getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think it's just hard to isolate causal links when so many variables change. I don't know that napkin math from a politician who may desire his own spin for whatever reason is particularly strong evidence. And the Vancouver context is simply very very different than here.

Also worth considering from that article:

Again, we'd need a lot more details to factor if/how much revenue they lost from fines

I mean, I agree that correlation doesn't prove causation. But fare collection went up over 10% after they installed the gates. Population growth in the greater Vancouver region averaged 1.3% between the relevant censuses (censii??). There was no fare increase during the measurement period. The Canada Line opened more than 6 years prior, so presumably any extra traffic from that was baked in.

At some point Occam's razor applies here.

As for the fines - Translink's website says its $173. So even if we assume all 10,000 of those less fines actually got paid you're only at $1.73 MM in lost fine revenue against $40 MM in increased fares. Plus having the transit cops freed up from writing tickets to deal with bigger issues seems like a potentially significant benefit given the topic of this thread.

Like I mentioned before - I don't think walling off downtown stations makes sense. But a lot of the suburban ones have one entrance. Gates wouldn't be insurmountable there and would almost certainly pay for themselves.

[chemgear]

It was part of a previous article I linked here but it had a map of overdoses in the city and it's basically the vast majority along the Ctrain stations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-use-1.6503503

The Calgary Fire Department tracks overdoses in the city, and a heat map shows the vast majority happen along the train line.




There was also a discussion a bunch of years back about increasing crime along the West Ctrain line on the forums. I remember digging around on the public CPS crime stats and all the neighborhoods with new stations had shown multiple year after year after crime increases above the City average.

Having a Ctrain station nearby meant increased crime even before the recent open drug use that we now see layered over top of it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, I agree that correlation doesn't prove causation. But fare collection went up over 10% after they installed the gates. Population growth in the greater Vancouver region averaged 1.3% between the relevant censuses (censii??). There was no fare increase during the measurement period. The Canada Line opened more than 6 years prior, so presumably any extra traffic from that was baked in.

At some point Occam's razor applies here.

As for the fines - Translink's website says its $173. So even if we assume all 10,000 of those less fines actually got paid you're only at $1.73 MM in lost fine revenue against $40 MM in increased fares. Plus having the transit cops freed up from writing tickets to deal with bigger issues seems like a potentially significant benefit given the topic of this thread.

Like I mentioned before - I don't think walling off downtown stations makes sense. But a lot of the suburban ones have one entrance. Gates wouldn't be insurmountable there and would almost certainly pay for themselves.

I was thinking about this after you mentioned leaving downtown open. You don’t need to wall of downtown if you have a ticket to leave system.

You leave downtown as is and when you enter or leave a platform you have to scan your ticket/Ap. This would cover all trips as long as you only have one location without gates.

Now this does nothing for Safety or dealing with homeless as the down town access would still exist but it may work to improve fare collection.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

... who gives a sh-t? I mean, you're telling a story, using words to paint a picture. This story is about an interaction with a person, so they briefly described the person.

If you want to go down that road, why mention gender? Is the fact that they were a male particularly important to the story either? Does it change the absurdity of the behavior?

It would be completely disingenuous to insinuate that the poster's mention of race -- in this instance -- was done for some nefarious purpose like suggesting that their race was in any way contributory to their behavior or state of intoxication.

As someone of the beige persuasion myself, I don't particularly care one way or the other, but given the context here, it's kind of a pointless thing to harp on.

The reason people give a sh-t, is because the descriptor is usually only used when people of colour are being described.
The same story told if the person was white is usually told as "some random guy", not "some random white guy".
People treat white as the default and don't need to mention it.

Your male vs female example is different, because the story would almost always use one of those descriptors, not treat one as a default and omit it.

When treating white as default and only needing a descriptor when it's someone not white, that's a different treatment based on race and it starts to matter.

Take a 911 call for example where someone says a
"a random black man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
vs
"a random man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
You'll see lots of examples of how this gets treated differently, especially in the US.

And of course you'll almost never hear "a random white man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
If the person it white, it's just left out.

Throwing in that descriptor can have very serious impacts, so that's why people care.
Either use it all the time, or don't use it at all. Don't treat "white" as the default that therefore doesn't need to be mentioned.

Also I don't think the poster with the story meant much of it, so not attacking them particularly. But it's important that people think about how they use language around situations like that.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Take a 911 call for example where someone says a
"a random black man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
vs
"a random man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
You'll see lots of examples of how this gets treated differently, especially in the US.

And of course you'll almost never hear "a random white man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
If the person it white, it's just left out.

Except you absolutely should mention if they're white because using ethnicity as an identifier to find someone committing a crime is kind of an important detail. The 911 operator would very likely ask the caller to identify the person at which point their ethnicity would be called out either way.

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Also I don't think the poster with the story meant much of it, so not attacking them particularly.

Neither do I, which was why I chimed in.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Take a 911 call for example where someone says a
"a random black man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
vs
"a random man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
You'll see lots of examples of how this gets treated differently, especially in the US.

And of course you'll almost never hear "a random white man is wondering around my neighbourhood and might be breaking into houses."
If the person it white, it's just left out.

Throwing in that descriptor can have very serious impacts, so that's why people care.
Either use it all the time, or don't use it at all. Don't treat "white" as the default that therefore doesn't need to be mentioned.

In my experience, it's the other way around. Callers can't wait to say that the person involved is white, but if they aren't, trying to get a skin color descriptor out of them is like pulling teeth.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The 911 operator would very likely ask the caller to identify the person at which point their ethnicity would be identified either way.

If it's not already been mentioned by the time we get to the description part of the call, it's the FIRST description question asked...

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

In my experience, it's the other way around. Callers can't wait to say that the person involved is white, but if they aren't, trying to get a skin color descriptor out of them is like pulling teeth.

Reminds me of a Russell Peters bit from his Outsourced special: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2mhrl4

[Cappy]

Way back in my college days I worked a few months in retail (kill me). Two sales guys, me (a white guy) and "Mark" (a black guy).

Cashier would always asked who helped someone for a purchase, and to watch people struggle to identify the other without colour was hilarious. They would say, "the guy with the beard" so we both grew beards; "the guy in the glasses" so we both wore glasses.

I swear people were afraid to say the white guy and therefore acknowledge that the other guy was black.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Way back in my college days I worked a few months in retail (kill me). Two sales guys, me (a white guy) and "Mark" (a black guy).

Cashier would always asked who helped someone for a purchase, and to watch people struggle to identify the other without colour was hilarious. They would say, "the guy with the beard" so we both grew beards; "the guy in the glasses" so we both wore glasses.

I swear people were afraid to say the white guy and therefore acknowledge that the other guy was black.

It's situations like these - the post and get-the-pitch-forks responses - that give people pause to use a valid descriptor.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by you&me

It's situations like these - the post and get-the-pitch-forks responses - that give people pause to use a valid descriptor.

“Get-the-pitchforks response”? Please tell me you’re not referring to this thread when you say “situations like these.” There was literally one single post that suggested it [i]could[\i] be negative and questioned why it was needed. One. Out of 20+ posts that followed it.

This cannot be what you’re referring to, is it?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“Get-the-pitchforks response”? Please tell me you’re not referring to this thread when you say “situations like these.” There was literally one single post that suggested it [i]could[\i] be negative and questioned why it was needed. One. Out of 20+ posts that followed it.

This cannot be what you’re referring to, is it?

Counting can be difficult, so you go ahead and give it another try when you're ready.

The point is, why should there even be a response to someone using a racial descriptor in such a manner? The fact that there was a response - and it happens all the time - would reasonably give pause to someone to use race as a simple way to describe someone, like the situation Cappy mentioned.

[TorqueDog]

Also, the 'white as the default' thing... well, sure it is, you might make that assumption as it's statistically likely based on location. If I was in Suzhou and I told a story that started with "I met a Chinese dude today" I would hope to hell someone would immediately take the piss out of me for it.

"No sh-t, a Chinese guy in China? What are the odds? Man, the Chinese just make everything over there, huh. Heeeeeere's your sign."

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by you&me

Counting can be difficult, so you go ahead and give it another try when you're ready.

The point is, why should there even be a response to someone using a racial descriptor in such a manner? The fact that there was a response - and it happens all the time - would reasonably give pause to someone to use race as a simple way to describe someone, like the situation Cappy mentioned.

There was one post.

What followed was a bunch of posts performing some meta analysis of whether mentioning race was necessary or whether it was good or bad (all of which outright stating OP wasn’t bad). One single post that suggested the OP MIGHT have done it for a negative reason, and you’re calling that the “get-out-the-pitchforks response”?

If you think that’s pitchforks, it’s time for you to toughen up. Though based on the “counting is hard” comment, maybe that’ll come with puberty.

Over-reacting to the mention of a person’s race is not better intellectually than over-reacting to even the lightest criticism and classifying it as “gathering the pitchforks.” It’s the same thing you see all the time when people share something a few others disagree with and they pretend they’re being “attacked” by “the mob.” It’s kind of pathetic.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Also, the 'white as the default' thing... well, sure it is, you might make that assumption as it's statistically likely based on location. If I was in Suzhou and I told a story that started with "I met a Chinese dude today" I would hope to hell someone would immediately take the piss out of me for it.

"No sh-t, a Chinese guy in China? What are the odds? Man, the Chinese just make everything over there, huh. Heeeeeere's your sign."

I feel like the focus on race is a negative because it takes away from the funniest part of the story: 6 large men were effectively threatened/disturbed by a little man with a Subway sandwich.

Jared really ruined Subway’s rep.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There was one post.

What followed was a bunch of posts performing some meta analysis of whether mentioning race was necessary or whether it was good or bad (all of which outright stating OP wasn’t bad). One single post that suggested the OP MIGHT have done it for a negative reason, and you’re calling that the “get-out-the-pitchforks response”?

If you think that’s pitchforks, it’s time for you to toughen up. Though based on the “counting is hard” comment, maybe that’ll come with puberty.

Over-reacting to the mention of a person’s race is not better intellectually than over-reacting to even the lightest criticism and classifying it as “gathering the pitchforks.” It’s the same thing you see all the time when people share something a few others disagree with and they pretend they’re being “attacked” by “the mob.” It’s kind of pathetic.

You're probably right. I won't even take the C-Train

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I feel like the focus on race is a negative because it takes away from the funniest part of the story: 6 large men were effectively threatened/disturbed by a little man with a Subway sandwich.

Jared really ruined Subway’s rep.

What's funny about this post is it ties it back to the original post that started this whole thread. That meth/crack chick I encountered at the glasses store was way smaller than me, but honestly, it can still be intimidating because it's not like you can really use your size physically unless you want to embroil yourself in some giant hassle involving cops, courts, lawyers, etc. So these methed up losers put you in a situation you have little control over if you care at all about conducting yourself in an unambiguously law-abiding way.

It's not a fear for your physical safety necessarily, although you should probably consider they may be armed and have very little to lose, but rather a hesitancy to get involved in an unpredictable situation you want no part of. I don't think it's funny that it made these six guys uncomfortable...surely we've all seen a small group or single person disturb a much larger group. Nobody likes that.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Sliver

What's funny about this post is it ties it back to the original post that started this whole thread. That meth/crack chick I encountered at the glasses store was way smaller than me, but honestly, it can still be intimidating because it's not like you can really use your size physically unless you want to embroil yourself in some giant hassle involving cops, courts, lawyers, etc. So these methed up losers put you in a situation you have little control over if you care at all about conducting yourself in an unambiguously law-abiding way.

Don't worry, I broke my thumb back in October shoving a crackhead, and the cops just thought it was funny

[Slava]

Originally Posted by chemgear

https://globalnews.ca/news/9446682/o...er-encampment/

Ontario judge denies request to clear Kitchener encampment citing Charter violation

An Ontario judge has denied a municipality’s request to clear a homeless encampment, building on decisions out of British Columbia that he says establish a constitutional right for a person to shelter themselves if accessible indoor spaces aren’t available.

The ruling comes after two decisions where Ontario judges ruled against residents fighting to prevent encampment evictions at city parks in Toronto and Hamilton. In those cases, the judges found there was adequate space to accommodate “all of the cities’ homeless,” Valente wrote.

Couples testified about being separated from one another when they stayed at shelters, people who use drugs noted the harm of abstinence-based policies, and others talked about the “weight of uncertainty” around available shelter space on any given night.

“If the available spaces are impractical for homeless individuals, either because the shelters do not accommodate couples, are unable to provide required services, impose rules that cannot be followed due to addictions, or cannot accommodate mental or physical disability, they are not low barrier and accessible to the individuals they are meant to serve,” the judge wrote.

Maybe those folks should set that camp up next door to the judge. I have a feeling their opinion on their right to do this kind of thing would change radically.

[Wormius]

There are a lot of cold-hearted people in this thread.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Wormius

There are a lot of cold-hearted people in this thread.

Lizard people.