New Central Library | Construction

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

#2 thinks inclusive developments in high-poverty areas can restore life and safety.

In my experience elsewhere, #2 is usually raging about gentrification being genocide and other slogans to that effect.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

In my experience elsewhere, #2 is usually raging about gentrification being genocide and other slogans to that effect.

#2 also usually ends up getting robbed or stabbed by some crackhead with a bad childhood, that they let crash in their spare room. I do think we can design away some crime but people by nature are savage beasts and some have no desire to change.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

In my experience elsewhere, #2 is usually raging about gentrification being genocide and other slogans to that effect.

Sorry, I thought you wanted a serious discussion.

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

#2 also usually ends up getting robbed or stabbed by some crackhead with a bad childhood, that they let crash in their spare room. I do think we can design away some crime but people by nature are savage beasts and some have no desire to change.

Perhaps this is another way to frame the question: are people good/bad by nature or nurture? Clearly, you think that some people are evil by nature.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Sorry, I thought you wanted a serious discussion.

What's your point? These are from Brooklyn.



Twitter

There are two more I can't find. One says "Your Luxury Is Our Displacement" and the other says "We Will Not Sacrifice For Your Profit"

Generally the East Coast graffiti is a lot more tidy and grammatical, West Coast graffiti is usually just "fuck hipsters" and messages to that effect.

So yeah, endeavors like the East Village are usually pretty controversial. Calgary just doesn't have much of a full-time rabble rousing activist class.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

What's your point?



Twitter

There are two more I can't find. One says "Your Luxury Is Our Displacement" and the other says "We Will Not Sacrifice For Your Profit"

Generally the East Coast graffiti is a lot more tidy and grammatical, West Coast graffiti is usually just "fuck hipsters" and messages to that effect.

Did it not cross your mind that equating gentrification to colonialism (or genocide as you apparently inaccurately cited) might be an extreme view point? All I implied was that crime might be a socialized phenomenon.

[Policy Wonk]

Flickr

Happy?

I think you're missing the point.

I don't think I have ever encountered an activist who would see the East Village as a positive outcome for those in poverty. They wouldn't see letting the homeless crash at the library as "inclusive".

And no, I probably would not characterize that as an extreme view. The extreme view is calling for violence and arson.

[RyLucky]

I would consider this an extreme view:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I would prefer instead to make the area absolutely inhospitable to them with an aggressive police presence.

In fact, it almost sounds like it is "calling for violence."

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I would consider this an extreme view:



In fact, it almost sounds like it is "calling for violence."

Call it whatever you like, I think cities are worth fighting for and don't believe that entire neighbourhoods should have to tolerate anti-social behaviour because of misplaced idealism. There is a greater good. Gang injunctions were called everything in the book. But they got people out of their homes and weakened the hold gangs had over communities. One mook in a bandana waving gang signs at pedestrians out his mom's livingroom window just isn't that intimidating.

Were the first amendment rights of gang members worth more than the quality of life of entire neighbourhoods?

I believe the way society has handled these issues over the past fifty years is nothing short of negligent and ridiculous. But if the government, courts and society at large are going to pretend that these are fully functional adults capable of making rational decisions and are failing to. Well, that makes them criminals and that is all we really have to work with.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Perhaps this is another way to frame the question: are people good/bad by nature or nurture? Clearly, you think that some people are evil by nature.

Nature or nurture?
Since heavy metal music and violent videos games are the leading cause for evil in the world, I'd say nurture.

Lame joke aside, why does it have to be one or the other? Some are lead into evil and others are born into it. Those who are evil by nature most likely have some sort of chemical imbalance going on as there's no such thing as satan. Although, I might have dated his sister once.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Happy?

I know you're not asking me, but I lol'd at that last post.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I would prefer instead to make the area absolutely inhospitable to them with an aggressive police presence.

Define "they". Define "absolutely inhospitable". What, specifically, would you like to see that isn't already happening now?

As I see it, there is already absolutely no tolerance for violence. This is good.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I believe the way society has handled these issues over the past fifty years is nothing short of negligent and ridiculous.

Then why is violence in North America at an historic low?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Define "they". Define "absolutely inhospitable". What, specifically, would you like to see that isn't already happening now?

They: Vagrants

Ultimately it comes down to pursuing these independent and competent adults for the crimes they commit with the same enthusiasm the police muster for freshly showered jaywalkers and kids drinking on Nose Hill. In a sane world this would result in changes in how the mentally ill and chronic inebriates are handled. But as long as the law says these are competent adults committing crimes the criminal justice system is all we really have to work with. I don't think this is a great situation, I think it's insane. But until the West gets over the psychiatric quackery of the later half of the 20th Century we can't just let communities like the East Village continue to be a magnet for vagrants given the investment both public and private being made there.

Confiscating stolen property such as shopping carts and bicycles along with aggressive arrests for possession and open container work well. Another tactic that can be employed against the more hardcore drifter element is searching for warrants in other jurisdictions and sending them back no matter how minor.

If Calgary becomes known as the place that will send a drifter kid back to Winnipeg for a shoplifting warrant, they will probably keep going to Kelowna or Vancouver.

Sit and Lie ordinances can also work wonders. San Francisco had made Haight Street tolerable by shooing away the drifter kids and crackheads. I would imagine as retail takes hold in the East Village that situation will probably become quite analogous.

Then why is violence in North America at an historic low?

I'm talking about vagrancy, which is primarily the result of de-institutionalization and substance abuse. Not axe murderers.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Define "they". Define "absolutely inhospitable". What, specifically, would you like to see that isn't already happening now?

As I see it, there is already absolutely no tolerance for violence. This is good.



Then why is violence in North America at an historic low?

According to the fine folks at Freak Economics, one reason for the reduction in violent crime is due to legalized abortions.

Odd that despite crime dropping, the rate of incarcerations are increasing in both countries.

[The Fisher Account]

I'm all for colonialism of vagrants if it means I can stop seeing people dead pissed walking around like zombies harassing honest people busy MAKING A LIVING around Olympic plaza everyday. And I'm not talking about a Friday night. I'm talking about 10am on a freakin Tuesday.

This is a huge problem that no one wants to talk about for obvious reasons.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

I'm all for colonialism of vagrants if it means I can stop seeing people dead pissed walking around like zombies harassing honest people busy MAKING A LIVING around Olympic plaza everyday. And I'm not talking about a Friday night. I'm talking about 10am on a freakin Tuesday.

This is a huge problem that no one wants to talk about for obvious reasons.

Agreed that it is a huge problem - a real one that people choose to ignore or possibly revel in.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

According to the fine folks at Freak Economics, one reason for the reduction in violent crime is due to legalized abortions.

Odd that despite crime dropping, the rate of incarcerations are increasing in both countries.

I don't know the answer for sure, but you seem to be blind to the obvious answer, IE the criminals are more often being put away, hence the reduction in crime rates.

Also, to be clear and correct, the reductions are in rates of violent crime, and not necessarily reductions in violent crime.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

They: Vagrants

Ultimately it comes down to pursuing these independent and competent adults for the crimes they commit with the same enthusiasm the police muster for freshly showered jaywalkers and kids drinking on Nose Hill. In a sane world this would result in changes in how the mentally ill and chronic inebriates are handled. But as long as the law says these are competent adults committing crimes the criminal justice system is all we really have to work with. I don't think this is a great situation, I think it's insane. But until the West gets over the psychiatric quackery of the later half of the 20th Century we can't just let communities like the East Village continue to be a magnet for vagrants given the investment both public and private being made there.

Confiscating stolen property such as shopping carts and bicycles along with aggressive arrests for possession and open container work well. Another tactic that can be employed against the more hardcore drifter element is searching for warrants in other jurisdictions and sending them back no matter how minor.

If Calgary becomes known as the place that will send a drifter kid back to Winnipeg for a shoplifting warrant, they will probably keep going to Kelowna or Vancouver.

Sit and Lie ordinances can also work wonders. San Francisco had made Haight Street tolerable by shooing away the drifter kids and crackheads. I would imagine as retail takes hold in the East Village that situation will probably become quite analogous.



I'm talking about vagrancy, which is primarily the result of de-institutionalization and substance abuse. Not axe murderers.

Whatever we are currently doing IS working:

Vancouver, through a series of public and private partnerships, has achieved a 66 per cent reduction in street homelessness.

Calgary and Edmonton have also seen significant reductions in homelessness. Edmonton's 30 per cent reduction in homelessness since 2008 leads the country's big cities.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/30-000-canadians-are-homeless-every-night-1.1413016, 2013

But, as to your definition of "vagrancy" (public intoxication, panhandling, prostitution, etc), I'm wondering whether you think putting people away for crimes that, yes, make an area less pleasant, but do not make an area more dangerous is worth the cost of incarceration, processing, relocation, etc?

Would those funds not go further were they directed to supporting at-risk youth, helping them graduate high-school, mentoring them with employment programs, involving them with extracurricular sports and afterschool programs, and offering EAs for kids with IPPs and ELL?

Or, if your goal is only to make the area "less vagrant" and more welcoming, and you don't really care about the social welfare of our city so much as its pleasantness (which is fine if you do), perhaps the best solution is to invest in development that encourages more eyes on the street, pedestrian activity, and 24-7 livelihood. Take Tomkins Park for example: 15 years ago, your "vagrancy" was highly apparent there; today, it is still easy to notice if you are looking, but the area is far more pleasant due to busy restaurants, cafes, and sidewalks. I imagine a bustling, landmark library might have the same effect.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Whatever we are currently doing IS working:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/30-000-canadians-are-homeless-every-night-1.1413016, 2013

Homelessness ≠ Vagrancy

But, as to your definition of "vagrancy" (public intoxication, panhandling, prostitution, etc), I'm wondering whether you think putting people away for crimes that, yes, make an area less pleasant, but do not make an area more dangerous is worth the cost of incarceration, processing, relocation, etc?

Yes. It's the only tool we have left.

Would those funds not go further were they directed to supporting at-risk youth, helping them graduate high-school, mentoring them with employment programs, involving them with extracurricular sports and afterschool programs, and offering EAs for kids with IPPs and ELL?

And that does what exactly for the guy screaming about Chinese spies at the library?

Or, if your goal is only to make the area "less vagrant" and more welcoming, and you don't really care about the social welfare of our city so much as its pleasantness (which is fine if you do)

It isn't that I don't care, so much as I recognize it's mostly a lost cause until such time as the mentally ill and those who have fried their brains can be re-institutionalized. Till then we just have to use the only tools we have left.

perhaps the best solution is to invest in development that encourages more eyes on the street, pedestrian activity, and 24-7 livelihood. Take Tomkins Park for example: 15 years ago, your "vagrancy" was highly apparent there; today, it is still easy to notice if you are looking, but the area is far more pleasant due to busy restaurants, cafes, and sidewalks. I imagine a bustling, landmark library might have the same effect.

That isn't a solution. You can't build out of this, it just in time creates more conflict as the gentrifiers, unlike urban pioneers don't tolerate much grit. It is the same type of person who in the suburbs would wave their HOA bylaws at a farmer in a tractor. And you don't have to consciously look for vagrancy in Tomkins Park, it will come right up to you and ask for money.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

According to the fine folks at Freak Economics, one reason for the reduction in violent crime is due to legalized abortions.

Odd that despite crime dropping, the rate of incarcerations are increasing in both countries.

I'm sure that's part of it, but I think the primary (if not only) success of the War on Drugs is it has taken millions of criminally associated assholes off the street for their most productive criminal years.

[Tills13]

Jeez is this forum about vagrancy or about the new library. Let it die, people.