Atlantic Canadian Politics Thread

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

I did not have this event on my 2024 politics bingo card.

Every time this was brought up locally, cbc would immediately have a hit piece with experts saying how it's a bad idea. And when the only other example of this is Alberta it was an easy smear that this was somehow far right driven.

That argument evaporated over the weekend. And the 'experts' will be left with both parties in BC having this as a plank in their platform.

Susan Holt has met and consulted with Dr. Sara Davidson numerous times in recent months according to her X posts. Obviously it would be too early to tell if this could be an item during our election in NB, but I would be surprised if there was any shift from the Liberals.

The liberals may get caught out not reading the room.

I think the political parties in general underestimate just how fed up the general population is getting with the impact on daily urban life this situation is having. As one article I read recently stated....people are past caring whether this will actually work or not, they just want to see something being done.

Very much the same way the simplistic "lock them up and throw away the key" solution strikes a chord with a population fed up with ever increasing drug addiction related property crime.

[adamuptownsj]

I don't think this is a make-or-break thing, but there's a non-zero chance it saves the PCs some vital marginal votes in certain possibly-competitive urban ridings they hold (SJ Lancaster/Harbour/Portland-Simonds, Fredericton North, Moncton Northwest/South). It certainly does McKee, Holt, and Coon no favours in their ridings.

It's important to mention the writ is dropping in BC on almost the exact same day as it will in NB. So this might just be a play for the 'sensible centre' from Eby that won't materialize if he wins.

People want this off the streets. It's a winning issue. Hemming and hawing about it while it gets worse looks to voters like you're fine with it getting worse. Not rocket science regardless of how you personally would like to fix it.

[sailor734]

"People want this off the streets. It's a winning issue. Hemming and hawing about it while it gets worse looks to voters like you're fine with it getting worse. Not rocket science regardless of how you personally would like to fix it."

Good summation from a political POV. This issue is front and centre in many people's minds whether they are or have been directly impacted by the situation or not.

[TitleRequired]

While David Coon suggested he'd open more safe injection sites; I don't see this as part of the Green party policy manual, unless I'm missing something.

The solution to housing, 6.4 Economic Rights and Affordable Housing, suggests that universal basic income is the primary solution, along with:

6.4.3 Support a systems approach to addressing homelessness by providing homeless
people with housing quickly and then providing other services as needed.

Fast houses, that's the ticket brah! (let's not worry about addictions, or anything...)

No mention of additions.

All in all, reads like a lefty graduate student wishlist.

In other news, the policy manual surprisingly disappeared from their website. This is an archive link.

https://web.archive.org/web/202112290037...GPNB_-_Policy_Manual_2021.pdf?1633550832

[sailor734]

Housing is merely one leg of the solution. If people don't have the life skills or the ability to behave as is needed for independent living in rented accommodation housing won't help.

An increased supply of affordable housing would certainly help the invisible homeless or those precariously housed (Low/moderate income employed people forced into couch surfing, living in their car or having had to move home to mom and dad)

[Taeolas]

That's probably why the 12 Neighbours model is getting so much attention, and seems to be a success story so far. It provides basic affordable housing, but it also has a support network with it to help stabilize these people.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Taeolas

That's probably why the 12 Neighbours model is getting so much attention, and seems to be a success story so far. It provides basic affordable housing, but it also has a support network with it to help stabilize these people.

I think this is a great model. This will work for some of the unhoused very well, and, should be copied elsewhere.

There are some street people however who are almost beyond salvage. They will require more intensive intervention and institutionalization.

No one should be living on the street or in encampments. No one. Various models will be necessary to remediate this problem, in some cases up to and including permanent institutionalization.

[josh_cat_eyes]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think this is a great model. This will work for some of the unhoused very well, and, should be copied elsewhere.

There are some street people however who are almost beyond salvage. They will require more intensive intervention and institutionalization.

No one should be living on the street or in encampments. No one. Various models will be necessary to remediate this problem, in some cases up to and including permanent institutionalization.

I completely agree with this. I’m a firm believer that if a person is unable to take care of themselves, it becomes the state’s responsibility. This includes persons with schizophrenia, dementia, PTSD, Down syndrome and other disorders or conditions that may impair someone from taking care of themselves.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think this is a great model. This will work for some of the unhoused very well, and, should be copied elsewhere.

There are some street people however who are almost beyond salvage. They will require more intensive intervention and institutionalization.

No one should be living on the street or in encampments. No one. Various models will be necessary to remediate this problem, in some cases up to and including permanent institutionalization.

100% agree. As always though, the devil is in the details and my confidence in any government to deliver an efficient and workable program is very limited.

[drewber]

Originally Posted by sailor734

100% agree. As always though, the devil is in the details and my confidence in any government to deliver an efficient and workable program is very limited.

What's the solution to the ones who don't want to be housed? You can't just institutionalize people without valid reasons and you can't do it indefinitely. I've talked to people who are homeless by choice but don't have any serious mental defects that would warrant a mental health facility and aren't breaking laws worthy of getting locked up in prison. 100% is unattainable

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by drewber

What's the solution to the ones who don't want to be housed? You can't just institutionalize people without valid reasons and you can't do it indefinitely. I've talked to people who are homeless by choice but don't have any serious mental defects that would warrant a mental health facility and aren't breaking laws worthy of getting locked up in prison. 100% is unattainable

If you had read the article on the proscription in B.C. you would recognize the guardrails in place.

Called the mental health act.

This is targeted at people with addiction challenges, brain injuries and mental health issues.

The valid reason is the three symptoms described above, and B.C. already has the laws on their books.

Would your acquaintance be swept up in this? Probably not. Would there be persons on the by names list? Hell yeah.

[adamuptownsj]

Originally Posted by drewber

What's the solution to the ones who don't want to be housed? You can't just institutionalize people without valid reasons and you can't do it indefinitely. I've talked to people who are homeless by choice but don't have any serious mental defects that would warrant a mental health facility and aren't breaking laws worthy of getting locked up in prison. 100% is unattainable

You tell us. Let them inject fentanyl and smoke meth, steal and vandalize, suck up emergency services, and so on, forever? Like, what solution do you have? Give them needles? Read the room. There is no fundamental right to be a squatting nuisance. The good will has run dry.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Why should we believe this is anything more than an election promise that Higgs won’t actually fully realize because it’s too difficult and too expensive?

He’s had 6 years to do something about the drugs and crime plaguing our streets, and the problems have only got worse.

At least the Liberals aren’t afraid to spend money on healthcare and affordable housing.

Kinda sad that here on a forum about skyscrapers many of y’all are more concerned about locking away druggies instead of building up our skyline.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

Why should we believe this is anything more than an election promise that Higgs won’t actually fully realize because it’s too difficult and too expensive?

He’s had 6 years to do something about the drugs and crime plaguing our streets, and the problems have only got worse.

At least the Liberals aren’t afraid to spend money on healthcare and affordable housing.

Kinda sad that here on a forum about skyscrapers many of y’all are more concerned about locking away druggies instead of building up our skyline.

Not much use building a skyline if the streets below are uninhabitable. Development requires a certain set of conditions to flourish and homelessness/open drug abuse/shantytowns aren't among them.

[lirette]

Originally Posted by drewber

What's the solution to the ones who don't want to be housed? You can't just institutionalize people without valid reasons and you can't do it indefinitely. I've talked to people who are homeless by choice but don't have any serious mental defects that would warrant a mental health facility and aren't breaking laws worthy of getting locked up in prison. 100% is unattainable

In a state the of Massachusetts, people who went to mandatory rehab were twice as likely to have a fatal overdose vs ones who went voluntarily, and people who came out of correctional based mandatory treatment facilities were 120 times more likely to have a fatal overdose.

It doesn't matter how many studies or numbers we show that it isn't going to work. The decision will be purely political. They want an announcement that is going to make them feel better. I don't doubt the public will eventually support such a policy, images and videos especially around public safety are a powerful thing. The reason why the NDP in BC made the announcement they did is for politics, not for results.

The idea that New Brunswick, a province with a wait-list 8 months long for voluntary treatment will suddenly be the first place to make mandatory treatment work is laughable at best.

But I believe at this point it is a lost cause, so I'm giving up my fight on here, I just hope the people who have so much passion about in enacting this policy will be closely watching the results over the next 3-5 years to see if this program works and not just celebrate a headline in a partisan manner.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by lirette

In a state the of Massachusetts, people who went to mandatory rehab were twice as likely to have a fatal overdose vs ones who went voluntarily, and people who came out of correctional based mandatory treatment facilities were 120 times more likely to have a fatal overdose.

It doesn't matter how many studies or numbers we show that it isn't going to work. The decision will be purely political. They want an announcement that is going to make them feel better. I don't doubt the public will eventually support such a policy, images and videos especially around public safety are a powerful thing. The reason why the NDP in BC made the announcement they did is for politics, not for results.

The idea that New Brunswick, a province with a wait-list 8 months long for voluntary treatment will suddenly be the first place to make mandatory treatment work is laughable at best.

But I believe at this point it is a lost cause, so I'm giving up my fight on here, I just hope the people who have so much passion about in enacting this policy will be closely watching the results over the next 3-5 years to see if this program works and not just celebrate a headline in a partisan manner.

For a lot of people I don't think it's a case of expecting a "cure" but rather finding a way to get the worst troublemakers off the street and end a lot of the property crime and violence. I for one don't really care if it's done via mandatory treatment or a rigorous enforcement of the criminal code via custodial sentences rather than being repeatedly released on conditions.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by lirette

In a state the of Massachusetts, people who went to mandatory rehab were twice as likely to have a fatal overdose vs ones who went voluntarily, and people who came out of correctional based mandatory treatment facilities were 120 times more likely to have a fatal overdose.

It doesn't matter how many studies or numbers we show that it isn't going to work. The decision will be purely political. They want an announcement that is going to make them feel better. I don't doubt the public will eventually support such a policy, images and videos especially around public safety are a powerful thing. The reason why the NDP in BC made the announcement they did is for politics, not for results.

The idea that New Brunswick, a province with a wait-list 8 months long for voluntary treatment will suddenly be the first place to make mandatory treatment work is laughable at best.

But I believe at this point it is a lost cause, so I'm giving up my fight on here, I just hope the people who have so much passion about in enacting this policy will be closely watching the results over the next 3-5 years to see if this program works and not just celebrate a headline in a partisan manner.

BC did it due to unprovoked stabbings of innocent strangers.

The current status is every overdose event has a 1:13 chance of death even with the reversal. The odds are better.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by sailor734

For a lot of people I don't think it's a case of expecting a "cure" but rather finding a way to get the worst troublemakers off the street and end a lot of the property crime and violence. I for one don't really care if it's done via mandatory treatment or a rigorous enforcement of the criminal code via custodial sentences rather than being repeatedly released on conditions.

The consequence free community of drug abusers has got to end. Just like they did in Zurich’s needle park.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

BC did it due to unprovoked stabbings of innocent strangers.

The current status is every overdose event has a 1:13 chance of death even with the reversal. The odds are better.

One of our kids has lived in downtown Vancouver (Yaletown) for nearly 10 years. She was picking up a coworker only a couple of blocks away from the scene that morning where one person was killed and another had their hand cut off. This was in a "good" part of town and the victims were regular people just walking to work. She and her friend drove by all the police cars and thought at the time that perhaps it was a film shoot

We were talking about the issue and she said things on the streets have definitely gotten worse in the past couple of years. She still walks but is hyperaware of her surroundings and sometimes will cross the street if she sees people up ahead that concern her. Sometimes, depending on the destination, she will now take her car where 5-10 years ago she would have walked. That brings it's own set of problem though. She has had a window smashed and her car ransacked twice in recent years.

Obviously Saint John is not Vancouver but we seem to be on the same path. If we want continued development uptown and a return of the central core as a desirable place to live and work this issue needs to be fixed.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by sailor734

Not much use building a skyline if the streets below are uninhabitable. Development requires a certain set of conditions to flourish and homelessness/open drug abuse/shantytowns aren't among them.

Have you done much travelling outside of NB? I think I remember you saying you’ve visited BC at least…

Saint John’s open drug use and homelessness problems are nothing compared to what’s goes on in downtown Vancouver, Toronto, New York, San Francisco etc.
How about building homeless shelters? Or affordable rental housing? Holt and Coon at least support solutions to build shelters and affordable rental housing, while Higgs is largely opposed to financing such solutions. Cracking down on crime and promising forced rehab isn’t enough to deal with the homelessness, open drug use, and crime epidemic. We need to support far more comprehensive solutions than that, and Higgs just ain’t the premier to support the ambitious solutions needed to address these problems from the ground up. Higgs is a frugal penny pincher to put it lightly, and a cheap c**t to put it bluntly.

Again, he’s been in power for 6 years, and our healthcare system is critically underfunded… why should we believe anything he promises regarding forced rehab or getting tougher on the open drug use that is plaguing our city centres?

I don’t think his promises are worth much on these issues, yet this thread is getting clogged up by this open drug use/ forced rehab campaign promise from Higgs.

There’s so many more important election issues than what to do about hard drug users in Uptown Saint John and other NB cities. I’d rather not let Higgs and Steve Outhouse dictate the narrative on this forum regarding the upcoming election… surely, there’s more pertinent topics to the subject of this forum that could more useful to discuss in this thread?