Results 1 to 57 of 57

Thread: How to eliminate homelessness

  1. #1

    Default How to eliminate homelessness

    Funny how Medicine Hat can do this but Edmonton can't.

    Medicine Hat becomes the first city in Canada to eliminate homelessness

    "I even said some dumb things like, 'Why should they have granite countertops when I don't,'" he says. "However, I've come around to realize that this makes financial sense."

    Clugston says that it costs about $20,000 a year to house someone. If they're on the street, it can cost up to $100,000 a year.

    "This is the cheapest and the most humane way to treat people," he says.

    "Housing First puts everything on its head. It used to be, 'You want a home, get off the drugs or deal with your mental health issues,'" Clugston says. "If you're addicted to drugs, it's going to be pretty hard to get off them, if you're sleeping under a park bench."



    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...ness-1.3074742
    Oh, and before Moa chimes in how people really like being homeless...

    He says city staff found housing for one man, but he insisted on leaving to sleep under cars. Day after day, they'd search him out and take him back to his new home.

    "They did it 75 times, but they had the patience and they didn't give up on him and, eventually, he ended up staying in the house," he says. "Ultimately, people do want a roof over their heads."

  2. #2

    Default

    Edmonton can - any city Can

    There is more foreclosed empty homes owned by the banks in North America than homeless people

    There is more than enough $$ to fund proper programs focusing on Mental Health & Reduction

    It can be done. It remains to be seen when society as a whole demands it to be done.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  3. #3
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Edmonton can - any city Can

    There is more foreclosed empty homes owned by the banks in North America than homeless people

    There is more than enough $$ to fund proper programs focusing on Mental Health & Reduction

    It can be done. It remains to be seen when society as a whole demands it to be done.
    What is with you guys and your endless tirades on "ending homelessness?" Why do u care so much? Do you have a vested interest in this cause somehow? How does it directly affect your daily lives?

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    I have heard reports of 3,500 to upwards of 5000 homeless people in the Edmonton area. How many did Medicine Hat have, 4 ? Just sayin. Great program and a great small city, but it's a different situation here but I for one am hoping it can be done here too.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maclac View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Edmonton can - any city Can

    There is more foreclosed empty homes owned by the banks in North America than homeless people

    There is more than enough $$ to fund proper programs focusing on Mental Health & Reduction

    It can be done. It remains to be seen when society as a whole demands it to be done.
    What is with you guys and your endless tirades on "ending homelessness?" Why do u care so much? Do you have a vested interest in this cause somehow? How does it directly affect your daily lives?
    So, are you making the point that that they are trying to impose their values on others, or that you have a heartless compassion free, psychopathic personality disorder? ...Or something else?

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    Appropriate housing needs to be part of a comprehensive addiction treatment or mental health treatment, but it won't work without appropriate health care supports and there will always be some who end up back on the street. Addicts who don't want to stay sober won't stay sober, and most don't want to stay sober until they get tired of living on the street. We need better addiction treatment and mental health care programs, but we also need to stop doing things that make it easier for someone to live on the street.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maclac View Post

    What is with you guys and your endless tirades on "ending homelessness?" Why do u care so much? Do you have a vested interest in this cause somehow? How does it directly affect your daily lives?
    Because I want to see humans succeed. Period. Because I believe every person on this planet has something to offer the world. Because I believe that we are all connected regardless of race, religion, political views or income status and being aware of that connection and trying to connect with as many different people is critical to human development. Because I work with the homeless people on the daily. Because I have learned that these are very kind, generous and warm people who have faced trauma and horrors I cannot imagine and just want to make it through the day. Because it has effected my closest friends. Because sometimes helping others is just the right thing to do. Because I believe the savage "dog eat dog"/ "only the strong survive" mantras are cop outs to our animal nature and its the human quality to rise above basic survival and help others survive also.

    I will never be able to get through to you. And thats ok. But these people are humans. And whether you realize it or agree with it humans need to help each other.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    And whether you realize it or agree with it humans need to help each other.
    We need to help each other, if someone needs help with an addiction, or mental health issue, we should be there. We don't need to impose our lifestyle choices on other people though, just because some people are different, doesn't make them wrong. Efforts to "correct" those differences, for example, to force people to be "good christians", or "good citizens", with a roof over their heads and a responsible lifestyle where they are capable of maintaing a home, are doomed to failure. Not everyone is ready for that, where they are, great, but where not, we should respect that.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-10-2015 at 12:54 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Sure. I agree 100% with what you are saying Moanhunter. But what I am saying is from personal first hand experince working with homeless people and through countless studies it shows it is a tiny tiny tiny percentile of homeless people who do so "by choice" and choose to live it as a "lifestyle choice". The overwhelming majority are people with mental health or addiction issues.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    And whether you realize it or agree with it humans need to help each other.
    We need to help each other, if someone needs help with an addiction, or mental health issue, we should be there. We don't need to impose our lifestyle choices on other people though, just because some people are different, doesn't make them wrong. Efforts to "correct" those differences, for example, to force people to be "good christians", or "good citizens", with a roof over their heads and a responsible lifestyle where they are capable of maintaing a home, are doomed to failure. Not everyone is ready for that, where they are, great, but where not, we should respect that.
    Oh I see. Providing housing to the homeless is imposing lifestyle choices, is it? And yet you're making the idea of a woman wearing a niqab during a citizenship ceremony as one of the greatest threats to democracy and women's rights ever?

    You've got some very odd ideas about what qualifies as a lifestyle.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Oh I see. Providing housing to the homeless is imposing lifestyle choices, is it? And yet you're making the idea of a woman wearing a niqab during a citizenship ceremony as one of the greatest threats to democracy and women's rights ever?
    You can lie about what I have said if you want, but at least do it in the appropriate thread (unless you intended this thread, a repeat of many other threads, to also be a Niqab thread).
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-10-2015 at 03:47 PM.

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    ^^ The point is that providing housing is not, by itself, a solution. It is part of a badly needed improvement in the way we treat the addicted and the mentally ill, but you can't just show an addicted or mentally ill street person to their new room and expect them to magically get better. Society needs to provide professional support, and the housing needs to be contingent on working with the support team.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ The point is that providing housing is not, by itself, a solution. It is part of a badly needed improvement in the way we treat the addicted and the mentally ill, but you can't just show an addicted or mentally ill street person to their new room and expect them to magically get better. Society needs to provide professional support, and the housing needs to be contingent on working with the support team.
    There's a high degree of alcoholism among various professions like law. This shows that the outward negative societal effects can be somewhat mitigated through whatever it is these professionals are doing. Possibly earning high incomes, having some degree of community respect, possibly some control over when they let the drugs take control, having shelter, having a legalized drug of choice and no criminal record as a result of their addiction, etc.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ The point is that providing housing is not, by itself, a solution. It is part of a badly needed improvement in the way we treat the addicted and the mentally ill, but you can't just show an addicted or mentally ill street person to their new room and expect them to magically get better. Society needs to provide professional support, and the housing needs to be contingent on working with the support team.
    No but what Medicine Hat has shown is that housing goes a long way to solving the other problems. Housing first enables people to concentrate on their additions, their mental health problems, etc and not have to worry about simple survival. As it says in the article and I quoted above:

    "Housing First puts everything on its head. It used to be, 'You want a home, get off the drugs or deal with your mental health issues,'" Clugston says. "If you're addicted to drugs, it's going to be pretty hard to get off them, if you're sleeping under a park bench."

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ The point is...
    ...Housing first enables people to concentrate on their additions, ...:

    "...."
    a Freudian quip?

  16. #16
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I have heard reports of 3,500 to upwards of 5000 homeless people in the Edmonton area. How many did Medicine Hat have, 4 ? Just sayin. Great program and a great small city, but it's a different situation here but I for one am hoping it can be done here too.


    Good one Drum.

  17. #17

    Default

    Yup, when I read that The City of Medicine Hat had tried to return a homeless person 75 times back to his new digs I'm thinking 'no they didn't', it had to of been a feral cat or a racoon.
    I have conversed with the worst kind of hectoring, bully pulpit smart-a**e*; dripping with virtuous self-aggrandizing sanctimony.................. and that's just on this forum.

  18. #18

    Default

    ^lol. I think the "flavour of the moment", "solution" to "eliminating homelessness" (the phrases sound like pest control), is really just a band aid to try and hide the issue / make it easier to "gentrify" neighbourhoods without having to incorporate design features to mitigate the issue. The idea you can stick everyone under their own roof and that all costs to society will magically disappear, I suspect, is as much driven by developers who want to build that housing (which will be destroyed), at taxpayer expense, as it is by ivory tower sociologists. I'm not opposed to some subsidized housing, I think such should be included in every neighbourhood, but it isn't suitable for everyone, and it won't "end homelessness" in a city the size of Edmonton.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-10-2015 at 01:12 PM.

  19. #19

    Default

    For sure it is a very noble cause to end homelessness, but saying it does not always make it so. Not sure how much developers are at fault but a lot of developers do donate to charitable causes. They are also business people who want to sell their developments in what they perceive to be the best places. They do not print brochures that say "Look out your window and see 5 soup kitchens and a couple of homeless shelters". Subsidized housing is a great idea but it should be spread throughout the city. For low income people who live in the burbs the C of E could subsidize transit passes for those who cannot afford the full cost.
    I have conversed with the worst kind of hectoring, bully pulpit smart-a**e*; dripping with virtuous self-aggrandizing sanctimony.................. and that's just on this forum.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^lol. I think the "flavour of the moment", "solution" to "eliminating homelessness" (the phrases sound like pest control), is really just a band aid to try and hide the issue / make it easier to "gentrify" neighbourhoods without having to incorporate design features to mitigate the issue. The idea you can stick everyone under their own roof and that all costs to society will magically disappear, I suspect, is as much driven by developers who want to build that housing (which will be destroyed), at taxpayer expense, as it is by ivory tower sociologists. I'm not opposed to some subsidized housing, I think such should be included in every neighbourhood, but it isn't suitable for everyone, and it won't "end homelessness" in a city the size of Edmonton.
    They're not claiming that anything "magically happens." They're saying that it's easier and more fiscally responsible to provide housing and a stable environment to the homeless than treating the problem by leaving them on the street. Housing is not all stuck in one place and not all the homeless are placed in one building.

  21. #21
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ It IS cheaper for the state to house the homeless and feed them than it is to pay for their continual use of the health care system.

    However, this is a social and health issue. Public housing should be paid for by the province, not municipalities. If we are talking health economics, it is within the province's domain.

  22. #22

    Default

    Medicine Hat's program was a combination of provincial and municipal funding. Nice to see someone actually doing something instead of just pointing fingers and saying "It's up to them". Good way to cut out the slumlords running the motels that the province is currently using for shelter.

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    Maybe this was addressed earlier on this thread. Lets not forget the influx of people that come into Edmonton. Much of homelessness is tied into our economy.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  24. #24

    Default

    ^probably some from Medicine Hat trying to flee those who want to eliminate their lifestyle.

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,275

    Default

    Take one of the big open spaces we have and set up one of those nice big camps like they have by Ft. McMurray. A lot of people would be happy staying there. Any spare units could be rented for $15 a day by workers coming here too instead of having to come up with $1200 plus damage deposit plus utilities and deposits etc for a one bedroom apt. if you can find one.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 12-10-2015 at 11:24 AM.

  26. #26
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    We're always going to have a homeless population to some degree, almost every city has this problem. Some more then others.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Funny how Medicine Hat can do this but Edmonton can't.

    Medicine Hat becomes the first city in Canada to eliminate homelessness

    "I even said some dumb things like, 'Why should they have granite countertops when I don't,'" he says. "However, I've come around to realize that this makes financial sense."

    Clugston says that it costs about $20,000 a year to house someone. If they're on the street, it can cost up to $100,000 a year.

    "This is the cheapest and the most humane way to treat people," he says.

    "Housing First puts everything on its head. It used to be, 'You want a home, get off the drugs or deal with your mental health issues,'" Clugston says. "If you're addicted to drugs, it's going to be pretty hard to get off them, if you're sleeping under a park bench."



    http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/...ness-1.3074742
    Oh, and before Moa chimes in how people really like being homeless...

    He says city staff found housing for one man, but he insisted on leaving to sleep under cars. Day after day, they'd search him out and take him back to his new home.

    "They did it 75 times, but they had the patience and they didn't give up on him and, eventually, he ended up staying in the house," he says. "Ultimately, people do want a roof over their heads."
    We do have a program like this, and it houses a lot of people around the City.

    I think it was put forward as a key objective for Mayor Mandel.

    Housing First is a concept and program that takes a ton of political courage, due to the numerous challenges dealing with homeless people who often have a number of issues. A lot of these individuals aren't going to be able to make it work, and there's bound to be some horror stories.

    I have some myself. I've seen the program go sideways, first hand, and had to deal with it personally.

    Having spent a significant amount of time homeless myself I have a fairly good perspective. I know some of the challenges faced by some of these (formerly) homeless persons, and I know it's not going to be a steady progression to health. I also know when it's just not going to work, and I know a lot of the tricks and lies.

    I've worked closely with the society that houses these individuals, and we've come to a place where it's pretty much working perfectly for all involved. It's really heartwarming to see someone progress from a rough and ready street person to someone who has his kids and grandkids over for Thanksgiving dinner.

    The economic argument for this program can get a little murky. A drug addict is still going to need money for drugs, and, in my experience, can attract the wrong kind of person to the building; effectively bringing the street to the building, rather than taking them off the street. We've experienced some theft and vandalism as a direct result of having the wrong person housed in our building.

    So we bore some cost, and I doubt anyone, outside of the shareholders, measures that. It's taken up a lot of my time, which is worth a lot, to me anyway.

    There is a social worker attached to each person as well. It's a good thing, for sure. But there's more to it than just the cost to house someone. There is still a support network that's needed. But this is a far more cost efficient and effective way to deal with the problem.

    While the economic argument is good, we shouldn't forget that it's just a good thing to do. Ultimately we have come to a point where it's been worth it, for me.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 12-10-2015 at 03:02 PM.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  28. #28
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    Not everyone that is homeless is a drug addict or without a job. There are seniors out there that are homeless because landlords track their age and as soon as they turn 65 they're rent goes up forcing them on the streets unless they're lucky to find a place within 3 months. Not all seniors are wealthy or have family support.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Not everyone that is homeless is a drug addict or without a job. There are seniors out there that are homeless because landlords track their age and as soon as they turn 65 they're rent goes up forcing them on the streets unless they're lucky to find a place within 3 months. Not all seniors are wealthy or have family support.
    I haven't seen a whole lot of seniors out there on the street, frankly.

    Nobody is suggesting all homeless people are drug addicts. But what the Housing First initiative does is provide housing, first, as in, the homeless people aren't expected to be clean and sober before they get housing. They get the housing, and then the social workers have an easier time dealing with any addiction issues, if there are any.

    We've had a heroin addict living in our building. We tried, but it didn't work out, He wasn't ready or interested in being clean. If you've ever known a heroin addict, you know that they aren't in charge - the drug is.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  30. #30

    Default

    Different place. Same issues?

    Christie Blatchford: Everyday life was the ‘trauma’ for these vibrant First Nations youth who died far too young

    CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD 10.09.2015

    ...
    One of the inquest lawyers last week — and almost without exception, they come at the evidence from a particular angle, with a view to the recommendations the jury may make — asked a couple of the witnesses if one of the dead kids had ever complained about “barriers” to getting help, whether for adjusting to life in Thunder Bay or addiction counselling.

    It was to laugh, albeit bitterly: These children faced nothing but barriers, and in our affluent and lucky country, we collectively tolerate that they should live like this.

    No wonder one of the inquest participants says he always has two conflicting impulses when he’s in the North: One is to run away screaming and never look back or go back; the other is to..."


    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/chris...502/story.html


    Plus C2e's thoughts circa 2007:

    Homeless, street people, beggars - Connect2Edmonton
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ight=Parenting



    ~
    Last edited by KC; 13-10-2015 at 01:14 AM.

  31. #31
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Interesting article.

    Fake homeless shelter pops up in affluent Toronto neighbourhood leaving residents in tears

    When a notice went up in a wealthy Toronto neighbourhood announcing a homeless shelter would be opening there soon, it upset some local residents so much they cried.
    And that was before they learned it was a hidden-camera stunt, set up to publicize the issue of homeless ahead of Election Day.

    On Friday, Leaside residents woke up to find a former Sleep Country store on Bayview Avenue covered in construction hoarding. On it, there was a sign announcing the privately-funded Jefferson Homeless Shelter would open on Nov. 1, offering 62 beds and hot meals, run by a volunteer staff of three.

    A hole in the in wood siding concealed a hidden camera.

    Residents noticed the sign immediately, said Ted Stuebing, who runs the community news outlet The South Bayview Bulldog. Many contacted him and their local councillor with concerns.

    “People were very upset, people were crying,” he said.
    http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto...era-stunt.html

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,866

    Default



    Classic.

  33. #33

    Default

    I might cry too. Having won the housing lottery as shacks turned people into millionaires and they used those highly mortgaged shacks as ATMs to finance outlandish lifestyles they may see that homeless shelter as their next stop.

    Ever walk out on to a frozen lake and hear the ice cracking beneath your feet? You suddenly wonder if you haven't gone one step too far.

  34. #34

    Default

    Finally a practical plan to eliminate homelessness, stop counting them:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...o-opt-out.html

    Hey, guess what? Word is medicine hat didn't eliminate homelessness for long... so much for that. Impossible dreams.
    Last edited by moahunter; 12-01-2016 at 02:19 PM.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    I hope everyone has a plan B when Oil crashes to rock bottom. Homelessness is just a pink slip away.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    All the money in the world wont eliminate homelessness. For many people, homelessness is a way of life by choice.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  37. #37
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Only an infinitesimally small proportion of homeless persons want to be homeless, envaneo. And those people are the ones that usually need medical assistance most desperately.

    The huge majority of homeless people are "invisible" - they are couch surfing or bouncing between temporary residences. These people are not going to turn down permanent shelter.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Only an infinitesimally small proportion of homeless persons want to be homeless, envaneo. And those people are the ones that usually need medical assistance most desperately.
    Source? Also, what do they want then? You are making a big assumption that they want the responsibilities that go with having your own place, re rent, keeping it clean, keeping the noise down, restricting visitors, and similar.

  39. #39
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The distasteful and false claim that homeless people want to live on the street is the one that needs a source. However, here is a survey that proves otherwise if you really insist:

    http://www.salvationarmy.ca/DPresour...rt_May2011.pdf

    2009 study of men at Salvation Army shelters nationwide revealed that 90 percent would prefer to live in permanent housing.
    That is also just men. What do you think the stats are for women and children?

  40. #40

    Default

    ^Per those stats, 51 % made attempts to find permanent housing. That means, 49% did not. Its one thing to say "I want my own place", its another thing to say "I wan't my own place, but will obey the rules / keep it clean / not make too much noise / won't smoke crack in it constantly, etc". We are basically trying to force a responsible lifestyle on some people who choose to have a more free lifestyle, I don't think that's appropriate, no matter what "God" and the Salvation Army says. We need to be more tolerant as a society of people who aren't the same as us, not try to force them into the same materialistic rat race in the name of GOD.
    Last edited by moahunter; 14-03-2016 at 11:12 AM.

  41. #41
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    No, you are just stereotyping and demonizing homeless people. None of what you said has any corroborating evidence, it is just your regressive attitude towards the disadvantaged.

    Many people that are homeless just give up trying to find a permanent place, because there aren't any available. They are caught in a cycle of poverty and homelessness. What you are perpetuating here is a damaging myth. It is false, it has no evidence or basis in reality, and it serves only to exacerbate the issue.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    No, you are just stereotyping and demonizing homeless people.
    So to say some people make sacrifices to live a free lifestyle rather than a materialistic rat race one, is demonizing them? OK... if you think so you are welcome to that view, we will just have to disagree on that, you go ahead and enjoy converting all of the homeless into "responsible" materialistic clones like the rest of us. I'd rather we provide conditional support when required or requested (something 49 percent didn't per the salvation army's own stats), but otherwise, let them be.
    Last edited by moahunter; 14-03-2016 at 11:27 AM.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Per those stats, 51 % made attempts to find permanent housing. That means, 49% did not. Its one thing to say "I want my own place", its another thing to say "I wan't my own place, but will obey the rules / keep it clean / not make too much noise / won't smoke crack in it constantly, etc". We are basically trying to force a responsible lifestyle on some people who choose to have a more free lifestyle, I don't think that's appropriate, no matter what "God" and the Salvation Army says. We need to be more tolerant as a society of people who aren't the same as us, not less/try to force them into the same materialistic rat race.
    So, are you saying that there needs to be more tolerance in society for more alternative housing arrangements?

    If both groups are saying "I want my own place", then that's evidence of a broad, if not universal, demand for a product. However if half are also saying they will not "obey the rules / keep it clean / not make too much noise / won't smoke crack in it constantly, etc." Then maybe there's a problem in the limited types of housing being provided and the generally universal one-size-fits-all regulations around housing. Many people currently cannot stand the amount of rules and regulations involved in owning condominium or co-operative housing so they choose detached structures. Maybe there's a need for even more types of housing to facilitate the wide variety of people in our society.

    There may be other solutions. For instance, a lot of people do not "keep it clean" hence they hire cleaners to come in every week or two. Others do make a lot of noise in their houses but fortunately concrete encased and heavily insulated home theatres minimize the issues. Other's likely smoke crack in their detached homes. Many alcoholics in society grossly over-consume alcohol in their residences yet are still able to go to work and perform their jobs - or appear to perform their jobs - as productive members of society.
    Last edited by KC; 14-03-2016 at 11:25 AM.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So, are you saying that there needs to be more tolerance in society for more alternative housing arrangements?
    Sort of, I'm saying instead of trying to eliminate something we don't like because it offends our sensibilities or our god, we should try to accommodate it in an appropriate way. No matter how hard bible bashers try to eliminate this (and they have been trying since Edmonton was first established), it doesn't go, because not everyone believes in our society the way we live it, or wants to be part of that, or is willing to make the lifestyle sacrifice (responsibility / not doing what you want when you want, all the time). A little tolerance, and a lot of smart design choices, including better designed shelters (where there isn't an line up for big chunks of the day), and busier streets, could go a lot further than trying to force everyone to be "responsible" (which is just going to backfire).
    Last edited by moahunter; 14-03-2016 at 11:33 AM.

  45. #45
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    No one ever said they won't "obey the rules" or "keep it clean", KC. That is an invention made up by Moahunter. As I'm sure both of you know, those two things aren't exclusive to homeless people, either. They are problems with tenants of all types.

    It is completely false to suggest that homeless people are homeless because they "don't want the responsibility". No. They are homeless because they can't get access to housing, and are too poor/ill to remedy that.

    It is also bizarre that you are talking about Christian morals, Moahunter. I never mentioned that at all. I mentioned ethics, which transcends religion. I'm not Christian, and I wasn't referring to the bible at all.

  46. #46
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    This is kind of all over the place, sorry in advance. So when (eg) "Habitat for Humanity" builds a home for a family, does it come with a mortgage? Does that family get to stay there in that home rent free? Do they have to pay the utilities to keep the lights on etc? Who qualifies to receive a home with "Habitat for humanity?" There's a huge difference between supply of housing in 2013, and Edmonton recession unemployment rate now closing in on 7% in 2016. I won't deny anyone a home but with a home comes the mortgage of that home (responsibility) who pays for that? How can somebody today in transition afford to keep a home, whether that home is a house or an apartment especially on minimum wage? I wonder how many families and individuals like my wife and I are struggling to pay the rent each month? Don't get me wrong I'm not whining. I'm juggling 2 part time jobs, my wife has her part time job, we're both disabled (me scoliosis and type 2 diabetic) my wife (ding bat itus ) we're both in our late 50's and mid 60's. We're very grateful we're in our situation but work for me stops in the summer. My only saving grace is I'll be on oas next year and I might be able to get another ei claim if I have the hours this summer. This is just one situation. How many people like my family (dinks) able to afford a home? We don't have support from our families that live in Victoria and Winnipeg/Sydney NS both parents long gone. We're not asking for a hand out either and I'm sure there are lots of people in our situation. We don't make $50K/year and we have never looked down upon those with greater incomes then us. The difference between homelessness and non homelessness is just one income loss away. My family has been fortunate and blessed that we're able to get this far in life. We've never been in jail, we don't have criminal records, we pay our taxes and don't bother anyone. We have Christian values in this house hold but at the same time we look around us at the world and it gives us pause. I'm not the voice for my demographic nor have I ever said, I'm better then anyone else. Homelessness can never be truly beaten. There's too much want in this city imo people need to take responsibility for their own actions. Jim Prentice was right. Look in the mirror.
    Last edited by envaneo; 14-03-2016 at 10:41 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  47. #47
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Habitat homes come with a (low) mortgage and the requirement that the family puts in hundreds of hours of "sweat equity" - they put in work alongside other habitat volunteers to build their homes. The house is owned, but restricted. I don't know the details, but there are rules about what happens when the owner sells - they can get their equity out, but the price, or buyer pool, or both are restricted and approved by habitat. That is, a habitat home is expected to stay affordable.

    Most other subsidised affordable housing is rented. The resident is expected to pay, but in some situations for people with disabilities or other reasons they can't handle their money it can be via a trusteeship where their finances are looked after by someone else who receives their social assistance payments and pays rent and any other ongoing costs directly, with the resident getting the leftovers as an allowance.

    Some transitional housing is initially no cost, for the simple reason that if you don't have an address you can't get social security payments.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    ^^ Subsidized housing is fine and well, as long as your family is under the $37,500 threshold (Alberta) Not many can live on $37,500, single or otherwise. With 2 in the household even on min wage, is greater then $37,500, so they wouldn't qualify. Not that I've done it since I got married and being single in the 1990's was a lot different then the decade after the 2000's. Those numbers $37,500 are unrealistic.

    I can get cpp without an address. My cheques come to my bank all the time. A colleague said to me as a bit of a joke, "Your the only person he knows whose quality of life goes up when on pension."
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  49. #49
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Rents have gone up a lot in the past 10 years -doubled-, more than the cost of buying has once low interest rates are factored in.
    Bus passes have gone up more than the cost of driving has, I would guess.

    It's not getting easier to live on a low income.

  50. #50
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    Consider a single person on min wage ($11.50) hr. pulling in a 80 hour pay period add vacation pay of 4% (min) is about $960 or $1,840/month. That's about $22,080 annually. A 1 bedroom (prices may vary) is about $1,200 month. That's $14,500/year on rent (not taking into affect any rent increase without a lease) Bus passes are about $1092/year (although there can be some money returned from a tax break) Add about $600 for food/month, that's $7,200. That's a total of $22,792 and I haven't factored in utilities. Internet would be a luxury. The above person might have mom and dad nearby. But just going by that alone the above sample wouldn't be able to go anywhere or do anything. So, the above sample would need to take on a part time job just to have the head above water. The above single person even working full time at min wage couldn't cut it. Maybe there might be some social housing subsidies for our sample but none that I know of. Our sample above is called the working poor, which makes up of 39% of the countries GDP.
    Last edited by envaneo; 15-03-2016 at 02:30 AM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  51. #51
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Rents have gone up a lot in the past 10 years -doubled-, more than the cost of buying has once low interest rates are factored in.
    Bus passes have gone up more than the cost of driving has, I would guess.

    It's not getting easier to live on a low income.
    Rents ten years ago were ridiculously low.

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Consider a single person on min wage ($11.50) hr. pulling in a 80 hour pay period add vacation pay of 4% (min) is about $960 or $1,840/month. That's about $22,080 annually. A 1 bedroom (prices may vary) is about $1,200 month.
    That's where you lose me. When I started my first job earning 17k a year, I couldn't afford a one bedroom. I had to share a house with five other people. Its a spoiled generation now, its not meant to be easy when you start, you should have to earn a good lifestyle. If you don't work or train hard to get that good lifestyle, why should it just be handed to you for nothing?

  53. #53
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^That's technically illegal. I remember laughing about it when my now-wife was living in a rented house during university because someone ran across the rules and they were officially living in an illegal bawdy house, I think it was called, with more than 3 unrelated adults.

    Room mates work in a lot of cases, but less well for people new to town, and honestly some of the same people working minimum wage don't do well in a room mate situation for some of the same reasons they're working minimum wage, or unable to work at all.

    We have lots of rules that make it harder to build affordable housing. Increased allowances for secondary suites is a big step for the better, but it takes time to help. Parking minimums don't help. Making subdividing large homes into rooming houses and apartments illegal didn't help either.

  54. #54
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    If it weren't for the fact that back in the day subdivided large homes were not only allowed but plentiful, I would have started my young adulthood homeless. As it was, I was comfortably housed at a price that even my minimum wage job (and later student loans) could support. At the time, minimum wage was $1.50/hour, and my place which included a small kitchen and large main room was $55/month.

    When I went to University, most of my classmates lived in similar accommodation. You're not allowed to live like that now.

  55. #55
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    ^ Secondary suites were encouraged by city council.

    Back in 1985 I was staying at the Glenwood on 156th street from 1985-95 and my rent was under $285/month. That studio apartment today is going for something like $1,000. Inflation being what it is.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  56. #56
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    These weren't secondary suites, evaneo. These were houses that were subdivided into several mini-apartments, usually with a shared bathroom. In Britain they were/(are?) called bed-sits. We called them Light Housekeeping Rooms (LHK's). There were eight in the lovely old house I first lived in. Today, you would not be allowed to create something like this.

  57. #57
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,862

    Default

    ^ I once lived in something similar back in 1976 uptown New Westminster about 2 blocks from the mall on 6th. It was as you put it a LHKR. I had a room where I shared the kitchen and bath. Mr. Anderson, had 4 rooms upstairs I recall in that house.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •