|
|
|
Homelessness Solved in U.S. Sanctuary New York City during COVID last year
- Thread starter Baggsy
- Start date
It is called Hostile Architecture
Yep. Also the arm rests on the chairs of the airport boarding lounge is hostile architecture.
Bastards.
Toronto has released their winter plan. $647M to house up to 9000 unhoused people. That is $72,000 each in beds spaced 1.25m apart. Wtf. It would be interesting to see how they lit that much money on fire and provided such a poor outcome.
toronto.citynews.ca
Toronto releases Winter Services plan for unhoused residents, advocates call for action
A councillor-elect and advocacy groups are already criticizing the actions, saying it doesn't go far enough to protect some of the city's most vulnerable residents.
toronto.citynews.ca
Damned autocorrect. I have empathy for many unhoused people that tried their best and couldnt follow the normal path. Government treatment of them isnt much better than world vision pushing god on disadvantaged people. Help them with food/water/safe place to stay but dont push your version of a proper life on them as a requirement for the help they need.
Agreed.
There are people on the streets that really have no place else to go for many different reasons. Some that no one will undersand but them alone.
What I have an issue with are the ones that are are "homeless" because they don't feel like trying to live a "normal" life. No one said you need to be driving a Ferrari or even a Honda Civic, but at least give it your best shot and take a damn shift a McD's.
The new trend seems to be standing at the intersection with a sign claiming to be hungry and have 6 kids to support. Untill the cops are in line at the lights, then the homeless fold up their sign, walk away and start browsing on their iPhone 13.
That's awesome. So now that person gets a shift at McD's, loves it, and then sleeps outside still because there's not a ******* place they can afford to live.
I've watched a lot of homeless documentaries and it's a very complicated issue that people think is simple. People want them to go to homeless shelters. That's wonderful if you want your **** stolen and possibly get assaulted or raped. Oh, and don't forget that the doors open at 9pm and you have to be up and out of there by 6am or something. How about you have a mental disease? Have you heard how hard it is to get into a doctor or hospital for an actual physical injury? Try a mental injury. And on top of all this, you have hard cheap drugs thrown into the mix and holy ****! No wonder it's so hard to get off the streets once you get there. The deck is so massively stacked against you.
Sorry, not sorry. But to say that they just need to live a "normal" life and get job is truly idiotic.
Drugs are definitely the driving issue in Peterborough. The downtown has always had homeless issues but we have become so welcoming that it has now killed the entire downtown restaurant/bar/entertainment scene. Last summer I brought my kids and their bikes to town to take a ride around little lake. Good luck making it 40ft without having to deal with another group of junkies.
We have become way too accommodating. I used to watch allot of intervention and hitting "rock bottom" was generally the only way to get someone into rehab. The enabling mother that just just trying to help was always the biggest challenge. They keep adding safe injection sites, methadone clinics, allowing the homeless to turn the bus shelters into places to congregate and do drugs together, etc. As long as they can keep doing drugs and stay safe, they will not change.
A co-worker of mine saw a guy screaming at the sidewalk and whipping it with his coat the other day. Everyone is just acting like its totally normal. He was pointing out that 20 yrs ago someone would have called the police. Does he need to go to jail? probably not. Give them the choice: jail, rehab, mental hospital. I would much rather see my tax dollars expand these services over making the drug addicts comfortable and safe so that they multiply.
Sorry if this is not politically correct thinking but I really liked Peterborough when I first moved here and it has became an absolute **** hole in the last two years. I no longer have any interest in taking my family downtown to support local businesses.
We have become way too accommodating. I used to watch allot of intervention and hitting "rock bottom" was generally the only way to get someone into rehab. The enabling mother that just just trying to help was always the biggest challenge. They keep adding safe injection sites, methadone clinics, allowing the homeless to turn the bus shelters into places to congregate and do drugs together, etc. As long as they can keep doing drugs and stay safe, they will not change.
A co-worker of mine saw a guy screaming at the sidewalk and whipping it with his coat the other day. Everyone is just acting like its totally normal. He was pointing out that 20 yrs ago someone would have called the police. Does he need to go to jail? probably not. Give them the choice: jail, rehab, mental hospital. I would much rather see my tax dollars expand these services over making the drug addicts comfortable and safe so that they multiply.
Sorry if this is not politically correct thinking but I really liked Peterborough when I first moved here and it has became an absolute **** hole in the last two years. I no longer have any interest in taking my family downtown to support local businesses.
Metal issues, addiction, dysfunctional family life, abuse, PTSD, financial issues, divorce lack of public services are just some of the issues that I can think of that can lead someone to becoming homeless. Hell, many of us "normal" folks are just a few pay cheques away from being homeless if you believe the politicians and media. From what I can see it is a easy slope to slide down but almost impossible for many to climb back up.
There is no easy solution to this complex social issue, maybe there is no solution. We tend to create our own problems as a society and I see homelessness as the reminder or warning of what's to come if we keep doing what we are doing.
There is no easy solution to this complex social issue, maybe there is no solution. We tend to create our own problems as a society and I see homelessness as the reminder or warning of what's to come if we keep doing what we are doing.
None of those things are new. If anything society has significantly better mental health services, more support for people with addiction issues, less abusive families, more services to help those struggling financially then say 50 years ago and the divorce rate is dropping for the first time in decades.
The problem is opioids. Everyone is saying its so complicated. It's not. Call them victims if you like but you can't help someone that isn't committed to change. Enabling them does nothing to make them better.
you seems to have all the answers. please site your sources. I can't wait to see your solution.
As others noted it is not a simple problem, but mostly from an ethical perspective, but at the same time it is also not a one-dimensional problem and some of the dimensions are not at all complicated.... addiction, chosen lifestyle, mental illness or a combo.... I lived and worked downtown for a couple of decades give or take. I talked, interacted and observed, this is my experience.... Sorry for the long read...
Group 1: I saw the same people in this group everyday, in the morning begging for money with sob stories about needing money for food, shelter, bus tickets, etc. Some used a dog or a cat as a prop. Same type of people at off ramps etc. Territorial about their spot. On the way home I saw the same people wasted out of their minds. Most (not all, next categories...) had a change of clothes, each day, fairly clean, did not smell, etc. Most would also get mad if you offered to buy them food.... or if you did they just tossed it. They mostly had a place to go.... collecting welfare or ODSP, then when you do the math, if they get $15 an hour (likely much more) tax free in cash that sets them up for the afternoons activities "working" four hours a day, no boss... party time. Eventually they move to the next groups...
Group 1.5: Like group one but now in ever increasing tent "escapements", may or may not be collecting gov funds. Still pretty clean... but they still have the wherewithal to work the system but not work, "high functioning" addicts or mental illness.... Ethical issues like group 2 below but not as serious...
Group 2: Then you have the people really sleeping rough on subway grates etc. or using shelters. Filthy and you can smell them... Well more times than not it is serious low functioning addiction or mental illness (or both), same people day in and day out. This one is tricky, how to help someone that really can't or does not want help themselves? Is it ethical to enable them? Is it ethical to leave them suffering on the street? Is it ethical to to institutionalize them? Really none of the three are actually ethical, that is the complicated part. It appears that many believe the least worst approach is to reduce suffering, but that typically heavily overlaps the first unethical point (enable).
Group 3: This IME is the absolute minority but the person most want to believe is the vast majority. They had a life changing financial event that put them there or addition put them there and they beat it (went from group 1 or 1.5 and beat it). They will typically not be there for long as they REALLY don't want to be there and any help they get they use to get out of the situation. Society looks back to events like the Great Depression and wants to believe that is what is going on, that is not today.
Other than Group 3 it is a combination of lifestyle, addiction and mental illness, enabling them to go go deeper and migrate from group one to eventually Group 2 is unethical. Opioid addition has been a big factor in the slide but it is not the only factor.
The worst group though is Group 4, the dogooders that do nothing but enable them to slide deeper. Then protest when encampments come down but at the same time do not take anyone home to help them.... how dare you take down that encampment, no way they can come live in my yard or with me.... Solution to the problem, enable but NIMBY. I bet they also feed bears and coyotes....
Group 1: I saw the same people in this group everyday, in the morning begging for money with sob stories about needing money for food, shelter, bus tickets, etc. Some used a dog or a cat as a prop. Same type of people at off ramps etc. Territorial about their spot. On the way home I saw the same people wasted out of their minds. Most (not all, next categories...) had a change of clothes, each day, fairly clean, did not smell, etc. Most would also get mad if you offered to buy them food.... or if you did they just tossed it. They mostly had a place to go.... collecting welfare or ODSP, then when you do the math, if they get $15 an hour (likely much more) tax free in cash that sets them up for the afternoons activities "working" four hours a day, no boss... party time. Eventually they move to the next groups...
Group 1.5: Like group one but now in ever increasing tent "escapements", may or may not be collecting gov funds. Still pretty clean... but they still have the wherewithal to work the system but not work, "high functioning" addicts or mental illness.... Ethical issues like group 2 below but not as serious...
Group 2: Then you have the people really sleeping rough on subway grates etc. or using shelters. Filthy and you can smell them... Well more times than not it is serious low functioning addiction or mental illness (or both), same people day in and day out. This one is tricky, how to help someone that really can't or does not want help themselves? Is it ethical to enable them? Is it ethical to leave them suffering on the street? Is it ethical to to institutionalize them? Really none of the three are actually ethical, that is the complicated part. It appears that many believe the least worst approach is to reduce suffering, but that typically heavily overlaps the first unethical point (enable).
Group 3: This IME is the absolute minority but the person most want to believe is the vast majority. They had a life changing financial event that put them there or addition put them there and they beat it (went from group 1 or 1.5 and beat it). They will typically not be there for long as they REALLY don't want to be there and any help they get they use to get out of the situation. Society looks back to events like the Great Depression and wants to believe that is what is going on, that is not today.
Other than Group 3 it is a combination of lifestyle, addiction and mental illness, enabling them to go go deeper and migrate from group one to eventually Group 2 is unethical. Opioid addition has been a big factor in the slide but it is not the only factor.
The worst group though is Group 4, the dogooders that do nothing but enable them to slide deeper. Then protest when encampments come down but at the same time do not take anyone home to help them.... how dare you take down that encampment, no way they can come live in my yard or with me.... Solution to the problem, enable but NIMBY. I bet they also feed bears and coyotes....
Last edited:
The answers were in my previous post.
I sited my own observations, lived experiences and the show Intervension. Can you please site your previous and future posts as well please?
As mentioned above, the homeless do not fit one or two distinct profiles. Some are able but unwilling to change their circumstances, for others it's a bit more difficult than: "Just get a job!"
I volunteered at a Suicide Prevention/Distress Centre Hotline for a couple of years and a lot of the callers who would use our services were in and out of hostels and shelters. They all suffered from varying levels of mental illness. There were some that just walked away from a home and family and voluntarily decided to live on the streets.
So yes, we have (and always had) a lot of services for the mentally ill. However, regarding those with concerned family with the means and access to additional resources, the Ontario Mental Health Act states that you cannot commit someone to a facility or force them to seek psychiatric help unless they are a danger to themselves or others or their health declines that they require hospitalization.
Plenty slip through the cracks and due to the nature of their illness are incapable of helping themselves or allowing others to help them.
It's a very sad situation that unfortunately does not have clear-cut answers or solutions.
I volunteered at a Suicide Prevention/Distress Centre Hotline for a couple of years and a lot of the callers who would use our services were in and out of hostels and shelters. They all suffered from varying levels of mental illness. There were some that just walked away from a home and family and voluntarily decided to live on the streets.
So yes, we have (and always had) a lot of services for the mentally ill. However, regarding those with concerned family with the means and access to additional resources, the Ontario Mental Health Act states that you cannot commit someone to a facility or force them to seek psychiatric help unless they are a danger to themselves or others or their health declines that they require hospitalization.
Plenty slip through the cracks and due to the nature of their illness are incapable of helping themselves or allowing others to help them.
It's a very sad situation that unfortunately does not have clear-cut answers or solutions.
Ah, the show intervention....
|
|
|
|
|