getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

First of all...hey, if you're addicted to Heroin then you get the Afghani stuff that understands the importance and benefits of a good snuggle.

Especially if you're in a tent when its cold.

Secondly...you're right, which...when one looks at the concept of a system that provides easy access to the substances but difficult, limited access to resources to kick those substances the imbalance is really starkly obvious.

One might think that there are parties that would prefer to see this problem sort of 'Solve Itself.'

It wont.

The addicted and homeless that we see are, in their own ways, the products of other issues within society. Be it education (lack thereof) limiting employment, obviously housing, mental health issues and lack of support thereof, and frankly...cheap and easy access to substances that make all of those problems (albeit temporarily) go away.

Thats not a generational thing that is going to phase itself out, thats a social cycle.

If one doesnt address the core underlying issues it doesnt matter because the next Generation is going to run into the same problems and address those problems with the same substances and the wheel just spins round and round again.

I would add that fentanyl and meth are so strongly addictive that sometimes it doesn't take some major deficiency to create an addict. Maybe just one night partying too hard. The line between addict and regular member of society can be very thin.

That wheel spins very fast. In BC there's 2000 dead every year now. In Canada, it's about 7000, and it's now the leading cause of death for people aged 18-45.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

IMO there should be a 3rd 'problem' on that menu, which is Anti-Social Behaviour (or whatever you want to call it).

An individual with just one of homelessness/drugs/anti-social behaviour probably isn't the big societal problem we're talking about here, and are probably the lowest hanging fruit in terms of successful support. But once a second of those issues creeps in it seems like the trifecta is nearly inevitable.

Obviously the hope would be earlier intervention for individuals with relatively minor issues (group 1) to prevent them developing into major issues (group 2). A question I can only guess at is does the existence/prevalence of group 2 undermine/counter the efforts to help group 1?

ie. if group 2 is not an ongoing element in the community, would we be more successful with group 1? Could a 'banishment*' approach for group 2 recidivists coupled with more intensive supports for group 1 be most effective?

*still with supports/dignity/compassion as best as possible, though I'd argue none of those three are true in the status quo

I'm sure this could be articulated much more elegantly, but I guess I'm wondering if the first step isn't to admit that many people are effectively lost-causes and that pretending otherwise is a major obstacle to helping people who actually could be helped (eventually reducing/eliminating the lost-causes)?

I think you have to approach it as though there is only one group (from a practical strand point because it would be even more difficult to try to identify which people are part of group 1 and which are group 2) and accept that there are going to be people who are left behind (basically, let people self identify as group 2 through their actions, but still make things available to them). Even in countries with really low homelessness, there is homelessness. It’s just nearly impossible to eliminate without some extreme, highly unethical or unpleasant measures.

I do think the current approach (and previous approach) is failing because it’s trying to do a little bit of everything to hit that homeless/addict/mental health trifecta, but it’s just doing nothing well. We have a housing shortage, healthcare shortage, and are unwilling to include mental healthcare as part of our socialized medicine plan. People who aren’t homeless/addicted/dealing with severe mental illness struggle to access these services and we’re somehow expecting the most desperate among us to do so? Impossible.

End of the day though, people complain about this issue but they don’t want to be taxed like the Scandinavian countries nor do they want to live under an authoritarian government. They want it fixed, but don’t want to go far enough in either direction to fix it, so it won’t get fixed.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well...thats not really accurate though is it?

I'm not advocating for a return to 'The War on Drugs' if thats what you're referring to then you're correct, that did not work, fairly conclusively.

Alright fair enough, like I said I'm used to having this discussion on reddit where it's mostly just mouth breathers stamping their feet and yelling about how the cops aren't always there to just take these people away

I definitely agree right now it feels like a complete "We've tried nothing and we're out of ideas" scenario. Like I also mentioned though, nobody can decide on who it is that should be dealing with it. IMO the Feds need to step up, but until it becomes an election issue, they're fine leaving it to the cities

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You can go one of two directions:

1. Criminalize homelessness out of existence

2. Support homelessness out of existence

We kind of do neither. Personally, I’m obviously on the support-side, which in my mind and in applications where reducing homelessness has been successful, starts with housing. Homeless people need homes. From there, it’s easier to deal with other issues they are dealing with. Knowing you have a space of your own to call home is critical. Safe injection, FREE and accessible mental health care (currently nobody has access to this), etc, all those things help, but ensuring they have a home to build up from matters. We throw random things that work at the wall, but our effort isn’t close to comprehensive enough.

If we were to go the criminal route, then it’s not so much about criminalizing “drugs” as it is criminalizing public drug use for certain drugs (so someone isn’t going to get tagged for having small drugs on them, but could be arrested for using in an alley. Criminalizing panhandling/begging, criminalizing sleeping in the street, tightening enforcement downtown and on transit, etc.

Half measures don’t seem to do anything. But I’d also be fine with a mixed approach, where once services reach a level where they’re accessible to all, you increase the criminal penalties for people who are refusing to take advantage.

Either way, I agree with the idea that we need to do more. I’d prefer if we lead with compassion, but it can’t just be a little bit of compassion and a few half measures.

Best post in this thread by a mile.

[jayswin]

Wow, won't quote every post, and I was worried when this thread came up, based on CP's average income, but PepsiFree has nailed it in about five posts he's made here. Excellent contributions.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You can go one of two directions:

1. Criminalize homelessness out of existence

2. Support homelessness out of existence

We kind of do neither. Personally, I’m obviously on the support-side, which in my mind and in applications where reducing homelessness has been successful, starts with housing. Homeless people need homes. From there, it’s easier to deal with other issues they are dealing with. Knowing you have a space of your own to call home is critical. Safe injection, FREE and accessible mental health care (currently nobody has access to this), etc, all those things help, but ensuring they have a home to build up from matters. We throw random things that work at the wall, but our effort isn’t close to comprehensive enough.

If we were to go the criminal route, then it’s not so much about criminalizing “drugs” as it is criminalizing public drug use for certain drugs (so someone isn’t going to get tagged for having small drugs on them, but could be arrested for using in an alley. Criminalizing panhandling/begging, criminalizing sleeping in the street, tightening enforcement downtown and on transit, etc.

Half measures don’t seem to do anything. But I’d also be fine with a mixed approach, where once services reach a level where they’re accessible to all, you increase the criminal penalties for people who are refusing to take advantage.

Either way, I agree with the idea that we need to do more. I’d prefer if we lead with compassion, but it can’t just be a little bit of compassion and a few half measures.

Good points

[curves2000]

We need to make sure we are coming at the problem with a multi pronged approached. An approach on BOTH sides of the thinking.

We need to attack homeless issues, mandatory treatment and severe detox and we need to lay down the hammer on the garbage and just be done with it.

We have completely and utterly normalized a million things in Canada and this is a big one. Nobody is batting an eye at random assaults, killings, enraged, drugged out people literally causing MILLION dollar damage claims (Peace Bridge, City Hall fire)

We have a small group of the same losers causing a mountain of problems. I am too lazy to look it up, but there is one female winner who has a rap sheet almost as bad as Putin's and she's always in the news. Murder (downgraded to Manslaughter) non stop violent attacks, thefts, attempting to throw peoples children onto train tracks. Like seriously. Enough with the excuses and her "story" Get her off the streets!

We really need to understand that these problems don't exist in a whole host of large cities to the same degree as they do here. In a lot of countries, drugged out losers raping and bother young girls are just dealt with internally. People don't bat an eye about smashing in some heads.

This is a hockey fan forum, have we forgotten that fear actually works as a deterrent? It even works on large, fit males. Perhaps a return to some brutal but needed tactics is required? I have always been a fan of caning like they do in Singapore. The pain is described as beyond unbearable. The benefit of this is once word get's out, a lot of people really do fall in line. It's human nature

I feel in a lot of ways for these people, I really do to a point. Let's not pretend that it's not our job as a society to improve it and they are in a position to make choices for themselves and their best interest.

[Delthefunky]

Originally Posted by blender

It's a mess here in Kamloops right now, too.
Junkies shooting up all over downtown in broad daylight, large groups congregating here and there, aggressive panhandling, etc.

I am definitely in the compassion and let's find a constructive way to help these people camp, BUT I've got two daughters that shouldn't feel scared of walking around the neighborhood.

I feel like the level of tolerance for this type of civil disorder is ridiculous at the moment. There was a time not long ago when I felt conspicuous walking around with an open beer (lol, I would probably still get busted!), and now there are people literally shooting up in the street.

Where is the law and order?

With you on that, Vernon and Kelowna are bad too. I'm in Kamloops quite a bit and I felt bad for families during the heatwave 1.5 yrs ago who were taking their kids down to the river for a cool down. Had to sit next to these zombies in the sand, shooting up. They look like bobbleheads. Absolutely ridiculous. And honestly at that point, what are police supposed to do?

My biggest complaint is the tent cities. Polson park is actually quite nice, but over the years it's turned into a tent city, with trash strewn everywhere along the shores of the creek.

Hate to say it but the more it's tolerated, the worse it gets. I get why people are more sympathetic, and I used to be, but it doesn't actually solve anything, and imo makes the problem worse.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Wow, won't quote every post, and I was worried when this thread came up, based on CP's average income, but PepsiFree has nailed it in about five posts he's made here. Excellent contributions.

What does CP's average income have to do with anything? I'm honestly willing to contribute whatever it would take. I'm a huge proponent of increased taxes on higher earners. I would even support a sales tax. I just think we need a plan that's realistic and handles the problem.

Now this isn't directed at you, but I do hear people bemoan the fact that we closed all our mental institutions so people with mental illness are thrown onto the streets, but as soon as somebody like me suggests constructing what are essentially mental institutions, I'm a huge a-hole. I don't get it. There just aren't 'nice' ways to solve this where we don't get our hands dirty and to me the most inhumane solution is to keep doing what we're doing.

But back to the income point you raised - whatever this costs I believe should be paid for by the taxpayers and those who earn more should pay more. I'm not looking for a firing squad ffs, I want to build a facility in consultation with mental-health experts to fix this GD problem.

[Iggy_12]

Definitely notice the homeless problem is tenfold post Covid. I work in the "nice part" of downtown (eau claire) used to rarely see homeless early in the morning around the mall now there are full on camps around the heat grates.

Its honestly more rare to take the train and not see someone smoking crack than it is to witness it first hand.

Theres this one guy in the plus 15s sometimes in a wheelchair that verbally assaults everyone who walks by (women moreso) these are the cases i dont understand how they are allowed to hang out there all day and yell slurs at passer bys.

Can't say i have specifically had interactions with any but it seems its everywhere these days

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Iggy_12

Theres this one guy in the plus 15s sometimes in a wheelchair that verbally assaults everyone who walks by (women moreso) these are the cases i dont understand how they are allowed to hang out there all day and yell slurs at passer bys.

I haven't worked in downtown Calgary in a couple of years now, but there was one dude who used to ask people for money, usually hanging out in the Bow Valley Square +15 areas. He'd always hold out his hand, and then ask "change for a coffee" in the most nasally of voices. And if you said no he'd roll his eyes or murmur something offbeat. And he'd never recognize the same person even though they pass him by routinely every day.

I loved that guy. He's one of my Calgary downtown icons.

[Iggy_12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I haven't worked in downtown Calgary in a couple of years now, but there was one dude who used to ask people for money, usually hanging out in the Bow Valley Square +15 areas. He'd always hold out his hand, and then ask "change for a coffee" in the most nasally of voices. And if you said no he'd roll his eyes or murmur something offbeat. And he'd never recognize the same person even though they pass him by routinely every day.

I loved that guy. He's one of my Calgary downtown icons.

Hes still there haha, hes completely tame in comparison to the guy i mentioned. "spare some change for a coffee" Ive never heard him mumble under his breath if you didnt give him something though.

I actually think some vendors hook him up i see him eating at Ginger Beef quite often, i cant imagine hes paying for that.

[Muta]

Regarding the homeless issue in Edmonton their city just built five modular affordable housing buildings across the city; 219 units total with indigenous ceremony spaces in each building. This only cost $56M total for all five buildings due to the value engineered solution of modular construction. Each place also has social and occupational support services. I think this is a stellar solution and something the City of Calgary should look into too.

[Deviaant]

Originally Posted by Muta

Regarding the homeless issue in Edmonton their city just built five modular affordable housing buildings across the city; 219 units total with indigenous ceremony spaces in each building. This only cost $56M total for all five buildings due to the value engineered solution of modular construction. Each place also has social and occupational support services. I think this is a stellar solution and something the City of Calgary should look into too.

I think this line of thought is the modern version of “forced treatment” and I hope they continue with the project.

Some shelters here own buildings they rent out at market prices. You would be shocked at what buildings some shelters own. Most are mixed use some shelter clients who pay some rent and “regular” renters. A lot of money for our shelters is generated this way and would be a large loss if that money went poof.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Muta

Regarding the homeless issue in Edmonton their city just built five modular affordable housing buildings across the city; 219 units total with indigenous ceremony spaces in each building. This only cost $56M total for all five buildings due to the value engineered solution of modular construction. Each place also has social and occupational support services. I think this is a stellar solution and something the City of Calgary should look into too.

I believe there are a dozen or more recent examples of this around BC as well. From a technical standpoint, modular is a great solution and is almost certainly going to be part of the housing solution given how quickly it can be built and craned in with minimal community disruption.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I believe there are a dozen or more recent examples of this around BC as well. From a technical standpoint, modular is a great solution and is almost certainly going to be part of the housing solution given how quickly it can be built and craned in with minimal community disruption.

I have seen some 3D-printed houses being erected in short amounts of time. I wonder if that is perhaps an option in our geography for temporary/transitional housing and with competitively lower costs as well.

[Fuzz]

We've got lots of empty office towers...

[Muta]

The federal government has a funding assistance program called the Rapid Housing Initiative that encourages supportive housing to be built within a certain time. Edmonton took advantage of this, and one of the solutions was modular housing to ensure the funding timeline requirements. I think it’s absolutely terrific. An immediate, safe place to live of their own is a great starting point for people to start improving other aspects of their lives.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We've got lots of empty office towers...

I really hate being this guy, but I don't think the severely mentally ill and rock-bottom drug addicts (versus people who just let things get a little out of hand but have the resources and ability to right the ship) are in any shape to be put up in nice buildings without being highly monitored.

This is just like the give a man a fish; teach a man to fish thing. Giving a guy a house won't work...that'll shelter him for a day. We need to help people get to the point of learning how to hang onto and care for a living space before giving them one and that involves getting them able to care for themselves.

It's not really just a physical building these people need. In fact, that is fairly far down on the list IMO. It's like handing the keys to car to somebody who doesn't know how to drive. They'll just fata it up, to be blunt. Then, great, we've spent a bunch of money for a bunch of people to destroy more property knowing full well they're not equipped to handle occupying the space responsibly.

[Ozy_Flame]

I'd wager that affordable housing for people who need it also needs a master plan with specific housing requirements that must be conducive to the type of housing being built.

Things like easy access for community and support workers, safe balconies or low entry points, open areas with natural light, specific appliance and electrical standards, soundproof walls, that sort of thing.

Towers were built for other purposes and would probably be not ideal not cost-effective to modify for affordable housing en masse.