Solution to Homelessness Stinks of Corruption

[misher]

Does anyone feel like we are doing our best to not solve homelessness while appearing to solve it? Or taking a very stupid approach to solving it by throwing money at it? I feel like someone must be getting a cut because it does not cost this much to solve the problem.

An example is this development:

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/co-here-affordable-housing-1723-victoria-drive-vancouver

https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/default/files/images/projects/27037/27037-94239.png

This is a 26 unit affordable rental housing project along Commercial Drive in East Van. 18 studio Units are for homeless or those at risk for homelessness and 8 (4-1 bed 4-2 bed) for low-moderate income. It will be managed by the not-for-profit Salsbury Community Society.

The land valued at $2.68 million was donated. $4.8 million was donated from private fundraising, $3.5 million from fed & provincial, $500,000 from City of Van, and $520,000 from another foundation. In total donations are $12 million working out to $461,538 a unit. There are about 3605 homeless in Vancouver https://www.vancourier.com/news/vancouver-s-homeless-population-bigger-than-ever-1.14843070 so at this price to solve homelessness it will cost $1.664 billion to solve homelessness assuming every unit is used for homelessness.

To me paying $461,538 a person to solve homelessness is taking a very large hammer to a much smaller problem and forcing it in. Solving homelessness by buying every homeless person a home does not take a highschool education. Assuming we had used this money to house homeless people in a $1000/month studio, we could have housed every homeless in Vancouver for 3.3 months.

Also this stinks to high heaven to me as it should not cost a non-profit $461,538 to build cheap rental condos for homeless people in East Van. A 1 bed sells around Joyce for $348,000 https://www.rew.ca/properties/R2292671/1...c&search_type=property_browse&sort=price

Maybe I'm coming to conclusions too fast but to me this means we're providing homeless with more expensive housing than those who paid for their homes!

[s211]

IIRC, there was a heritage conversion / non-market project in the Downtown Eastside completed several years ago that was even more expensive on a per-unit basis. Boggles the mind.

[GenWhy?]

Where does the $12 million come from (is that total construction costs?) and are you assuming all that money goes directly into the construction of the building thus your calculation per unit?

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Where does the $12 million come from (is that total construction costs?) and are you assuming all that money goes directly into the construction of the building thus your calculation per unit?

I assumed all the money went into the construction and management of the building, as in they donated that much towards providing this much units.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I'd assume that this includes some opex and some programming costs.

The average homeless person in the DTES uses something like $55K in gov't services per year. The payback period for this doesn't take long, even if the unit cost is stupid high.

Lets say 38 people live in this units (1 per studio, 2 per 1-bdrm, 3 per 2-bedrm), that's down to $316/K per person. If housing cuts the amount of gov't services that someone is using significantly, then the payback is likely under 10 years.

[Changing City]

Yes, you're jumping to conclusions.

The land was donated because this was a church car park. It was valued at $2.68 million, and that's part of the $12 million 'value' of the entire project. It was developed by a not-for-profit Society associated with the land owner, the Grandview Calvary Baptist Church, which is located one block to the west. The remaining $9.32 million was raised from public and private sources.

The project isn't just housing. it includes communal amenity space, as well as a kitchen, guest room, counselling and office spaces. Overall it's a building of over 18,546 square feet, so that's $502 per square foot to complete the entire project (including design, legal, permit fees as well as construction and landscaping).

Your example of the Joyce condo apartment is 365 sq ft on sale for $348,000. That's $953 per square foot.

Why you would jump to the inflammatory conclusion that either 'corruption or incompetence' are involved, without bothering to find and read the rezoning report, or understand the context is concerning.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Bear in mind that there's a significant minority of homeless people that are unable to mentally readjust to housing and end up moving back onto the streets. More shelters are always welcome, but we're going to need other solutions too.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Yes, you're jumping to conclusions.

The land was donated because this was a church car park. It was valued at $2.68 million, and that's part of the $12 million 'value' of the entire project. It was developed by a not-for-profit Society associated with the land owner, the Grandview Calvary Baptist Church, which is located one block to the west. The remaining $9.32 million was raised from public and private sources.

The project isn't just housing. it includes communal amenity space, as well as a kitchen, guest room, counselling and office spaces. Overall it's a building of over 18,546 square feet, so that's $502 per square foot to complete the entire project (including design, legal, permit fees as well as construction and landscaping).

Your example of the Joyce condo apartment is 365 sq ft on sale for $348,000. That's $953 per square foot.

Why you would jump to the inflammatory conclusion that either 'corruption or incompetence' are involved, without bothering to find and read the rezoning report, or understand the context is concerning.

Thanks for clarifying. However, you forget that the Joyce condo also comes with sqft of common space which would drop down its $ per sqft such as hallways, gyms, common room, pool, etc.

You must admit that spending $460,000+ (with services, support, hospital, etc I'm guessing at least $700,000) on each homeless person seems like a very expensive solution....the average salary in Canada before tax is ~$50,000 so we're talking about 9 years of each Canadian's work assuming we don't pay any taxes. The Against Malaria Foundation says it costs $3,340 to save a life https://www.businessinsider.com/the-worl...life-for-333706-and-thats-a-steal-2015-7 so we're spending what could be used to save 138 lives on 1 life. I just don't think throwing money at the problem is the correct solution. Its like trying to put out a fire with a big pile of money, sure you can do it but its not practical. It also doesn't sound very sustainable. I'm guesstimating we could have built the same housing with the same employees and services out in Abbotsford for half the price.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Thanks for clarifying. However, you forget that the Joyce condo also comes with sqft of common space which would drop down its $ per sqft such as hallways, gyms, common room, pool, etc.

You must admit that spending $460,000+ (with services, support, hospital, etc I'm guessing at least $700,000) on each homeless person seems like a very expensive solution....the average salary in Canada before tax is ~$50,000 so we're talking about 9 years of each Canadian's work assuming we don't pay any taxes. The Against Malaria Foundation says it costs $3,340 to save a life https://www.businessinsider.com/the-worl...life-for-333706-and-thats-a-steal-2015-7 so we're spending what could be used to save 138 lives on 1 life. I just don't think throwing money at the problem is the correct solution. Its like trying to put out a fire with a big pile of money, sure you can do it but its not practical. It also doesn't sound very sustainable. I'm guesstimating we could have built the same housing with the same employees and services out in Abbotsford for half the price.

Yes, solving homelessness is expensive, and complicated. Ignoring it is every bit as expensive unless you're going to let people die. Funnily enough, it's exactly like putting out fires - The province spent more than $568 million on firefighting efforts last year, and while the figures for 2018 are still coming together, the bill is already estimated to be more than $300 million this year.

The elections are coming very soon. It's not too late for you to stand in Vancouver (assuming you live in Vancouver) on the platform that you'll ship the homeless off to Abbotsford. Although you might not want to move to Abbotsford and stand for election with the same policy.

[GenWhy?]

Thank you Changing City for writing and posting what I was to lazy to do. Simple research is essential. Context is essential.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Yes, solving homelessness is expensive, and complicated. Ignoring it is every bit as expensive unless you're going to let people die. Funnily enough, it's exactly like putting out fires - The province spent more than $568 million on firefighting efforts last year, and while the figures for 2018 are still coming together, the bill is already estimated to be more than $300 million this year.

The elections are coming very soon. It's not too late for you to stand in Vancouver (assuming you live in Vancouver) on the platform that you'll ship the homeless off to Abbotsford. Although you might not want to move to Abbotsford and stand for election with the same policy.

Abbotsford was an example. We're not exactly moving homeless to another area. Once we house them in a facility they aren't homeless anymore! There's a difference between moving homeless to another city and creating social housing facilities in another city.

The province creates much of its social housing across BC. I'm just suggesting we pick one city who could use the extra jobs and has low housing costs and create our social housing facilities there. While slightly bad sounding it would also greatly increase the amount of people we can help. Hell, the Riverview Housing is in Coquitlam with 244 acres. Imagine if we pumped our whole social housing budget into there where the land is free instead of using Vancouver's expensive real estate. We're literally having tax paying people who want to work and live in Vancouver competing with people who just need a good social housing facility which doesn't make sense. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/premier-john-horgan-to-make-riverview-lands-announcement Economies of scale states that if we do all our social housing in one area instead of spreading it out, one area with a hospital and addictions center, we will see much greater returns for every dollar spent.

I can't think of any important reason why we need to keep our homeless in Vancouver when they can get the same quality of life and treatment somewhere nearby for less. And we're the ones having a housing crisis so we're taking housing from those who need homes to build facilities for homeless.

[GenWhy?]

^OK. What about those that don't have mental health issues, or addiction issues, are just on the cusp of homelessness, can barely afford an SRO, or are women in dire situations, families, and single parents?

Transportation to jobs. Accessing a variety of urban services or family. The list gets long for "relocation". Really think that through.

Imagine relocating a vast number of urban First Nation "homeless" population out of Vancouver... away from their community, services, family... just use all that for context. The majority of social housing is to be developed on private land, by private developers, run by non-profits or have below-market rent and income-tied rent components.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Abbotsford was an example. We're not exactly moving homeless to another area. Once we house them in a facility they aren't homeless anymore! There's a difference between moving homeless to another city and creating social housing facilities in another city.

The province creates much of its social housing across BC. I'm just suggesting we pick one city who could use the extra jobs and has low housing costs and create our social housing facilities there. While slightly bad sounding it would also greatly increase the amount of people we can help. Hell, the Riverview Housing is in Coquitlam with 244 acres. Imagine if we pumped our whole social housing budget into there where the land is free instead of using Vancouver's expensive real estate. We're literally having tax paying people who want to work and live in Vancouver competing with people who just need a good social housing facility which doesn't make sense. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/premier-john-horgan-to-make-riverview-lands-announcement Economies of scale states that if we do all our social housing in one area instead of spreading it out, one area with a hospital and addictions center, we will see much greater returns for every dollar spent.

I can't think of any important reason why we need to keep our homeless in Vancouver when they can get the same quality of life and treatment somewhere nearby for less. And we're the ones having a housing crisis so we're taking housing from those who need homes to build facilities for homeless.

I'm fascinated to hear how you think you can 'make' people move from where they want to live, to somewhere else. BC Housing are indeed building social housing across the whole of the Province, because the homeless are by no means confined to Vancouver. Only last week they announced two buildings of Temporary Modular Housing. In Abbotsford. They bought a site in Maple Ridge in the spring for another building. Even Burnaby have got a project.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

^OK. What about those that don't have mental health issues, or addiction issues, are just on the cusp of homelessness, can barely afford an SRO, or are women in dire situations, families, and single parents?

Transportation to jobs. Accessing a variety of urban services or family. The list gets long for "relocation". Really think that through.

Imagine relocating a vast number of urban First Nation "homeless" population out of Vancouver... away from their community, services, family... just use all that for context. The majority of social housing is to be developed on private land, by private developers, run by non-profits or have below-market rent and income-tied rent components.

At the very least those who are homeless and unable to work or have drug addictions? Also Coquitlam isn't exactly "away". There's a skytrain there from Downtown. If those community members or family want to visit them they can do so easily. Hell many Vancouver workers commute from 2-3x farther than that every day. For much of their community/family they may live out east so this may move people closer to their community/family.

If they are on the "cusp" of homelessness but able to work, it seems practical to employ them within the social housing project for jobs such as janitorial or cooking similar to how a prison uses its population for labor and pays them.

PS: To me race has nothing to do with it. A First Nation homeless person does not have more priority.

I'm fascinated to hear how you think you can 'make' people move from where they want to live, to somewhere else.

Um, don't we move them from the streets where they want to live to modular housing somewhere else? This is just adding a couple kms to where we move them.


In the end the pros of them being in Vancouver are all well and good. However, if we can treat 1.5-2x more people if we move them to Coquitlam then hell yes.

[SFUVancouver]

Misher, you are asserting corruption or incompetence, so where is your proof?

[harryc]

In Chicago the "homeless" are not in need of homes, they are in need of psychiatric and/or drug abuse services. Acting like the problem is a lack of housing is a great dis-service to the most vulnerable portion of our society.

IIRC Canada is a nice place where people take care of the sick, that is expensive.

[misher]

Originally Posted by harryc

In Chicago the "homeless" are not in need of homes, they are in need of psychiatric and/or drug abuse services. Acting like the problem is a lack of housing is a great dis-service to the most vulnerable portion of our society.

IIRC Canada is a nice place where people take care of the sick, that is expensive.

Completely agreed! Thus lets use economies of scale and create giant centers for treating people in places where we can treat the most for each $ spent!

[GenWhy?]

As per your original post... not every social housing project is directed towards those with mental health or drug issues and are also homeless. Not every social housing project is for homeless folks or those on-the-cusp of homelessness. Not every social housing project is for single men, or for women, or for First Nations, or for families, or for reduced-rent units.

The issues seem to be: availability of housing, housing costs, health facilities and resources for drug addiction and mental health, law enforcement and justice issues, availability of government resources and democratic use of those resources.

Social housing does not equal housing the homeless, nor does it equal housing and treating those with mental health and drug issues.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Even Burnaby have got a project.

It's about time Burnaby finally did something - rental buildings being torn down and no homeless shelter don't make a good precedent.

Something to remember from that article: "It's really important that we see people who are homeless not as a distinct and separate population."

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by Sheba

It's about time Burnaby finally did something - rental buildings being torn down and no homeless shelter don't make a good precedent.

Something to remember from that article: "It's really important that we see people who are homeless not as a distinct and separate population."

Agreed ! And that location is well served by transit (several buses) due to city hall/court