Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ending Chronic Homelessness
#46
I don’t know if it has been posted, but I think there were two or three reports last week about new social housing projects in the Region, over and above the two House of Friendship projects. Or were they repeat announcements about existing projects?
Reply


#47
The "tent city" downtown is going to be removed soon, with the RoW offering no solutions other than to force them to a new location: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...y-now.html
Reply
#48
(05-26-2022, 08:59 PM)ac3r Wrote: The "tent city" downtown is going to be removed soon, with the RoW offering no solutions other than to force them to a new location: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...y-now.html

The tent city is not a solution, either. From the article, region staff have offered some shelter (and maybe other housing?) options to the people but they have found few takers.

I suspect that most of the people living in this encampment are not newly homeless, but the location, facilities (water and washrooms) and the presence of other people have attracted people and it has kept growing.

I don't know whether a housing-first policy would work for these people, but we don't have that policy, or enough available income-geared housing anyway. Probably the best (and most feasiblr) option would be additional tiny homes (if a location can be found for those), but I don't know what percentage of the rough sleepers would accept living in a tiny home. Probably most, but surely not all.
Reply
#49
(05-27-2022, 09:34 AM)tomh009 Wrote:
(05-26-2022, 08:59 PM)ac3r Wrote: The "tent city" downtown is going to be removed soon, with the RoW offering no solutions other than to force them to a new location: https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...y-now.html

The tent city is not a solution, either. From the article, region staff have offered some shelter (and maybe other housing?) options to the people but they have found few takers.

I suspect that most of the people living in this encampment are not newly homeless, but the location, facilities (water and washrooms) and the presence of other people have attracted people and it has kept growing.

I don't know whether a housing-first policy would work for these people, but we don't have that policy, or enough available income-geared housing anyway. Probably the best (and most feasiblr) option would be additional tiny homes (if a location can be found for those), but I don't know what percentage of the rough sleepers would accept living in a tiny home. Probably most, but surely not all.

I agree with basically everything here.

But I don't know why you are unsure about a homes (homes is a better word, housing is insufficient) first policy wouldn't work.

Nobody in their right mind would ever choose to live in a tent at Victoria than Weber than a home.

The problem is that the "solutions" offered like shelters are often worse than a tent.

But you're right, we don't have that policy. As for more tiny homes, it's a stopgap, but an improvement. Of course, I don't see it as particularly feasible either. I don't recall, does the existing ABTC even have a permanent location yet?
Reply
#50
Homes first are a great idea, but the problem is street recidivism. It's easy enough to take homeless people and put them in homes, but unless you tackle the things that put them on the streets in the first place - drug addiction, mental health, trauma etc - it's hard to keep them from falling back to where they came from. You can stick them in houses but if they still have an addiction to drugs or unchecked trauma, they quickly go back to their coping mechanisms. Not to mention, many street people are just so used to the streets that it's hard for them to participate in something that requires paying bill, finding employment, following social rules and so on.

As for ABTC I don't think they have a permanent location yet. The plans to move to Breslau fell through because of NIMBY opposition. I remember some people were claiming that there would be pedophiles preying on school children and other BS. I believe they are currently next to the WRDSB office complex on Ardelt Avenue but I don't remember hearing about that being permanent.
Reply
#51
(05-28-2022, 09:41 AM)ac3r Wrote: Homes first are a great idea, but the problem is street recidivism. It's easy enough to take homeless people and put them in homes, but unless you tackle the things that put them on the streets in the first place - drug addiction, mental health, trauma etc - it's hard to keep them from falling back to where they came from. You can stick them in houses but if they still have an addiction to drugs or unchecked trauma, they quickly go back to their coping mechanisms. Not to mention, many street people are just so used to the streets that it's hard for them to participate in something that requires paying bill, finding employment, following social rules and so on.

As for ABTC I don't think they have a permanent location yet. The plans to move to Breslau fell through because of NIMBY opposition. I remember some people were claiming that there would be pedophiles preying on school children and other BS. I believe they are currently next to the WRDSB office complex on Ardelt Avenue but I don't remember hearing about that being permanent.

Funny, nowhere did I suggest that they needed to find a job or pay a bill to get a home. Just. Give. Them. Homes.

It isn't that complicated. And more to the point, for many on the street, it is being on the street which is traumatizing. Giving them a home makes it much easier for them to overcome those problems.

I'm not saying that it's a magic bullet which will make every single unhoused person a well functioning member of society, but for many it will. And for the rest...again...they won't be unhoused.

I am very strong in my opinion that housing is a human right. Food, water, and shelter. No person in our society should ever have to go without. I don't care how undeserving anyone feels they are. We feed, house, and hydrate the very worst criminals among us, certainly we can do the same for those whose first crime is poverty.

Honestly, I get very frustrated by the idea that we cannot do this. We are wealthy...we can do this. We choose not too.

Yes, I remember the Breslau hate. It's a shameful dark mark on that particular community. I didn't know they were on Ardelt, I thought that was the original location. Fundamentally, not providing them with a permanent location is fundamentally depriving them of a home. A large part of something being "home" is stability. You must be able to rely on it, for a long term.

And frankly, I know this very well. During my move I have been living with family, and in temporary housing for 5 months now. It isn't at all the same as being homeless--I am always comfortable and usually confident in my ability to house my family in the coming month--but I still feel the discomfort of being in unstable temporary accommodations. I just signed a 3 year lease and I cannot tell you how much of a relief it is to have some certainty about where I will be living in the coming years.
Reply
#52
(05-28-2022, 01:41 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I agree with basically everything here.

But I don't know why you are unsure about a homes (homes is a better word, housing is insufficient) first policy wouldn't work.

I am confident it would work for most people. But I don't have enough understanding of the issues to know whether it would work for all. Still, if it could solve the problem for 90% (or 80%, or 95%) of the rough sleepers, it would be a huge improvement.

But, getting such a policy is not going to be quick. I think we would need to drive and fund that from either the federal or (more likely) provincial level. And it will take time to build up the support to make that happen.
Reply


#53
(05-28-2022, 12:59 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Funny, nowhere did I suggest that they needed to find a job or pay a bill to get a home. Just. Give. Them. Homes.

I agree that a basic standard of living should be available, no questions asked. That being said, there are some significant challenges to actually doing this.

One is that unless the project is a nation-wide project, something needs to be done to avoid attracting people from elsewhere. If the Region of Waterloo starts housing people for free, then pretty soon the program will become very popular with people from all over the country. Obviously, this is not within the resources of this Region.

Another is that some people do not have the skills to live in ordinary housing. Those people who used to be in mental institutions didn’t just disappear, and their problems weren’t entirely caused by the mental institutions. I’m sure there are people who if just given a chance (housing and some food stability) would be able to put themselves back together, but there are others who will always need more support than just the basic access to resources.

Another issue is how to divide between people in the program and people not in the program. If we’re giving out free housing, is it open to truly anybody? If so, we’re going to need to provide a lot more than would appear from current homeless numbers. There are lots of people in low-quality apartments who would jump at the opportunity to move into free accommodation.

None of these should be used as excuses for inaction, but doing something that actually solves the problem permanently is not as easy as it might appear at first.
Reply
#54
(05-28-2022, 12:59 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(05-28-2022, 09:41 AM)ac3r Wrote: Homes first are a great idea, but the problem is street recidivism. It's easy enough to take homeless people and put them in homes, but unless you tackle the things that put them on the streets in the first place - drug addiction, mental health, trauma etc - it's hard to keep them from falling back to where they came from. You can stick them in houses but if they still have an addiction to drugs or unchecked trauma, they quickly go back to their coping mechanisms. Not to mention, many street people are just so used to the streets that it's hard for them to participate in something that requires paying bill, finding employment, following social rules and so on.

As for ABTC I don't think they have a permanent location yet. The plans to move to Breslau fell through because of NIMBY opposition. I remember some people were claiming that there would be pedophiles preying on school children and other BS. I believe they are currently next to the WRDSB office complex on Ardelt Avenue but I don't remember hearing about that being permanent.

Funny, nowhere did I suggest that they needed to find a job or pay a bill to get a home. Just. Give. Them. Homes.

It isn't that complicated. And more to the point, for many on the street, it is being on the street which is traumatizing. Giving them a home makes it much easier for them to overcome those problems.

I'm not saying that it's a magic bullet which will make every single unhoused person a well functioning member of society, but for many it will. And for the rest...again...they won't be unhoused.

I am very strong in my opinion that housing is a human right. Food, water, and shelter. No person in our society should ever have to go without. I don't care how undeserving anyone feels they are. We feed, house, and hydrate the very worst criminals among us, certainly we can do the same for those whose first crime is poverty.

Honestly, I get very frustrated by the idea that we cannot do this. We are wealthy...we can do this. We choose not too.

Yes, I remember the Breslau hate. It's a shameful dark mark on that particular community. I didn't know they were on Ardelt, I thought that was the original location. Fundamentally, not providing them with a permanent location is fundamentally depriving them of a home. A large part of something being "home" is stability. You must be able to rely on it, for a long term.

And frankly, I know this very well. During my move I have been living with family, and in temporary housing for 5 months now. It isn't at all the same as being homeless--I am always comfortable and usually confident in my ability to house my family in the coming month--but I still feel the discomfort of being in unstable temporary accommodations. I just signed a 3 year lease and I cannot tell you how much of a relief it is to have some certainty about where I will be living in the coming years.

Well I'm not disagreeing, just stating that without structure and purpose, many of these people would quickly fall back into their vices. A home is a start, but not enough.

A proper home is obviously preferable to the streets, but without providing support in other areas they'll likely often just live in those homes doing the same things they do on the streets: drugs, prostitution, self-harm, crime, anti-social behaviour etc. And that's when they end up kicked out of those homes and back where they came from...because they need to be able to follow rules to live in those places (that's why many homeless people don't choose to utilize shelters, because they have to behave in order to utilize those services). They can also lack certain skills as ijmorlan illustrated - skills that we all take for granted or don't even think of. Budgeting, bills, cleaning, job searches/interviewing, taking medication and so on are not things many street people are used to so they are also handicapped in that respect. And to solve those sort of things such as drug addiction, mental health, criminal activity, teaching skills etc we'd require a huge amount of additional resources...from psychiatrists, social workers, nurses, PSWs, addiction support counsellors and so on - all things we have a serious lack of in Canada.

It's awful, really. As you said, we're a wealthy and highly developed nation but we do very little to help the marginalized people amongst us. And that's a disappointing reality we should all be ashamed of because what kind of country lets its citizens slip through the cracks? We need to be doing more as a nation at all levels. A top down approach from the federal/provincial/local governments who can fund and build organizations to structure everything, but also grassroots level support where we can have people who are more in touch with these sort of realities (or who have lived that sort of life) give direction to those up top and those on the streets on what needs and can be done.

More empathy from the public is also needed. Anytime there is a thread on Reddit or Twitter about local homelessness, drug addiction, sex work or whatever the replies can be disgusting. There are people out there who would be happy to see these people rounded up, executed and buried in a mass grave. They can also be seriously misjudging the problems too, thinking that they're only in their situations because they're lazy or don't care about anything but drugs, when in reality they usually do drugs because it's a coping mechanism for pain, which then develops into a physical or psychological addiction.

Either way, this is such an unfortunately complex problem but we need to do something because it's just getting worse.
Reply
#55
(05-28-2022, 02:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(05-28-2022, 01:41 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I agree with basically everything here.

But I don't know why you are unsure about a homes (homes is a better word, housing is insufficient) first policy wouldn't work.

I am confident it would work for most people. But I don't have enough understanding of the issues to know whether it would work for all. Still, if it could solve the problem for 90% (or 80%, or 95%) of the rough sleepers, it would be a huge improvement.

But, getting such a policy is not going to be quick. I think we would need to drive and fund that from either the federal or (more likely) provincial level. And it will take time to build up the support to make that happen.

I'm not sure what you mean though? It would "work" for 100% of people, in that 100% of people sleeping rough would no longer be sleeping on the streets. I mean, unless you are suggesting that there are people who would choose to sleep on the street rather than in a home with absolutely no strings or limits attached?

A certain portion would be able to reintegrate as functioning members of society, but some would not.

You're right that such a policy would be difficult, but I am also tired of excuses.

I think the problem of people traveling is a lot smaller than some think. I'd argue a national program is definitely not needed. Transportation is difficult at best when you are homeless. Could people come here from Toronto, clearly yes. Could people come here from Ottawa? Maybe...but that's much more difficult. Could they come here from even...Manitoba, the number who could and would is negligible.

And yes, these are free homes to anyone. Yes, there are people who live in shittier places in Ontario now who would prefer this program. I think there can be reasonable limits on it, like, either organize it as a UBI, or basically, you pay if you gain the means to pay. But ultimately, I don't actually think that it would be a bad thing if people had an option other than living in inadequate or intolerable housing. Underhoused people is a problem too.

As for people who literally cannot care for themselves, that's true on and off the street. At least if they are in a home, it is easier to provide services and help to them. Again, I'm not suggesting that this solves everyone's problems, but it makes all problems easier.
Reply
#56
(05-28-2022, 05:48 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(05-28-2022, 12:59 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Funny, nowhere did I suggest that they needed to find a job or pay a bill to get a home. Just. Give. Them. Homes.

It isn't that complicated. And more to the point, for many on the street, it is being on the street which is traumatizing. Giving them a home makes it much easier for them to overcome those problems.

I'm not saying that it's a magic bullet which will make every single unhoused person a well functioning member of society, but for many it will. And for the rest...again...they won't be unhoused.

I am very strong in my opinion that housing is a human right. Food, water, and shelter. No person in our society should ever have to go without. I don't care how undeserving anyone feels they are. We feed, house, and hydrate the very worst criminals among us, certainly we can do the same for those whose first crime is poverty.

Honestly, I get very frustrated by the idea that we cannot do this. We are wealthy...we can do this. We choose not too.

Yes, I remember the Breslau hate. It's a shameful dark mark on that particular community. I didn't know they were on Ardelt, I thought that was the original location. Fundamentally, not providing them with a permanent location is fundamentally depriving them of a home. A large part of something being "home" is stability. You must be able to rely on it, for a long term.

And frankly, I know this very well. During my move I have been living with family, and in temporary housing for 5 months now. It isn't at all the same as being homeless--I am always comfortable and usually confident in my ability to house my family in the coming month--but I still feel the discomfort of being in unstable temporary accommodations. I just signed a 3 year lease and I cannot tell you how much of a relief it is to have some certainty about where I will be living in the coming years.

Well I'm not disagreeing, just stating that without structure and purpose, many of these people would quickly fall back into their vices. A home is a start, but not enough.

A proper home is obviously preferable to the streets, but without providing support in other areas they'll likely often just live in those homes doing the same things they do on the streets: drugs, prostitution, self-harm, crime, anti-social behaviour etc. And that's when they end up kicked out of those homes and back where they came from...because they need to be able to follow rules to live in those places (that's why many homeless people don't choose to utilize shelters, because they have to behave in order to utilize those services). They can also lack certain skills as ijmorlan illustrated - skills that we all take for granted or don't even think of. Budgeting, bills, cleaning, job searches/interviewing, taking medication and so on are not things many street people are used to so they are also handicapped in that respect. And to solve those sort of things such as drug addiction, mental health, criminal activity, teaching skills etc we'd require a huge amount of additional resources...from psychiatrists, social workers, nurses, PSWs, addiction support counsellors and so on - all things we have a serious lack of in Canada.

It's awful, really. As you said, we're a wealthy and highly developed nation but we do very little to help the marginalized people amongst us. And that's a disappointing reality we should all be ashamed of because what kind of country lets its citizens slip through the cracks? We need to be doing more as a nation at all levels. A top down approach from the federal/provincial/local governments who can fund and build organizations to structure everything, but also grassroots level support where we can have people who are more in touch with these sort of realities (or who have lived that sort of life) give direction to those up top and those on the streets on what needs and can be done.

More empathy from the public is also needed. Anytime there is a thread on Reddit or Twitter about local homelessness, drug addiction, sex work or whatever the replies can be disgusting. There are people out there who would be happy to see these people rounded up, executed and buried in a mass grave. They can also be seriously misjudging the problems too, thinking that they're only in their situations because they're lazy or don't care about anything but drugs, when in reality they usually do drugs because it's a coping mechanism for pain, which then develops into a physical or psychological addiction.

Either way, this is such an unfortunately complex problem but we need to do something because it's just getting worse.

Here's the key though...you can't kick them out for this. If they want to sit in their homes and get high or whatever, then that's what they do. We can provide supports, but making housing conditional means it isn't being treated as a right.

More empathy is absolutely needed.

It is absolutely a complex problem, but rarely do complex problems have such a clear and obvious way to make unambiguous and unquestionable progress.

There is literally no downside to giving homes to these people, not a single one will be worse off in that situation.
Reply
#57
(05-29-2022, 02:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Here's the key though...you can't kick them out for this. If they want to sit in their homes and get high or whatever, then that's what they do. We can provide supports, but making housing conditional means it isn't being treated as a right.

[…]

There is literally no downside to giving homes to these people, not a single one will be worse off in that situation.

If they want to get high, that’s OK. But if they start fires or leave needles around the common areas (for example) then they have to go. This isn’t a matter of management being uptight or whatever, it’s just not possible to accommodate certain behaviours.

Whether those behaviours would actually be a problem once they’re in proper accommodation, I don’t really know; but I don’t think you know either.

And there is a downside: providing housing is obviously going to be expensive, and will be paid for by taking resources from everybody else. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but pretending there is no downside is no way to proceed.
Reply
#58
(05-29-2022, 02:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I think the problem of people traveling is a lot smaller than some think. I'd argue a national program is definitely not needed. Transportation is difficult at best when you are homeless. Could people come here from Toronto, clearly yes. Could people come here from Ottawa? Maybe...but that's much more difficult. Could they come here from even...Manitoba, the number who could and would is negligible.

I think you underestimate the resourcefulness of people who learn of a good thing.

Also other jurisdictions would hand out bus tickets. Let’s not pretend this wouldn’t happen; there is already precedent for localities handling their homeless “problem” this way.

Quote:And yes, these are free homes to anyone. Yes, there are people who live in shittier places in Ontario now who would prefer this program. I think there can be reasonable limits on it, like, either organize it as a UBI, or basically, you pay if you gain the means to pay. But ultimately, I don't actually think that it would be a bad thing if people had an option other than living in inadequate or intolerable housing. Underhoused people is a problem too.

How high would the marginal tax rate be on people in this situation? And what would happen if they didn’t pay?

I agree with organizing it as a UBI. People should be able to choose how much of their allocation to spend on housing and how much on other things (even drugs, in my opinion — as long as they don’t then come back to the trough complaining about how they can’t afford housing). Also, they should be able to choose how to live (alone, with family, with roommates) without the bureaucracy increasing or decreasing their allocation accordingly. We would still need reform to ensure that affordable housing (specifically, affordable to those relying on UBI) gets built.
Reply


#59
(05-29-2022, 08:31 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(05-29-2022, 02:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Here's the key though...you can't kick them out for this. If they want to sit in their homes and get high or whatever, then that's what they do. We can provide supports, but making housing conditional means it isn't being treated as a right.

[…]

There is literally no downside to giving homes to these people, not a single one will be worse off in that situation.

If they want to get high, that’s OK. But if they start fires or leave needles around the common areas (for example) then they have to go. This isn’t a matter of management being uptight or whatever, it’s just not possible to accommodate certain behaviours.

Whether those behaviours would actually be a problem once they’re in proper accommodation, I don’t really know; but I don’t think you know either.

And there is a downside: providing housing is obviously going to be expensive, and will be paid for by taking resources from everybody else. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but pretending there is no downside is no way to proceed.

Settings fires and littering are crimes that you and I would both be prosecuted for. But neither of us would lose our homes as a result. The same should apply to homeless people.

Homeless people are people, they should suffer the same consequences for their behaviour that you and I do.

I'm not suggesting that we accommodate bad behaviour, just as I wouldn't tolerate a neighbour acting in that way either.

As for the expense, that I couldn't care less about. We waste oodles of money, even if providing housing was more expensive than the current system (there's a lot of evidence that it isn't, just look at how much of our police budget wasted bullying these people) then we should still do it.

I was quite specific, there is no downside for homeless folks. There are of course "downsides" for other people, and frankly, I don't care much about those. The most common "downside" is the people who WANT these people to be homeless, because they don't feel they deserve homes, will be upset and to me, that's an upside.
Reply
#60
(05-29-2022, 02:05 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(05-28-2022, 02:08 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I am confident it would work for most people. But I don't have enough understanding of the issues to know whether it would work for all. Still, if it could solve the problem for 90% (or 80%, or 95%) of the rough sleepers, it would be a huge improvement.

But, getting such a policy is not going to be quick. I think we would need to drive and fund that from either the federal or (more likely) provincial level. And it will take time to build up the support to make that happen.

I'm not sure what you mean though? It would "work" for 100% of people, in that 100% of people sleeping rough would no longer be sleeping on the streets. I mean, unless you are suggesting that there are people who would choose to sleep on the street rather than in a home with absolutely no strings or limits attached?

I am not suggesting that. I am simply saying that I don't know this area well enough to make a definitive statement.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links