Ending Chronic Homelessness

[danbrotherston]

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.

I believe *this* situation is one sided. What the city did was wrong.

Homelessness as a societal problem is obviously more complex and has impacts on people. I’m not denying that. But when we use violence and force in this way we make the situation simple by making ourselves the bad guys.

More, I think clearing encampments helps hide the issue. Most people in our community only drive. If you live in the suburbs and drive to an office building for work, it’s entirely possible that seeing that encampment might be your only interaction with the homeless in your life. Certainly for the first two thirds of my life it would have been. I feel that is (part) the motivation behind removing it. Out of sight out of mind easier to ignore the problem for most people. 

And yes, the bulldozer made it more symbolic. But that was also the choice of the city. They chose to use it…because the perception of bulldozing this site didn’t even strike the decision makers (whoever they are) as problematic.  

You clearly have had much worse experiences than I have, which is a bit strange. I have lived in DTK for almost a decade. I go for walks in the evening. I too have a female partner. And I eat at restaurants on King. I’ve never experienced anything near what you describe. Dangerous driving continues to be by an enormous margin the biggest threat to my safety. And before that even, the patrons outside Frankie’s bar and Capers (when they existed) I found more off putting than the homeless in the doorways and on benches. 

In any case, to me the solution is homes (not just housing). You ask what is adequate? Pretty clearly any housing where a person would rather live in a tent on the side of Charles St in the winter is by definition inadequate (if they even were offered housing). Accita already provided an excellent link to the Finnish solution.

You also find that a lot of these associated problems are CAUSED BY homelessness rather than the reverse. 

As for the vestibule, you’ve clearly had different experiences from me. But we also have an apparently different context from you. Our vestibule is well lit and highly visible. Nobody will be surprised by someone there. And our building has multiple exits and entrances. Nobody is trapped by a person in the vestibule.  It is an occasional problem that we often discuss how to handle. Frankly, clearing the encampment is likely to make it worse not better. 

So please don’t presume to judge without being aware of the situation.