Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre | ? | 2 fl | Planning

[ZTrade]

[QUOTE=Hawrylyshyn;9231714]You guys continue to complain and make some-what valid claims yet don't offer an alternative solution? What do you think should be done that's better and more ethical?

.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by ZTrade

I think it's more important that rule-following, tax payers should not be subjugated to living beside a safe injection site. I feel bad for the people in that neighborhood. Welcome to erratic high people loitering the area and making it smell awful.

Only place I can think of that would make sense is beside a hospital or police station. More controversially, don't build safe injection sites at all if they're going to place them in residential areas. I value good, tax-paying citizens quality of life more than addicts.

Well, the police stations and hospitals are also close to residential areas, so...???

And I'm pretty sure the safe injection sites have restrooms. So what smell issues might there be?

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by ZTrade

Only place I can think of that would make sense is beside a hospital or police station. More controversially, don't build safe injection sites at all if they're going to place them in residential areas. I value good, tax-paying citizens quality of life more than addicts.

Fascinating thing about cities, people live in just about every part of them. There are hundreds of people living around Stelco, Dofasco, and the sewage plant on Woodward, I think a 3~ floor building no larger than an elementary school will not cause considerable conflict and concern.

Not one person is suggesting building a necessary facility such as this in the centre of an Ancastarian subdivision. This facility, which lends itself to internal privacy through the use of walls, will be built on a significant E/W avenue, near to where the people who need it most can access it.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume it was built on Burlington Street. How will anybody access it?? Do you really think somebody addicted to god knows what is going to be able to successfully maneuver the HSR's network, particularly now that the service is paperless?

The notion that the homeless and downtrodden are a scourge and a disease upon a city is frankly quite harsh, and this NIMBY attitude is not what I'd expect on a forum such as this.

[ZTrade]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Well, the police stations and hospitals are also close to residential areas, so...???

And I'm pretty sure the safe injection sites have restrooms. So what smell issues might there be?

Hospitals have security and being near a police station can ensure someone can get to the scene quickly. I guess they could hire their own security staff at this location. Do you think there are no safety risks that should be considered for the residents in that area?

Did you walk by the Rebecca st location where loitering took place at all hours of the day? The entire stretch from Catharine-John st reeked of urine.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by ZTrade

nowhere within 500m of a house. pretty shitty to subjugate tax payers to a group of people high on drugs, with a chance of behaving erratically and making the place smell like urine.

I've been subjugated to neighbours with anger issues, who don't shovel their sidewalks, let their dogs shit on other peoples' lawns, have noisy parties... the list goes on.

I might actually welcome someone who merely wants a quiet place to get high and space out for a while.

Fun fact: I live just west of downtown, with an alleyway off the back that is "Booze Route One" for many. Nobody has ever gotten drunk behind our home and left any messes, or caused a ruckus, or peed on our garage, etc.

These fears are overblown IMHO.

[ZTrade]

Originally Posted by ShavedParmesanCheese

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume it was built on Burlington Street. How will anybody access it?? Do you really think somebody addicted to god knows what is going to be able to successfully maneuver the HSR's network, particularly now that the service is paperless?

The notion that the homeless and downtrodden are a scourge and a disease upon a city is frankly quite harsh, and this NIMBY attitude is not what I'd expect on a forum such as this.

A better location would be at Hamilton General. Easily accessible from the Downtown and not across the street from peoples houses. This is current proposal is too close to peoples homes. If the same loitering that happened at Rebecca happens here, would you be OK with living beside it?

For the record, I'm not anywhere near this proposal, but if I was, I'd be pissed.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by ZTrade

Do you think there are no safety risks that should be considered for the residents in that area?

Did you walk by the Rebecca st location where loitering took place at all hours of the day? The entire stretch from Catharine-John st reeked of urine.

So it's safer to *not* have safe sites, where people find refuge to shoot up in alleys and dark places and leave their needles strewn about.

No, I have not walked the entire stretch of Rebecca. I've parked and walked nearby, and not smelled that reek. Must have been a fortunate wind those days.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by ZTrade

A better location would be at Hamilton General. Easily accessible from the Downtown and not across the street from peoples houses.

Looks like there actually are houses across the street. To the south, and just a half block to the east.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by ZTrade

nowhere within 500m of a house. pretty shitty to subjugate tax payers to a group of people high on drugs, with a chance of behaving erratically and making the place smell like urine.

Yes, all of those things happened at the Rebecca st location. If they must build this here, don't allow a spot where they can loiter outside. I had to hold my breath when I walked by the old location.

So how do you propose these people, usually in poverty and without access to transportation (even a bus fare can be a bit rich for some people) access these facilities that you propose to put in the middle of nowhere?

They won’t. And they’ll just shoot up in the local park anyway.

[ZTrade]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

So how do you propose these people, usually in poverty and without access to transportation (even a bus fare can be a bit rich for some people) access these facilities that you propose to put in the middle of nowhere?

They won’t. And they’ll just shoot up in the local park anyway.

Hamilton General seems like a better location than this proposal.

[ZTrade]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Looks like there actually are houses across the street. To the south, and just a half block to the east.

Place it at the back of the hospital.

[TheHonestMaple]

I'm totally with Ztrade on this one. I pay taxes, I don't want a drug den in my neighbourhood. That's not being a bigot, that's not NIMBY. That's totally reasonable. People who shoot up drugs in facilities like this cause problems. They will hang around this facility all day and night long, causing issues. I am 100% sure there will be police cars around here all the time once this thing is built. Property values will go down because of it.

You say I haven't proposed any solutions, but I have. Don't give these people safe spaces to do illegal drugs. Get them jobs, and try to get them off the drugs. Don't plant these facilities in the middle of up and coming neighbourhoods downtown.

You sound surprised that people disagree with you.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by ZTrade

A better location would be at Hamilton General. Easily accessible from the Downtown and not across the street from peoples houses. This is current proposal is too close to peoples homes. If the same loitering that happened at Rebecca happens here, would you be OK with living beside it?

For the record, I'm not anywhere near this proposal, but if I was, I'd be pissed.

The present facility is set up in a bus station over twice my age, there will not be the same behavioral trends because this new facility was designed and will be built with this express purpose. There will be injection sites, but more importantly, improved rehabilitation and medicinal services. A safe injection site is not just a collection of stalls, the name is misleading.

You cannot find a place in this city where there are not nearby houses, because at that point it will not be accessible. Barton St, as the secondary E/W commercial avenue of the city, is not the best of locations for an institution such as this. However, once the Cannon St. facility is built and we're looking to build more, The General & it's surroundings is a sufficient location.

Referring to another post, the implications that a drug addiction equates to a bloodlust for serial killing and thus requires babysitting by the HPS' stations is an antiquated notion that the downtrodden are the scum of the earth, and must be done away with, rather than engaged and rehabilitated. No happy man wakes up one day and decides to take up morphine.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

You say I haven't proposed any solutions, but I have. Don't give these people safe spaces to do illegal drugs. Get them jobs, and try to get them off the drugs. Don't plant these facilities in the middle of up and coming neighbourhoods downtown.

You sound surprised that people disagree with you.

Safe spaces -- So instead give them the same unsafe spaces that are around to do illegal drugs? Is that your solution?

Jobs -- Doing what, for whom? Who will pay the wages? Very fuzzy solution there, in my opinion.

Try to get them off the drugs -- How? Where? Could a "safe injection site" also offer advice and influence for that behaviour? I wonder.

Up and coming neighbourhoods -- Should we instead target downward spiralling ones? How do we determine them? Or what are the alternatives?

I can respect individual opinions, but you sound surprised that people aren't in agreement with you.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Safe spaces -- so instead give them the same unsafe spaces that are around to do illegal drugs? Is that your solution?

Jobs -- doing what, for whom? Who will pay the wages? Very fuzzy solution there, in my opinion.

Try to get them off the drugs -- How? Where? Could a "safe injection site" also offer advice and influence for that behaviour? I wonder.

Up and coming neighbourhoods -- should we instead target downward spiralling ones?

I can respect individual opinions, but you sound surprised that people aren't in agreement with you.

Seriously? Do you have any idea how expensive this facility is for us the taxpayers. I suspect a vast majority are in my camp. No one wants these facilities in their neighbourhoods. It's just those who support this type of thing are louder.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Seriously? Do you have any idea how expensive this facility is for us the taxpayers. I suspect a vast majority are in my camp. No one wants these facilities in their neighbourhoods. It's just those who support this type of thing are louder.

You're deflecting.

[ShavedParmesanCheese]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

Seriously? Do you have any idea how expensive this facility is for us the taxpayers. I suspect a vast majority are in my camp. No one wants these facilities in their neighbourhoods. It's just those who support this type of thing are louder.

A hydro substation is not something you want to live near. It isn't something pushed by the realtors. It is, however, necessary for the betterment of the community at large, and not having one at all leaves people who needs the services destitute.

The same is said about this healthcare facility.

I think, in the heat of debate, the name of this development has been forgotten. It will be a community health centre. This will not be 2 floors of small stalls for addicts to use at will.

We had those, they were called the Gore park washrooms

[TheHonestMaple]

I mean I hope you're right, I hope that it is just a healthcare facility. But I just know that it will have people hanging out front that are generally going to cause issues in the neighbourhood. I understand everyone's points, I don't want to just throw these people to the wolves. But I just think there are other ways to tackle the issue and help them that doesn't involve creating these gathering points in an up and coming neighbourhood (i've listed them off here I won't again).

[StEC]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I'm totally with Ztrade on this one. I pay taxes, I don't want a drug den in my neighbourhood. That's not being a bigot, that's not NIMBY. That's totally reasonable. People who shoot up drugs in facilities like this cause problems. They will hang around this facility all day and night long, causing issues. I am 100% sure there will be police cars around here all the time once this thing is built. Property values will go down because of it.

You say I haven't proposed any solutions, but I have. Don't give these people safe spaces to do illegal drugs. Get them jobs, and try to get them off the drugs. Don't plant these facilities in the middle of up and coming neighbourhoods downtown.

You sound surprised that people disagree with you.

So the message I'm getting from you is one of ignorance and selfishness. Let me know if I got this correct.....

You want these undesirables rounded up and removed from the city out of sight and out of mind to never be seen again? You don't care what happens to them as long as it's not your problem? Your concern is more about your taxes and property values than human life?

Am I right? Because that's the message I'm picking up from your comments.

Just where exactly should we send them then? Next town over so it becomes someone else's problem? Middle of the wilderness in the far North so it becomes no ones problem but their own? Lock them up? Euthanize them??? I'd seriously like to know!

These are people, helping them in an accessible controlled environment is far better than not helping them at all.

[atnor]

Most of these people are hopeless and will never kick their addiction without serious interventions. They aren’t being helped — if they were they would be put in detox programs but all that’s happening is supervised injections with clean equipment. Granted I do like the idea of needles being properly disposed of and not landing in our parks or alleys but without forced institutionalization, which I believe is the most ethical and expensive approach, the overwhelming majority of them will never get clean.

It’s a complex problem which SIS only offers bandaid solutions to. A friend of mine is a doctor in Toronto. A recurring patient of his was a crack addict that was more or less told to stay in the hospital so they can monitor her heart and start to detox or else she’ll die. She snuck out that night and wound up dead within a week. Tell me, where is the ethics and morality in this system which leaves the most vulnerable to their own devices? Crack and heroin have such a hold on these people that they can’t quit unless they have the fortitude and resources to abstain. While having good intentions and some benefits, a SIS by definition cannot break the cycle of addiction.

If we truly want to help the most vulnerable addicts the most ethical solution is to institutionalize them with 24/7 supervision with counselling, etc.