Winnipeg Construction X

[Kinguni]

Originally Posted by The Jabroni

I guess in hindsight, we dodged a bullet since my fiancee and I were looking for a place a few years ago, and 221 Stradbrook was one of them.

A retired coworker lived there, just down the hall from the utility room, but bought a house and moved out in May.

[Atrial78]

That's really tough, and just a reminder that life can turn in a moment. Do buildings generally have their own insurance that will pay for the repairs for things like this?

[esquire]

^ One would hope! For homeowners with a mortgage, insurance is a requirement... I would expect it is no different for MURBs like this one. But even if the owner doesn't have a mortgage, insurance is still a prudent measure unless you have the resources of a Saudi prince and can self-insure.

That said, I'm sure the process will take time to sort out. Cleaning, remediation, etc. will likely take months based on how they're going about this.

[xubiqtss]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...cate-1.6942210

Just another reminder that Karin Harper-Penner and her husband Patrick Penner are the most ghoulish of the Winnipeg slumlords. They were the ones trying to whitewash their derelict properties by turning them into "addiction recovery" housing.
https://winnipeg.citynews.ca/2023/01...ion-homicides/

Extremely cheap housing is necessary to get people off the riverbank, but landlords need to maintain the basic life safety mechanisms in their buildings. These people have no shame.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by xubiqtss

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...cate-1.6942210

Just another reminder that Karin Harper-Penner and her husband Patrick Penner are the most ghoulish of the Winnipeg slumlords. They were the ones trying to whitewash their derelict properties by turning them into "addiction recovery" housing.
https://winnipeg.citynews.ca/2023/01...ion-homicides/

Extremely cheap housing is necessary to get people off the riverbank, but landlords need to maintain the basic life safety mechanisms in their buildings. These people have no shame.

I was surprised that the Street Links ED was defending the owners in the CBC story. I guess they view it as "housing that is safer than an encampment" and most property owners won't touch Street Links' clients with a 10 foot pole

[esquire]

I don't know anything about the landlords in question. But I can understand the merit of the idea that places like this -- run down apartments, SROs, rooming houses -- even if they're not pretty, they do act as the first rung on the housing ladder, particularly for those with addictions and other such challenges. You eliminate the Adanac and where do those people go? It's not like there is a shiny new Manitoba Housing facility ready and willing to take them on.

[cheswick]

Anyone know what's being constructed in the former sobeys parking lot on burrows and Keewatin?

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by esquire

I don't know anything about the landlords in question. But I can understand the merit of the idea that places like this -- run down apartments, SROs, rooming houses -- even if they're not pretty, they do act as the first rung on the housing ladder, particularly for those with addictions and other such challenges. You eliminate the Adanac and where do those people go? It's not like there is a shiny new Manitoba Housing facility ready and willing to take them on.

They go to the streets to die. That’s basically the North American society we exist in now. Can’t pay? Go somewhere else and die, and make way for the people with money. It’s depressingly obvious at this point.

[drew]

^ you can't just put homeless people into an apartment or rooming house and expect everything to magically get better. Usually the end result of this is a huge clean up bill for the landlord and the person ends up on the street again.

We need vastly expanded detox centres with beds waiting in recovery/treatment facilities. Only after that should housing even be discussed, otherwise it's just kicking the can down the road, and not very far.

[WinCitySparky]

Exactly, and that solution relies on bigger-money partners aka the province, to help fund and sustain. Regrettably as of late, rather than directly fund and administer programs and systems to provide these solutions, government bodies seem determined instead to funnel money via incentives and subsidies to private enterprise to find solutions. However as stated in the article discussing this building’s closure, it’s not property owner’s/landlord responsibility to manage vulnerable people and their problems.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by drew

^ you can't just put homeless people into an apartment or rooming house and expect everything to magically get better. Usually the end result of this is a huge clean up bill for the landlord and the person ends up on the street again.

We need vastly expanded detox centres with beds waiting in recovery/treatment facilities. Only after that should housing even be discussed, otherwise it's just kicking the can down the road, and not very far.

Exactly.

This place was a death trap and it was just a matter of time before someone was killed, leaving yet another unsightly empty lot as a memorial.

From CBC Manitoba
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...line-1.6943079

"The fire prevention branch has visited the building more than 100 times since 2019, largely for similar issues to the ones that led to the closure, the spokesperson said. Fire crews also responded to five fires in the building last year and another five so far this year."

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by drew

^ you can't just put homeless people into an apartment or rooming house and expect everything to magically get better. Usually the end result of this is a huge clean up bill for the landlord and the person ends up on the street again.

We need vastly expanded detox centres with beds waiting in recovery/treatment facilities. Only after that should housing even be discussed, otherwise it's just kicking the can down the road, and not very far.

Even that wouldn’t solve the problem. Part of the bigger issue is at a cultural level for the entire society. We have created a pretty fragmented society with a low sense of purpose, narcissism, and even nihilism being common. So, on that level, without even looking at the increase in the use of dangerous drugs, our much more permissive approach to criminal justice, and the fact that we’ve neglected to address the issue in even a superficial way, have all combined among other things to what the current state of affairs is.

In short, we need communities to actually foster the conditions necessary for people teetering on the edge to succeed in some measure. We also need to do a lot better with treating mental health issues and especially severe mental health issues.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Even that wouldn’t solve the problem. Part of the bigger issue is at a cultural level for the entire society. We have created a pretty fragmented society with a low sense of purpose, narcissism, and even nihilism being common. So, on that level, without even looking at the increase in the use of dangerous drugs, our much more permissive approach to criminal justice, and the fact that we’ve neglected to address the issue in even a superficial way, have all combined among other things to what the current state of affairs is.

In short, we need communities to actually foster the conditions necessary for people teetering on the edge to succeed in some measure. We also need to do a lot better with treating mental health issues and especially severe mental health issues.

I'm not a conservative person by temperament, but your post puts that to the test as far as I'm concerned.

Our society, if not all of human existence, is based on some level of personal initiative, drive and discipline. Obviously these levels vary wildly and there are safety nets to help people who would otherwise be in trouble (elderly pensioners, the handicapped, the unemployed, etc.). But I have issues with the idea that otherwise able bodied young people should gain access on demand to unlimited government resources once they decide they've had enough fun and want to get off the meth train.

I often hear people griping about cops and the amount that gets spent on them. They point out that police expenditures keep rising but problems keep getting worse. Yet you could say the same for addictions treatment... we add RAAM clinics and social workers and the problem keeps getting worse.

Does personal responsibility enter the discussion at all here? Or do we still think we can spend our way out of this problem by hiring enough addictions counsellors and social workers?

[Biff]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Anyone know what's being constructed in the former sobeys parking lot on burrows and Keewatin?

3 unit CRU - one is Popeye's.

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not a conservative person by temperament, but your post puts that to the test as far as I'm concerned.

Our society, if not all of human existence, is based on some level of personal initiative, drive and discipline. Obviously these levels vary wildly and there are safety nets to help people who would otherwise be in trouble (elderly pensioners, the handicapped, the unemployed, etc.). But I have issues with the idea that otherwise able bodied young people should gain access on demand to unlimited government resources once they decide they've had enough fun and want to get off the meth train.

I often hear people griping about cops and the amount that gets spent on them. They point out that police expenditures keep rising but problems keep getting worse. Yet you could say the same for addictions treatment... we add RAAM clinics and social workers and the problem keeps getting worse.

Does personal responsibility enter the discussion at all here? Or do we still think we can spend our way out of this problem by hiring enough addictions counsellors and social workers?

To the bolded above - is this true? Do we spend the same amount on social services as protection services? Have we really tried to dump a bunch of money towards treatment services and ensure everyone who needs the help has it available?

There is a severe lack of treatment facilities and options available to people, even if you can afford to pay for them.

[drew]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Even that wouldn’t solve the problem. Part of the bigger issue is at a cultural level for the entire society. We have created a pretty fragmented society with a low sense of purpose, narcissism, and even nihilism being common. So, on that level, without even looking at the increase in the use of dangerous drugs, our much more permissive approach to criminal justice, and the fact that we’ve neglected to address the issue in even a superficial way, have all combined among other things to what the current state of affairs is.

In short, we need communities to actually foster the conditions necessary for people teetering on the edge to succeed in some measure. We also need to do a lot better with treating mental health issues and especially severe mental health issues.

This is getting really big picture, and multi-generational at best - and while I tend to agree with this, you still need someway to treat the people who are currently lost. And there are a lot of them.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not a conservative person by temperament, but your post puts that to the test as far as I'm concerned.

Our society, if not all of human existence, is based on some level of personal initiative, drive and discipline. Obviously these levels vary wildly and there are safety nets to help people who would otherwise be in trouble (elderly pensioners, the handicapped, the unemployed, etc.). But I have issues with the idea that otherwise able bodied young people should gain access on demand to unlimited government resources once they decide they've had enough fun and want to get off the meth train.

I often hear people griping about cops and the amount that gets spent on them. They point out that police expenditures keep rising but problems keep getting worse. Yet you could say the same for addictions treatment... we add RAAM clinics and social workers and the problem keeps getting worse.

Does personal responsibility enter the discussion at all here? Or do we still think we can spend our way out of this problem by hiring enough addictions counsellors and social workers?

Being more of a conservative by nature, I disagree completely with the bolded comment. That is precisely the time I am willing to throw all the resources at the problem. When the addict is ready to get off the meth is the only feasible time you will have any success helping people suffering from addiction.

This is why I generally don't support safe injection sites that in my opinion normalize extremely harmful drug use. I'm concerned that if the use of meth has a lower likelihood of a poor outcome that a wider net is cast and more people will be open to trying it because it is "safer" and supported by society. If we spend al our money supporting people until they are ready to recover, we may not have the resources to support that recovery.

Lets help those who are ready to change their lives with everything we have.

Sorry, rant over. Back to the construction.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not a conservative person by temperament, but your post puts that to the test as far as I'm concerned.

Our society, if not all of human existence, is based on some level of personal initiative, drive and discipline. Obviously these levels vary wildly and there are safety nets to help people who would otherwise be in trouble (elderly pensioners, the handicapped, the unemployed, etc.). But I have issues with the idea that otherwise able bodied young people should gain access on demand to unlimited government resources once they decide they've had enough fun and want to get off the meth train.

Weird line of reasoning. Why should people who don't exercise enough and eat too many fries gain access to "unlimited government resources" when they get heart disease or diabetes?

It's a moot point anyway because we spend money either way. There is plenty of evidence that we spend more on police, fire, EMTs, ER costs, property damage, etc responding to homelessness and addiction than we would spend just treating it. See "million-dollar Murray". You can debate whether they "deserve" the help and preach about work ethic all day long but at the end of the day the financially prudent thing to do is just try to treat the issues. It boils down to whether you want to do what is most logical or if you care more about getting to stand up on your soapbox.

Your comment exposes such a massive lack of understanding of why and how people get addicted.... they have no "initiative, drive and discipline" and then get off the train when they've "had enough fun"? Jesus christ.

To me this perspective always just seems like a rationalization. If you choose to pretend these people are just lazy and want to party and have a great time all day, it helps justify your lack of empathy.

Originally Posted by esquire

I often hear people griping about cops and the amount that gets spent on them. They point out that police expenditures keep rising but problems keep getting worse. Yet you could say the same for addictions treatment... we add RAAM clinics and social workers and the problem keeps getting worse.

Also an odd line of reasoning, comparing something that receives a few tiny drops of funding to something that receives over $300 million per year and has grown faster than any other department budget for 30 years straight. Main Street Project has to beg for grants every year to keep their $200k outreach van operating. The cops spent more than that on a goofy dog robot just because they had the money lying around.

Cops are necessary but they don't prevent crime, they react to it after the fact. Of course crime, and costs, are going to keep going up and up and up if there is no attempt at prevention.

Originally Posted by esquire

Does personal responsibility enter the discussion at all here? Or do we still think we can spend our way out of this problem by hiring enough addictions counsellors and social workers?

Yeah, of course they need to take accountability for themselves, which is exactly what they work on in treatment.

You can't just walk down to the riverbank and wave a "personal responsibility" wand around and then they are just magically responsible lol. You need to provide a stable environment to do the work, which means housing, food, etc. Beating an addiction is one of the hardest things a human being can ever have to do, the rate of success is going to be near zero if you don't get them off the street first.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by drew

This is getting really big picture, and multi-generational at best - and while I tend to agree with this, you still need someway to treat the people who are currently lost. And there are a lot of them.

I totally agree that we need to deal with what's in front of us now. But the big picture generational stuff is ultimately what we need to improve things.

As to Esquire's point, I don't disagree that a modicum of personal responsibility wouldn't hurt. That said, I don't really view that as being something that is purely coming from the will-power of any given individual. Taking personal responsibility is ultimately the outcome of a society encouraging that culturally and to a lesser extent of the individual yearning for it. Without some broader cultural backing that personal responsibility doesn't enter the chat so easily.

Unfortunately, this is not a problem that can be solved to any great satisfaction by simply dumping piles of cash on it. That will certainly help superficially, but if you don't go and address the root of the issue, it doesn't get better and kicks the can down the road so that the issue manifests itself in an even uglier way many years later when the veil is thrown off or the underlying pressures become too great for the illusion to persist.

One last thing I think that many people are maybe not considering is the tradeoffs we actually undertake to "solve" the problem in the short term. When it comes to any problem - certainly this one - there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. The logical outcome is either a massive tax increase or a major reduction in other services. I don't think either of those things is a tenable position to take. We need to consider what we can realistically accomplish on the public expenditure front, because these programs are massively expensive to run, and unfortunately, will leave us no further ahead if we don't correct course on some of the broader issues. Even if we can stop the bleeding, things will get a lot worse before they get any better.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Biff

3 unit CRU - one is Popeye's.

I'm no where as in the know as some people but hard to ignore the 15+ year rumor that Tim's was opening there and around the same time that construction started the Inkster and Sheppard Tim's location, which cannot accommodate a drive thru, had a "for lease/Tim's relocating" sign pop up out front.