Ending Chronic Homelessness

[dtkvictim]

What proof do you want? I've seen the videos, I've seen the people crying, I've seen their belongings and shelter being destroyed.

As for the Record article, I found it to be neutral, it is the region's statements I believe are between misleading and outright lies.

I wasn't referring to this article in particular, but using the context of previous articles from them as context. It does read as neutral given that I lack any other other information.

If you have proof of individuals in this encampment having belongings they wanted to keep being destroyed, I will gladly (well, sadly given the situation) accept that. I strongly agree that would be unacceptable behaviour. However, my comment was only about wanted possessions being destroyed. Crying tears about eviction, or videos of unwanted/leftover possessions being removed are separate topics and not what I was commenting on.

So, you don't believe housing is a right.

I'm curious how you define housing as a right? It seems clear that you don't accept our current shelters as adequate. What of homeless individuals who won't accept even what you prescribe as adequate?

What of individuals who (for any reason) destroy their own housing? Do we keep providing for them no strings attached, and for how long? What of individuals who destroy not only their own housing, but the housing of others?

I don't care what homeless people do, when we bulldoze their belongings and shelter without providing any reasonable options for those things, WE ARE THE BAD PEOPLE

I'm not disagreeing with this statement, but I do want to call out a general trend I've seen so far: I'm confused why the loudest voices in this event are so intent (consciously or not) on focusing their language on the machine being used, rather than the outcome. Not you specifically, but I have a feeling there wouldn't be nearly as much outrage here if the city removed the encampment by hand.

it does not matter what transgressions they committed.

And the situation in our condo is plenty safe, you need to stop being afraid of people just because they are suffering. Frankly, I find your accusations ignorant and presumptuous.

This is where I strongly disagree, and find your comments out of touch and ignorant.

Being woken up at night by shouting, or taking a detour on my commute out of caution is an inconvenience. The needles and shit out my back door is inconvenient. The constant smell of piss on my front door is inconvenient. These things don't scare me. I also have no problem with the vast majority of homeless, visible or not. There are plenty of faces I greet on a weekly basis.

To suggest people are afraid of other's suffering is bullshit. I'm afraid of the actions of others. I've been physically attacked, I've been spat at. I've been touched unprovoked multiple times, which is unnerving. I've been blocked from both entering and exiting my home by individuals who refused to moved. I've had countless death threats, a couple which felt truly credible. I've been followed for blocks, sometimes coupled with death threats. My female partner has had similar experiences, and she won't go far outside on her own. Another female relative I have downtown feels the same way. It's at the point I don't feel comfortable in my own home, between the multiple homeless fires and the homeless man who tried to break into my apartment, trashed the hallway, and ripped apart my neighbours electrical panel (ask her how she felt sitting in the dark, with a man trying to break into her apartment).

I moved into downtown with absolutely no fear, a high level of compassion, and a general trust in society. All of that has been eroded through the actions of others.

I do believe I could regain a significant portion of that if we didn't have a multi-tiered criminal justice system where certain classes of individuals are beyond consequences. Perhaps if detention could be coupled with rehabilitation? Wait, no... I've just reinvented mental institutions.

To make all this on topic: The actions of some of the homeless (or more importantly, the mentally ill and addicted) have real consequences for others that go beyond inconvenience. I actively avoid King St businesses, which I would love to go to, because I don't feel comfortable there. I often end up getting delivery from large multinational corporations, harming our local economy that you plan to use to fund housing all of these individuals. Eventually I'll probably cave and get a car, probably coupled with leaving downtown, because walking for hours to get places to avoid public transit isn't sustainable time-wise. I believe encampments make this entire situation worse by amplifying antisocial behaviour, much in the same way a group of teenagers is more likely to cause trouble than the sum of its parts. I believe they increase drug addiction by grouping users together; I've seen drug use spiral out of control first-hand by similar methods, as well as non-users being roped into partaking. Though I admit this can get a bit difficult, as I also believe everyone should seek companionship and have freedom to associate with whomever they want.

I do still largely agree with your general arguments: Personal belongings should not be destroyed. Adequate housing should be provided, especially if being evicted from their current location. Not a single one of these individuals deserve to die, regardless of their past actions. I simply don't think it's as straightforward nor as one-sided as you present it.