Modular/Homeless Housing in Expensive Neighborhoods?
 

Anyone noticed that the trend is to house our homeless or build services for them in the most expensive neighborhoods? Most cities I've seen seem to build their homeless areas & support services on the cheapest real estate possible. Instead we're seeing a large chunk of downtown, Olympic Village, areas of central Vancouver, housing areas in Marpole, etc. used. Pieces of real estate that we could have sold for a high enough price that we could have bought double the amount of housing in East Van (and likely 4x in Abbotsford). We're building modular housing in places where we could have had million dollar condos, areas that are considered "luxury".

If they were building this housing by support services or transit I might understand the extra expense, but it appears that were just building it in random highly visible areas across Vancouver.

I have this nasty suspicion that we are building it in highly visible areas so that the government can show it off as propaganda rather than get the most bang for our buck.

It's being built in all neighbourhoods because building it in the cheapest locations only causes ghettos.

This is most definitely a good thing.

It's my understanding these are City-owned lands already.

The idea is to retain the land for affordable or social housing uses. They will have support services in-house, and are usually in not always located near amenities/services/transit, as a part of their criteria.

Southeast False Creek is not and was never intended to be a dominantly rich neighbourhood and has a mix of housing types in it already and is a part of the community guidelines.
4480 Kaslo St is in a regular East Van 'hood adjacent transit.
1131 Franklin St is in the DTES.

I'm definietly not sure you'd want to sell (or even manage) public lands for expensive strata developments in place of social housing. Also not sure why you'd develop social housing in Abbostford instead of even the DTES, which the City and private sector does a lot, where there is better access to services and jobs in the central Vancouver area.

Is the proper intent to sell public lands at the cited and much talked about issue of inflated land prices (central land that most likely can be rezoned or is zoned for higher density and height) and then to buy less expensive land in the East End, rezone it, have less height and density... but get more units?

As per "social housing downtown" are you refering to for example the new development at 58 W Hastings?

I asked this in another thread.

I agree that concentration can create ghettos. Is there actually evidence that the opposite is true?

Does it actually help the homeless to be in an high income neighbourhood? Does it lead to higher recovery rates? Does it lead to more positive results in general?

It seems that all it does in Vancouver is spread needles and garbage to a wider area of town instead of DTES.

Speaking as someone involved in this I can cite several examples of social housing unloading its burdens on the buildings around them, especially the social housing in Downtown and East Van. The residents of one of my buildings told me that the social housing nearby used to be a women's shelter and they were happy to support that, it then got filled with drug users and psychos. You get constant people shooting up/sleeping at the buildings, you can them constantly using the dumpster/back as a dumping ground, constant noise complaints, etc. One distinct example is when one complex across the alley switched from a central bin to having each unit have their own pullout (their bin constantly had a junk pile around it). Instead they now go across the alley and use our bin as a dumping ground as none of them are willing to use the pullout system. Complaints fell on deaf ears as they housing organization takes no responsibility and as they are province rather than city run you can't even call 311.

To me it makes sense to have one centrally located place where we build the housing, support services, etc. on a cheap piece of real estate no one wants. Why spread it out to make it everyone else's problem? The 650 West 57th building near 3 schools did not win any friends and lets be honest, the safety and security of the people who have screwed their lives up is second to those who are in school and still developing.

Anyway this wasn't meant to be a flame thread, its meant to discuss why the city took the plan it did. How did downtown and other wealthy areas end up being homeless central and why do we put most homeless there?

This is a bunch of hate filled B.S. Most of the homeless were born and raised in Canada, true Canadian citizens like the rest of us, they can be, and will be, in any neighbourhood in the city. THERE IS NO LESSER CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY.

It's called CANADIAN VALUES.

Get that??? Understand???

There is a country across the Pacific.ocean that sometimes houses their homeless in cages. You might like living there.

I think I can understand the line of your questioning of the City and province from an economics POV. It is indeed more multifaceted than that, for better and/or worse at times.

But noted not all social housing is the same, nor is it all run the same. I think it appears the issues you cited (and I can agree on certain projects) is those who run it. Public and private entities run it differently and some SROs can be difficult.


Social housing can have those with additction issues, recovering from addicition, recently homeless, homeless for years, singles, families, seniors. It's definitely complicated.

Very off topic here but there are definitely lesser citizens in our country. According to this article https://globalnews.ca/news/4334063/b...tion-projects/ certain segments of our population have hiring priority. The same goes for your ethnicity when you apply for university (certain ethnicities make it much easier to get in), your gender when applying for scholarships (more for females), etc. Children have more legal protections then adults, adults have more legal independence, women have more social services, youth have more clinic options, etc. Foreigners and non-citizens have a lot less rights than Canadians. Refugees have more rights and protections than average Canadians. In the end the caucasian male is the lesser citizen in our country.

I will be the one who says that I definitely prioritize the safety of children who have a future rather than those who will likely never recover from their drug addictions/mental illness.

To put your words where your mouth is, go rent a place by main & hastings, then move your wife and kids into it. Have your kids walk by main &hastings everyday to school. Then I will give you kudos for sticking to your guns as I call child services and I'll see if child services agrees with your views on how to raise your children :tup: Seriously, I dare you to respond to this thread saying that your ok with this because this is what you just asked we impose on everyone else. If you do not then it shows that you are a hypocrite because you just asked everyone else to do this.


PS: If your referring to China I've been told that they provide housing to homeless (around 6 bunks a room) from friends but I cannot confirm this. Its not the best system but they do provide something. I've also been told its very embarrassing in Chinese culture to beg so most will do their best to find work somewhere or live with their family, usually its only the crippled or disabled on the street. In comparison our great country closed down all the mental hospitals and pushed them all out onto the street....so lets not get onto any high horses here, in general we're no better than others.

The same statement for moving "better off children and families to Main and Hastings (a concentration of homelessness) as being an issue can be applied to families that either are or would be living in social housing at that same intersection and walk to their basic needs every day. Many would argue that those families that live in social housing, or those that are not drug addicts, would be better off for society in the long run and for their well-being to live in a different area than the intersection of Main and Hastings.


I believe you're conflating housing (all 3 definitions of social housing and singles an families), mental health, addiction, and cronic homelessness.

I'd recommend this reading for 4480 Kaslo St:

https://vancouver.ca/people-programs...pdSection48576

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/kaslo...n-20180311.pdf


We are currently in the process of rezoning for one 100% social housing building that is (as the City requires) a mix of 3 BC Housing determined rates in the DTES, and another one that has a portion of social housing, as determined by the area plan. The second building is strata with a fully integrated social housing component. The social housing is opertated by a non-profit and most of them are for families. Social housing isn't a shoe fits all.

This was all discussed a couple of weeks ago in the General Vancouver thread. These projects are being built on wherever the City currently owns a site big enough to take the buildings that is not needed for a few years. The next site will be 898 Main Street which is on the corner of Main and Union where the viaducts will be coming down. That's also a 50 unit building. Despite some statements suggesting that the City owns a lot of land where housing could be provided, there isn't much that doesn't have an existing building meeting some other need. Most of the vacant sites seem to have been used for these temporary modular buildings. The value of the land, or how it will get developed in a few years time is entirely immaterial.

Many - most - of the people around Hastings and Main aren't homeless. The concentration of SRO and non-market housing in that area, and of people with mental health and substance abuse issues is not a coincidence, and many support services for that population can be found around there as well. Unlike some other Metro Vancouver municipalities, The City of Vancouver has stepped up and offered ten locations for temporary modular housing to help reduce street and shelter homelessness.

Prioritizing people has nothing to do with the homeless, nice try. To me, that's hate talk. This is a country where values mean we equalize benefits for all, we are all the same. No one has more rights than others.

I don't care what China does, and I definitively don't want those values being imposed in our city and country. I will always be against any attempts to do so.

As far as the downtown eastside, these are people that need help, and in our city, we will help. Maybe you should rent down there and get some perspective. I will support the modular housing in the city owned land, wherever that may be. My child was born and grew up in this city, no needles were stepped on.

Plus personal attacks, calling me a hypocrite, is no way to gain support.

There are plenty of successful social housing developments spread out in locations such as Kits/Yaletown/Mt Pleasant/Killarney

Your entirely wrong, First Nations do have more rights than the average Canadian, the poor do have more rights than the rich, children do have more legal protections than adults. Your the one that brought up asia. If your child never stepped on a needle then you definitely don't live near any social housing so stop pushing others to. I've had people from social housing stuff needles in the doorways of buildings so that they would fall on people when they opened the door, I've had them shoot up outside the lobbies of buildings where people come in and out, I've had them wait outside the door for people to let them in so they can vandalize or rob the building, I've had them shit all over the stairwells and elevators, I've had them write crazy rambling poetry on the side of every single bloody stair in the emergency stairwell for three stories. I know one building where the planters are full of needles every day a block away from the police station (but across the street from social housing).

These are just the stories I have. I have stories from others about how one guy went to the top floor of a building's stairwell and opened the fire faucet flooding all 20 stories and causing over a million dollars in water damage, I have seen one building surrounded by homeless lying on the street while police ignore it.

I agree with Gen's point that I am not differentiating the types of people in social housing, I am referring to those with mental or drug related issues rather than those who need temporary help and likely will improve. But in the end, you have your kid get stuck with a needle, step in human shit, etc. Then you can tell others that I'm ok with it and you should be too. Instead of creating a ghetto in one small area we are turning our whole city into a ghetto. By spreading this out in neighborhoods where kids walk the streets (and are used to being safe) we are taking huge risks just to please certain elements of our society who have no experience living beside social housing but think we're exaggerating the experience. I challenge you to find one father with a family living beside social housing (the ones that house drug users) who enjoyed the experience and let their children walk beside it.

Its very easy to say people should be ok with something but its a whole other thing to actually experience it yourself. If your willing to risk your childrens or other peoples childrens lives for this then you are a monster. I hope I've convinced you to reconsider but I suspect I haven't. Perhaps try taking your children for a walk past main and hastings along hastings at 6pm or later then see if your mind may have changed.

What the hell are you talking about? The poor have more rights? And please, bringing first nations in a topic like this is pathetic. First of all, they were repressed for a long time, if you have any clue of the history, you would know that. They do not have more rights. If they do, prove it.

In fact prove it all, since you are so sure about it, links, citations, documents, etc. I'll be waiting.

I have walked many times through Hastings. I've lived near social housing, I know families and people in social housing, you're the monster for berating poor people. I'm a long time resident of this city. You can't put words in my mouth.

The Rickshaw Theatre (that I've been to quite a few times) is just over from Main and Hastings. I've walked there after midnight and while some of the people may look sketchy, I've never had a problem with anyone. Sure it's not the nicest area but it isn't the seven gates of hell either. :rolleyes:

I've been to the Rickshaw many time as well, since the mid 90's. And the Imperial, and many other venues and night spots around Chinatown and Main and Hastings. I agree, I have never had an issue. People there just leave you alone, thy're in another universe ;)

Is there no limit to generosity?

How many chances do you give someone?

Do you not finally take away some freedom if a person is completely unwilling to take responsibility and change but expects endless support?

Its fine and dramatic to say "no lesser citizen in this country" but that's not really true is it?

How can the persons supporting this system of welfare not want to claim some sort of recognition? It is literally the labour and productivity of one group used to shelter and feed another, nothing inherently wrong with this, but its certainly true.

And to make this abundantly clear - I am absolutely not saying we should somehow cut all social support, but there is a difference between a helping hand and lifelong support.

Misher, it's also important to separate drug use and mental health with homelessness. Lots of social housing providers for instance are strict on drug use in their building, which leads to folks using in the street. Is the issue then social housing, homelessness, or drug use? Then, with that in mind, which issues are not being address properly as a society? Ways to adjust and improve. The usual root issue is homelessness in the first place and supports and housing... social services and institutions that help disenfranchised minorities, for instance.


Drug use and issues around social housing are also not directly tied to the fact that social housing exists in that area, but that the presence of the two happen to be in the same area. Drug use outside a building does not mean the residents of that building are all in that boat. So then if the issue is needles and drug use, then wouldn't it be more prudent and efficient to pursue policies and solutions with the City, province, feds, to deal with that issue? As we've noted social housing exists outside the DTES and is unknown many times. Even projects in the DTES I've been in I would not really guess its services or residents. It really depends on the non-profit running it. SROs are a completely different conversation.

These are tough questions. In a broader context I think you need to look at what the consequences of doing nothing, or reducing support are to communities. As someone who's growing more conservative as I age, I still think I understand that some people are just not capable of functioning independently, and some people have significant issues that compel them into destructive, antisocial or otherwise difficult behavior, and there's not really anything you can do to actually stop that. The best method is to try & minimize their self destructive behaviors and find ways to mitigate their impact on the communities in which they live. Otherwise you have that spiral of disorder and despair that drives away other people and creates this vacuum of chaos that draws others in.

Whenever I am in Vancouver I am always quite astounded at how benign or generally well behaved the street population is. Here in Edmonton the street population is a lot more unstable, violent and antisocial. We have major problems daily with the downtown street entrenched population, that frequently escalates into random violence. Edmonton and the province have really failed to take any measurable steps to mitigate this and they've created some very unsafe areas by corralling that population into one single area. I strongly believe that one of the best ways to mitigate the problems for everyone, street people and regular residents alike is to disperse the population into manageable pockets. In a community with equilibrium the problems are a lot more manageable than if they are concentrated. So putting social housing and even shelter beds in better off communities, while distasteful to some, is key to managing that population

(much of the below was too inflammatory and off topic so I edited it)
Agreed. The helping hand is meant to get people back on their feet and is meant for unemployment and misfortune. We are a capitalist nation as the below shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...onomic_freedom https://www.quora.com/Is-Canada-a-ca...Why-or-why-not(something most forget) the idea is if we spend this much helping people they will repay it with taxes in the long run an argument no one can debate if it works.

I feel that the people that replied to me are ignoring most of what I said. Just because you walked by a place and you were ok doesn't give you the right to say I am wrong and that people should be ok with living nearby. Try owning a house beside the place and having people shoot up, leaving their needles there, and shit on your lawn/front door. Try having your kids walk by it everyday to school. Get off your high horse and clean up some human shit and needles. Have someone shit on your front door every week. Then come back to me and say its ok. Its an awful & dangerous situation and we should not be spreading it to the rest of the city.

What a bunch of idiotic bullshit. Enough of the personal attacks. I've lived in this country my whole life and done more than my fair share. I am a capitalist, I own a business, I've payed lots of taxes, but I also care lots about the bigger issues in this city and country. Our government is to serve all Canadians, it is their obligation to help. Calling people a communist or socialist for caring and defending the poor is pathetic, and quite frankly, petty and fucking stupid. I don't care who's shit on your door, not my problem. Don't like it? Move. You're the one that has an issue with all the needles, so go clean it up.

I agree with much of what you said here :tup:

I don't disagree with what you say in principle. In the past I think it was mostly that in some, perhaps many cases the situation was one of laziness and abuse of the welfare system. It continues today for sure, and I have no issues with limits on that. But welfare rates are so low, that I don't see it being a reliable way to survive in this day and age.

What I am talking about, and what I see mostly today is a whole new level of craziness that is mostly due to mental health issues, and in those cases, no, I personally don't believe that there is no other way other than providing the help. It's a downward spiral otherwise that will only get worse and worse.

I have friends that are doctors and nurses and front line support workers, and the horror stories are just so brutal. They deal with people convulsively dying on a daily basis, their own mental health starts taking a toll, and the cost to society as a whole (including petty crime and health care, etc.) is enormous. I think it's time we treat it as a disease and get people of the streets. The cost in the long run will be less, and the optics of the city will be much better without the crazy on the street.

Like 7300 Elmbridge Wy in Richmond? The area is surrounded with high-priced condos. That story was making its rounds in the Richmonds Changing Neighborhood and Richmond News page on Facebook. I never knew what a NIMBY was until I was accused of being one.

Technically that's Richmond's "downtown". Wouldn't it seem wise to place Richmond's social housing in the core of the city adjacent or close to transit, grocery stores, jobs, city services?

This is building up a strawman argument just to knock it down. Temporary modular housing does not have any of these problems. Transition homes do not have these problems.

Temporary modular housing is in no way an "awful & dangerous situation". It's women fleeing domestic violence. It's teenagers aging out of foster care. It's seniors on fixed income who can no longer afford increasing rent. Tarring all of these people in need with a "they'll shit on your doorstep" argument is horrible.

I think were generally on the same page.

I have argued for long that a huge part of the issue is that poverty turned into a business, I absolutely abhor that.

"Operation Phoenix" series written by the Province news paper some years ago discovered the DTES swallows 1million dollars a day, every day, 365.

No one can tell me that long term, spending even a billion+ on a new mental health and long term recovery facility would not be a better option for all involved.

I do think, as much as I fundamentally dislike it, that some limitation on freedom would need to be placed and many of the serious mental health patients would need to be placed in care regardless of their willingness to do so.

Other than above I don't see a reasonable way to repair this. Psychologically these folks have been locked into the same pattern for years or decades, and frankly literally may not be capable of self care.

A roof overhead and some food absolutely go a long way, but will not solve this crisis alone.

Chill

Yeah that project made me laugh, it is beside a home hardware store and a ton of towers that are 99% chinese. Definitely a great location :notacrook:

Btw I agree with so much of what was said these past few messages. Lets take away some rights and force these people to get better. Lets open some institutions (I'm going to say lets pick some dying town that lost its coal mine or something for the location since theres lots of labour and cheap construction/housing) and build a place where we can have a rehabilitation centre or long-term housing if they cannot get better. From what I've heard each overdose case costs anywhere from 5 to 6 digits or more.

As for Jalapeno.... this attitude is what makes you a hypocrite. Your ok forcing this on others but not on yourself. And btw your a socialist if you keep pushing socialist policies. Which is why I said look at the world and its history and you'll see that 90% of the time socialism results in failure not just for those being helped but for the entire population.

Exactly. You can't spoil a person to become successful. Sometimes sticks instead of carrots need to be used for motivation. I think we've already spent billions worth of carrots and all to no avail. The problem is expanding, drug/alcohol use is becoming worse, and more people are dropping dead. Something is wrong with the system and it needs to be reviewed. I don't get how people can be so obstinate about supporting the expansion the current system especially since it is evident that it isn't really working at all. It only produces more entitled individuals that think that by being irresponsible for themselves is OK as there is always a safety net cast by society for them to land on.

Nope, never gonna happen.

Again, stop with the name calling.

No one is forcing anybody to do anything, so stop talking like a fool. You're the one that has an issue with poverty, not me. Like I said, don't like it? Move.

What socialist policies am I pushing for? Modular housing? Help for the poor?

And while still off topic, Socialism has failed? You mean the 90% of the time like in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Poland, Austria, and most of Europe, and Australia, New Zealand and dare I say it, Canada? Wow, thanks for the history lesson.

Yes, I agree fully. I once went to a lavish Christmas put on by one of the (in)famous organizations down there. It was fifty grand party that hired security to keep out the very people they supposedly where there to help. It's sickening how much time and money is wasted.

Which is unfortunate, because there are also many great people doing incredible work down there. But the waste should be curbed and eliminated. In some ways, I would advocate for a more centralized system, perhaps a separate ministry, or health authority.

Once Riverview is done it's repairs and expansion, and once it reopens, I would also support some limitation on freedom if people can go there. Specially for those. as you say, that have been locked into the same pattern for years or decades. I do believe it's needed.

Modular housing is great for those that can hopefully get on their feet eventually, it's a good start. And it's temporary.

I think meaningful discussion and action can go a long way.

Socialism is great and all but it does not work in a globalized world. The most desirable places are seeing property value skyrocket while the transnational investment class/elite are migrating out of undesirable shitholes.

Money is pouring into BC, whether it be legally or illegally -and no amount of protectionist measures will stop this from happening.

World class cities are going to see property prices further increase so why keep the poor and mentally ill in a city where they can never contend with the rest? Modular housing and social programs aimed at providing cash to the poor are delaying the inevitable.

Re-placement should be further examined.

No, it will never happen. At least not with our current democratic system. We have a charter of rights that will override any possible forced relocation. The only way is under a authoritarian, or communist system.

And we don't want that, do we?

We already have socialized housing for our vehicles, but we can't do it for actual people?

It will never happen but you can't argue with it being a good policy. House homeless in cheaper areas where our tax dollars can go farther and food/labor is cheaper to care for them.

If we could put them on a ship/plane to a nation with cheap wages, high unemployment, and cheap food, this would be amazing. Imagine how much it would cost to care for people in the Phillipines or Nicaragua, places that could use the money and jobs. But in the alternative pick a town with high unemployment and build our facilities there. We do similar things for schooling (UBC Okanagan) and seniors (retirement villages/facilities across BC). I suspect we could sell each piece of land homeless facilities are on and obtain 3x that amount of land in Kelowna or even 1.5x that amount in Victoria (our capital). We are very Vancouver focused in BC and really do forget there's a whole province out there.

Wow. So much ignorance and stupidity in one post. I feel embarrassed that you represent BC in this fashion. Shame on you.

Its embarrassing and ignorant that someone would suggest that some of the most expensive real estate on planet Earth maybe shouldn't be used for housing mentally unstable, and often drug addicted people?

Why do you feel so embarrassed?

Most of us here can't afford to live on the West Side, or OV or many of the other areas used for this housing.

It doesn't seem like a preposterous idea that future facilities be located in more affordable regions where proper care can be provided without having to take into account astronomical costs of doing business in the City.

^ the answer is to shuffle them out of sight & out of mind ?

Great cities look after their less advantaged. Vancouver is a great city, It's confounding to think that the solution to the social issues in the city is to literally run them out of town. That's frankly embarrassing to me as a British Columbian. No real estate in Vancouver is worth treating people that way. I'm glad people are finally starting to see that.

Maybe increase your income tax to 75%? Because obviously now at 25% it isn't enough to take care or house the "actual people". There are more waiting in line. If that's not enough perhaps we can increase your income tax to 90% or more? I'm sure you can manage with the leftover in such a fine town like Vancouver.

I think the argument here is "when will it be enough". We are already paying one of the highest taxes in the developed world and yet our homelessness, mental health and drug use problems are getting worse, much worse. Something wrong with this culture of decay, or that the current policy isn't sound in the first place, or both? Time to review the system and try something else.

Modular housing is good for the seniors on fixed income, etc, but are they really all occupied by real people in need, or increasingly by those irresponsible for themselves? Walk around Granville Street, Seymour Street, Homer Street and East Hastings and see who live in the SROs before you comment further.


Great cities do not have so many drug and alcohol addicts roaming the streets not because they build enough structures to house them all, but because the culture is for most people to strive for excellence and compete to become useful citizens. People know that they won't be spoilt rotten if they choose to take a path to their own destruction. Great cities also do not have people who keep coming up with excuses for incompetence.

In support of Vin if out east is good enough for our war veterans and our parents then its bloody well good enough for our homeless. Are people seriously getting stuck up about housing homeless outside Vancouver (this sounds so snobby)? We're suffering from the Vancouver only focus and forgetting there's a whole province and nation out there thats just as good as us. Vancouver is not innately superior.. We already house most of the people in Vancouver that can't afford homes and much of Vancouver's labour force in suburbs so why not our homeless. Hell, out government's centre is Victoria so why not house them closer to the capital and closer to our social service centres (assuming the department is on the island)?

Most of the modules for modular housing are built out east or on the island, it would save a lot of shipping to build the housing near the factories they are made. If we can house and care for this amount in Vancouver imagine how much more we could care for if we did this program in some other city. We also have incredibly low unemployment in Vancouver so somewhere with large unemployment would help reduce the wages paid towards services as well.

Jesus next people will be demanding that the bath towels used by homeless be sustainable, organic, and not be "made in China". What matters the most is efficiency and effectiveness. Perhaps we should be turning our homeless over to private sector providers similar to what America has done with its prisons (this was not the best solution but America could not have afforded its huge prison population without doing so).

Please people, fact check and stop the lies: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/0..._16950242.html

No we're not paying the highest tax in the developed world. Feels like it sometimes. Our household pays over $60,000 year in income taxes. So to your second point if the powers that be are not able to manage these issues with the resources they have (or at least have done an inadequate job of doing so) then I agree, maybe we do need to review how things are being done. Maybe priorities need to be reviewed and resources re-allocated.

I know exactly who is living in those areas, in those rooming houses & on the streets. That's exactly my point. The best we can do is house people in condemned hotels run by slumlords with no social supports to help them and throw your hands up & say that's the best we can do ? I don't believe that. Again there is an institutional problem here and maybe, as noted above, the whole system has to change



No this is not true. All cities have homeless people, junkies, people living on the margins of society. It's how those cities handle those issues that matters. It's been proven over & over that the old bootstrap theory doesn't work. There are people who, through their own actions or beyond their control, will have mental problems, problems with drugs & booze, be incapable of gainful employment, etc. There are a number of options to deal with that. One is to corral all of them in one place and let that area go to pot. Gradually that area grows and shifts and the problem moves elsewhere. Another way would be to invest in the infrastructure needed to deal with those issues. That's more expensive at first but probably not over time. If you just keep expecting these people to pull up their bootstraps and become regular citizens with jobs and an apartment all on their own, you'll just continue to be disappointed and your streets will become more overrun with those people.

The time to start this was back in the mid 80's, But some decisions were made back then that still reverberate today. So you can see that decisions 30 years ago still have an impact today, it's going to take a long time to reverse the course. Or you can just let the place rot & everyone can move out because it's become so expensive and unpleasant that no one wants to live there.

Actually some cities do not have many homeless, they came up with the genius solution of giving them bus tickets to Vancouver. 1 in 7 welfare recipients in Vancouver are from out of province. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...port-1.3670355https://theprovince.com/news/local-n...ut-of-province


What can I say to this, its kind of genius. Kind of see myself in this guy. Send them to the city with the best weather, the biggest hearts and the deepest pockets rather than spend money to care for them locally. Saskatchewan has been caught doing this as well.


I know we talk about stopping foreigners from purchasing housing and we place higher speculation taxes on out of province people. Perhaps we should also require people to reside in BC for a couple years before receiving welfare? Vancouver only has about 700,000 people so 3,000 homeless entering each year is actually a huge amount if most end up in Vancouver. Doing the math this roughly ends up equaling 22 million a year of extra burden placed upon our welfare system from income assistance payments alone and remember this grows every year as more come.

^ Yeah I don't approve of that either, it did happen in Alberta some time ago although I don't think it was that widespread. It certainly did not solve or even put a dent in the homelessness problems in Calgary or Edmonton.

Ironically enough, it was Ralph Klein that gutted the provincial health care system, and shut down a bunch of faculties that housed and treated people with the chronic issues typical with homelessness, and those folks ended up on the streets. In Edmonton, probably a third of the people on the street should be in some sort of treatment or care facility. So yes, Thanks Ralph for that.

Here is a city that is doing something right. It might not be the whole solution and I am sure there are gaps but the city of Medicine Hat AB has made significant strides housing homeless people

http://www.mhchs.ca/housing-developm...-homelessness/

If your problem with the Province providing temporary modular housing on City of Vancouver (and Surrey, and Richmond, etc) land is purely that it costs too much, maybe this will help. This study shows that the average cost that taxpayers spend on support for each homeless person with mental illness is over $53,000 a year. It's actually cheaper to provide stable, secure housing for the homeless population than it is to pick up the far greater tab for all the emergency police, fire and paramedic services that they end up costing us all if they're in temporary shelters or on the street.

Some of the homeless who will be rehoused in these units won't necessarily have mental illness, and would therefore probably cost society a bit less, but the many of the health risks (and therefore potential costs) associated with being homeless don't relate to the person's mental state.

I'm not sure what you consider to be 'great cities', but if you look at our neighbours going south, while 3,605 people were found homeless in Metro Vancouver in 2017 (2,138 in the City of Vancouver) [source], in Seattle it's 12,112 [source], in Portland it's 4,177 [source], in San Francisco 7,499 [source] and in the undoubtedly 'great city' of Los Angeles if fell 3% in 2018, from 55,000 to 53,000 in LA County - 31,500 of them on the streets of the City of Los Angeles. [source].