Winnipeg | Downtown Developments & Discussions

[P&M40BELOW]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

The 72-hour protective detention allows people to be detained for the 72 hours only if they're intoxicated, and only allows them to be detained at a specified location (190/200 Disraeli is the only one). So, the city can't just act on its own or build and designate its own facility.

The no-tents bylaw (buffer zones around schools and parks) can't be "expanded to include the entire down town", because it's been well-established in Charter cases that it's unconstitutional to create blanket bans on sleeping outdoors if there aren't enough shelter spaces for everyone affected. I guess you could use the notwithstanding clause to override this, but again, that's only the province that could do so. The city can't just act on its own and ban sleeping rough throughout the entire downtown.

Again, I think this whole idea that the city has all the tools they need to make this problem go away, but they're just too timid to use them, is pretty obviously untrue. You can think there are solutions we should be using, but it seems clear the municipality won't be the decision maker.

Do we really believe that the buffer around Argyle school is being enforced? If it is that buffer needs to be larger

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by P&M40BELOW

There are already laws on the books. The police can remove and detain people for 72 hours if they are intoxicated on the streets. Why are they not enforcing this? There are also bi-laws in place prohibiting tents. These should be expanded to inlcude the entire down town. Problem solved to a large degree.

Our laws are a part of enabling the problem.

The city’s ability to remove encampments is constrained by the courts. Municipalities generally cannot prohibit the homeless from sheltering on public property when adequate indoor alternatives are unavailable, based on protections under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Winnipeg Free Press

[Highwayman]

Want to solve the issue. Jail...6 months in a detox jail type set up. There are laws that the addicted break every single day that can circumvent the karens. Imagine the addicts coming out in 6 months clean. I bet we literally cut homelessness in half. Safe consumption sites do fck all. Note i am talking the addicted ones. Also when they come out clean have another step wnere they can get an education and get a job ans a place to stay for say another 6 to 12 months.

[Wpg_Guy]

• Video Link

[P&M40BELOW]

I believe part of the problem is a lack of Police on the street. Every day downtown you will see an addict bent over and obviously intoxicated or occupying a bus shelter and drugging up. A police cruiser drives by with the two officers nice and wam inside their vehicle, with zero intention of intervening. There should be squads of police who operate ATV style open air Police vehicles that drive on the sidewalks and Patrol the downtown streets, and actually deal with people on the streets. I was recently on a European trip and the city we were in had stations around the downtown where 5-6 police officers stayed at a designated street corner from 9:00am -7:00pm every day; they were on Bikes or Motorcycles. Winnipeg absolutely has graduated to this, but guess what, it works and people feel safe to walk the streets.

[FactaNV]

10000% agree. Get them out of their cruisers and on the beat.

[Wpg_Guy]

The shift away from community policing has had a noticeable effect.

The river patrol has ATVs, equipment like this should be expanded through the downtown and it's periphery.



The police also have ebikes in their fleet. Perhaps 16 is not enough to cover the entire city.


The Winnipeg Police Service has added 16 new e-bikes to its fleet for the Bicycle Patrol Program.

[pspeid]

Solving homelessness and addiction problems are easy. Just outlaw their root causes; despair, abuse, boredom and hyper-predatory economic policies.

Seriously, every "solution" people have mentioned here either have been tried or are being tried and enforced somewhere. A quick search will show you where involuntary drug treatment is being done and where homelessness is being met with fines and jail time. Then do a search about which, if any, of these methods actually work. I'd be interested in reading the results.

[wags_in_the_peg]

downtown fear is real for many - noon today, enjoying some pho overlooking Portage Ave at Pho Huang at lady picks up deteriorating sidewalk paver stone and chucks it throw the window. glass cuts 1 man head and 5 people get glass in their food. i contemplated chasing her down and tackling her but decided against. do i regret not doing it, sort of

Small business is on the hook for new meals, scared customers & window replacement.

overhead after cleanup - 30'ish couple want copy of police report to bring to their boss, they are scared walking from bus to office each day and now scared to go for lunch. another man in his 50's (I assume lawyer or accountant) has a client there and apologizing prefusely for convincing him to meet for lunch downtown. this is his final straw, 3rd incident in 6 months, not renewing lease in 2027, will move practice outside of downtown.

say what you want, these are facts, sad sad facts. If you can support Pho Huang, great food & staff

[davequanbury]

Hey, this may not be a popular opinion around this thread, but Housing First has been proven to lead to better outcomes for drug-addicted people expericning homelessness in a few different clinical studies (one of which was conducted right here is WInnipeg).

If you are looking for evidence that making housing contingent on getting drug free is flawed, the evidence is there. If you are looking for evidence that forcing people into detox and believing they will come out clean and stay clean is fantasy then the evidence is there.

People seem to forget this.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by davequanbury

Hey, this may not be a popular opinion around this thread, but Housing First has been proven to lead to better outcomes for drug-addicted people expericning homelessness in a few different clinical studies (one of which was conducted right here is WInnipeg).

If you are looking for evidence that making housing contingent on getting drug free is flawed, the evidence is there. If you are looking for evidence that forcing people into detox and believing they will come out clean and stay clean is fantasy then the evidence is there.

People seem to forget this.

"but that's so expensive!"

as if proposals like "just pop em in jail for 6 months" are somehow free when the cost of jail is easily $120-150k/year per inmate. Not to mention the cost of our clogged ERs. Not to mention the loss of parks and other amenity spaces to encampments. Not to mention the lost economic value of neighbourhoods blighted by the costs that homeless populations place on their surroundings. like even if you don't care about these people as people, like, HOUSING FIRST, it's not even more expensive

and yes? is it a slam dunk for outcomes? no. but like, ask yourself, "what's the long term success rate of perpetually locking up the same people in jail again and again to get them off the street". zero? zero. it's pretty clear housing first beats that.

[P&M40BELOW]

I for one no longer refer to these drug addicts as “ Homeless”, they are street people who would rather be drugged up and on the streets than required to be sober to be in housing. It’s a terrible situation, and it appears to have no real solution that any politician has the courage to address.

I also no longer support AGAPE, There are so many people in Winnipeg who are well meaning in their support for this organization. That being said handing out bagged lunches to drug addicts who just take their lunch to the corner bus shelter and drug right up some more is not a solution. Letting addicts wander the streets in a zombie state is not compassion. More police, tougher sentences, along with enhanced drug treatment may be the only path. Our downtown is on a death spirl, something needs to be done. The status quo with supervised injection sites is not the solution.

[pspeid]

Some people seem to forget that agencies that feed the homeless (a number of whom are also addicts) aren't trying to solve the entire problem by themselves. They are doing what they can to address an immediate need (a decent meal). They are not content to wait until there are a few or a dozen or a hundred fully functioning treatment centres up and running before stepping up to trying to help.

Are they prolonging the person's addiction? In a sense, yes, by helping them, in a very limited sense, to prolong their lives. Does it help society as a whole? Maybe. That free meal may mean one more shoplifting avoided that day, and one more potential conflict avoided. It also recognizes that having life also means having hope for a reversal of the situation their addictions and other circumstances have brought to them.

For a long time there has been complaints about how social supports have become a self-perpetuating "industry", and I suppose there are some valid arguments to be made about that. However, simply removing social supports doesn't solve the problems those supports try to address, no more than removing medicine helps remove disease. It just increases suffering.

[drew]

^ the road to hell is paved with good intentions

or something like that.

[bussche]

Originally Posted by drew

^ they aren't homeless in the sense that the services provided by the homeless industrial complex centered around Higgins/Main and other areas of the city (Agape Table and the like) do not apply to people whose primary concern is addiction. It's not mothers with kids, or down on their luck seniors.

I think you have a distorted view of the realities of homelessness. Addiction and mental health issues have always come hand in hand with homelessness. The proliferation of meth and now fentanyl have just made them more visible. Your "ideal" homeless person who is, apparently, deserving of the basic necessities of life never existed or was the exception, not the rule.

Real life is messy.

The United Way does like to use this fairy tale to get more donations though, because reality doesn't open middle class office worker's wallets. (or pay roll deductions.)

[drew]

^ OMG. If you guys seem to be so content with the status quo - then I don't know what to say.

What I am saying is that the current "services" that are concentrated around Main/Higgins, and other areas of the City are not providing what these people need. That much should be obvious to anyone who spends time in and around downtown Winnipeg.

The recent damning article about the MSP, and the fact they can somehow afford to construct a brand new facility on Main street should give us all pause about where our money is going and who is funding this projects and why. We need more Bruce/Anne Oake Facilities. We do not need more self serving homeless agencies that seem to support an infinite loop of despair.

[neutroniks]

^^^ I agree

[trueviking]

it annoys me that Bruce/Anne Oake foundations need to raise private donations to build their facilities. Why is the province not paying for these outright?

[WinCitySparky]

Corruption, incompetence, or both

[drew]

to be fair, I think the Oake Facilities would rather maintain autonomy over how their operations are run. And the province did kick in $$ towards their construction costs. But no reason why the province can't fund their own facilities, or partner with someone.