Ending Chronic Homelessness

[tomh009]

In the Record:
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...hener.html

And a quote from the article, implying that the regional staff did initiate this:

Lynsey Slupeiks, spokesperson for Waterloo Region said the region worked with community partners to support the people in the camp throughout the week.

“We also worked diligently to notify residents that they could no longer remain at the encampment and needed to access other housing services by today. All individuals left on their own, and are connected to outreach services and supports that are available across the community,” she said in a statement.

Does anyone know whether ABTC is at capacity, or do they still have cabins available?

[danbrotherston]

In the Record:
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...hener.html

And a quote from the article, implying that the regional staff did initiate this:

Lynsey Slupeiks, spokesperson for Waterloo Region said the region worked with community partners to support the people in the camp throughout the week.

“We also worked diligently to notify residents that they could no longer remain at the encampment and needed to access other housing services by today. All individuals left on their own, and are connected to outreach services and supports that are available across the community,” she said in a statement.

Does anyone know whether ABTC is at capacity, or do they still have cabins available?

I mean, that statement is all kinds of misleading.

"All individuals left on their own"...you know..."leave or we'll run you over with a bulldozer"..."oh look, they left on their own"...

I'm being a little facetious, but people with zero power, don't do anything on their own.

As for supports and service across the region...I know we don't have those things.

[Rainrider22]

They didn't bulldoze it down. Does anybody read. The people took their personal belongings. What was left behind was loaded in the bucket of a front end loader and taken away.

That mess was there for a.long time and needed to be removed. It is not an appropriate spot for people to have a make shift camp. Did you see the human excrement everywhere?

[KingandWeber]

They didn't bulldoze it down.  Does anybody read.  The people took their personal belongings.  What was left behind was loaded in the bucket of a front end loader and taken away. 

That mess was there for a.long time and needed to be removed. It is not an appropriate spot for people to have a make shift camp.  Did you see the human excrement everywhere?

Yeah as a near-daily passerby of this particular encampment, it was a pretty bad situation. And to that end, there must be room for some debate as to what to do about situations like this. I don't think it's fair to call the Region evil or imply the police were some masterminds behind this without getting a better sense of the facts leading up to it. And it leads me to a question I've been wrestling with as I've followed the Toronto encampment evictions this summer and now this one: if there truly is shelter space available, are these kinds of encampments acceptable? There are negative consequences from allowing them to exist, but I also understand that shelters and even affordable housing come with their own issues that do lead some in the unhoused population to shun them. I don't pretend to have solutions (although ultimately I think 95% of the solution is just building more affordable/free housing) but I would like to hear more from the Region to better understand this situation before condemning them. I will readily admit communication was sorely lacking here though so the Region can at least be faulted for that.

[danbrotherston]

They didn't bulldoze it down.  Does anybody read.  The people took their personal belongings.  What was left behind was loaded in the bucket of a front end loader and taken away. 

That mess was there for a.long time and needed to be removed. It is not an appropriate spot for people to have a make shift camp.  Did you see the human excrement everywhere?

Don't you question what you read?

"The people took their personal belongings"...then what exactly what being bulldozed?

Do I want to see excrement everywhere? No...maybe we should provide people bathrooms so they aren't forced to poop in the street?

If not there, then where? WHERE? Bulldozing these people's belongings does not make them not homeless, it just makes them more miserable and more destitute. Where exactly DO you think is an appropriate place for them to put up a tent? Somewhere out of view? That would make it easier for the rest of us to forget about the suffering.

Oh, and for bonus points today we get to watch our tax dollars used to pay a helicopter fly over with a banner advertisement for the stupid museum exhibit which they claim was going to attract out of town visitors. We truly live in the darkest timeline.

[dtkvictim]

They didn't bulldoze it down.  Does anybody read.  The people took their personal belongings.  What was left behind was loaded in the bucket of a front end loader and taken away. 

That mess was there for a.long time and needed to be removed. It is not an appropriate spot for people to have a make shift camp.  Did you see the human excrement everywhere?

Don't you question what you read?

"The people took their personal belongings"...then what exactly what being bulldozed?

Do I want to see excrement everywhere? No...maybe we should provide people bathrooms so they aren't forced to poop in the street?

If not there, then where? WHERE? Bulldozing these people's belongings does not make them not homeless, it just makes them more miserable and more destitute. Where exactly DO you think is an appropriate place for them to put up a tent? Somewhere out of view? That would make it easier for the rest of us to forget about the suffering.

Oh, and for bonus points today we get to watch our tax dollars used to pay a helicopter fly over with a banner advertisement for the stupid museum exhibit which they claim was going to attract out of town visitors. We truly live in the darkest timeline.

You can and should question what you read, but that doesn't mean you can make up alternative claims without proof. Hell, I question what The Record writes because I've seen them publish outright pro-homeless lies in situations I've have had inside information on. Given their generally sympathetic view towards the homeless, why would they not question and publish information about wanted possessions being destroyed?

I don't know what the right answers are, but I don't think allowing encampments is helpful to anyone. Try seeking out some online discussions from Toronto, and see how their encampments (or even temporary shelters) have affected local residents. It's genuinely pushing people out of walkable urban neighbourhoods. For added fun (slightly unrelated), check out how the complete tolerance to anti-social behaviour is driving people away from public transit and into cars.

Sorry if it's a little aggressive, I don't know any of the individuals living in this encampment and I don't want to blame my general experiences on them either. But I understand the general sentiment; my last four years downtown has been the lowest quality of life I've ever had, and that's exclusively been driven by the mentally ill and addicted. That's also in spite of the incredible park, businesses and shopkeepers, and ability to live a walkable and bikeable life. I'm personally at the end of my rope, and when I read the experiences of those in Toronto and other cities living near encampments I read the same experiences I've had.

I want solutions, and I'm willing to pay for it (financially, but not at the expense of my own sanity as I'm currently doing). The current trajectory of near complete tolerance mixed with a lack of real action is making things worse.

[danbrotherston]

Don't you question what you read?

"The people took their personal belongings"...then what exactly what being bulldozed?

Do I want to see excrement everywhere? No...maybe we should provide people bathrooms so they aren't forced to poop in the street?

If not there, then where? WHERE? Bulldozing these people's belongings does not make them not homeless, it just makes them more miserable and more destitute. Where exactly DO you think is an appropriate place for them to put up a tent? Somewhere out of view? That would make it easier for the rest of us to forget about the suffering.

Oh, and for bonus points today we get to watch our tax dollars used to pay a helicopter fly over with a banner advertisement for the stupid museum exhibit which they claim was going to attract out of town visitors. We truly live in the darkest timeline.

You can and should question what you read, but that doesn't mean you can make up alternative claims without proof. Hell, I question what The Record writes because I've seen them publish outright pro-homeless lies in situations I've have had inside information on. Given their generally sympathetic view towards the homeless, why would they not question and publish information about wanted possessions being destroyed?

I don't know what the right answers are, but I don't think allowing encampments is helpful to anyone. Try seeking out some online discussions from Toronto, and see how their encampments (or even temporary shelters) have affected local residents. It's genuinely pushing people out of walkable urban neighbourhoods. For added fun (slightly unrelated), check out how the complete tolerance to anti-social behaviour is driving people away from public transit and into cars.

Sorry if it's a little aggressive, I don't know any of the individuals living in this encampment and I don't want to blame my general experiences on them either. But I understand the general sentiment; my last four years downtown has been the lowest quality of life I've ever had, and that's exclusively been driven by the mentally ill and addicted. That's also in spite of the incredible park, businesses and shopkeepers, and ability to live a walkable and bikeable life. I'm personally at the end of my rope, and when I read the experiences of those in Toronto and other cities living near encampments I read the same experiences I've had.

I want solutions, and I'm willing to pay for it (financially, but not at the expense of my own sanity as I'm currently doing). The current trajectory of near complete tolerance mixed with a lack of real action is making things worse.

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.

Honestly, it's bullshit. If you cannot understand how bulldozing people's shelter and potentially killing them is beyond inhumane and unhelpful, I can't help you.

MY rights to not be "disturbed" by homeless people are QUITE OBVIOUSLY less important than their right not to freeze to death in the cold.

This isn't an exaggeration or hyperbole, people (these are people) have died as a direct result of clearing encampments before, they will again, maybe not this time, but frankly, I don't think we'd even know.

Let me be equally aggressive. 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, it does not matter what transgressions they committed.

As for tolerance, I don't think this was bulldozed because we fear tolerance, I believe it was bulldozed to encourage tolerance. If you bulldoze them from a visible space, and force them into a less visible space, guess what, that encourages tolerance through ignorance.

Honestly, I'm furious about this, and the fact that someone could suggest this is acceptable...I have nothing polite to say.

Yesterday I had to watch my tax dollars be used to bulldoze people's shelter and belongings. Today I had to watch them be used to fly a helicopter advertising a museum exhibit for famous celebrities.

Tomorrow, I will be at the protest. There is no justification for these cruel and corrupt actions. They are being done in MY name, and I won't stand for it.

[jeffster]

Oh, and for bonus points today we get to watch our tax dollars used to pay a helicopter fly over with a banner advertisement for the stupid museum exhibit which they claim was going to attract out of town visitors. We truly live in the darkest timeline.

Perhaps encampment razzed because of this?

Even if not related, though, I have no problem with The Museum hosting this event and spending money to advertise it. And it will attract a lot of out of town, and indeed, out of country visitors. Perhaps you don't appreciate this type of thing, but it's good for the city and good for the region.

I recall a couple years before Covid-19, and I had parked at the Charles and Benton parking garage, and all these licence plates from elsewhere in Canada and the USA. I mean, I am seeing California and Texas, Florida, Arizona, Washington, etc. On my way back later on, I see some people approaching a California plated car, so I had to ask what was going on, and why there were here. It was for the Ever After festival at Bingemans -- and it for all intents had gone international, but I had no idea how big it was.

So yes, things like this are good. And I do know that the Unzipped exhibit is huge -- and any fan of the Rolling Stones will make their way here, and if they're travelling a longer distance, they'll stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, shop at local stores, etc. And all this goes full circle to homelessness -- a stronger, better, more diverse and resilient economy that makes helping those that need help easier.

It's not "for the stupid museum".

[danbrotherston]

Oh, and for bonus points today we get to watch our tax dollars used to pay a helicopter fly over with a banner advertisement for the stupid museum exhibit which they claim was going to attract out of town visitors. We truly live in the darkest timeline.

Perhaps encampment razzed because of this?

Even if not related, though, I have no problem with The Museum hosting this event and spending money to advertise it. And it will attract a lot of out of town, and indeed, out of country visitors. Perhaps you don't appreciate this type of thing, but it's good for the city and good for the region.

I recall a couple years before Covid-19, and I had parked at the Charles and Benton parking garage, and all these licence plates from elsewhere in Canada and the USA. I mean, I am seeing California and Texas, Florida, Arizona, Washington, etc. On my way back later on, I see some people approaching a California plated car, so I had to ask what was going on, and why there were here. It was for the Ever After festival at Bingemans -- and it for all intents had gone international, but I had no idea how big it was.

So yes, things like this are good. And I do know that the Unzipped exhibit is huge -- and any fan of the Rolling Stones will make their way here, and if they're travelling a longer distance, they'll stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, shop at local stores, etc. And all this goes full circle to homelessness -- a stronger, better, more diverse and resilient economy that makes helping those that need help easier.

It's not "for the stupid museum".

When we have people who are living in the streets, we should not be spending public money money on helicopter advertisements (to say nothing of doing so in a climate emergency). Of course, I also question the claim of outside visitors given the advertisement was flown over the region. Remember, this wasn't the original funding for this event (which was still too much), but was an EXTRA ask they came back to the region for, and staff recommended against. Pretty clearly they could have just cut back on the insane waste like flying an advertisement on a helicopter and not asked for that money.

And if someone wants to spend private money on that, that's their right, this is PUBLIC money.

We have a strong economy, and we are still choosing to bulldoze these people's belongings, this isn't a lack of funding, it's an unwillingness to do something about it.

And I'm not sure what you're suggesting by the first point? That they are bulldozing an encampment to clean up the city before outside visitors arrive...that is MORE despicable.

[Rainrider22]

Lead by example Dan. Offer them some of your property for them to set up their camp on..

[jeffster]

For added fun (slightly unrelated), check out how the complete tolerance to anti-social behaviour is driving people away from public transit and into cars.

This could have its own thread. It really could. There are reason that some of us folks won't take transit. My kid was sexually assaulted on public transit, no way in hell she's ever getting on a bus or other public transit again, and sadly, this is very common.

As for the rest, as you said, there is no real answer. The big issue with homelessness is that some people simply don't want to be helped, or simply can't be helped. Public safety though always has to be a priority. People like Dan, or I can even include myself, know how to deal with sketchy situations. However, not everyone can -- and others need to realize that. Many (not all) in the homeless community don't want to live by any set of rules, and rules that as a whole population, we have to live by. Add in this addiction to drugs/alcohol, mental illness, etc., and you have a perfect storm that is really unfixable.

[danbrotherston]

Lead by example Dan.  Offer them some of your property for them to set up their camp on..

This is a bad faith argument, and you should know better than that, and you should be ashamed of making it.

But since you did, I will fucking put up, as a board member in our building, we are dealing with homeless people sleeping in our vestibule, who occasionally create problems for people coming home.

But I (and others) in the building are not wanting to lock the vestibule because the shelter it provides may be the difference between life or death for someone sleeping on the streets.

Now, what the fuck have you done?!

[danbrotherston]

For added fun (slightly unrelated), check out how the complete tolerance to anti-social behaviour is driving people away from public transit and into cars.

This could have its own thread. It really could. There are reason that some of us folks won't take transit. My kid was sexually assaulted on public transit, no way in hell she's ever getting on a bus or other public transit again, and sadly, this is very common.

As for the rest, as you said, there is no real answer. The big issue with homelessness is that some people simply don't want to be helped, or simply can't be helped. Public safety though always has to be a priority. People like Dan, or I can even include myself, know how to deal with sketchy situations. However, not everyone can -- and others need to realize that. Many (not all) in the homeless community don't want to live by any set of rules, and rules that as a whole population, we have to live by. Add in this addiction to drugs/alcohol, mental illness, etc., and you have a perfect storm that is really unfixable.

This is completely false.

Nobody wants to sleep in a tent on the side of Charles St., they do so because they have no alternative. Just because we pretend we have given alternatives that they turn down in preference to a tent at the side of Charles St. doesn't mean we can say they "don't want to be helped". You try living in a shelter for a week, you'll find real quick why some choose to sleep on Charles St.. We have a real answer, which is to provide unconditional and adequate housing to everyone, we simply choose not to do it and a large part of why we choose not to is either excuses (we pretend it's too expensive, which is absurd given the police budget) or pure sociopathy...people who believe we shouldn't give people housing because they don't deserve it.

[jeffster]

This could have its own thread. It really could. There are reason that some of us folks won't take transit. My kid was sexually assaulted on public transit, no way in hell she's ever getting on a bus or other public transit again, and sadly, this is very common.

As for the rest, as you said, there is no real answer. The big issue with homelessness is that some people simply don't want to be helped, or simply can't be helped. Public safety though always has to be a priority. People like Dan, or I can even include myself, know how to deal with sketchy situations. However, not everyone can -- and others need to realize that. Many (not all) in the homeless community don't want to live by any set of rules, and rules that as a whole population, we have to live by. Add in this addiction to drugs/alcohol, mental illness, etc., and you have a perfect storm that is really unfixable.

This is completely false.

Nobody wants to sleep in a tent on the side of Charles St., they do so because they have no alternative. Just because we pretend we have given alternatives that they turn down in preference to a tent at the side of Charles St. doesn't mean we can say they "don't want to be helped". You try living in a shelter for a week, you'll find real quick why some choose to sleep on Charles St.. We have a real answer, which is to provide unconditional and adequate housing to everyone, we simply choose not to do it and a large part of why we choose not to is either excuses (we pretend it's too expensive, which is absurd given the police budget) or pure sociopathy...people who believe we shouldn't give people housing because they don't deserve it.

What kind of housing? And where?

And I agree that we should have adequate housing for everyone, but, that isn't the case. My 19 year old son remarked that he has three choices when it comes to living somewhere: 1) live with me 2) risk living with shitty roommates 3) be homeless. It's just not the 'homeless' that don't have adequate homes, there are literally millions living in this country that can't afford their forever home, so they have no choice but to bunk up with others, including their parents.

Since you're a believer of housing for everyone, certainly you would include those millions that aren't technically homeless, but aren't exactly home keepers either - be it rent or own.

So, again, how do we do this? Where does the money come from? For real, we can't tell people that are trying to have, and are having, a productive life that they don't deserve a home because 'you're capable of living with others'. Because in order to really house the homeless, we have to tell the more functioning people that the really don't deserve to have a home. And that might be the reality of your children come 18 years from now.

As for 'unconditional' -- I don't buy that. Everyone, including the homeless, need to own up at some point. You simply don't give people the keys to a unit, or house, and say 'do whatever you want, this is unconditional' housing. That's not fair to people living in the same building, or if in a severed lot, to the nearby neighbours.

We can create things like 'A better tent city', but even they have some rules. Respect for others if not anything else. But that's hardly a good solution to providing housing for everyone.

Regarding your other post regarding your condo; if I was on the board, I would not be letting the homeless sleep in the vestibule. Perhaps it might be from my previous experience and having to do 'clean-up' of someone murdered in a vestibule, it wouldn't be a risk I'd be willing to take, for myself, my family, and my neighbours living in the same condo. Regardless of your belief, everyone deserves to be safe, and to feel safe. The situation in your condo is not safe, and if someone were to be hurt badly, or ever murdered, and it was known that you allowed for this type of arrangement, you'd be liable because you failed to provide a safe and secure environment for the other owners/tenants.

[danbrotherston]

This is completely false.

Nobody wants to sleep in a tent on the side of Charles St., they do so because they have no alternative. Just because we pretend we have given alternatives that they turn down in preference to a tent at the side of Charles St. doesn't mean we can say they "don't want to be helped". You try living in a shelter for a week, you'll find real quick why some choose to sleep on Charles St.. We have a real answer, which is to provide unconditional and adequate housing to everyone, we simply choose not to do it and a large part of why we choose not to is either excuses (we pretend it's too expensive, which is absurd given the police budget) or pure sociopathy...people who believe we shouldn't give people housing because they don't deserve it.

What kind of housing? And where?

And I agree that we should have adequate housing for everyone, but, that isn't the case. My 19 year old son remarked that he has three choices when it comes to living somewhere: 1) live with me 2) risk living with shitty roommates 3) be homeless. It's just not the 'homeless' that don't have adequate homes, there are literally millions living in this country that can't afford their forever home, so they have no choice but to bunk up with others, including their parents.

Since you're a believer of housing for everyone, certainly you would include those millions that aren't technically homeless, but aren't exactly home keepers either - be it rent or own.

So, again, how do we do this? Where does the money come from? For real, we can't tell people that are trying to have, and are having, a productive life that they don't deserve a home because 'you're capable of living with others'. Because in order to really house the homeless, we have to tell the more functioning people that the really don't deserve to have a home. And that might be the reality of your children come 18 years from now.

As for 'unconditional' -- I don't buy that. Everyone, including the homeless, need to own up at some point. You simply don't give people the keys to a unit, or house, and say 'do whatever you want, this is unconditional' housing. That's not fair to people living in the same building, or if in a severed lot, to the nearby neighbours.

We can create things like 'A better tent city', but even they have some rules. Respect for others if not anything else. But that's hardly a good solution to providing housing for everyone.

Regarding your other post regarding your condo; if I was on the board, I would not be letting the homeless sleep in the vestibule. Perhaps it might be from my previous experience and having to do 'clean-up' of someone murdered in a vestibule, it wouldn't be a risk I'd be willing to take, for myself, my family, and my neighbours living in the same condo. Regardless of your belief, everyone deserves to be safe, and to feel safe. The situation in your condo is not safe, and if someone were to be hurt badly, or ever murdered, and it was known that you allowed for this type of arrangement, you'd be liable because you failed to provide a safe and secure environment for the other owners/tenants.

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

I do not, and will not ever agree with this point. I have zero objection to someone who is homeless being given housing in my building which I had to buy. It is perfectly fair...homelessness is unfair...I am not so selfish as to define fairness, as someone else being homeless because they have not had the same advantages as I have.

As for the vestibule, are you arguing that you would rather someone die in the freezing cold than have to walk over someone entering your building? 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. I know you and I have never particularly agreed, but I find this latest revelations especially reprehensible.

I make absolutely no secret of my opinions on the housing crisis, so I'm not sure why you ask. We need to stop prioritizing NIMBYs and start building housing. We have every ability to do so, it is a choice no to. NIMBYs are a significant cause of this harm, and their goals are being advanced by investors and REITs.

This is a question of will, Berlin has taken action, it is possible, we must choose to do so.