Public Disorder & the Decline of Vancouver's Livability

[rofina]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I'm not sure ramping up incarceration would be sustainable, nor cheap.

Right. So we instead do nothing. Which is neither sustainable, nor cheap.

I mean, objectively, if someone is a career criminal with 20 crimes on their record, how is releasing back into the community even considered?

I genuinely want to know how this is viewed as an appropriate and positive policy, its possible I'm missing something.

And before someone tries to railroad this; I'm not talking about locking up homeless people or those with mental health issues. Those are 2 separate categories of folks in need, with very different needs than incarceration.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by rofina

Right. So we instead do nothing. Which is neither sustainable, nor cheap.

Why not build housing?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Why not build housing?

What does housing have to do with criminals?

I'm going to copy paste from my post above, which you did not address at all;

And before someone tries to railroad this; I'm not talking about locking up homeless people or those with mental health issues. Those are 2 separate categories of folks in need, with very different needs than incarceration.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by rofina

What does housing have to do with criminals?

I'm no lawyer, but when I see a person threatening random people on the street with a stick i don't see criminal mastermind but someone with mental health issues.

But ok, jail them. What behaviour would change after they spend time in jail? likely nothing, and you just spent more money with prison and the legal system to punt this guy down the road. and again, IMO prison is neither sustainable nor cheaper compared to other options

https://santabarbara.legistar.com/gatewa...43e0-93fd-54ca33867e77.pdf&From=Granicus

[rofina]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I'm no lawyer, but when I see a person threatening random people on the street with a stick i don't see criminal mastermind but someone with mental health issues.

Sure. Lets play that out.

Someone has mental issues so severe they cannot understand when they are a hazard not only to themselves but the public at large.

Specifically, that individual, if were being charitable, literally cannot compute that threating people with a weapon is at the least a bad idea.

At what point do they relinquish the ability to make decision for self?

Is there a line in your mind? And is putting self and other at risk not that line?

But ok, jail them. What behaviour would change after they spend time in jail? likely nothing, and you just spent more money with prison and the legal system to punt this guy down the road. and again, IMO prison is neither sustainable nor cheaper compared to other options

https://santabarbara.legistar.com/gatewa...43e0-93fd-54ca33867e77.pdf&From=Granicus

You're being disingenuous. Twice now in response to you I have clearly stated locking up homeless and those with mental health issues is not a solution.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

You're being disingenuous. Twice now in response to you I have clearly stated locking up homeless and those with mental health issues is not a solution.

You've apparently agreed that the individual with the stick appears to have mental health issues. So what are you proposing, other than involuntary detention? Either you want him 'locked up' or you don't.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You've apparently agreed that the individual with the stick appears to have mental health issues. So what are you proposing, other than involuntary detention? Either you want him 'locked up' or you don't.

Involuntary detention is certainly the solution. But not in jail or prison. The characterization of "lock them up" is unfair at best.

In return, I ask you the same question;

Someone has mental issues so severe they cannot understand when they are a hazard not only to themselves but the public at large.

Specifically, that individual, if were being charitable, literally cannot compute that threating people with a weapon is at the least a bad idea.

At what point do they relinquish the ability to make decision for self?

Is there a line in your mind? And is putting self and other at risk not that line?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rofina

Involuntary detention is certainly the solution. But not in jail or prison. The characterization of "lock them up" is unfair at best.

In return, I ask you the same question;

I live in the DTES, so I see people suffering from psychosis on a regular basis. Generally they are 'harmless', (except potentially to themselves), but I acknowledge they can be noisy, frightening and disruptive. It's not new - they've been around for years, but with fewer places for them to go during the pandemic, and far fewer people out and about doing 'regular' things like eating out or shopping, it's more noticeable. I'm not aware that there is anywhere to detain them 'for their own good', unless they actually cause somebody else harm or carried out a crime that had a good chance of prosecution (and even then, they would usually be released once the psychotic episode has passed).

And you're being disingenuous - locked up in a psychiatric unit (if there were more spaces than there are now) is not significantly different from locked up in a detention centre or jail. You want them off the streets and locked up.

I think we need more housing with more wrap-around support, including a safe (untainted) drug supply to people who are addicted. That's slowly happening, but in the meantime their presence is a reality I acknowledge. The new mental health rehab unit that opened this week is an example of how things might improve over time, but it only has 11 additional beds, which isn't enough. I think there's also going to be unit as part of the new St Pauls.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by rofina

You're being disingenuous. Twice now in response to you I have clearly stated locking up homeless and those with mental health issues is not a solution.

I suspect you think people who chronically cause public disorder and those who are homeless and those that have MH issues are very separate groups

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I live in the DTES, so I see people suffering from psychosis on a regular basis. Generally they are 'harmless', (except potentially to themselves), but I acknowledge they can be noisy, frightening and disruptive. It's not new - they've been around for years, but with fewer places for them to go during the pandemic, and far fewer people out and about doing 'regular' things like eating out or shopping, it's more noticeable. I'm not aware that there is anywhere to detain them 'for their own good', unless they actually cause somebody else harm or carried out a crime that had a good chance of prosecution (and even then, they would usually be released once the psychotic episode has passed).

And you're being disingenuous - locked up in a psychiatric unit (if there were more spaces than there are now) is not significantly different from locked up in a detention centre or jail. You want them off the streets and locked up.

Of course I want them off the streets. What rational human with an ounce of empathy wouldn't want these people off the street?

I genuinely don't understand your perspective.

You say harmless, and pair it with noisy, frightening, and disruptive.

Allow me to ask; is there a limit to empathy?

Hypothetically, if one individual is noisy frightening and disruptive to 100 residents, do his/her issues outweigh the disruption caused to the 100? What about if that number is 1000? 10,000? Is there a limit in this model?

I think we need more housing with more wrap-around support, including a safe (untainted) drug supply to people who are addicted. That's slowly happening, but in the meantime their presence is a reality I acknowledge. The new mental health rehab unit that opened this week is an example of how things might improve over time, but it only has 11 additional beds, which isn't enough. I think there's also going to be unit as part of the new St Pauls.

I think all levels of government are not moving with nearly enough urgency to provide these services.

This should a high order priority, arguably the highest order priority as the ROI on these investments would be preposterous.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I suspect you think people who chronically cause public disorder and those who are homeless and those that have MH issues are very separate groups

I try to not think or operate in binary terms, so I definitely acknowledge that addiction, mental health, and criminality have overlap. No argument, acknowledged.

But as is the case with nearly everything in life, the pareto principle applies here too. I would assume a low amount of actual criminals are responsible for the vast majority of crime.

Lets focus on incarceration of those few individuals first, so we can double down resources on the other groups.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by rofina

Hypothetically, if one individual is noisy frightening and disruptive to 100 residents, do his/her issues outweigh the disruption caused to the 100? What about if that number is 1000? 10,000? Is there a limit in this model?

I see what you're saying, that's the "catch and release" thing that people are talking about. Definitely call the cops if there is immediate danger, but what happens at the police station? I'm sure cops would be the first to say that jail would not be a better choice instead of MH services and supportive housing

You and I def dont like the situation, but this didn't develop suddenly in a vaccuum. Housing issues with the opioid crisis with residential schools/treatment of FN had this brew for years, with the pandemic accelerating/amplifying things. I dont think solutions will be easy

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I think we need more housing with more wrap-around support, including a safe (untainted) drug supply to people who are addicted. That's slowly happening, but in the meantime their presence is a reality I acknowledge. The new mental health rehab unit that opened this week is an example of how things might improve over time, but it only has 11 additional beds, which isn't enough. I think there's also going to be unit as part of the new St Pauls.

Aren't some (?) of the people going into the "enhanced care unit" at Red Fish going to be admitted involuntarily under the Mental Health Act?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I see what you're saying, that's the "catch and release" thing that people are talking about. Definitely call the cops if there is immediate danger, but what happens at the police station? I'm sure cops would be the first to say that jail would not be a better choice instead of MH services and supportive housing

Correct. We urgently need criminal justice reform. The recommendations were made 16 years ago, and should have been heeded then.

You and I def dont like the situation, but this didn't develop suddenly in a vaccuum. Housing issues with the opioid crisis with residential schools/treatment of FN had this brew for years, with the pandemic accelerating/amplifying things. I dont think solutions will be easy

No, it did not occur overnight, or in a vacuum. I agree.

These are policy mistakes leading to extremely poor outcomes.

The solutions are "easy" in that they just require political will, and funding.

Funding is a nothing burger. We can borrow enough at near 0% to fix this inside of 5 years.

We have no will to do so.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Anyway, TPTB just reopened Riverview, and there's a detox facility in progress on Clark. So that's two other pillars.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Aren't some (?) of the people going into the "enhanced care unit" at Red Fish going to be admitted involuntarily under the Mental Health Act?

I would assume some are. I'm just not sure adding 11 beds is going to be enough; but I'm also aware that isn't all that's planned.

And if there's a significant disruptor, it's not like they don't sometimes get locked up, at least initially. Whether there's a longer term solution (and what that would be) is, I suspect, a bigger question.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rofina

Sure. Lets play that out.

Someone has mental issues so severe they cannot understand when they are a hazard not only to themselves but the public at large.
.

This is interesting as it reminded me that we used to institutionalize people who were even just a danger to their own selves.

We stopped doing this for humane reasons, due to a change in society's values. (OK, and maybe to save money.)

Now it seems like we're questioning whether people who are hazard to others should be institutionalized (using the widest definition possible of "institution" here).

[Vin]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This is all highly exaggerated. I am downtown every day.

The situation is worse than pre-Covid, yes. We need to focus more political and social will on resolving these problems. But, as per many comments in this thread, the panicked tone just doesn’t ring true.

Let others who are concerned do what they have to do. No one is forcing you to panic

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I'm not sure ramping up incarceration would be sustainable, nor cheap.

Insurance payout and the cost of running of emergency dispatchers, ambulances, police, etc. are way more expensive.
Make criminals work while they are incarcerated. That's the best way to deal with them. They should grow their own food and work to give back to society. Otherwise what is incarceration for?

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Why not build housing?

If you can foot the bill, we can build lots more. There is already more than ample housing and shelters going around and we are bleeding financially because of them.

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I suspect you think people who chronically cause public disorder and those who are homeless and those that have MH issues are very separate groups

Do you have data to support your claim? To me they are all related: Drugs destroy brain cells, hence mental health problems, and hence crime committed as the person is incapable of thinking properly except for how to get the next quick fix.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Insurance payout and the cost of running of emergency dispatchers, ambulances, police, etc. are way more expensive.
Make criminals work while they are incarcerated. That's the best way to deal with them. They should grow their own food and work to give back to society. Otherwise what is incarceration for?


If you can foot the bill, we can build lots more. There is already more than ample housing and shelters going around and we are bleeding financially because of them.

These two statements seem at odds. Do we have the money or don't we? Incarceration provides "housing" at significantly higher expense.

Originally Posted by Vin

Do you have data to support your claim?

Coming from you, this is rich.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

Insurance payout and the cost of running of emergency dispatchers, ambulances, police, etc. are way more expensive.

Do you know how much prisons cost? From an article in Maclean's:

Our prison system is eye-wateringly expensive. Correctional Services Canada (CSC), with its $2.6 billion budget, is the 15th largest department or agency by spending — it is larger than the CBC and Department of Justice combined. Ranked by the number of staff, it is the sixth largest department. It costs CSC $110,000 per year to house each inmate, with about three-quarters of that number going to employee costs.

There are plenty of other nuggets in that article that describe how ineffective the prison system is.