Harper funds massive project to house the homeless

[SeeBass]

American housing projects

[Flame Of Liberty]

Paris, France

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'd be happy to have a discussion about this, but judging by your comment above, you are either not able or not willing to.

Your opening post in this thread shows that you don't understand the problems of homelessness, the possible solutions, and the economic benefits of those solutions, so why bother?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Hamburg, Germany



Berlin, Germany

[Bill Bumface]

Toronto:





A couple examples of recent/upcoming "attainable" housing in Calgary:



This one is complete on 14th Street N, couldn't find a picture of it though, only this rendering:

[CaptainCrunch]

Wonder how the NDP and Liberals are gonna spin this

HARPER IMPRISONS THE POOR

CONSERVATIVES FEED THE POOR TO THE RICH
"Sobbery McAllister picks their meals like Lobster"

CONSERVATIVES BRING BACK WORK SANITARIUMS

CONSERVATIVES OK HUMANE HOMELESS KILLING FACITLITIES

HOMELESS SEX FARM DUTIES FOR THE HOMELESS

[Flame Of Liberty]

This one is a beauty, Sheffield, England

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

This one is a beauty, Sheffield, England

That's a favorite of mine. Brutalist architecture in the UK was especially brutal

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It would be great to see which homeless they are talking about. The mentally ill for instance, need a lot more assistance than they are getting.

The link isn't working for me so I only know what has been quoted.

I think the program was specifically geared towards the mentally ill to start out with.

[jayswin]

malibu, california

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Your opening post in this thread shows that you don't understand the problems of homelessness, the possible solutions, and the economic benefits of those solutions, so why bother?

How so? The belief that giving someone a home without having earned it and without any conditions placed upon it should be questioned shows you what, exactly? Let's be honest here: you could have put together a well thought out post, but instead you chose to be glib and lay on the hyperbole. Don't try to back track now. Why do you feel that some people should simply be given something for nothing while others have to work hard for very same thing? I'm not trying to be closed minded, but so far you have offered nothing but nonsense and condescension. Perhaps that is all you have to offer?

[jammies]

It's amazing how "life isn't fair" is only used by some people when the "fairness" means someone else has to work extra-hard to overcome their background. Can't have the gov't deliberately making things unfair in someone's favour - who knows what societal chaos that'll lead to!

When you complain just as much about d-bag rich kids getting free houses, cars, and money for blow from their parents, then I'll believe you care about "earning" things for yourself. Until then, your ideology bores me with its stupidity and hypocrisy.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by fotze

San Fran

I love that street, I was there in 1996, I think it is called Russian hill? Or something like that. Cant remeber.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Ark2

How so? The belief that giving someone a home without having earned it and without any conditions placed upon it should be questioned shows you what, exactly? Let's be honest here: you could have put together a well thought out post, but instead you chose to be glib and lay on the hyperbole. Don't try to back track now. Why do you feel that some people should simply be given something for nothing while others have to work hard for very same thing? I'm not trying to be closed minded, but so far you have offered nothing but nonsense and condescension. Perhaps that is all you have to offer?

I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to put oneself in their shoes if one really felt that their deal was better...

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by jammies

It's amazing how "life isn't fair" is only used by some people when the "fairness" means someone else has to work extra-hard to overcome their background. Can't have the gov't deliberately making things unfair in someone's favour - who knows what societal chaos that'll lead to!

When you complain just as much about d-bag rich kids getting free houses, cars, and money for blow from their parents, then I'll believe you care about "earning" things for yourself. Until then, your ideology bores me with its stupidity and hypocrisy.

Again, there are no real arguments being presented here, just more meandering and dancing around the issue. Your analogy makes no sense. If parents wish to spend their money on their undeserving children, then that is their prerogative. Likewise, if people wish to donate their money to housing the homeless, then that too is their prerogative. These are things that I am not questioning. Yet, when I question why someone's money should be taken by force and given to someone else when they have done nothing to earn it, I am told that I am stupid, boring and that I "just don't get it". I'm starting to think you guys don't have any answer for this. Just that the world should see things your way but you can't justify why because you haven't actually thought about it yourselves. Does having a need for something bring forth an entitlement? Where is the line drawn? To what extent does society owe to it's citizens that everything should be "fair"? These are things that you seem to have not considered, which to me, frankly, speaks to stupidity on your part and is something that I find boring.

[Thor]

The stupidity of how North American's label socialism.

Sorry but you would dream of the life many of the EU Nordic nations lead.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Ark2

To what extent does society owe to it's citizens that everything should be "fair"?

It doesn't, but that's my argument, not yours. The world is unfair, deal with it. Some homeless dude getting a house for free apparently really bothers you, whereas someone unblinded by the myth of people "earning' what they have can see that maybe it's a little more complex an issue than "the gummint is stealing my money to give to bums!"

Face it, you are the one crying about it being unfair, not me. Like I said - it's hypocrisy because I'm pretty well certain you never think about all the unfair things that have happened in your favour, and get angry about them. If you were trying to argue that the program isn't and won't be successful, that's one thing, but you are arguing straight from ideology: people are homeless because they deserve to be, and if they can't change that themselves, too damn bad.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

I love that street, I was there in 1996, I think it is called Russian hill? Or something like that. Cant remeber.

Lombard

[FlamesAddiction]

Nothing beat Mamutica in Zagreb. It's the largest building in Croatia and the largest housing apartment building in the world if I recall correctly. Although not really a "project" per say as it isn't restricted to lower incomes.

[Azure]

At the end of the day the government needs to justify to the taxpayer how the money is being used, what it will change, and why it is important. To me it is a bit strange that the Conservatives are running what seems to be an effective social program and they haven't really bragged about it yet. But, the media did their job and now Canadians who follow the news know what is going on.

I don't agree with blindly throwing money at welfare programs for the the sake of saying we 'help' people because we spend x amount of dollars on homeless people. There are to be a justification for literally every dollar spent. The US has a big problem with this. Billions upon billions spent in programs like food stamps without any serious effort being made to make sure the money is being spent effectively. Its not that the program is 'wrong'....its that nobody is making sure the money is being allocated to the right people. As the article states, doing that will often involve adopting what appear to be radical ideas on how to combat problems like homelessness.

I'm as libertarian as they come, but there are quite a few studies out there that have shown that effective welfare programs are a benefit to society down the road. Especially to the taxpayer who is often stuck paying the bill for the people who can't pay taxes. If this program can ultimately help homeless people get on their feet, get a job and begin contributing to society, it is a benefit to us all.

And please, its not like we have a serious spending problem. The Conservatives could easily cut the deficit if they wanted too, and still fund programs like this.