Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 106 of 106

Thread: Safe Injection Sites

  1. #101
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    YEG: Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, McCauley | YLW: Shannon Lake | PHX: San Tan Valley
    Posts
    807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I dont think you guys are getting it. These sites are setup at places where existing social agencies already exist. This helps keep costs of this way down, and those services are already setup in the areas that this is needed the most.
    I totally get it. Even though I and others are villainized for our views, we do care about the people in our areas. You can't live in these areas and do business in these areas if you don't. Many people (including myself) support a safe injection site. I think RAH is the perfect site for one and am confused why it's for inpatients only - make it 24/7 accepting walk ins - there's already security there and they can run codes.

    But 4 in one small area? Not even Vancouver has that many. If this is an epidemic then have SIS at all the major hospitals and even the smaller facilities that offer Urgent Care centres like the East Edmonton Health Centre. You might be surprised who pops in to use them especially near the suburbs.

    The people that live in the area do not want to dump or expel people from the neighborhood. McCauley and areas around it are very welcoming to all walks of life. But something has to change and you can't keep adding to an area for the sake of adding to an area. At what point is a line drawn and a neighborhood is at it's maximum concentration of services and beds until other nodes are chosen to compliment these services? Afterall, homelessness and addiction are an Edmonton problem, not a McCauley or Chinatown problem. If the city has no intention of doing this, then they needs to stop lying to residents/stakeholders and playing the revitalization song and dance while green lighting non market units and services to be added. They need to assume a position of leadership and take on compensatory initiatives like waive taxes/other strategies to attract market or conventional services like they did to get 104 Street going.

    People want to destigmatize these services. The only way to do that is similar to how the city told RF1 neighbourhoods that they were not going to be sheltered from density or lot splitting. The city needs to step up and put their foot down and let everyone know that ANY neighbourhood can have services in it. That new areas might have shelter beds or other services like but not limited to SIS built into it.

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Downtown View Post
    If the city has no intention of doing this, then they needs to stop lying to residents/stakeholders and playing the revitalization song and dance while green lighting non market units and services to be added. They need to assume a position of leadership and take on compensatory initiatives like waive taxes/other strategies to attract market or conventional services like they did to get 104 Street going.
    And here comes the true kernel of your argument. You're not concerned for anything but your own bottom line. It's not about those less fortunate, it's not about harm reduction, it's not about spending less in the long run on health care & social services, it's not about anything but the gentrification of the neighbourhood to your own profitable ends & how the ongoing attempts at mitigating a crisis are interfering with that.

    You want those most vulnerable to be rounded up, moved away & kept there so you can do as you please with the area you feel entitled to by further disenfranchising those who you consider barely worth consideration.

    Revolting.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  3. #103
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    YEG: Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, McCauley | YLW: Shannon Lake | PHX: San Tan Valley
    Posts
    807

    Default

    McCauley has a 63% concentration of non market units we have all the shelter beds in the city. People who live including myself do not want to get rid of these community members. I'm disgusted with you for assuming that.

    You are revolting for implying these people only deserve to live in a distressed community away from everyone else and keep them "contained" away from other opportunities, a change of scenery, the same drug dealers, pimps, and predatory individuals who have easy access to them within a few small blocks.

  4. #104
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Downtown View Post
    If the city has no intention of doing this, then they needs to stop lying to residents/stakeholders and playing the revitalization song and dance while green lighting non market units and services to be added. They need to assume a position of leadership and take on compensatory initiatives like waive taxes/other strategies to attract market or conventional services like they did to get 104 Street going.
    And here comes the true kernel of your argument. You're not concerned for anything but your own bottom line. It's not about those less fortunate, it's not about harm reduction, it's not about spending less in the long run on health care & social services, it's not about anything but the gentrification of the neighbourhood to your own profitable ends & how the ongoing attempts at mitigating a crisis are interfering with that.

    You want those most vulnerable to be rounded up, moved away & kept there so you can do as you please with the area you feel entitled to by further disenfranchising those who you consider barely worth consideration.

    Revolting.

    Your tone is consistently one of judge, jury and executioner. I am also impressed at how you are able to read other people's minds. It must be exhausting for you.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    They don't all have to be centralized within a couple blocks of each other like they are now.
    Bingo

  6. #106

    Default Calgary to announce one site

    Calgary will put theirs in the Sheldon Chumir Center, which is a small, quasi hospital, which services downtown residents. The neighborhood, while it has some poverty (downtown/belt line homeless), also has a number of high end condos - probably closer to Oliver, than Boyle in nature (Boyle equivalent would be forest law / 17 Ave SE, which is some distance from where the injection site will go).

    http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/officials-...gary-1.3458440



    Calgary, unlike Edmonton and Vancouver, has a long standing tradition of spreading social services around the city, they recently put social housing into (albeit controversially) a neighborhood where property values for single family homes are often over 1m (Crescent Heights) and they are taking that approach with other social housing projects. I think Edmonton would benefit from starting to do the same / give the Boyle community a bit of a break, even if it means standing up to NIMBY's in wealthy neighborhoods. An equivalent to that Crescent Heights social housing would be if City of Edmonton put some social housing where the old RAM is (I think Edmonton should, could repurpose some of that RAM stone for fašade and make something a lot nicer than the one below I think).

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ghts-1.4120708

    Last edited by moahunter; 14-06-2017 at 09:28 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •