getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[PepsiFree]

Whatever the solution, I definitely agree that there needs to be an immediate component that is probably force-focused, a long term component that is service focused, and that all solutions need to be narrow in scope and directly address the issue.

The fact that we as a society have put minimal effort into solving this issue and people are suggesting loose, unfocused tax breaks that may have a long term impact on homelessness if we’re lucky is, frankly, absurd. But it shows you why it’s become such a problem. A lot of people aren’t even prepared to approach a meaningful conversation around solutions, let alone actually pursue any of them.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Whatever the solution, I definitely agree that there needs to be an immediate component that is probably force-focused, a long term component that is service focused, and that all solutions need to be narrow in scope and directly address the issue.

The fact that we as a society have put minimal effort into solving this issue and people are suggesting loose, unfocused tax breaks that may have a long term impact on homelessness if we’re lucky is, frankly, absurd. But it shows you why it’s become such a problem. A lot of people aren’t even prepared to approach a meaningful conversation around solutions, let alone actually pursue any of them.

I'm with you on this, but the shorter-term is admittedly more problematic and distasteful. I'm 100% in favour of services and proactive solutions (some of which are mentioned by Russic in the post ahead of yours). But the shorter term this policing crackdown and "force" is probably necessary. I'd be lying if I said I was 100% comfortable with my slight, vulnerable appearing daughter set to commute by transit.

So, to restore public confidence in the system and really in the rule of law, I think this kind of crackdown is just necessary. The proactive solutions need to be there, but we're talking about years of implementation before we see any benefit.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why wouldn’t rents just go up to eat up the money returned through taxation?

What your suggesting doesn’t really seem like it will make a difference. The living wage of a single person in Calgary is around $22 per hour so about 45k a year. This person has about 15k in federal tax credits and 20k in Alberta so pays roughly about 7k in taxes. So if you reduced these taxes to zero the living wage would drop to 19.50 per hour.

Do you think that meaningfully moves the needle? How would you redistribute the taxes to other groups.

I mean, $600/month is a lot of money to someone struggling to make rent. I definitely think the Federal personal exemption should be higher - reset it to $20k or so. Increase the higher brackets slightly to make up the difference, which ends up being a wash for the middle class (as the higher personal exemption offsets the higher rates).

Obviously that doesn't do anything for people who are currently homeless but keeping as many people as possible off the streets is a fundamentally good thing.

I also don't think it would get eaten in higher rents. Rents are definitely set by supply/demand, and I doubt higher net incomes at the very low end increases demand that much. Maybe a few people decide to keep their own place vs having a roommate but increased rental demand because people aren't homeless is a good thing.

Plus the current move to higher rents is definitely leading to a supply response with residential rental construction. There's definitely a lag there (buildings take time to build) but it's coming. For many years rents in Calgary have been too low to justify new apartment construction, so there hasn't been much if any. Now that they're high enough to justify new construction the pace of increases should drop, because new construction will add more and more supply every time they rise.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm with you on this, but the shorter-term is admittedly more problematic and distasteful. I'm 100% in favour of services and proactive solutions (some of which are mentioned by Russic in the post ahead of yours). But the shorter term this policing crackdown and "force" is probably necessary. I'd be lying if I said I was 100% comfortable with my slight, vulnerable appearing daughter set to commute by transit.

So, to restore public confidence in the system and really in the rule of law, I think this kind of crackdown is just necessary. The proactive solutions need to be there, but we're talking about years of implementation before we see any benefit.

100 percent agree. And this is what I was hoping to accomplish with my earlier post. Letting lower income earners keep more of the money they earn definitely does not help in the short term, we would need additional supports in place for that. I would hope to slow down the rate that people are becoming homeless.

Long term fix, but would still need a short term patch.

[PepsiFree]

The shorter term solution to buy time to implement the long term solution while reducing the danger to the public will probably be awful. I’m not sure there is a way around it.

I’m definitely of the belief that we need to go all in on a solution one way or the other, in a way we haven’t come close to ever. But I’m leaning toward going all in on the ugly solution while we build the solution that is more representative of a progressive, empathetic society. I don’t think the ugly solutions are sustainable at all, but they’ll be effective short-term, and it will hopefully be enough time to get our #### together.

Easy to say all this though, as my expectation is that governments will continue to do virtually nothing beyond half-hearted shows of effort. “Here’s a few more police officers” “Here’s one new safe injection site.” Who cares?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Easy to say all this though, as my expectation is that governments will continue to do virtually nothing beyond half-hearted shows of effort. “Here’s a few more police officers” “Here’s one new safe injection site.” Who cares?

I think you can also expect plenty of virtue signaling and speeches about how we're really tackling the problem.

[Wormius]

Why don’t we also look at why there is such resistance to using the available shelters? There is obviously something broken with those that makes them so unappealing versus being outside in the cold. I suspect probably some of the rules about staying in them should be reviewed if it’s some “you have to be drug-free to stay here” kind of thing.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Why don’t we also look at why there is such resistance to using the available shelters? There is obviously something broken with those that makes them so unappealing versus being outside in the cold. I suspect probably some of the rules about staying in them should be reviewed if it’s some “you have to be drug-free to stay here” kind of thing.

I'm not sure how widespread this is, but there have been several accounts in the media saying that the shelters have become lawless hell holes and that staying on the streets is a better, safer alternative.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Why don’t we also look at why there is such resistance to using the available shelters? There is obviously something broken with those that makes them so unappealing versus being outside in the cold. I suspect probably some of the rules about staying in them should be reviewed if it’s some “you have to be drug-free to stay here” kind of thing.

I am no expert, but most of what I've seen about this suggested people feel it's a safety issue and that the shelters themselves are less safe than being outdoors. What I've heard people say in interviews here in Vancouver is that people feel more likely to be physically or sexually assaulted in shelters.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Okay, but you understand that most taxes collected go towards things that help people like roads, police, hospitals and social services, right?

Yes I do. I see you do as well.

Do you understand that when people become homeless, there is a greater chance that they lose their job and don’t pay any taxes anyways.

Also when they become homeless there is a greater chance that they have addiction issues and be one one of the people that started this tread?

And there is a greater chance that homeless people become criminals and are a burden on our courts and police service. Hopefully you do, because I would hate to disagree about that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Why don’t we also look at why there is such resistance to using the available shelters? There is obviously something broken with those that makes them so unappealing versus being outside in the cold. I suspect probably some of the rules about staying in them should be reviewed if it’s some “you have to be drug-free to stay here” kind of thing.

Absolutely. A big part of it is funding related. They are under-staffed and the staff are treated poorly and have few resources at their disposal, which means the people accessing shelters are burdened with all the negative effects that come with those things. Even if you just put in a rule saying they have to be drug free, there is no one capable of enforcing it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Yes I do. I see you do as well.

Do you understand that when people become homeless, there is a greater chance that they lose their job and don’t pay any taxes anyways.

Also when they become homeless there is a greater chance that they have addiction issues and be one one of the people that started this tread?

And there is a greater chance that homeless people become criminals and are a burden on our courts and police service. Hopefully you do, because I would hate to disagree about that.

Honest question: Have you put any thought into this idea or gone as far as looking at the numbers between what you’re proposing and more targeted initiatives, because it seems like you’re just making stuff up and throwing the first thought in your head at the wall.

Do the work, show any evidence that a tax break for lower income people would solve homelessness, how much it would have to be, and why it’s better than any alternative. Give people a reason to take this idea seriously beyond the idea that you don’t like taxes.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Yes I do. I see you do as well.

Do you understand that when people become homeless, there is a greater chance that they lose their job and don’t pay any taxes anyways.

Also when they become homeless there is a greater chance that they have addiction issues and be one one of the people that started this tread?

And there is a greater chance that homeless people become criminals and are a burden on our courts and police service. Hopefully you do, because I would hate to disagree about that.

Everyone could grant you every single one of these points, and it still wouldn't point to "increase the income taxation exemption" or "reduce income taxes" as a real solution.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Russic

The claim of mine you bolded was that most people don't want to make the sacrifices (financial or otherwise) necessary to address this problem, and I'm going to stand by that. You and I are in total agreement that we'd be fine to be taxed more to handle this problem. Are we the majority though? I'm open to the possibility we are, but I can't say I'm confident. Just look at this thread... we aren't exactly all on the same page here about what the problem even is, let alone how to best address it.

I was too harsh in labelling people in this thread as uncaring. Some are (and I understand why), but not everybody, so I apologize if my umbrella was too big.

To me "investment in families" is a massive undertaking that goes far beyond finances. If there was a cheque to cash that would fix that, we'd likely have done so by now. What we likely require is a total societal shift around how we view people and problems.

I'm aware I'm leaving myself wide open to criticisms for not offering tangible solutions, and part of that is because I find the problem so damn complicated. People are here offering up tons of options that have been tried endlessly with very little success. I recall my wife's uncle (a cop) being put in charge of moving the homeless out of Kelowna 15 years ago. Anybody want an update on how that went? Turns out the neighbouring communities had some opinions of his plan.

Solutions I think that might move the needle (that conveniently align with my personal philosophies and life experience):

- A continued focus on quality affordable daycare for everybody
- An approach to mental healthcare in the same way we treat medical healthcare
- Early childhood resources similar to what's seen in some European countries where families with newborns are checked in on and given supplies they lack
- A trauma-informed recovery-based incarceration system

As for solutions to our current issue that won't take 20 years to bear fruit and won't cost 20 gajillion dollars, probably strict incarceration for people who are posing a violent risk. It won't work long-term and they'll likely emerge worse than before, but maybe that's just what has to happen while the long-term strategies can be shaped.

You'd be amazed at how compassion fatigue can erode the biggest of hearts after you've tried to help a few people through addiction issues as they rocket toward their own annihilation as everyone who cares about them gets repeatedly burned. Too many people are callously (unintentionally, for sure) oblivious to the destruction one addict can cause to an entire circle of people. It's frustrating to hear people talk about using nicer words to describe a whirling dervish hellbent on ruining their own lives and scarring (and scaring) the people around them for months and years on end, yet who are quick to be "shocked" at how the actual victims (sober people just trying to navigate life, which as we all know, isn't easy for anybody) can and do have an end to their rope.

Do addicts deserve compassion? Yes. But there is only so much compassion any one of us are capable of giving and I suggest the better approach is to reserve the bulk of your compassion for the 25+ people being hurt on an ongoing basis by every one addict. At least the addict gets high, doesn't have to work, and can just do whatever the #### they want whenever the #### they want. That seems a lot more fun than sneaking to meeting rooms in an office to place a few calls during the day to manage the affairs of an addict, then spending evenings and weekends ####ing around cleaning up their messes while trying to be supportive of an individual who makes detrimental decision after detrimental decision.

I would love to have a softer approach to these people. I didn't start out jaded. I was beat down into it and now I'm just realistic and I don't appreciate the lack of concern for family and friends of addicts - let alone the public at large - versus the ridiculous amount of care and compassion we're supposed to expel from this magical bottomless pit of concern we're supposed to somehow have. And how much time do you think we should all be dedicating to holding some meth addicts hands through their nonsense? Should I take away two hours a week from my family? Guy, in my experience it's double that a day when things go sideways. So now my kids are out a dad, my wife is out a husband and I'm stressed to the max because you want me to have unending compassion for a druggie. No, thanks. Tried that and it's hopeless.

We need to get them the #### off the streets. Just like you'd do with anybody else who broke the law over and over. So, yeah, we're beyond platitudes. It's time for tangible solutions and everything else is getting frightening close to the Southpark-sniffing-farts-out-of-a-wine-glass gif (which I'm not going to go so far as to accuse you of or do you the disrespect of posting that gif).

[you&me]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Absolutely. A big part of it is funding related. They are under-staffed and the staff are treated poorly and have few resources at their disposal, which means the people accessing shelters are burdened with all the negative effects that come with those things. Even if you just put in a rule saying they have to be drug free, there is no one capable of enforcing it.

Maybe I'm just in a mood today, but that, to me, seems like a good place to start - Budget & funding increases to make sure that shelters can treat and help those most likely to get back on their feet.

To me, it's feeling like "a few bad apples are spoiling the bunch"... I'm pretty sure I've seen stats that show a vast majority of the associated crimes are committed by a tiny minority. That same tiny minority is probably making shelters unsafe for those that have a relatively easy and genuine chance of getting out of the trap of homelessness, resulting instead in perpetuating their troubles.

[blankall]

Vancouver started clearing tents off the sidewalks today:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/city-province-...rium-1.6341426

Lots of protests. All traffic has been diverted from the area.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Honest question: Have you put any thought into this idea or gone as far as looking at the numbers between what you’re proposing and more targeted initiatives, because it seems like you’re just making stuff up and throwing the first thought in your head at the wall.

Do the work, show any evidence that a tax break for lower income people would solve homelessness, how much it would have to be, and why it’s better than any alternative. Give people a reason to take this idea seriously beyond the idea that you don’t like taxes.

You disagree that more money for low income people can lead to a decrease in homelessness?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You disagree that more money for low income people can lead to a decrease in homelessness?

How much money? How much of a decrease?

If you give every low income person a million dollars you’ll eliminate homelessness completely. But that’s not what you’re referring to, is it? So give some indication you’ve actually put thought into this.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You disagree that more money for low income people can lead to a decrease in homelessness?

Burn that strawman to the ground.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by you&me

Maybe I'm just in a mood today, but that, to me, seems like a good place to start - Budget & funding increases to make sure that shelters can treat and help those most likely to get back on their feet.

To me, it's feeling like "a few bad apples are spoiling the bunch"... I'm pretty sure I've seen stats that show a vast majority of the associated crimes are committed by a tiny minority. That same tiny minority is probably making shelters unsafe for those that have a relatively easy and genuine chance of getting out of the trap of homelessness, resulting instead in perpetuating their troubles.

Perhaps some tiered sheltering would help? If you are really a mess, you only get access to the lowest spaces. You can work your way up, and if the better shelters have maybe a reward for stepping up, you can incentivize some movement. Better beds, food, etc. Maybe private rooms as you go up. You then also keep the real bad apples from the ones at least trying. Different service levels appropriate to the care they need for each tier. I think some of it is just a feeling of hopelessness. Humans respond to reward and motivation.