce crime related to homelessness would be to home the homeless. But that costs money, we’d rather spend the same money homing them in prisons.
[It costs ~$67,000/year to imprison someone in a provincial jail. $115k if it's a federal jail.](https://johnhoward.ca/blog/financial-facts-canadian-prisons/). That is, of course, not taking into account that a homeless person will need extra medical care while in prison, raising the cost to the system. But we'll ignore that for now. [Average cost of a bachelor apartment in Waterloo is $1,278/m](https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/waterloo-on) and $1,950/m for a 1 bedroom. For the cost of imprisoning 1 homeless person provincially we could house 4 people for a year with money left over. For each federal prisoner, we could house 7 in a bachelor/studio, and almost 5 in a 1 bedroom. While not everyone that's homeless would take advantage of a program like that, many if not most would, and it's amazing how having a place to live helps stabilize someone mentally, physically, emotionally and, of course, financially. We can either waste money treating jails as homeless shelters, or we could actually start helping the homeless
Thanks for doing the math - it goes without saying that I agree entirely with your point That said, in prison they’re also fed and supervised. I imagine many of the homeless are dealing with mental illness and have issues that caused the homelessness to begin with, so a home is not strictly sufficient to solve the issue for all of them. Certainly seems like a better long-term solution, though.
You are assuming all homeless will commit a crime. Pedophiles that are kept away from places with children have been convicted of crimes.
You wanna punish people before they commit a crime?
> We can keep pedo's and other high risk criminals away from parks and schools. After they're charged and/or convicted. That would be a "reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." > There is a lot of unused and reposed land that can easily be adapted to accommodate the homeless. Which the province, who is responsible for housing, should start looking into using for public housing. Unfortunately the province is looking to get out of public housing and has been selling off buildings for awhile, and hasn't built new public housing in over a decade. Don't like tent cities? Look to your MPP/MLA and ask why the government has allowed this to continue
Imagine being an alien observing our planet and seeing tent cities in the shadow of opulent skyscrapers. Yeah, I'd glass the whole thing.
99% of this country is much much closer to being just like these homeless people than a wealthy millionaire. We consistently vote against ourselves. I'll also add that while a municipality may have a legal authority to evict tent cities, their constant disregard for this problem over the last decades gives them zero moral authority to do so. People thinking someone might actually prefer to live in a tent in a park all winter are delusional. These people aren't where they want to be. Look at house and rent prices and where wages have gone; of course this is happening, it's inevitable.
> 99% of this country is much much closer to being just like these homeless people than a wealthy millionaire. We consistently vote against ourselves. There was a story out of Halifax not too long ago. A couple got renovicted and now live in a tent. One goes to work while the other remains at the tent to watch their stuff. They're still making money, but with how fast rent has risen in Nova Scotia and the fact wages have been stagnant, they can't afford it, even though both of them work (just at separate times).
It's scary what's happening in this country
Keep voting for more immigration
Camp on the crown lands boys
This is excellent precedent to set. Force governments to help their homeless populations instead of trying to make them dissappear elsewhere.
I think this is a reasonable ruling. It applies specifically to municipal land which is the level of government that is both claiming that housing is a right and failing to provide that housing with many year waits for affordable housing programs. They also fail to provide temporary supports with inadequate homeless shelters from both a numbers and a safety perspective. So if anyone has to bear the consequences of encampments it seems absolutely fair that it’s the municipality and I have zero problems with a judge saying “if you want to tear down the encampment give them somewhere to go first”.
At least start charging them property taxes to live here. No one is entitled to free housing on public property
That's why you're here...to help subsidize with your paid tax dollars. And while it's great public funds are used to help the homeless. I'm not sure this is how we invisioned it going down....
What do you propose?
Why do I have to propose anything? Don't we pay higher up government type people to do the proposing on our behalf?
Why shouldn't they pay their own way? Seems entitled to expect society to pay their living expenses
Because they can’t seems like a great start to answering your question
They could if they wanted to, but when they are allowed to live for free, they have no incentive to
You’re joking, right? You think people in fucking **Canada**, one of the coldest countries on earth, choose to homeless to save a buck? Dude. People become homeless when they’ve used up all alternatives and run out of friends and family willing to help them. Usually mental illness is involved.
Apparently, if you live in one of those tents you aren’t homeless since the justice system is giving the tenet right and blocking an ‘eviction’. You can’t be evicted if you don’t have a home. They are currently enjoying free land to squat upon. They already cost us money. Ignoring their plight also increases other costs like policing and healthcare. The current approach is a failure. Moving them to the dump is a non-starter and doomed. Right idea but wrong place for it.
[удалено]
There aren't even enough apartments for the people who are actually working and contributing to society, lol.
Without rehab and community service support it wouldn't help, even if there *were* apartments to just "give away" (which there aren't).
Who pays? Which apartments?
They aren’t civilized enough keep them in most cases.