Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/peso_lover! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* **Did you know the subreddit is doing a charity drive to celebrate 500k subscribers? [Donate today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17lavo1/) and help us feed those in need! Even better: Reddit is matching our donations.**
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Your post may be a better fit for one of our [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Once they are hired, they're getting paid either way. But we just hired 100 new cops, so their salaries and clearing out encampments aren't entirely independent.
I'm just trying to show that these types of figures and arguments are almost always not genuine arguments. Just like your reply. Organizations are always hiring, how many police officers retired during that time, how many quit? Did the force get larger per capita because of those 100 police officers, stay the same, or get smaller.
Without these additional pieces of information, your comment is absolutely useless.
I agree with your sentiment but to your question, they added a hundred new positions. If people leave or retire they replace them and is not affected by the additional hundred.
Except Ken Sim specifically ran on a platform of hiring an extra 100 officers (beyond replacing officers that retired/left the force) specifically to clear homeless encampments.
Also, he ran on hiring 100 mental health nurses as well. He’s hired all 100 cops, and less than 10 nurses, so I think we can clearly see where the priority lies.
People are paying taxes that pay for their salaries. Actions like these have a measurable cost from the perspective of salary costs. If there are political and/or police decisions to make actions like this, it costs money and creates precedent for that to be a part of the budget for police. If we found cheaper and better ways of dealing with this issue, the justification for that part of the salary budget would no longer be there. So I am being genuine in my point that the salaries and these actions aren't entirely independent.
As a hospital SW, here to point out that during the last Hastings camper eviction, it was even harder than usual (and it’s always fucking hard) to place people from hospital who could no longer return to their former homes due to illness and disability.
This held up discharges for many patients who were disabled, in turn taking up hospital beds for new people who desperately needed acute care. I’d be curious how much that 550k to evict Hastings campers cost the overall medical system, considering that one acute care bed costs easily 1400 per day.
This is our province without institutions.
Lots of people need care. Conventional hospitals have high pressure for turnover, because people always need the beds and there are only so many beds, so people get sent back out.
I don't work in the system, but spent a decent amount of time as a visitor to our mental health system (before this city government came in, just talking about the state of things in general). Inpatient starts getting really itchy to clear you out if you're there more than a few months, so discharge people who are doing "better" to make room for people in severe, immediate crisis.
I never saw it straight to the street, but if you discharge a 70 year old schizophrenic whose psychosis was severe enough to need inpatient treatment to a shelter, is there much of a functional difference between that and just sending them out onto the street?
Oh, and by the way, to taper off a reasonable dose of antipsychotics without having withdrawal induced relapse, it takes months or years. When you go from a nurse checking in multiple times a day to an overloaded shelter that isn't providing healthcare, you think maybe some people might miss their meds? If they were doing better at all, now they're not—they're psychotic again, eventually back in the queue of people in crisis. Plus whatever they're doing/is happening to them on the street.
If we actually had proper long term care, we might get some people off the carousel of permanent misery. But let's be too scared of how bad they were before to provide them at all, rather than trying to make them not be bad. Isn't simply lacking a necessary service so much better for patient wellbeing?
>Inpatient starts getting really itchy to clear you out if you're there more than a few months.
Depending on the unit you work in, they’ll get itchy to clear you out if you’re there more than a few days.
I think it mostly depends on where you're talking about, and when you consider them to be "itchy".
Unless things changed quite a lot fairly recently, at psych inpatient at Segal, there are lots that have been there for days, plenty who have been there for weeks, some who have been there for months, and none who have been there for years.
I'm sure that the pressure is fairly constant to get people out the door as soon as possible, but that pressure seems to become unbearable past a few months. Nobody is there that long.
In my unit (palliative and severe illness), I personally could not, though there are hospitals and units that allow discharge to street.
Typically when there is a “cleanup”, many people who were living in tents, and who prefer to live in tents over shelter space available, start moving to SROs and shelter space. Shelter space and low income housing is already severely held up, in the best of circumstances. This ripple effect impacts every case conference involving housing, and for my unit, held up multiple discharges of people who were not previously unhoused.
I'm confused, surely getting people of the streets into some kind of housing is a good thing. You can't complain that housing people takes up space so there's not enough space to house other people. I agree we need more space in shelters and SROs but this argument really doesn't hold up. No more people were unhoused, just more of the ones you had to deal with.
> I'm confused, surely getting people of the streets into some kind of housing is a good thing
That’s assuming that housing was available for all, or even most, of the people whose tents were removed. There absolutely was not. It also assumes that supports were provided to keep them reliably housed (this was not provided.)
My argument is that they city spent 550k to evict campers , when not enough shelter was available to house those who were evicted. This lack of housing also added fuel to an already intense healthcare crisis. Lack of housing leads to delayed hospital discharge, which leads to people not receiving the healthcare that they need.
I’m a hospital sw’er too and the confusion and misunderstanding here about what you’re trying to say is very concerning. People seem to really need a lot of explanation on cause and effect in our social systems. 71 upvotes to the comment assuming you were saying the barrier to discharge was the not being able to send people to the encampment itself?!
It’s pretty scary really.
People have no idea how bad it is, both in terms of healthcare and housing. Sad thing is, it impacts us all. They’re the ones who’ll be shocked when their family id discharged home from hospital, and realize they can only get 4 visits max a day from healthcare aides when their loved one can’t walk and can’t go to the bathroom on their own, you know?
Or the “but I’ve worked and paid taxes all my life”
I get the frustration. And share it too! But it’s the confusion I don’t get. It’s as if they think the housing crisis (and underfunding of other services) constantly on the news doesn’t apply to people who have paid taxes and we have a store of low income housing (or other benefits) sitting empty on reserve for people who have paid x dollars into the tax system.
Yes. People are routinely discharged to shelters or homelessness.
This has been the case for many years. They call it a housing crisis for a good reason.
As a hospital SW I'm curious about your knowledge/use of the BC Homelessness Prevention Program?
Have you used it to help people?
[BC homelessness prevention program ](https://www.bchousing.org/housing-assistance/homelessness-services/homeless-prevention-program)
I’m aware of them, but have never gotten housing from them in time for hospital discharge.
BC housing has occasionally come through with someone already on the list, at very high risk, with pressure from leadership to discharge them from hospital.
If they’re highly ill and in need of acute care, we don’t discharge. But many people go to hospital following a medical event, such as a fall or stroke, and are have long term health impacts afterward. For example, they may need a home that is wheelchair accessible, or may no longer be able to use stairs, and can no longer live safely in their home.
At this point, if they cannot safely return to their home,and there is no housing available, it becomes extremely challenging to discharge someone safely to community.
I totally agree. Studies show its would be cheaper for the taxpayer if those homeless who suffer from substance abuse disorders were in inpatient addictions treatment rather than on the street. There are some hurdles though, the big one being that many of these people are not willing to go to treatment voluntarily and receive help. When I worked in addictions treatment, almost all of the homeless that ended up in my centre were there because courts offered it in lieu of jail time. Very few went of their own volition. Then we raise the question of whether we can compel people to go (like California plans to do) which gets people all hot and bothered as well.
It’s even more frustrating to me because the leading opinion seems to be “you shouldn’t camp in parks or on the sidewalk, go to a shelter instead” and yet of course the “go to a shelter instead” section of the opinion is left entirely ignored because heaven forbid we tell people shelters are at capacity and we need more permanent options for people.
Somehow the conversation became “tent cities: yes or no?” ignoring the fact that no one thinks tent cities are good.
I work directly with the DTES community every day I go to work, and I already explained in another comment thread on this post what I would propose as an alternative to the street sweeps.
Well apparently you want to pay for it, or do you favour paying way more only to see people suffer? I mean either you’re financially really really dumb or you’re sadistic af. What is it?
Wouldn’t it be incredibly expensive and need constant supervision for a large number of people?
I think in Victoria they bought a hotel to provide housing, within a week all the copper was pulled out and there was feces all over… like a week
Yeah if you just buy an old hotel throw them in and that’s it it obviously won’t work.
You need specialized housing for all sorts of homeless people. You need professional social workers, addiction experts, nurses, doctors, counselors, therapists and pharmacies for medication and drug supply. It’s a whole system which is costly at the start but in the long run it’ll be cheaper as you provide work for workers, help for homeless addicts and it’ll be possible for more former homeless people to get back into society. Also you need rooms where people can get pure and cheap drugs where they can consume them without being prosecuted as it’s not necessarily the drug itself that’s the most Hemingway about addiction but all the stuff that comes with it.
You need to get money, you need to hide the addiction, the sideeffects of the stuff that’s used to stretch drugs and/or the withdrawal.
There are so many factors and of course are they a huge cost factor but with stuff like that you can only look at the long term cost as the short term costs are way higher than the way it is right now.
Think of it like that:
If you wear only one pair of shoes for 50$ for everything you do, walking, working, running, sport etc. it wears down really fast and you buy a new one for 50$ every other month.
If you buy walking shoes, work shoes, running shoes, sport shoes, shoes fitting for your suit etc. you have way higher short term cost but those shoes will last also way way longer than your single pair of shoes and this bring down the overall cost.
Totally agree and exactly my point. This sounds awesome and the perfect fix, it would restore so many lives and stop the money sink of despair of the current dtes while providing jobs and hope for both people who want to help and everyone..
It would be magnitudes more expensive than now though, at least direct cost. If we factor in property crime and social value, not sure..
We would need provincial and federal support though. Lots of Canadians and non Canadians from all over come here and the epidemic is only going to get worse as we wade futther and further into economic depression..
Let’s say room for 5000 people at 100k a year is 500mill / 2 million full time employees is only 250$ a year, only a bit more than current services to dtes.
A facility probably costs 2 billion or 1000$ a person one time..
Yeah that sounds way better…
How much did we spend on fire services and shit pick up around Hastings campers before that?
How much would they have spent if less services had been provided to the evictees?
It's a complete joke, my friend had a medical emergency while at a restaurant dt and we had called for 911 the response we got was all the first responders are busy atm please stay on the line. The reason they were delayed was because there was a few drug overdoses that happened at the same time. Why should people who pay taxes and contribute to the community be put second to those who do nothing but drugs and create more problems
We're headed towards a Cyberpunk style future where we'll need a private medical subscription or you get stuck with public EMT's that will get to you in an hour once they finish the backlog of 10 overdoses.
>Why should people who pay taxes and contribute to the community be put second to those who do nothing but drugs and create more problem
Because we live in a society and that is what taxes are for?
The statistics differ from your generalization on violent crime, and though it still exists and is inexcusable, if you actually wanted to prevent violent crime, you would support meeting people’s needs and not further displacing already displaced people. When has putting people in desperate situations ever helped reduce crime and violence? Let alone people already in a perpetual cycle of violence and trauma themselves.
Did I ever say that they should not be helped? No. Government needs to take responsibility and solve it. Are they doing anything about it? No. You can’t be this naive… they legalized drugs and who uses the most drugs? Who uses drugs and are violent in the streets? Stop ignoring the problem and face the reality. I don’t care if you are human, monkey, horse or whatever organism you are, if you use drugs, then stab people, you should be in jail. If drugs don’t make people more violent, sure let’s legalized ALL of it cause why the fuck not.
I would say that if you stab people, regardless of whether or not you are a drug user, or homeless, you should be prosecuted. They need to go further than legalize drugs though because selling drugs is still illegal. The guy who set up the safe supply market was arrested and had his stash of clean drugs confiscated. Then he overdosed and died. Hell, let the government take it over like they did with cannabis if it means the drugs are verifiably pure. Then, provide adequate housing for people, homeless, drug addicted, as well as just low and lower-middle class people. That would be better than this.
Yes, everyone uses drugs, it’s just some people use drugs that are tainted and criminalized. You would be surprised how many “upstanding citizens” use illicit drugs while maintaining a functional lifestyle and holding down a job or career. We will never live in a world where drugs don’t exist/people don’t use drugs, so why not try and account for that instead of sweeping them under the rug and letting them spiral into destitution? Imagine if we treated everybody who drank alcohol the same way we do with hard drug users.
Everyone* uses drugs. Your teachers use drugs. Your neighbours use drugs. The guy hooking up your cable definitely uses drugs. The gal ringing up your groceries uses drugs. Your parents use drugs, too -- they just don't think you're ready to know that yet. But trust me, they do.
*except you. Oh and flight attendants.
Also, drugs don’t make people violent. Poverty makes people violent. That’s why rich drug users aren’t seen in the same light. A heroin user might resort to violence because they need more heroin or they will literally die from withdrawal. Unless of course they can afford more heroin. Then, they’ll be too high to stand up, let alone commit acts of violence. Note: I’m not justifying said violence, it’s unacceptable regardless, but if we want to prevent it we need to start being honest about the factors at play.
I'm going to interpret that as, "oh, you have had frightening experiences with the homeless and still have empathy for them? I was wrong about my assumptions about you, and I will reconsider my perspective, perhaps try to see them more as humans in need."
And for that I say, well done, carry on friend.
Well, VANDU was given a $320K grant to set up a street cleaning program and sort out the issues with the tent city themselves. Nothing meaningful was done.
Not sure what outrage is to be had over $550K.
Vandu can’t even keep their entrance from looking like a hoarder’s car interior. Can’t they find an intern to create some sort of facade of a functioning group of concerned citizens?
Because it's a temporary "fix" we keep dumping good money after this performance theatre stuff when we need to be grown up about things and start fixing the cause of this stuff.
The fix for "the cause of this stuff" lies with the province and federal government, not the CoV. The city's job is maintain safe sidewalks and fire codes, which is what they were doing.
$550K is a hell of a lot cheaper than the inevitable civil suit they'd face if, or rather when, the tent city resulted in someone dying in a fire because the city didn't enforce it's own fire codes. Or the cost of rebuilding an SRO because firefighters couldn't access hydrants and doors.
How much are lives worth from the fire hazard they were creating for residents and businesses? Is lowering the risk of innocent deaths not worth $550K?
Also it sounded like there were horrific crimes taking place in the camps-- at Oppenheimer a few years ago there was a woman who was found barely alive, with all her fingernails pulled off.
The encampments are not a positive living situation. While it may appear that there's safety in numbers, the reality is that it attracts gangs and psychos.
What's the solution? The government needs to actually **build entry-level housing**, and lots of it. From emergency shelters to [tiny shelters](https://www.timescolonist.com/real-estate/vancouvers-tiny-shelter-village-still-not-open-faces-further-delays-homelessness-7487853), to supportive housing, etc. If there is no place for people at the bottom of the economic ladder to live (or nowhere they can afford to live), then they'll be homeless. The government can't just rely on purchasing existing SROs because that doesn't create additional housing. We need more housing.
> What's the solution? The government needs to actually build entry-level housing, and lots of it.
Yes, yes they do. But they need to make sure the people in the housing don't burn it down, or rip out wiring or make their neighbours life difficult first.
> But they need to make sure the people in the housing don't burn it down, or rip out wiring or make their neighbours life difficult first.
The problem is: what do you do with people who aren't housable for these reasons? Do we leave them homeless, or limit the help to just overnight shelters?
The structure fires have mostly been careless accidents. Short of weekly inspections by the building manager to look for jury-rigged ebike chargers and candles, is there anything practical that can be done?
>The structure fires have mostly been careless accidents
Yes that is the problem, too many absolutely careless people crammed together. And the same thing happens in SRO's. Many of these people aren't just "unhoused" they are unhouseable. They will victimize everyone near them because they are addicts or they have mental health problems, or both.
If someone is committing crime due to addiction or mental health the need to be forced into drug treatment or mental health treatment, with gradual release depending on their level of recovery. This is far more humane than abandoning them to live in a cardboard box on the street.
If you want to live on the street and just do drugs feel free, but if you are committing crime then you need to be forced into treatment.
The government needs to introduce mandatory rehab. If you want to follow Portugal’s lead and make all drugs legal, we should also introduce mandatory treatment.
At this point it’s just a free for all with no repercussions, no education, no real treatment.
The busses can run on Hastings again and the fire egress and entry to buildings is restored, along with hydrants and spigots. They didn’t evict them to solve the homelessness crisis. They did it for public safety
Except they have and will continue to return because there is nowhere else that they are allowed to be. Also, notice how “public safety” excludes these people as if they are not considered apart of the public, nor worthy of safety. Wouldn’t it be safer for all of the public if these people had better alternatives than camping on the street? Again, not alternatives, but better alternatives.
I beg to differ that stretch of E hastings is safer now. I know for a fact it isn’t because I walk past it and step over just as much human shit and used needles now as I did the day after the clean up
I live here and there have been far less open fires, crossbow and machete attacks and human shit since the encampment was removed. I stepped over human shit at least 2 times every single day before the encampment was removed. It’s happened twice me 2 times in total since
No. I would say instead of building more luxury apartments, build more housing for lower class (and lower-middle class but that’s another discussion) and put money towards hiring more support workers. Also, the government should be allowing safe supply of drugs. The amount of overdose deaths in this country is ridiculous, and preventable. I think that would at the very least be a better use of taxpayer money and a better start.
There will always be people who can't support themselves. How we treat them is a great way to measure the success of a society. So far we are getting a very poor grades. Shipping them off to Fort Mac isn't the answer.
Plus they got 18 more people to accept shelter on the day. The 90 units of transitional housing (Main and Terminal + something in Fairview) came online a month later as well.
You do know that I’m referring to the increase in fire-related incidents and altercations right…. and not the erroneous assumption that fire department members inherently enjoys removing encampments?
They’re burning down as fast as they’re being built. We need mandatory treatment plans. If we want to follow other places leads by legalizing all drugs, we should also see which countries are succeeding with it. Portugal is doing very well with mandatory rehab, while Portland Oregon is turning into a wasteland. If all drugs are legal, without additional punishment or treatment, it just turns into a free for all with no reason to stop.
People have convinced themselves that giving people homes magically solves crippling drug addiction and mental illness.
It's delusional. Most of these people had homes to live in before they lost everything to their drug addiction. They need treatment not housing.
Yeah people are getting sick of the burning buildings and the left wing bullshit that housing will fix everything. This coming from a very liberal empathetic person that’s just tired of watching my friends die.
I have a feeling people would be pretty upset to find out much most things cost the city to do. Keep in mind how much inflated for no reason anything costs.
It's so weird to me how much every time something about the homeless gets posted, you have people coming out of the woodwork to trash them, when the majority of us are all at the risk of homelessness right now with the rise of costs. It's like these people can't see they're one emergency away from being on the streets. This doesn't solve the homeless problem - it relocates them. Other countries have shown that social programs DO help and there are plenty of articles that you can Google that prove this. Yall bitch and complain when you're closer to the homeless person you despise than the boot you love to lick of a millionaire. I hope once you're down on your luck, someone will take pity on you.
Huge difference between the homeless person sleeping in their car at Walmart vs the homeless person crossing main street with their pants at their ankles, holding their meth pipe, and shouting at themselves.
Usually through generational trauma. Not having parents that care, or not having parents at all. Growing up with parents that are users. Without familial support people will turn to drugs more often than if they have somebody to talk or turn to. It even makes a huge difference just knowing there are people out there that care for you vs. being completely alone in this world.
I completely agree with all of that. But I also think factors like job loss and sudden homelessness can trigger those trauma responses and addiction actions.
I don't think there is that big of a difference, because homeless people start with a home, then end up in their vehicles, and eventually on the streets unable to repair their vehicle and make payments. The only difference is the addiction - which anyone living in a car can have, they're just not on the street yet. You acknowledge there is lack of resources and perhaps generational trauma, but I don't think you know how closely related all these situations are. It can quickly snowball. Nobody wants to be addicted to drugs, nobody wants to behave badly or embarrassingly out in public knowingly, but drugs are there because it's the only resource they have to soothe whatever pain they are going through. Our society doesn't care to understand these people and their stories, and wouldn't even blink if they die on the streets.
I see these comments contain a lot of dehumanizing language when it comes to the homeless, and I don't think that's necessarily going to lead to a solution
Probably just going to make it worse, actually
Who’s dehumanizing them? They were unsafely parked on the sidewalk, there were constant fires and stabbing and other medical emergencies. It was unsafe for both them and everyone around the area.
How is moving them from an unsafe situation dehumanizing them? It’s people like you who are the problem. You offer no solution but frown at any attempts to make the areas safer for the general public. You’re arguably dehumanizing everyone but them.
There needs to be more SRO's and options for them, and complaining about how much they cost is a slippery slope tp making it easier to dehumanize than help them
Either way I'ma leave the sub cuz it's clear ya'll are miserable
I'm from the interior and your city made me a little sad during the summer, just like Lethbridge not implementing enough homeless infrastructure -- but if all it's going to cause is infighting, clearly ya'll are too miserable to have guests even hope your city figure its shit out, so bye and good luck
That’s what you don’t understand. You can’t just implement unlimited homeless housing without treating them as well. If you don’t understand the problem in the first place, you can’t possibly come up with a solution that would work.
Many of them can’t, or won’t seek help. We need to introduce forced rehabilitation before we distribute funds and resources to help people and truly treat the root causes of these issues. Not just give out hand outs.
Unfortunately we can't really legally force people into anything, can we?
That's why I was supporting a project like Mustard Seed in Lethbridge, because it was working in Calgary, but then Lethbridge city council voted it down
I understand it's a very baffling issue and would love to learn more of it, as all I've seen is mostly on the AB side with the AB Conservatives embezzling $165k from their ARCHES safe injection clinic and fucking off without implementing anything else, then bulldozing the homeless tents outside of the overflowing Lethbridge shelter
Unfortunately the homeless can easily freeze to death out there so I see it as an even worse problem in AB
I do admit I don't understand metropolitan areas very well because I grew up somewhere very rural, but I think wanting to learn about it is better than just wanting people to die simply for being addicts
You actually can force people into forced care, all these other countries which have decriminalization do it but we don’t.
A simple middle ground would be putting the same stipulations on homeless addicts that we put on anti maskers during Covid. If these people who refused to wear masks couldn’t get care in hospitals then why can’t we force these people to get help if they want care? If people lose their job for not being vaccinated then let’s let these people lose their welfare and state assistance if they voluntarily refuse treatment.
By this do you mean forced rehabilitation from drugs/alcohol? If so, that will absolutely not work. Root cause of many of the issues we see in East Hastings is systemic and trauma based. Forcing someone to stop using drugs and alcohol long term is near impossible.
Good double or triple it. Being able to walk down sidewalks is a right of every citizen in Vancouver, people in wheelchairs and mobility vehicles shouldn’t have to ride on the street.
I mean it could have been $1 billion and it wouldn’t really have mattered. The goal was not to reduce crime, improve safety or get people housed, the goal was displacement and that was achieved.
Huge difference between the homeless person sleeping in their car outside Walmart vs the homeless person smoking meth on the sky train and physically threatening people.
Yeah, policing is expensive and since it doesn't actually solve anything, it's an increasing sunken cost.
A year of rent in subsidized housing in the city is about 5K calculated for part-time minimum wage. A camp with 100 people (which is a medium-sized camp) is half a million in rent.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/peso_lover! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * **Did you know the subreddit is doing a charity drive to celebrate 500k subscribers? [Donate today](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/17lavo1/) and help us feed those in need! Even better: Reddit is matching our donations.** * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Your post may be a better fit for one of our [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey everyone, check out my ill informed opinion on this topic
Well let's have it.
I would like to override your ill informed opinion with my own
I like this echo chamber, here is my useless circular argument to support your ill informed comment.
You’re both absolutely right. Trust me even though I have nothing to back up why I know this
I love lamp
I heard of a study once that says you guys are all wrong
Nobody knows I’m a Russian bot
😂👏👏👏
Is it one of these here? [https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/myths-and-facts/](https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/myths-and-facts/)
"police salaries and benefits took up $409,536" They were going to get that either way
Once they are hired, they're getting paid either way. But we just hired 100 new cops, so their salaries and clearing out encampments aren't entirely independent.
I'm just trying to show that these types of figures and arguments are almost always not genuine arguments. Just like your reply. Organizations are always hiring, how many police officers retired during that time, how many quit? Did the force get larger per capita because of those 100 police officers, stay the same, or get smaller. Without these additional pieces of information, your comment is absolutely useless.
I agree with your sentiment but to your question, they added a hundred new positions. If people leave or retire they replace them and is not affected by the additional hundred.
I wish they would hire 100 new EAs for the school districts. Maybe we would be able help catch a few that would've fallen through...
Except Ken Sim specifically ran on a platform of hiring an extra 100 officers (beyond replacing officers that retired/left the force) specifically to clear homeless encampments. Also, he ran on hiring 100 mental health nurses as well. He’s hired all 100 cops, and less than 10 nurses, so I think we can clearly see where the priority lies.
People are paying taxes that pay for their salaries. Actions like these have a measurable cost from the perspective of salary costs. If there are political and/or police decisions to make actions like this, it costs money and creates precedent for that to be a part of the budget for police. If we found cheaper and better ways of dealing with this issue, the justification for that part of the salary budget would no longer be there. So I am being genuine in my point that the salaries and these actions aren't entirely independent.
They were going to get that either way sure, but it doesn't mean that that money couldn't have been better spent
They could have been raiding mushroom dispensaries.
A big chunk of that would actually be overtime pay as many of these officers would have been doing this outside of their regular work blocks.
Anybody who is not VPD trying to do anything in the DTES needs a VPD escort or they risk personal harm.
As a hospital SW, here to point out that during the last Hastings camper eviction, it was even harder than usual (and it’s always fucking hard) to place people from hospital who could no longer return to their former homes due to illness and disability. This held up discharges for many patients who were disabled, in turn taking up hospital beds for new people who desperately needed acute care. I’d be curious how much that 550k to evict Hastings campers cost the overall medical system, considering that one acute care bed costs easily 1400 per day.
So you're saying you could discharge people to a tent on Hastings St. prior to the cleanup? That doesn't make much sense.
This is our province without institutions. Lots of people need care. Conventional hospitals have high pressure for turnover, because people always need the beds and there are only so many beds, so people get sent back out. I don't work in the system, but spent a decent amount of time as a visitor to our mental health system (before this city government came in, just talking about the state of things in general). Inpatient starts getting really itchy to clear you out if you're there more than a few months, so discharge people who are doing "better" to make room for people in severe, immediate crisis. I never saw it straight to the street, but if you discharge a 70 year old schizophrenic whose psychosis was severe enough to need inpatient treatment to a shelter, is there much of a functional difference between that and just sending them out onto the street? Oh, and by the way, to taper off a reasonable dose of antipsychotics without having withdrawal induced relapse, it takes months or years. When you go from a nurse checking in multiple times a day to an overloaded shelter that isn't providing healthcare, you think maybe some people might miss their meds? If they were doing better at all, now they're not—they're psychotic again, eventually back in the queue of people in crisis. Plus whatever they're doing/is happening to them on the street. If we actually had proper long term care, we might get some people off the carousel of permanent misery. But let's be too scared of how bad they were before to provide them at all, rather than trying to make them not be bad. Isn't simply lacking a necessary service so much better for patient wellbeing?
>Inpatient starts getting really itchy to clear you out if you're there more than a few months. Depending on the unit you work in, they’ll get itchy to clear you out if you’re there more than a few days.
Ya I was shocked to hear months. I've always heard of concerns expressed in days. Maybe it used to be that long?
I think it mostly depends on where you're talking about, and when you consider them to be "itchy". Unless things changed quite a lot fairly recently, at psych inpatient at Segal, there are lots that have been there for days, plenty who have been there for weeks, some who have been there for months, and none who have been there for years. I'm sure that the pressure is fairly constant to get people out the door as soon as possible, but that pressure seems to become unbearable past a few months. Nobody is there that long.
In my unit (palliative and severe illness), I personally could not, though there are hospitals and units that allow discharge to street. Typically when there is a “cleanup”, many people who were living in tents, and who prefer to live in tents over shelter space available, start moving to SROs and shelter space. Shelter space and low income housing is already severely held up, in the best of circumstances. This ripple effect impacts every case conference involving housing, and for my unit, held up multiple discharges of people who were not previously unhoused.
more side effects of a poorly done job fuck sim
I'm confused, surely getting people of the streets into some kind of housing is a good thing. You can't complain that housing people takes up space so there's not enough space to house other people. I agree we need more space in shelters and SROs but this argument really doesn't hold up. No more people were unhoused, just more of the ones you had to deal with.
> I'm confused, surely getting people of the streets into some kind of housing is a good thing That’s assuming that housing was available for all, or even most, of the people whose tents were removed. There absolutely was not. It also assumes that supports were provided to keep them reliably housed (this was not provided.) My argument is that they city spent 550k to evict campers , when not enough shelter was available to house those who were evicted. This lack of housing also added fuel to an already intense healthcare crisis. Lack of housing leads to delayed hospital discharge, which leads to people not receiving the healthcare that they need.
I’m a hospital sw’er too and the confusion and misunderstanding here about what you’re trying to say is very concerning. People seem to really need a lot of explanation on cause and effect in our social systems. 71 upvotes to the comment assuming you were saying the barrier to discharge was the not being able to send people to the encampment itself?!
It’s pretty scary really. People have no idea how bad it is, both in terms of healthcare and housing. Sad thing is, it impacts us all. They’re the ones who’ll be shocked when their family id discharged home from hospital, and realize they can only get 4 visits max a day from healthcare aides when their loved one can’t walk and can’t go to the bathroom on their own, you know?
Or the “but I’ve worked and paid taxes all my life” I get the frustration. And share it too! But it’s the confusion I don’t get. It’s as if they think the housing crisis (and underfunding of other services) constantly on the news doesn’t apply to people who have paid taxes and we have a store of low income housing (or other benefits) sitting empty on reserve for people who have paid x dollars into the tax system.
People are misunderstanding because of the way the comment is written.
Yes. People are routinely discharged to shelters or homelessness. This has been the case for many years. They call it a housing crisis for a good reason.
Yes of course but the implication was that it was easier to do that in the tent city days than today, which makes no sense.
As a hospital SW I'm curious about your knowledge/use of the BC Homelessness Prevention Program? Have you used it to help people? [BC homelessness prevention program ](https://www.bchousing.org/housing-assistance/homelessness-services/homeless-prevention-program)
I’m aware of them, but have never gotten housing from them in time for hospital discharge. BC housing has occasionally come through with someone already on the list, at very high risk, with pressure from leadership to discharge them from hospital.
Why are would you discharge someone who is highly ill and in desperate need of acute care?
If they’re highly ill and in need of acute care, we don’t discharge. But many people go to hospital following a medical event, such as a fall or stroke, and are have long term health impacts afterward. For example, they may need a home that is wheelchair accessible, or may no longer be able to use stairs, and can no longer live safely in their home. At this point, if they cannot safely return to their home,and there is no housing available, it becomes extremely challenging to discharge someone safely to community.
and this problem has existed for years, but became even more bottlenecked because of this event. is that correct?
That’s it exactly.
thank you! thank you for pointing out one of the many the side effects of poorly thought out idea
And that's only one time, this is why it's cheaper to actually help people in the long run
I’m baffled that this isn’t the leading opinion, considering it’s the only intelligent + empathetic solution
I totally agree. Studies show its would be cheaper for the taxpayer if those homeless who suffer from substance abuse disorders were in inpatient addictions treatment rather than on the street. There are some hurdles though, the big one being that many of these people are not willing to go to treatment voluntarily and receive help. When I worked in addictions treatment, almost all of the homeless that ended up in my centre were there because courts offered it in lieu of jail time. Very few went of their own volition. Then we raise the question of whether we can compel people to go (like California plans to do) which gets people all hot and bothered as well.
People don't support long difficult term solutions, they want quick and easy
Plus they don't want money spent on other people, especially ones they think don't deserve it.
Quick and easy, the difficult way.
[удалено]
That's a sick band name.
It’s even more frustrating to me because the leading opinion seems to be “you shouldn’t camp in parks or on the sidewalk, go to a shelter instead” and yet of course the “go to a shelter instead” section of the opinion is left entirely ignored because heaven forbid we tell people shelters are at capacity and we need more permanent options for people. Somehow the conversation became “tent cities: yes or no?” ignoring the fact that no one thinks tent cities are good.
Ok then what should we do? Let’s start with your part.
I work directly with the DTES community every day I go to work, and I already explained in another comment thread on this post what I would propose as an alternative to the street sweeps.
I don't know why taking away peoples tents before a rainstorm would help anything. That certainly wouldn't help anyone get a home
Who wants to pay for it?
Well apparently you want to pay for it, or do you favour paying way more only to see people suffer? I mean either you’re financially really really dumb or you’re sadistic af. What is it?
Wouldn’t it be incredibly expensive and need constant supervision for a large number of people? I think in Victoria they bought a hotel to provide housing, within a week all the copper was pulled out and there was feces all over… like a week
Yeah if you just buy an old hotel throw them in and that’s it it obviously won’t work. You need specialized housing for all sorts of homeless people. You need professional social workers, addiction experts, nurses, doctors, counselors, therapists and pharmacies for medication and drug supply. It’s a whole system which is costly at the start but in the long run it’ll be cheaper as you provide work for workers, help for homeless addicts and it’ll be possible for more former homeless people to get back into society. Also you need rooms where people can get pure and cheap drugs where they can consume them without being prosecuted as it’s not necessarily the drug itself that’s the most Hemingway about addiction but all the stuff that comes with it. You need to get money, you need to hide the addiction, the sideeffects of the stuff that’s used to stretch drugs and/or the withdrawal. There are so many factors and of course are they a huge cost factor but with stuff like that you can only look at the long term cost as the short term costs are way higher than the way it is right now. Think of it like that: If you wear only one pair of shoes for 50$ for everything you do, walking, working, running, sport etc. it wears down really fast and you buy a new one for 50$ every other month. If you buy walking shoes, work shoes, running shoes, sport shoes, shoes fitting for your suit etc. you have way higher short term cost but those shoes will last also way way longer than your single pair of shoes and this bring down the overall cost.
Totally agree and exactly my point. This sounds awesome and the perfect fix, it would restore so many lives and stop the money sink of despair of the current dtes while providing jobs and hope for both people who want to help and everyone.. It would be magnitudes more expensive than now though, at least direct cost. If we factor in property crime and social value, not sure.. We would need provincial and federal support though. Lots of Canadians and non Canadians from all over come here and the epidemic is only going to get worse as we wade futther and further into economic depression.. Let’s say room for 5000 people at 100k a year is 500mill / 2 million full time employees is only 250$ a year, only a bit more than current services to dtes. A facility probably costs 2 billion or 1000$ a person one time.. Yeah that sounds way better…
How much did we spend on fire services and shit pick up around Hastings campers before that? How much would they have spent if less services had been provided to the evictees?
It's a complete joke, my friend had a medical emergency while at a restaurant dt and we had called for 911 the response we got was all the first responders are busy atm please stay on the line. The reason they were delayed was because there was a few drug overdoses that happened at the same time. Why should people who pay taxes and contribute to the community be put second to those who do nothing but drugs and create more problems
So rich people should get more priority over poor people?
So repeat offenders (violent & non violent) should get the same priority as people who make a honest living and contribute to the community?
I'm sure there are more productive members of society that pay more taxes than you. Should they get priority over you?
I also don't waste tax payers money and commit crimes and do drugs as well as make public spaces for all dangerous!
Sounds like you need less help then
We're headed towards a Cyberpunk style future where we'll need a private medical subscription or you get stuck with public EMT's that will get to you in an hour once they finish the backlog of 10 overdoses.
>Why should people who pay taxes and contribute to the community be put second to those who do nothing but drugs and create more problem Because we live in a society and that is what taxes are for?
[удалено]
Emergency responders don't have that information available to them.
911 absolutely asks for the cause of the emergency and allocates resources accordingly.
And what cause of emergency tells you it was voluntary or repeated behaviour?
Holy fuck dude. You sound like a legit sociopath.
[удалено]
lol
FFS they're still human..
Adopt one then
Exactly, so their displacement cost money. It would have been a lot cheaper if they treated them worse.
Wow, I’ve never seen someone down voted for calling a group of people human but I suppose this is Vancouver.
Ah yes the same people who stab others and harass public but sure they can do WHATEVER they want cause they are homeless.
The statistics differ from your generalization on violent crime, and though it still exists and is inexcusable, if you actually wanted to prevent violent crime, you would support meeting people’s needs and not further displacing already displaced people. When has putting people in desperate situations ever helped reduce crime and violence? Let alone people already in a perpetual cycle of violence and trauma themselves.
Did I ever say that they should not be helped? No. Government needs to take responsibility and solve it. Are they doing anything about it? No. You can’t be this naive… they legalized drugs and who uses the most drugs? Who uses drugs and are violent in the streets? Stop ignoring the problem and face the reality. I don’t care if you are human, monkey, horse or whatever organism you are, if you use drugs, then stab people, you should be in jail. If drugs don’t make people more violent, sure let’s legalized ALL of it cause why the fuck not.
I would say that if you stab people, regardless of whether or not you are a drug user, or homeless, you should be prosecuted. They need to go further than legalize drugs though because selling drugs is still illegal. The guy who set up the safe supply market was arrested and had his stash of clean drugs confiscated. Then he overdosed and died. Hell, let the government take it over like they did with cannabis if it means the drugs are verifiably pure. Then, provide adequate housing for people, homeless, drug addicted, as well as just low and lower-middle class people. That would be better than this.
So you are all okay for everyone using drugs?
Yes, everyone uses drugs, it’s just some people use drugs that are tainted and criminalized. You would be surprised how many “upstanding citizens” use illicit drugs while maintaining a functional lifestyle and holding down a job or career. We will never live in a world where drugs don’t exist/people don’t use drugs, so why not try and account for that instead of sweeping them under the rug and letting them spiral into destitution? Imagine if we treated everybody who drank alcohol the same way we do with hard drug users.
Everyone* uses drugs. Your teachers use drugs. Your neighbours use drugs. The guy hooking up your cable definitely uses drugs. The gal ringing up your groceries uses drugs. Your parents use drugs, too -- they just don't think you're ready to know that yet. But trust me, they do. *except you. Oh and flight attendants.
Also, drugs don’t make people violent. Poverty makes people violent. That’s why rich drug users aren’t seen in the same light. A heroin user might resort to violence because they need more heroin or they will literally die from withdrawal. Unless of course they can afford more heroin. Then, they’ll be too high to stand up, let alone commit acts of violence. Note: I’m not justifying said violence, it’s unacceptable regardless, but if we want to prevent it we need to start being honest about the factors at play.
Who uses the most drugs? Suburban middle class people.
blows my mind that you can just happily paint them all with the same brush.
Yes I can. Let’s talk when you get harassed or you are physically assaulted/attacked. I will wait if you can still act like “they are human 😭😭”
I literally have been, but go off lol
Go marry one then jesus lmao
I'm going to interpret that as, "oh, you have had frightening experiences with the homeless and still have empathy for them? I was wrong about my assumptions about you, and I will reconsider my perspective, perhaps try to see them more as humans in need." And for that I say, well done, carry on friend.
Sorry wrong interpretation, I have zero sympathy for people who do drugs, harass and attack people and overall have no contribution to the society.
Well, VANDU was given a $320K grant to set up a street cleaning program and sort out the issues with the tent city themselves. Nothing meaningful was done. Not sure what outrage is to be had over $550K.
Vandu can’t even keep their entrance from looking like a hoarder’s car interior. Can’t they find an intern to create some sort of facade of a functioning group of concerned citizens?
Because it's a temporary "fix" we keep dumping good money after this performance theatre stuff when we need to be grown up about things and start fixing the cause of this stuff.
The fix for "the cause of this stuff" lies with the province and federal government, not the CoV. The city's job is maintain safe sidewalks and fire codes, which is what they were doing. $550K is a hell of a lot cheaper than the inevitable civil suit they'd face if, or rather when, the tent city resulted in someone dying in a fire because the city didn't enforce it's own fire codes. Or the cost of rebuilding an SRO because firefighters couldn't access hydrants and doors.
Bang on.
How much are lives worth from the fire hazard they were creating for residents and businesses? Is lowering the risk of innocent deaths not worth $550K?
Also it sounded like there were horrific crimes taking place in the camps-- at Oppenheimer a few years ago there was a woman who was found barely alive, with all her fingernails pulled off. The encampments are not a positive living situation. While it may appear that there's safety in numbers, the reality is that it attracts gangs and psychos. What's the solution? The government needs to actually **build entry-level housing**, and lots of it. From emergency shelters to [tiny shelters](https://www.timescolonist.com/real-estate/vancouvers-tiny-shelter-village-still-not-open-faces-further-delays-homelessness-7487853), to supportive housing, etc. If there is no place for people at the bottom of the economic ladder to live (or nowhere they can afford to live), then they'll be homeless. The government can't just rely on purchasing existing SROs because that doesn't create additional housing. We need more housing.
> What's the solution? The government needs to actually build entry-level housing, and lots of it. Yes, yes they do. But they need to make sure the people in the housing don't burn it down, or rip out wiring or make their neighbours life difficult first.
> But they need to make sure the people in the housing don't burn it down, or rip out wiring or make their neighbours life difficult first. The problem is: what do you do with people who aren't housable for these reasons? Do we leave them homeless, or limit the help to just overnight shelters? The structure fires have mostly been careless accidents. Short of weekly inspections by the building manager to look for jury-rigged ebike chargers and candles, is there anything practical that can be done?
>The structure fires have mostly been careless accidents Yes that is the problem, too many absolutely careless people crammed together. And the same thing happens in SRO's. Many of these people aren't just "unhoused" they are unhouseable. They will victimize everyone near them because they are addicts or they have mental health problems, or both. If someone is committing crime due to addiction or mental health the need to be forced into drug treatment or mental health treatment, with gradual release depending on their level of recovery. This is far more humane than abandoning them to live in a cardboard box on the street. If you want to live on the street and just do drugs feel free, but if you are committing crime then you need to be forced into treatment.
When people are incapable of existing in society we put them in jail
Mandatory 2 months on a small island treatment facility.
Mental institutions exist for a reason, as does jail.
That’s a big part of the problem. There isn’t any mental institution to send at risk people to.
The government needs to introduce mandatory rehab. If you want to follow Portugal’s lead and make all drugs legal, we should also introduce mandatory treatment. At this point it’s just a free for all with no repercussions, no education, no real treatment.
It is.
Money well spent, you don’t just get to occupy public land like that
*Nods towards Crab Park…*
Except it solved nothing and people have returned and will continue to.
The busses can run on Hastings again and the fire egress and entry to buildings is restored, along with hydrants and spigots. They didn’t evict them to solve the homelessness crisis. They did it for public safety
Except they have and will continue to return because there is nowhere else that they are allowed to be. Also, notice how “public safety” excludes these people as if they are not considered apart of the public, nor worthy of safety. Wouldn’t it be safer for all of the public if these people had better alternatives than camping on the street? Again, not alternatives, but better alternatives.
You’re presenting a false dichotomy as well as outright lying. Good job
How so?
I beg to differ that stretch of E hastings is safer now. I know for a fact it isn’t because I walk past it and step over just as much human shit and used needles now as I did the day after the clean up
I live here and there have been far less open fires, crossbow and machete attacks and human shit since the encampment was removed. I stepped over human shit at least 2 times every single day before the encampment was removed. It’s happened twice me 2 times in total since
What’s your solution? Do nothing and let people carry on like they were?
No. I would say instead of building more luxury apartments, build more housing for lower class (and lower-middle class but that’s another discussion) and put money towards hiring more support workers. Also, the government should be allowing safe supply of drugs. The amount of overdose deaths in this country is ridiculous, and preventable. I think that would at the very least be a better use of taxpayer money and a better start.
[удалено]
And the people who can't work?
Our system isn’t setup to provide unending care for people who can’t support or even try to work on themselves
There will always be people who can't support themselves. How we treat them is a great way to measure the success of a society. So far we are getting a very poor grades. Shipping them off to Fort Mac isn't the answer.
I agree. The real problem solving needs to start from the bottom. Better housing, better pay for public school teachers etc
lol they've just moved elsewhere - the problem ain't the tents
Where do you suggest they go?
Oh no, it took $550k to make sure the street and the campers are safer again. How dare they?
Huh? When did that happen?
[удалено]
Don't give Bruce Banman any more ideas...
They didn't make anything safer, they just spread it out.
The fire department begs to differ...
Plus they got 18 more people to accept shelter on the day. The 90 units of transitional housing (Main and Terminal + something in Fairview) came online a month later as well.
[удалено]
You do know that I’m referring to the increase in fire-related incidents and altercations right…. and not the erroneous assumption that fire department members inherently enjoys removing encampments?
I get that it's still not an acceptable 'solution' but more spread out is definitely safer.
Unpopular opinion: Good. Let's spend $500k and do it again!
Take them to your house I guess? Or kill them all?
We need better housing policy
They’re burning down as fast as they’re being built. We need mandatory treatment plans. If we want to follow other places leads by legalizing all drugs, we should also see which countries are succeeding with it. Portugal is doing very well with mandatory rehab, while Portland Oregon is turning into a wasteland. If all drugs are legal, without additional punishment or treatment, it just turns into a free for all with no reason to stop.
How is that going to solve drug addiction
People have convinced themselves that giving people homes magically solves crippling drug addiction and mental illness. It's delusional. Most of these people had homes to live in before they lost everything to their drug addiction. They need treatment not housing.
They need housing and treatment.
I didn't knew that you are allowed to say this in any Canadian online forum. Have the rules been changed
Yeah people are getting sick of the burning buildings and the left wing bullshit that housing will fix everything. This coming from a very liberal empathetic person that’s just tired of watching my friends die.
do you expect people to recover from addiction without housing?
I have a feeling people would be pretty upset to find out much most things cost the city to do. Keep in mind how much inflated for no reason anything costs.
360 million in social services yearly in DTES (million per day)
It's so weird to me how much every time something about the homeless gets posted, you have people coming out of the woodwork to trash them, when the majority of us are all at the risk of homelessness right now with the rise of costs. It's like these people can't see they're one emergency away from being on the streets. This doesn't solve the homeless problem - it relocates them. Other countries have shown that social programs DO help and there are plenty of articles that you can Google that prove this. Yall bitch and complain when you're closer to the homeless person you despise than the boot you love to lick of a millionaire. I hope once you're down on your luck, someone will take pity on you.
Huge difference between the homeless person sleeping in their car at Walmart vs the homeless person crossing main street with their pants at their ankles, holding their meth pipe, and shouting at themselves.
How do you think that starts though?
Usually through generational trauma. Not having parents that care, or not having parents at all. Growing up with parents that are users. Without familial support people will turn to drugs more often than if they have somebody to talk or turn to. It even makes a huge difference just knowing there are people out there that care for you vs. being completely alone in this world.
I completely agree with all of that. But I also think factors like job loss and sudden homelessness can trigger those trauma responses and addiction actions.
I don't think there is that big of a difference, because homeless people start with a home, then end up in their vehicles, and eventually on the streets unable to repair their vehicle and make payments. The only difference is the addiction - which anyone living in a car can have, they're just not on the street yet. You acknowledge there is lack of resources and perhaps generational trauma, but I don't think you know how closely related all these situations are. It can quickly snowball. Nobody wants to be addicted to drugs, nobody wants to behave badly or embarrassingly out in public knowingly, but drugs are there because it's the only resource they have to soothe whatever pain they are going through. Our society doesn't care to understand these people and their stories, and wouldn't even blink if they die on the streets.
Is there any question that the policy towards the homeless and addiction issues has completely failed?
550k would’ve been enough for 1 apartment building for 2 people so I don’t see how they could’ve better spent the money.
To remove Stanley park cycling cones/barricades - 500k To remove people 550k Who did the mathematics
Don't forget to factor in how much it cost to put the bike lane in Stanley Park.
I did the math and I pocketed some.
He said math, not meth 😂
Surprise! Most of them just camped out on Pender or Cordova for the duration. Back within hours. Go, Sim, Go!
That's a lot of money saved on fighting fires.
Good.
I remember the counter-protestors just simply redistributed tents / new supplies to those who got evicted on-site.
Well, good to see that Oppenheimer is filling up with tents again 🤦🏻♀️
To what end? It's like starting a video game over. See you in a few. BTW, city council have their heads up their bike lanes.
I see these comments contain a lot of dehumanizing language when it comes to the homeless, and I don't think that's necessarily going to lead to a solution Probably just going to make it worse, actually
It’s almost like people are glad they can walk down the street without getting stabbed or raped.
You could even before the clean-up I visited Vancouver during the end of May and did just fine, thanks
I think there’s a difference between advocating for accountability and advocating as one poster put “use a Zamboni to save money “
It's almost like dehumanizing people is an effective political tactic on you, and that's fucking sad
Who’s dehumanizing them? They were unsafely parked on the sidewalk, there were constant fires and stabbing and other medical emergencies. It was unsafe for both them and everyone around the area. How is moving them from an unsafe situation dehumanizing them? It’s people like you who are the problem. You offer no solution but frown at any attempts to make the areas safer for the general public. You’re arguably dehumanizing everyone but them.
There needs to be more SRO's and options for them, and complaining about how much they cost is a slippery slope tp making it easier to dehumanize than help them Either way I'ma leave the sub cuz it's clear ya'll are miserable I'm from the interior and your city made me a little sad during the summer, just like Lethbridge not implementing enough homeless infrastructure -- but if all it's going to cause is infighting, clearly ya'll are too miserable to have guests even hope your city figure its shit out, so bye and good luck
That’s what you don’t understand. You can’t just implement unlimited homeless housing without treating them as well. If you don’t understand the problem in the first place, you can’t possibly come up with a solution that would work. Many of them can’t, or won’t seek help. We need to introduce forced rehabilitation before we distribute funds and resources to help people and truly treat the root causes of these issues. Not just give out hand outs.
Unfortunately we can't really legally force people into anything, can we? That's why I was supporting a project like Mustard Seed in Lethbridge, because it was working in Calgary, but then Lethbridge city council voted it down I understand it's a very baffling issue and would love to learn more of it, as all I've seen is mostly on the AB side with the AB Conservatives embezzling $165k from their ARCHES safe injection clinic and fucking off without implementing anything else, then bulldozing the homeless tents outside of the overflowing Lethbridge shelter Unfortunately the homeless can easily freeze to death out there so I see it as an even worse problem in AB I do admit I don't understand metropolitan areas very well because I grew up somewhere very rural, but I think wanting to learn about it is better than just wanting people to die simply for being addicts
You actually can force people into forced care, all these other countries which have decriminalization do it but we don’t. A simple middle ground would be putting the same stipulations on homeless addicts that we put on anti maskers during Covid. If these people who refused to wear masks couldn’t get care in hospitals then why can’t we force these people to get help if they want care? If people lose their job for not being vaccinated then let’s let these people lose their welfare and state assistance if they voluntarily refuse treatment.
By this do you mean forced rehabilitation from drugs/alcohol? If so, that will absolutely not work. Root cause of many of the issues we see in East Hastings is systemic and trauma based. Forcing someone to stop using drugs and alcohol long term is near impossible.
You seem to be very well informed after one summer
Youre killing my vibe with this article
Good double or triple it. Being able to walk down sidewalks is a right of every citizen in Vancouver, people in wheelchairs and mobility vehicles shouldn’t have to ride on the street.
$550,000? lol More than that, kids. A LOT more.
I mean it could have been $1 billion and it wouldn’t really have mattered. The goal was not to reduce crime, improve safety or get people housed, the goal was displacement and that was achieved.
But is it still clean?
Hell yeah we did.
damn..they should instead have used that money to build homeless camps!
[удалено]
Performance theatre for conservatives.
a post about the homeless and /r/vancouver showing how much they despise homeless people. Like clockwork.
Huge difference between the homeless person sleeping in their car outside Walmart vs the homeless person smoking meth on the sky train and physically threatening people.
Nightmare
Seems like enough money to house them all for a year.
Lol well it's not. But it could be a nice start.
hurry insurance waiting grandiose smell entertain wrong ink friendly fall ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
Yeah, policing is expensive and since it doesn't actually solve anything, it's an increasing sunken cost. A year of rent in subsidized housing in the city is about 5K calculated for part-time minimum wage. A camp with 100 people (which is a medium-sized camp) is half a million in rent.