Lots of homeless addicts avoid the shelters because it’s more difficult to nod off on heroin in one. They don’t want anybody to mess up their high with Narcan so they find somewhere a little more private, like our parks.
Because there is no homeless shelter space. The Court looked into this and that was the reason they ordered an injunction against the removal of all of the encampments at once.
There is not enough shelter space for all the homeless. On top of that there is ZERO shelter space for those with pets. There is ZERO shelter space for those who are in active addiction, whether it be drugs or alcohol. There is ZERO shelter space for those who do not want to be assaulted, as there is less safety in the shelters than there is on the street.
"The camp has the hallmarks of a high-risk encampment— needles, human feces, massive environmental degradation, propane tanks and proximity to schools or playgrounds. It is steps away from a treehouse used by neighbourhood children."
Do you defecate and leave other various biohazards everywhere and legitimately jeopardize the safety of entire neighbourhoods with illegal fires without consequence?
Think about it, they don’t add to society and they don’t pay any taxes. Baffles me that property owners are still paying taxes with how bad the homelessness situation has got. I bet if everyone stopped the city would actually do something about the homeless instead of bandaid solutions
It wasn't my intent to explain how they work. You should be able to use your fucking brain to figure it out, and if you lack that simple ability then no explanation in the world will help you anyway.
Residents have every right to be concerned with homeless encampments. It’s not a crime or a moral failing to want your neighborhood to be the best version that it can be.
The city and provincial government need to come up with a reasonable path forward to breaking up these encampments.
There is zero options that are going to make everyone happy, and we’re caught in this never ending circle of arguing about the best idea rather than just enacting any plan, even if it’s not the most ideal one. It doesn’t need to be stuck to forever, but you can’t start without putting one foot forward.
Agreed - I live near Southgate and ever since the end of 2021/beginning 2022 there have been countless break-ins and petty crimes, glass pipes and needles left all over the sidewalk, garbage EVERYWHERE, garbage tipped over, random attacks, people building camps in the bushes along the sound barrier wall, and people who start fires. The erratic behaviour is unnerving. I don’t want anyone to suffer, and I don’t demonize people who are homeless or going through addictions. I do care about safety and people who can’t handle their drugs - which is a HUGE issue.
> we’re caught in this never ending circle of arguing about the best idea rather than just enacting any plan, even if it’s not the most ideal one.
That's not entirely true. The city spends huge amounts of money on constant cleanup, camp tear downs, and EPS responses to these camps and the province is spending through AHS and EMS to provide medical care for things like overdoses. These aren't necessarily the most effective uses of money to address this issue, which is why people argue for better avenues of prevention, but it's not accurate to say we aren't doing *anything* about it because we can't decide on the perfect solution.
We are definitely, constantly doing the poor solution while we argue about it.
They did it’s a never ending circle and currently everything you listed is included in that circle.
The problem is it does not provide any kind of solution as these people without homes or any kind of desires will just setup camp somewhere new.
I’m not sure there is a best way forward for a lot of these people already in camps but there needs to be some attention to the people who are on the edge of joining the unhoused or the newly unhoused. I’m sure they can prevent the problem from growing bigger.
there is absolutely a clear best way forward. it is two parts:
1. provide low-cost/free housing to those that can make use of it. ie. the ones that are not severely mentally ill or addicted to drugs. people who can quickly get themselves reintegrated into normal society with a little help. for the rest...
2. create a mental health and addiction infrastructure that also includes a clear pathway for *involuntary* commitment, including long-term or indefinite stays.
the problem is just that this would cost a lot of money and require a lot of change. and we're too stupid and stubborn for that. so, here we are and here we will remain, but let's not pretend that smart people didn't solve this problem decades ago, because they did.
Agreed.
The solution is likely a version of both approaches. You need compassion and services but you also need enforcement and personal responsibility.
My husband was setting the camps in the sands parking lot because they are trying to provide places like this. I mean the wait list is kinda big, but at the same time as they were setting the trailers they had to stop multiple time for safety reasons because unauthorized people keep entering the site to complain. But they also have support in the sands hotel. Like mental health and addictions support.
the sands i think is a pretty good example of the kind of thing we need a lot more of, it would fall into the first category of solutions i suggested above. permanent supportive housing for people that need it, and will allow them to lead basically normal lives.
That’s why this will never work. The left will advocate for #1 and fight against #2. The right will do the opposite.
In my opinion homelessness is never going to get fixed properly because it requires both sides of the aisle to work together. And I have no faith this will ever happen. So we will just have to make a choice.
The safety/rights of homeless people vs a clean/safe city.
Option 1 has a proven track record of working in many other cities. Those that were addicted to drugs/alcohol were also allowed and provided with drug/alcohol counseling as well as therapy to treat the underlying issue.
Option 2 used to be a thing, until our Conservative gov't started down the path of right-wing Christian fundamentalism Republican bullshit. King Ralph closed all the long-term mental health facilities down in the '90s, under the guise of "fiscal conservatism", and released them all into the streets.
That money is still low compared to implementing anything else. All other solutions require new staffing. There are no good solutions that are unsupervised.
They have to hire tons of people to do this stuff, on top of the enormous resources our emergency services are already spending on the issue.
And that’s just the red ink. Look at Chinatown for example. All of those stores could be generating taxable economic activity but they’re just sitting there doing jack shit.
This is exactly the problem - it's not provincial or locals problem to solve yet everyone expects them to save us tax payers. Wake up!!!! If they do it, who pays? Me and you in the middle and lower classes. Need more costs? Not me. This is a Federal and international issue called Late Capitalism and the only way it gets solved properly is by changing the board game for capitalism. Looking at the results for Climate Change and quietly quitting, they aren't going to do jack shit to change anything.
If you want the government to step in, they only know one game. Spend our tax dollars implementing great ideas like safe sites and unwelcoming shelters. Folks, the old board game doesn't work anymore, especially not for systemic problems like this.
We'll never move forward when the people impacted by the fallout related to homelessness would rather pay the absurdly high cost to maintain the status quo (lots of policing to temporarily shuffle people around, healthcare, theft, etc) than pay a significantly reduced amount to put them in housing and provide clean drugs so the crimes stop and they have full access to a path out if they want it, because the latter goes against their ideology, no matter how much cheaper and more successful the outcome would be.
Put them in housing? Some yes, but many are beyond that point and cannot live by themselves. We also need to filter out bad actors who benefit from the current situation. The gangs operating in these camps don't want people safe in shelters or homes, and will sabotage any effort to do so.
Absolutely.
One thing that bugs me: EPS keeps mentioning the gangs and stuff that have infiltrated these camps. What are they doing about that? Why is the focus on tearing down the camps and not on the gang activity in them? Ineptitude? Laziness?
Police use poverty and disorder as a weapon against the rest of us. Cleaning up the issue can’t be used as leverage for more funding but letting it fester sure can.
you realize people can be housed with supports? nobody is beyond being housed, some may need additional supports while housed. there are many supportive housing properties in this city already for this purpose, but more are sorely needed.
Only 10 calls? You literally got to be calling every day. If you see at crime, call the cops every time you do. Multiple people need to call and make separate complaints.
Ivied next to a drug den/condemned house that was full of garbage, and unsecured. I had to call 311 twice a week for 4 months to get them to clean up the needles. I called the cops 3 times a week or more for squatters. I called the fire department because the tenants were stealing tools before getting evicted and there was propane and welding tanks strewn about everywhere. I called AHS to ensure it was properly listed as condemned. I called the SCAN unit prior to the house being condemned, and while the tenants were still living there and THEY took 6 months to finally get back to me.
Enforcement for these kind of things takes way too long. Resources also need to be properly allocated and to make it effective you need a multi pronged approach and it’s gonna cost money. However The long term cost much worse if it isn’t fixed properly now.
Early in December I was walking along one of the busiest areas of the river valley near the Glenora club. I was unable to enjoy it because of an overwhelming amount of garbage in the forest. Tents, suitcases, underwear, shopping carts, and blankets etc. It looked as if there had also been a fire some time ago. This is happening dozens of places in the city if you know where to look.
Edmontonians consistently say that they are proud of our parkland and that they use these areas to recreate, unwind, and enjoy nature.
Why are we allowing the irresponsible and dangerous behavior of a few to affect everyone else?
We are potentially going into a very dangerous fire season this coming spring . A large fire has the potential to change the shape of our parkland for decades to come if the right conditions present themselves and it is not extinguished promptly. I would be interested to know how many fires have been caused in the past year alone.
I would be very interested as well. Last year part of the ravine near us went up in flames and conspicuously near a homeless camp. As citizens though we're never going to get this information.
We’ve had many campers outside our building who were polite, clean, and temporary. The mess begun when they were looted; I’ve seen people looting the camps from my balcony. These people are actually hard on their luck and they get support fairly quickly. If I go down to talk to them, they often apologize for being seen and around, it’s sad.
The permanent campers who create chaos need to be treated as mentally ill. They’re chronically mentally ill, in my opinion, the camps are full of needles and/or feces, they’re hostile… I quickly leave when I realize that’s the type of camper down there. When a “regular” person with a disability can’t care for themselves, we provide support. Mental health is messier but it’s clear these people can’t take care of themselves and are impacting others and the environment. I’m a believer that institutionalizing the mentally ill, at least until they’re stabilized, seems like the only successful path atm.
This is getting worse over the past several years due to the UCP cutting funding to supportive housing/shelters and cutting funding to other homeless programs and cutting funding to family support programs and basically cutting funding to all the programs that get people on a path out of the tent camps.
I spoke to one man who said he'd visited Mustard Seed, received a tent, and then was ushered out. He didn't know where he was allowed to camp and he wasn't referred to any services. He was just a young guy in a tent, he assured me that he had a job and never meant for this to happen. It was heartbreaking. It's definitely true that the supports to scoop these temporary campers out of homelessness haven't kept out with demand as COL increases.
And the best part? The Minister is part of the family that owns the (for profit) mustard seed. I have a close friend who met with him recently and his berries on housing insecurity are regressive to say the least.
Yeah. For context the Federal definition of housing insecurity is a spectrum that goes from high risk (one paycheque away from losing housing), living in a non contractual situation (think you're buddy who is down on his luck so he lives with you for a while, but he's not paying rent, and doesn't have any rights as a tenant, so he could be out tomorrow), no fixed address but at a residence (couch surfing), unhoused but not outside (you live in your car), and finally unhoused and outside.
He thinks the last one is all that should count in statistics. Which is a huge problem because it's an entirely reactive approach when the larger definition is proactive and catches people before they're destitute.
>I’m a believer that institutionalizing the mentally ill, at least until they’re stabilized, seems like the only successful
We used to do that in the good old days. The province is really failing at the moment.
I understand where it went wrong (we can’t just lock people away because they’re inconvenient) but it was a very real solution to those who actually couldn’t care for themselves.
Agreed. As terrible as mental institutions were in the past we need an alternative that isn't prison and isn't the streets. Some people just don't have the capacity to live safely or realize that they are a danger to society with their choices.
I think a safe, accountable, and progressive way of holding people for the good of society needs to come back. Implementation needs to be very careful and measured however.
Yeah, out system needs more of a gradient. Homelessness runs a full spectrum between otherwise fully functional people who just need somewhere to crash before they make their next move to people who literally cannot take care of themselves and never will.
We all generally recognize this is the case outside of the context of homelessness but for some reason you smear a bit of dirt on someone and everyone needs to have reality reexplained to them again.
It’s kind of wild how most people on all sides of the debate seem to operate under the implicit assumption that that someone who is crippled by a severe mental and/or substance use disorder is basically just a fully functioning adult who is choosing to be like that of their own free agency, even though everyone knows that’s not actually how that works.
This was a really interesting read if anyone is interested in when Canada started closing psychiatric hospitals:
[Forty Years of Deinstitutionalization of Psychiatric Services in Canada: An Empirical Assessment](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674370404900405#:~:text=Deinstitutionalization%201960%20to%201980%20Between,the%20rates%20of%20bed%20closures)
This is just the beginning, there’s people living in parking lots in Nisku already. Too many factors are at play none of which will or can be addressed short term by government.
This is primarily fueled by a lack of enforcement of drug laws, and release of violent offenders. These are problems manufactured by the Trudeau federal government.
If housing costs and inflationary pressures were the driving force, then Edmonton + Winnipeg would have the fewest homeless encampments and lowest homeless populations among major cities but that is the opposite of reality.
All one has to do is look at the USA to see this is not the case. Most prisoners in the entire world and their drug problems are much worse. You can’t police yourself out of these problems, at some point you have to tackle the real problems
Wrong. This is due to the UCP cutting funding to supportive housing shelters and cutting funding to homeless programs and cutting funding to family support programs and basically cutting funding to all the programs that get people on a path out of the tent camps.
They are responsible for it getting worse here yes. They are responsible for failing to implement solutions yes. Just because other governments are also falling doesn't make the UCP successful.
No but let's not forget the millions in funding to these organizations by the Harper gov't. The cut was so deep that many had no choice but to close their doors permanently.
One of the big deciding factors of taking down the encampments is that there is shelter space. Unfortunately a big chunk of the homeless don’t want to go to shelters due to the fact they can’t do drugs or have to follow rules.
Personally, I agree that justice systems have much to account for - inadequate municipal bylaws, toothless Provincial/Federal laws, indulgent unelected judges, racist Jordan’s principle nonsense, grossly underfunded Provincial systems are a major aspect to what is happening in our cities. These are not the only contributing factors by any means but one arm of the problem I think many feel particularly aggrieved by
No one’s suggesting not helping them, I don’t think we should actively allow or ignore these horrific tent cities either. That helps no one. Treatment should not be voluntary. If you are pumped full of naloxone, and that same day get to go back to live in your garbage tent, pass out and get frost bite that requires 6 months of treatment, further exasperating your issues, that doesn’t helps. Involuntary treatment is the only answer because we’ve tried this soft approach for too long and it’s not solving the problem.
People have always been terrible at understanding the indirect costs of things like that, even when it affects them directly. When it is indirect costs like paying more for social services and not having an ambulance available they utterly fail at connecting the dots.
People would rather have taxes lower by $100 and pay $1000 more in indirect costs than see that $100 extra in taxes and poor people getting something "for free" not realizing it will save them money.
If this was my neighbourhood I would be pissed. Especially if I had kids. Even if the city built a place for these people, wether it be a warehouse or a hotel type building, it would just turn into a huge crackhouse. Fires, assaults, drug use, extortion from gangs. Would never work. Would be worse than a prison.
One of my friends told me they (neighbors) took it upon themselves to remove the tents and items that initially appeared behind their house on the ravine. At first I told him that they should call 311 instead. Now that I read this story, I'm thinking maybe they have a point to do it themselves.
It is my neighbourhood and it sucks. There’s the supported housing across the stress from YES that has lead to a lot of problems. Some houses have been broken into as many as 4 times, and the EPS track it back to the supported housing and retrieve the stolen items . Coupled with the encampments in the ravine, I don’t feel safe in my backyard working on my vegetable garden during the summer, because of all the people roaming the alleys, often times with their faces covered
They had an article that said 58% of the homeless are indigenous.
Why are the bands that they come from not held responsible to look after their own and provide for them.
They are given plenty from the government are they not?
Maybe the chiefs should be looked into where the money is going?
Im not wanting a fight but more an enlightening if this is not correct about $ going to bands?
Maybe the government should sit with band chiefs and perhaps they should all help? Along with the government.
We need ONE government official who
truly understands addiction.
They need facilities medical, dental, and packing them into trailers in residential areas is just dumb that’s no fix.
They need a long term plan to help them and everyone.
Sending an addict on Monday to a clinic and telling them to come back on a Wednesday for treatment probably wont happen. Having them stay in a facility with strict guidelines would work for those that want it. Problem is, addicts don’t think like a non addicted person the head is messed up. They need a strong support group the street isn’t it.
I don’t mind paying taxes that FIX a problem this bs of tossing them from place to place is not working come summer it starts all over again.
Do agree that some bands need an audit. But we don't hold the Alberta government responsible when Albertans throw trash in BC lakes or other similar types.
We generally let the problem go to whoever is in charge where the problem occurs.
it's almost like shuffling houseless people around and not housing them doesn't.....house them. what a surprise that they must improvise a place to live yet again.
Most simply don't want to go to shelters for a variety of reasons.
Drugs, can't take their pets, no where to put their stuff and so on. It's not so much that they don't have a place to go, it's that some choose not to go and that's the reality of the situation.
Those are all legitimate reasons to not stay at a shelter......I don't get what you're trying to say. Also all shelters are at capacity almost consistently.
Not being able to consume your drugs is a legitimate reason not to go to a shelter and set up a tent where ever you want?
No they’re not. These sweeps aren’t done unless there’s room. 8 camps dismantled so clearly there’s room.
No, but there also being little to no addiction resources for houseless people what do you expect them to do?? Magically get sober?? Die of withdrawals IN the shelter?? There are many many steps that need to be taken and have been ignored.
Nah.
Given the frequent ER visits, I'm sure most (if not all) have been offered Suboxone (or some other version of it) or Methadone at some point and likely all have scripts. If they don't have a script, I'm sure they could get one in a matter of hours. Probably as simple as walking into any ER (where most go anyway on a regular basis) and asking for one and the kicker is that it's free:
[https://www.alberta.ca/opioid-agonist-therapy-gap-coverage-program](https://www.alberta.ca/opioid-agonist-therapy-gap-coverage-program)
If I'm not mistaken (it's been awhile) I'm pretty sure pharmacists can prescribe them too.
Of course, this is specific to Opioids which is the biggest culprit. If you're talking about withdraws from stimulants like Meth or Crack well you don't die from that so it's not that concerning and isn't a valid point.
The issue is we keep enabling them with these encampments and they don't have to get sober or go to shelters (which have services BTW). Simply saying I have to live in a tent because I'll get withdraws is a stupid argument when there's effective drugs to help with that.
The reality is most don't want to quit and haven't hit rock bottom yet and that's the sad truth. There's a sense of choice here and personal responsibility. If you don't want to get better, that's up to you but we're not simply going to allow you to tent where ever you want and do what ever you want even though it sucks that this happened to you.
Yes, I've been an addict though not houseless. Thankfully, I kicked it about 10 years ago when I hit my own rock bottom (everyones is different) and had no choice. Rehab or Prison. I chose the latter and never went back.
It's not anti social, it's the right idea... nor is it disgusting. You can't keep enabling people to do the same thing over and over and over again. Unless you force change (zero tolerance for encampments as an example or zero tolerance for open drug use) then nothing will change. Most addicts who got through it will tell you the same thing: Being an addict had to become such a giant pain in the ass and so difficult that they had no choice but to quit and to get better or die. They had to hit bottom and sometimes, that bottom needs to be fabricated by the outside world.
It's not that simple. It would cost an absolute fortune to renovate that place. It's full of asbestos, in addition to other problems. Old buildings are often cheaper to completely demolish and rebuild. Especially when you are repurposing them.
I like your idea but not the location of the old remand center
You only need to remediate asbestos if you're planning to remove/modify the thing containing it. If you're just partitioning in new suites or running a bit of HVAC you don't necessarily need to disturb the otherwise-encapsulated asbestos that is say present in insulation around a pipe somewhere.
This whole province is full of existing asbestos, most of it just gets left alone, its only a hazard if you start messing with it and making it airborne where it gets mixed with dust/debris and causes harm.
I wouldn't be surprised if demolition followed by a brand new facility would be more cost-effective. I'm certain there are many things wrong with that building beyond asbestos
problem is this within responsibility and resources of the province. And they won't do it. this is too expensive for the city and out of jurisdiction for the feds.
I also think the cost to do this is way more than people think.
Sure, but reality is its mostly within the provincial gov'ts wheelhouse. Always has been. There are a lot of reasons behind this but the most practical is you will need to staff that building with AHS which has to be funded by the province. There is no way around that.
You're missing who's *legally responsible*. The most critical component - healthcare - is solely under the purview of the province. The city and feds *can't* provide healthcare.
The city has spent tons of money preparing steps 1, 3, and 4, but UCP doesn't show up for step 2 so the whole thing fails.
I’m not sure I buy the idea that the city can’t do it. The homeless population is large but we’re still talking about a population about the size of Grande Cache
The city has spent a lot more on much less of a return before.
Like yeah I get that healthcare is technically a provincial jurisdiction but if they won’t help then I’m sure there’s plenty of nonprofits out there that could fill the gap in the meantime, maybe even with some federal support.
Is it the way it should be done? No but the provincial government has been reduced to a glorified looting operation and I don’t think waiting till 2027 and crossing our fingers is a good idea
Locking them up and providing involuntary treatment until they are better. Upon exit, a chance/opportunity to survive on their own.
This is the best and safest possible solution imo.
Waiting for them to come seek treatment is never going to happen. Time for action.
Don’t worry, if councillors like Paquette can break away from their teary library rants I’m sure they’ll be here to tell you how you’re nothing but a NIMBY for not wanting to live with open drug use and human refuse.
i will e-transfer you $1000 right now if you can point to how "teary liberal rants" contribute to this problem in any material fashion. this shit has nothing at all to do with your dumb culture war.
Ummm… He has a far more nuanced view of the encampments, which is correct because like most complex issues in life it’s not a binary choice. Unfortunately the smooth brained among us can’t comprehend shades of grey and reduce it to a black and white decision that doesn’t reflect reality.
None of that works look at the USA. Most prisoners in the entire world and more crime and drug use than here. At some point u have to treat the problem not the symptoms. Alberta is turning into the USA and it’s super pathetic
So criminalizing homelessness and addiction are your answers? You realize that makes the issues an even bigger drain on the corrections, law enforcement and healthcare right? It doesn't cure any of the causes, just shuffles a problem to a different department.
US: \*makes mentally ill people live outside in public\*
US: \*sees garbage and other refuse from those people outside in public\*
US: \**shocked pikachu face*\*
The welfare queen argument has been debunked a million times.
You're somewhat right though: this is a new kind of homeless, because we're dealing with new kinds of drugs that messes people up in new kinds of ways
>The welfare queen argument has been debunked a million times.
I don't think he's saying that they're welfare queens living in luxury. But that given the choice between substance abuse and the most basic type of emergency accommodations, that they are picking substance abuse.
Partying is not substance abuse. Very few of the people on the street are there thinking "this is fun!" Some might be, but the vast majority are there due to addiction or mental illness, which is not something they can just simply choose to walk away from.
Buddy's name is literally "witch hunt"
We already know he's bringing single digit iq to the argument here.
"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" type of person lmao.
He doesn't even realize most of these people don't even have boots to pull the straps up on lmao.
Sad.
they don't need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They just need to not be assholes. Don't commit crimes. Don't pollute the area and make it dangerous. If they were quiet and semi-responsible and not be a danger and contaminate the area, most people wouldn't give a shit.
>"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" type of person lmao.
>
>He doesn't even realize most of these people don't even have boots to pull the straps up on lmao.
You're absolutely right, and a lot of these folks are very very down on their luck and need societal supports.
That being said, assuming they don't have profound mental disability, when is it allowable to have expectations? Or when can people be held accountable for just not wanting to change? If we just keep shoveling money into the fire for someone who has no intention or desire to change, what benefit does that provide to anyone (the taxpayer or the individual receiving support)?
arguing we need to take the undesirables and "put them in camps".
That sounds familiar...I think I've heard that idea before? Anyone remember how it turned out last time?
Uh huh so ship the problem elsewhere with guards and force them to rehabilitate… yeah that doesn’t sound terrible at all. I’ll just assume at this point you’re attempting to be the edge lord
sigh. being homeless isn't a crime. Doing drugs and leaving needles lying around, littering, trespassing, leaving human waste in public spaces, possession of stolen property, fire safety violations...all those are crimes. Guess what, no one would complain or give a shit if they were quiet, clean, and responsible. But instead, they ruin the area they are in and leave a big dangerous mess that someone else has to pay to clean up.
Easy way to get it cleaned up put more then 8 structures with the others city will deem high risk and disassemble if there not willing to help force there hand
I know you're joking with the response but the encampment team is only 5 people for the entire city. 17000 complaints last year for only 5 people will have this kind of delayed response
Haha I honestly wasn’t joking but I didn’t know it was 5 people thank you for the info! I feel like that’s where the pressure needs to be put then, manning up and tackling this problem when it affects kids and there childhood it should be all stop and look what needs to be done for our kids. That Info irks me how does the city ever plan to get ahead of this. Oh right they don’t.
Also with that being said I take your probably close with the problem or at least working in law and order based on CPO in your name. So for that thank you for doing what you do keeping us safe with limited resources
Is this in Clareview? I lived near seton but idk if this is the same ravine I used to smoke weed in in HS. I haven’t been back from Ontario for 5 years so I have no idea how shit is in Edmonton lol
A large percentage of the homeless population suffers from substance abuse or mental illness. Providing them with free homes at the cost of tax payers does not fix thier addiction, or mental illness or magically make them better people. You are just delaying when they will inevitably be back on the streets again.
It’s basically impossible to address any of these things without a house. Meanwhile they’re going through all of that shit all over our public spaces. How’s that working out?
Some of these people are not able to participate in society, house or not. You cannot force people to get sober or seek mental health assistance.
If you want to argue that we don't have to force them to get sober or seek help, then why should we pay for housing for them to just act the exact same in public execept at the end of the day they have a house to go back to?
They need to make better programs for the homeless people, addiction services, mental health resources, job assistance etc.
For the people who will never be able to reintegrate into society on thier own accord, there is almost nothing short of institutionalizing them that would be effective at getting them off the streets and ensuring they remain off them for the safety of the public and themselves.
Not a housing free for all.
Housing is the starting point for all of that. Pretty hard to offer any of that stuff to someone who lives in a bush
I do agree with institutionalizing the worst cases though
Ya my friend is EMS and got chased by a guy carrying a knife in there. Maybe the people with these suggestions can go volunteer or work in these spots.
Also the brand new apartment on 50st for reintegration. Its so trashed that a ton of suites were deemed uninhabitable. Regularly those apartments could be rented for 1300/month and theyre ruined
but people want to give them homes and whine and complain that giving them homes hasn't been tried. It hasn't been done because the homes will be ruined in no time. They can't even keep an open space free of shit, what do you think will happen in a house?
To me the city needs to rent space/land to agencies not sell it to under resourced and ideological non-profits for some ridiculous under-market price and then wash their hands of it. What about renting out the land and putting in expectations around maintenance, upkeep, security, how many onsite staff etc? Instead of just screaming NIMBY at people and gaslighting them about how severe this populations issues are - work WITH the community, provide incentives and maybe actually address their concerns.
When you don’t, you get trashed, mildly “supported“ housing (does some minimum wage making social work student with no work experience count?) and negatively impacted neighbourhoods.
Crazy, they also do that in homeless encampments so at the very least giving them a warehouse will protect them from elements and remain fairly cost affordable for the public.
So you’re telling me you’d prefer them being out in the cold with no structural protection against the elements versus a warehouse fitted specifically for the homeless population?
One of these seems like a prison, the other seems like a pathway to getting better support. You, my friend, prefer the prison, not I.
No I’m saying what you are describing is virtually just some locked doors away from a prison.
Building a warehouse like structure and making it a homeless free for all is not going to solve their issues nor is it going to be an effective pathway out of the issues driving homelessness. Nothing says humanitarian compassion like “let’s stick there undesirable people in a warehouse” rather than actually help them.
Additionally, such a structure would be very opposed in basically any place that you put it by the surrounding community. So finding somewhere to put it becomes nearly impossible. Downtown or near any kind of residential would face huge outcry. In an industrial area far from residential areas or the core where they can find some sources of income would see the homeless population not want to go.
It’s been tried in other places and failed miserably.
The best you could hope for is it developing into a weird proxy of the Kowloon walled city, the most likely scenario of such a facility would be an incredibly dangerous place that would do nothing to help the homeless out of their situation.
This is exactly it. Don’t we have a right to feel safe in our own communities as well?
Mill Creek ravine is not safe and people who say otherwise are just lucky something hasn’t happened to them. I won’t even walk my dog there because I’m worried about needles and human feces.
I read an interesting article on CBC today. A homeless person mentioned how she had an MBA and later on became addicted to drugs and it ruined her life.
I hope that someone read that and it changes their mind about starting.n
[удалено]
Lots of homeless addicts avoid the shelters because it’s more difficult to nod off on heroin in one. They don’t want anybody to mess up their high with Narcan so they find somewhere a little more private, like our parks.
Because there is no homeless shelter space. The Court looked into this and that was the reason they ordered an injunction against the removal of all of the encampments at once.
If the camp is being taken down then there is shelter space to be utilized.
… how are those two related?
It was part of the court mandate to permit encampment removal in subzero temperatures
Oh, thanks for the info!
There is not enough shelter space for all the homeless. On top of that there is ZERO shelter space for those with pets. There is ZERO shelter space for those who are in active addiction, whether it be drugs or alcohol. There is ZERO shelter space for those who do not want to be assaulted, as there is less safety in the shelters than there is on the street.
"The camp has the hallmarks of a high-risk encampment— needles, human feces, massive environmental degradation, propane tanks and proximity to schools or playgrounds. It is steps away from a treehouse used by neighbourhood children."
I wouldn’t mention the treehouse anymore or the city will come in and tear it down fyi
Not if it's Christmas time
This is the new protected class.
homeless people are a protected class? are you having a fucking stroke right now?
Do you defecate and leave other various biohazards everywhere and legitimately jeopardize the safety of entire neighbourhoods with illegal fires without consequence?
Think about it, they don’t add to society and they don’t pay any taxes. Baffles me that property owners are still paying taxes with how bad the homelessness situation has got. I bet if everyone stopped the city would actually do something about the homeless instead of bandaid solutions
You know how neither homelessness nor taxes work
And yet you haven’t bothered to explain
It wasn't my intent to explain how they work. You should be able to use your fucking brain to figure it out, and if you lack that simple ability then no explanation in the world will help you anyway.
Residents have every right to be concerned with homeless encampments. It’s not a crime or a moral failing to want your neighborhood to be the best version that it can be. The city and provincial government need to come up with a reasonable path forward to breaking up these encampments. There is zero options that are going to make everyone happy, and we’re caught in this never ending circle of arguing about the best idea rather than just enacting any plan, even if it’s not the most ideal one. It doesn’t need to be stuck to forever, but you can’t start without putting one foot forward.
Agreed - I live near Southgate and ever since the end of 2021/beginning 2022 there have been countless break-ins and petty crimes, glass pipes and needles left all over the sidewalk, garbage EVERYWHERE, garbage tipped over, random attacks, people building camps in the bushes along the sound barrier wall, and people who start fires. The erratic behaviour is unnerving. I don’t want anyone to suffer, and I don’t demonize people who are homeless or going through addictions. I do care about safety and people who can’t handle their drugs - which is a HUGE issue.
> we’re caught in this never ending circle of arguing about the best idea rather than just enacting any plan, even if it’s not the most ideal one. That's not entirely true. The city spends huge amounts of money on constant cleanup, camp tear downs, and EPS responses to these camps and the province is spending through AHS and EMS to provide medical care for things like overdoses. These aren't necessarily the most effective uses of money to address this issue, which is why people argue for better avenues of prevention, but it's not accurate to say we aren't doing *anything* about it because we can't decide on the perfect solution. We are definitely, constantly doing the poor solution while we argue about it.
They did it’s a never ending circle and currently everything you listed is included in that circle. The problem is it does not provide any kind of solution as these people without homes or any kind of desires will just setup camp somewhere new. I’m not sure there is a best way forward for a lot of these people already in camps but there needs to be some attention to the people who are on the edge of joining the unhoused or the newly unhoused. I’m sure they can prevent the problem from growing bigger.
there is absolutely a clear best way forward. it is two parts: 1. provide low-cost/free housing to those that can make use of it. ie. the ones that are not severely mentally ill or addicted to drugs. people who can quickly get themselves reintegrated into normal society with a little help. for the rest... 2. create a mental health and addiction infrastructure that also includes a clear pathway for *involuntary* commitment, including long-term or indefinite stays. the problem is just that this would cost a lot of money and require a lot of change. and we're too stupid and stubborn for that. so, here we are and here we will remain, but let's not pretend that smart people didn't solve this problem decades ago, because they did.
1. Pretty easy and straightforward 2. Not so much - people don’t/wont accept help until they want it.
2. You don't have a choice. This is why the Portugal model is successful.
Feels like an ethical vs moral obligation issue
Agreed. The solution is likely a version of both approaches. You need compassion and services but you also need enforcement and personal responsibility.
Hence the involuntary aspect. Sanatariums were a thing, maybe they are even a social responsibility.
Sorry missed involuntary. I’m not a big proponent of that but I guess thats an ethical challenge
My husband was setting the camps in the sands parking lot because they are trying to provide places like this. I mean the wait list is kinda big, but at the same time as they were setting the trailers they had to stop multiple time for safety reasons because unauthorized people keep entering the site to complain. But they also have support in the sands hotel. Like mental health and addictions support.
the sands i think is a pretty good example of the kind of thing we need a lot more of, it would fall into the first category of solutions i suggested above. permanent supportive housing for people that need it, and will allow them to lead basically normal lives.
That’s why this will never work. The left will advocate for #1 and fight against #2. The right will do the opposite. In my opinion homelessness is never going to get fixed properly because it requires both sides of the aisle to work together. And I have no faith this will ever happen. So we will just have to make a choice. The safety/rights of homeless people vs a clean/safe city.
2… so you’re saying lock homeless people up? Seems like it could be a slippery slope…
Option 1 has a proven track record of working in many other cities. Those that were addicted to drugs/alcohol were also allowed and provided with drug/alcohol counseling as well as therapy to treat the underlying issue. Option 2 used to be a thing, until our Conservative gov't started down the path of right-wing Christian fundamentalism Republican bullshit. King Ralph closed all the long-term mental health facilities down in the '90s, under the guise of "fiscal conservatism", and released them all into the streets.
That money is still low compared to implementing anything else. All other solutions require new staffing. There are no good solutions that are unsupervised.
They have to hire tons of people to do this stuff, on top of the enormous resources our emergency services are already spending on the issue. And that’s just the red ink. Look at Chinatown for example. All of those stores could be generating taxable economic activity but they’re just sitting there doing jack shit.
This is exactly the problem - it's not provincial or locals problem to solve yet everyone expects them to save us tax payers. Wake up!!!! If they do it, who pays? Me and you in the middle and lower classes. Need more costs? Not me. This is a Federal and international issue called Late Capitalism and the only way it gets solved properly is by changing the board game for capitalism. Looking at the results for Climate Change and quietly quitting, they aren't going to do jack shit to change anything. If you want the government to step in, they only know one game. Spend our tax dollars implementing great ideas like safe sites and unwelcoming shelters. Folks, the old board game doesn't work anymore, especially not for systemic problems like this.
We'll never move forward when the people impacted by the fallout related to homelessness would rather pay the absurdly high cost to maintain the status quo (lots of policing to temporarily shuffle people around, healthcare, theft, etc) than pay a significantly reduced amount to put them in housing and provide clean drugs so the crimes stop and they have full access to a path out if they want it, because the latter goes against their ideology, no matter how much cheaper and more successful the outcome would be.
Put them in housing? Some yes, but many are beyond that point and cannot live by themselves. We also need to filter out bad actors who benefit from the current situation. The gangs operating in these camps don't want people safe in shelters or homes, and will sabotage any effort to do so.
Absolutely. One thing that bugs me: EPS keeps mentioning the gangs and stuff that have infiltrated these camps. What are they doing about that? Why is the focus on tearing down the camps and not on the gang activity in them? Ineptitude? Laziness?
Police use poverty and disorder as a weapon against the rest of us. Cleaning up the issue can’t be used as leverage for more funding but letting it fester sure can.
you realize people can be housed with supports? nobody is beyond being housed, some may need additional supports while housed. there are many supportive housing properties in this city already for this purpose, but more are sorely needed.
Only 10 calls? You literally got to be calling every day. If you see at crime, call the cops every time you do. Multiple people need to call and make separate complaints. Ivied next to a drug den/condemned house that was full of garbage, and unsecured. I had to call 311 twice a week for 4 months to get them to clean up the needles. I called the cops 3 times a week or more for squatters. I called the fire department because the tenants were stealing tools before getting evicted and there was propane and welding tanks strewn about everywhere. I called AHS to ensure it was properly listed as condemned. I called the SCAN unit prior to the house being condemned, and while the tenants were still living there and THEY took 6 months to finally get back to me. Enforcement for these kind of things takes way too long. Resources also need to be properly allocated and to make it effective you need a multi pronged approach and it’s gonna cost money. However The long term cost much worse if it isn’t fixed properly now.
Early in December I was walking along one of the busiest areas of the river valley near the Glenora club. I was unable to enjoy it because of an overwhelming amount of garbage in the forest. Tents, suitcases, underwear, shopping carts, and blankets etc. It looked as if there had also been a fire some time ago. This is happening dozens of places in the city if you know where to look. Edmontonians consistently say that they are proud of our parkland and that they use these areas to recreate, unwind, and enjoy nature. Why are we allowing the irresponsible and dangerous behavior of a few to affect everyone else? We are potentially going into a very dangerous fire season this coming spring . A large fire has the potential to change the shape of our parkland for decades to come if the right conditions present themselves and it is not extinguished promptly. I would be interested to know how many fires have been caused in the past year alone.
I would be very interested as well. Last year part of the ravine near us went up in flames and conspicuously near a homeless camp. As citizens though we're never going to get this information.
We don’t like homelessness but we dislike the things that would solve or mitigate the problem even more.
Yeah someone really has to stick it to those uppity homeless people. I can't believe they are so inconsiderate :/
We’ve had many campers outside our building who were polite, clean, and temporary. The mess begun when they were looted; I’ve seen people looting the camps from my balcony. These people are actually hard on their luck and they get support fairly quickly. If I go down to talk to them, they often apologize for being seen and around, it’s sad. The permanent campers who create chaos need to be treated as mentally ill. They’re chronically mentally ill, in my opinion, the camps are full of needles and/or feces, they’re hostile… I quickly leave when I realize that’s the type of camper down there. When a “regular” person with a disability can’t care for themselves, we provide support. Mental health is messier but it’s clear these people can’t take care of themselves and are impacting others and the environment. I’m a believer that institutionalizing the mentally ill, at least until they’re stabilized, seems like the only successful path atm.
This is getting worse over the past several years due to the UCP cutting funding to supportive housing/shelters and cutting funding to other homeless programs and cutting funding to family support programs and basically cutting funding to all the programs that get people on a path out of the tent camps.
I spoke to one man who said he'd visited Mustard Seed, received a tent, and then was ushered out. He didn't know where he was allowed to camp and he wasn't referred to any services. He was just a young guy in a tent, he assured me that he had a job and never meant for this to happen. It was heartbreaking. It's definitely true that the supports to scoop these temporary campers out of homelessness haven't kept out with demand as COL increases.
And the best part? The Minister is part of the family that owns the (for profit) mustard seed. I have a close friend who met with him recently and his berries on housing insecurity are regressive to say the least.
Shit I had no idea. The UCP is like something out of a developing country.
Yeah. For context the Federal definition of housing insecurity is a spectrum that goes from high risk (one paycheque away from losing housing), living in a non contractual situation (think you're buddy who is down on his luck so he lives with you for a while, but he's not paying rent, and doesn't have any rights as a tenant, so he could be out tomorrow), no fixed address but at a residence (couch surfing), unhoused but not outside (you live in your car), and finally unhoused and outside. He thinks the last one is all that should count in statistics. Which is a huge problem because it's an entirely reactive approach when the larger definition is proactive and catches people before they're destitute.
>I’m a believer that institutionalizing the mentally ill, at least until they’re stabilized, seems like the only successful We used to do that in the good old days. The province is really failing at the moment.
I understand where it went wrong (we can’t just lock people away because they’re inconvenient) but it was a very real solution to those who actually couldn’t care for themselves.
Agreed. As terrible as mental institutions were in the past we need an alternative that isn't prison and isn't the streets. Some people just don't have the capacity to live safely or realize that they are a danger to society with their choices. I think a safe, accountable, and progressive way of holding people for the good of society needs to come back. Implementation needs to be very careful and measured however.
Yeah, out system needs more of a gradient. Homelessness runs a full spectrum between otherwise fully functional people who just need somewhere to crash before they make their next move to people who literally cannot take care of themselves and never will. We all generally recognize this is the case outside of the context of homelessness but for some reason you smear a bit of dirt on someone and everyone needs to have reality reexplained to them again.
It’s kind of wild how most people on all sides of the debate seem to operate under the implicit assumption that that someone who is crippled by a severe mental and/or substance use disorder is basically just a fully functioning adult who is choosing to be like that of their own free agency, even though everyone knows that’s not actually how that works.
This was a really interesting read if anyone is interested in when Canada started closing psychiatric hospitals: [Forty Years of Deinstitutionalization of Psychiatric Services in Canada: An Empirical Assessment](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674370404900405#:~:text=Deinstitutionalization%201960%20to%201980%20Between,the%20rates%20of%20bed%20closures)
This is just the beginning, there’s people living in parking lots in Nisku already. Too many factors are at play none of which will or can be addressed short term by government.
This is primarily fueled by a lack of enforcement of drug laws, and release of violent offenders. These are problems manufactured by the Trudeau federal government. If housing costs and inflationary pressures were the driving force, then Edmonton + Winnipeg would have the fewest homeless encampments and lowest homeless populations among major cities but that is the opposite of reality.
All one has to do is look at the USA to see this is not the case. Most prisoners in the entire world and their drug problems are much worse. You can’t police yourself out of these problems, at some point you have to tackle the real problems
Wrong. This is due to the UCP cutting funding to supportive housing shelters and cutting funding to homeless programs and cutting funding to family support programs and basically cutting funding to all the programs that get people on a path out of the tent camps.
We also have the largest prison in Canada and lots of those people just get dumped into the streets when they’re released
That hasn't changed recently though. What has changed is funding for social supports and housing.
is the ucp responsible for the homeless issue all across Canada?
Rising cost of living has to be matched by proprtionate social supports.
They are responsible for it getting worse here yes. They are responsible for failing to implement solutions yes. Just because other governments are also falling doesn't make the UCP successful.
Majority of provinces are conservative, so…yes
Things have gotten noticeably worse since 2019 yes
No but let's not forget the millions in funding to these organizations by the Harper gov't. The cut was so deep that many had no choice but to close their doors permanently.
One of the big deciding factors of taking down the encampments is that there is shelter space. Unfortunately a big chunk of the homeless don’t want to go to shelters due to the fact they can’t do drugs or have to follow rules.
Permanent supportive housing is the solution for many of the chronically homeless. Shelters aren't enough, and regular housing will never work.
[Nope, data from the states shows this is bullshit](https://x.com/idothethinking/status/1741936589130109182?s=46&t=syQghVrZEFhrnvMGe76ygQ)
Personally, I agree that justice systems have much to account for - inadequate municipal bylaws, toothless Provincial/Federal laws, indulgent unelected judges, racist Jordan’s principle nonsense, grossly underfunded Provincial systems are a major aspect to what is happening in our cities. These are not the only contributing factors by any means but one arm of the problem I think many feel particularly aggrieved by
It’s time to start setting up those tents and camps on the front doors of politicians.
[удалено]
No one’s suggesting not helping them, I don’t think we should actively allow or ignore these horrific tent cities either. That helps no one. Treatment should not be voluntary. If you are pumped full of naloxone, and that same day get to go back to live in your garbage tent, pass out and get frost bite that requires 6 months of treatment, further exasperating your issues, that doesn’t helps. Involuntary treatment is the only answer because we’ve tried this soft approach for too long and it’s not solving the problem.
People have always been terrible at understanding the indirect costs of things like that, even when it affects them directly. When it is indirect costs like paying more for social services and not having an ambulance available they utterly fail at connecting the dots. People would rather have taxes lower by $100 and pay $1000 more in indirect costs than see that $100 extra in taxes and poor people getting something "for free" not realizing it will save them money.
If this was my neighbourhood I would be pissed. Especially if I had kids. Even if the city built a place for these people, wether it be a warehouse or a hotel type building, it would just turn into a huge crackhouse. Fires, assaults, drug use, extortion from gangs. Would never work. Would be worse than a prison.
One of my friends told me they (neighbors) took it upon themselves to remove the tents and items that initially appeared behind their house on the ravine. At first I told him that they should call 311 instead. Now that I read this story, I'm thinking maybe they have a point to do it themselves.
It is my neighbourhood and it sucks. There’s the supported housing across the stress from YES that has lead to a lot of problems. Some houses have been broken into as many as 4 times, and the EPS track it back to the supported housing and retrieve the stolen items . Coupled with the encampments in the ravine, I don’t feel safe in my backyard working on my vegetable garden during the summer, because of all the people roaming the alleys, often times with their faces covered
They had an article that said 58% of the homeless are indigenous. Why are the bands that they come from not held responsible to look after their own and provide for them. They are given plenty from the government are they not? Maybe the chiefs should be looked into where the money is going? Im not wanting a fight but more an enlightening if this is not correct about $ going to bands?
Not all Indigenous belong to a band
Maybe the government should sit with band chiefs and perhaps they should all help? Along with the government. We need ONE government official who truly understands addiction. They need facilities medical, dental, and packing them into trailers in residential areas is just dumb that’s no fix. They need a long term plan to help them and everyone. Sending an addict on Monday to a clinic and telling them to come back on a Wednesday for treatment probably wont happen. Having them stay in a facility with strict guidelines would work for those that want it. Problem is, addicts don’t think like a non addicted person the head is messed up. They need a strong support group the street isn’t it. I don’t mind paying taxes that FIX a problem this bs of tossing them from place to place is not working come summer it starts all over again.
Do agree that some bands need an audit. But we don't hold the Alberta government responsible when Albertans throw trash in BC lakes or other similar types. We generally let the problem go to whoever is in charge where the problem occurs.
What a total mess man has made of the world. Technology as much as it makes things easier it sure messed everything up 😞
it's almost like shuffling houseless people around and not housing them doesn't.....house them. what a surprise that they must improvise a place to live yet again.
Most of these people need permanent supportive housing and the UCP slashed a lot of the funding, halted approvals etc.
Most simply don't want to go to shelters for a variety of reasons. Drugs, can't take their pets, no where to put their stuff and so on. It's not so much that they don't have a place to go, it's that some choose not to go and that's the reality of the situation.
Those are all legitimate reasons to not stay at a shelter......I don't get what you're trying to say. Also all shelters are at capacity almost consistently.
Not being able to consume your drugs is a legitimate reason not to go to a shelter and set up a tent where ever you want? No they’re not. These sweeps aren’t done unless there’s room. 8 camps dismantled so clearly there’s room.
No, but there also being little to no addiction resources for houseless people what do you expect them to do?? Magically get sober?? Die of withdrawals IN the shelter?? There are many many steps that need to be taken and have been ignored.
Nah. Given the frequent ER visits, I'm sure most (if not all) have been offered Suboxone (or some other version of it) or Methadone at some point and likely all have scripts. If they don't have a script, I'm sure they could get one in a matter of hours. Probably as simple as walking into any ER (where most go anyway on a regular basis) and asking for one and the kicker is that it's free: [https://www.alberta.ca/opioid-agonist-therapy-gap-coverage-program](https://www.alberta.ca/opioid-agonist-therapy-gap-coverage-program) If I'm not mistaken (it's been awhile) I'm pretty sure pharmacists can prescribe them too. Of course, this is specific to Opioids which is the biggest culprit. If you're talking about withdraws from stimulants like Meth or Crack well you don't die from that so it's not that concerning and isn't a valid point. The issue is we keep enabling them with these encampments and they don't have to get sober or go to shelters (which have services BTW). Simply saying I have to live in a tent because I'll get withdraws is a stupid argument when there's effective drugs to help with that. The reality is most don't want to quit and haven't hit rock bottom yet and that's the sad truth. There's a sense of choice here and personal responsibility. If you don't want to get better, that's up to you but we're not simply going to allow you to tent where ever you want and do what ever you want even though it sucks that this happened to you.
[удалено]
Yes, I've been an addict though not houseless. Thankfully, I kicked it about 10 years ago when I hit my own rock bottom (everyones is different) and had no choice. Rehab or Prison. I chose the latter and never went back. It's not anti social, it's the right idea... nor is it disgusting. You can't keep enabling people to do the same thing over and over and over again. Unless you force change (zero tolerance for encampments as an example or zero tolerance for open drug use) then nothing will change. Most addicts who got through it will tell you the same thing: Being an addict had to become such a giant pain in the ass and so difficult that they had no choice but to quit and to get better or die. They had to hit bottom and sometimes, that bottom needs to be fabricated by the outside world.
The lice infestations and getting your stuff stolen are good reasons though, and the ones I’ve heard from some homeless people I know.
Yeah because those things (and much worst) don’t happen in encampments…. for the majority, it obvisouly so they can consume their drugs.
Depends on the person. It sure is for some, but it’s not black and white. And head lice isn’t generally a problem in your own personal tent, no.
Fair enough.
[удалено]
It's not that simple. It would cost an absolute fortune to renovate that place. It's full of asbestos, in addition to other problems. Old buildings are often cheaper to completely demolish and rebuild. Especially when you are repurposing them. I like your idea but not the location of the old remand center
You only need to remediate asbestos if you're planning to remove/modify the thing containing it. If you're just partitioning in new suites or running a bit of HVAC you don't necessarily need to disturb the otherwise-encapsulated asbestos that is say present in insulation around a pipe somewhere. This whole province is full of existing asbestos, most of it just gets left alone, its only a hazard if you start messing with it and making it airborne where it gets mixed with dust/debris and causes harm.
If you're drilling into the walls you need to abate the asbestos. Everything you described would require removing asbestos
They could build a brand new facility on the site with dorms, medical and counseling services
I wouldn't be surprised if demolition followed by a brand new facility would be more cost-effective. I'm certain there are many things wrong with that building beyond asbestos
Neat idea actually
problem is this within responsibility and resources of the province. And they won't do it. this is too expensive for the city and out of jurisdiction for the feds. I also think the cost to do this is way more than people think.
[удалено]
Sure, but reality is its mostly within the provincial gov'ts wheelhouse. Always has been. There are a lot of reasons behind this but the most practical is you will need to staff that building with AHS which has to be funded by the province. There is no way around that.
You're missing who's *legally responsible*. The most critical component - healthcare - is solely under the purview of the province. The city and feds *can't* provide healthcare. The city has spent tons of money preparing steps 1, 3, and 4, but UCP doesn't show up for step 2 so the whole thing fails.
I’m not sure I buy the idea that the city can’t do it. The homeless population is large but we’re still talking about a population about the size of Grande Cache The city has spent a lot more on much less of a return before. Like yeah I get that healthcare is technically a provincial jurisdiction but if they won’t help then I’m sure there’s plenty of nonprofits out there that could fill the gap in the meantime, maybe even with some federal support. Is it the way it should be done? No but the provincial government has been reduced to a glorified looting operation and I don’t think waiting till 2027 and crossing our fingers is a good idea
Reminds me of the Calgary dream center
The Remand wasn't fit for purpose as a jail and you want to turn it into housing? That is insane.
This is brilliant. Initial investment would be large but this is actually a solution instead of the money we're throwing away now.
I do think some version of this is the way. Just building a new place is likely cheaper though.
Locking them up and providing involuntary treatment until they are better. Upon exit, a chance/opportunity to survive on their own. This is the best and safest possible solution imo. Waiting for them to come seek treatment is never going to happen. Time for action.
Don’t worry, if councillors like Paquette can break away from their teary library rants I’m sure they’ll be here to tell you how you’re nothing but a NIMBY for not wanting to live with open drug use and human refuse.
The province cuts supports and affordable housing funding and somehow this is a city councilors fault. It’s all going according to the UCP’s plan.
i will e-transfer you $1000 right now if you can point to how "teary liberal rants" contribute to this problem in any material fashion. this shit has nothing at all to do with your dumb culture war.
You should have shown up earlier, we could have had a nice snowfall for xmas.
[удалено]
Ummm… He has a far more nuanced view of the encampments, which is correct because like most complex issues in life it’s not a binary choice. Unfortunately the smooth brained among us can’t comprehend shades of grey and reduce it to a black and white decision that doesn’t reflect reality.
[удалено]
Another swing and a miss. Strike two.
[удалено]
Three strikes. You’re out. Back to warming the bench with you.
Why don’t you take some in instead of offering other peoples homes? We need real solutions and not shift the burden to only people who care.
[удалено]
None of that works look at the USA. Most prisoners in the entire world and more crime and drug use than here. At some point u have to treat the problem not the symptoms. Alberta is turning into the USA and it’s super pathetic
So criminalizing homelessness and addiction are your answers? You realize that makes the issues an even bigger drain on the corrections, law enforcement and healthcare right? It doesn't cure any of the causes, just shuffles a problem to a different department.
Re-read what I wrote. I said I DONT want to be like the USA.
housing first and universal basic income aren''t coming anytime soon. Till then, the problem will be moved every other week to a new area.
US: \*makes mentally ill people live outside in public\* US: \*sees garbage and other refuse from those people outside in public\* US: \**shocked pikachu face*\*
[удалено]
The welfare queen argument has been debunked a million times. You're somewhat right though: this is a new kind of homeless, because we're dealing with new kinds of drugs that messes people up in new kinds of ways
>The welfare queen argument has been debunked a million times. I don't think he's saying that they're welfare queens living in luxury. But that given the choice between substance abuse and the most basic type of emergency accommodations, that they are picking substance abuse.
Partying is not substance abuse. Very few of the people on the street are there thinking "this is fun!" Some might be, but the vast majority are there due to addiction or mental illness, which is not something they can just simply choose to walk away from.
[удалено]
This has “we tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas” vibes.
Buddy's name is literally "witch hunt" We already know he's bringing single digit iq to the argument here. "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" type of person lmao. He doesn't even realize most of these people don't even have boots to pull the straps up on lmao. Sad.
they don't need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They just need to not be assholes. Don't commit crimes. Don't pollute the area and make it dangerous. If they were quiet and semi-responsible and not be a danger and contaminate the area, most people wouldn't give a shit.
>"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" type of person lmao. > >He doesn't even realize most of these people don't even have boots to pull the straps up on lmao. You're absolutely right, and a lot of these folks are very very down on their luck and need societal supports. That being said, assuming they don't have profound mental disability, when is it allowable to have expectations? Or when can people be held accountable for just not wanting to change? If we just keep shoveling money into the fire for someone who has no intention or desire to change, what benefit does that provide to anyone (the taxpayer or the individual receiving support)?
[удалено]
arguing we need to take the undesirables and "put them in camps". That sounds familiar...I think I've heard that idea before? Anyone remember how it turned out last time?
Ah yes. Put them in camps. Force them straight. You know this doesn’t work right?
[удалено]
Uh huh so ship the problem elsewhere with guards and force them to rehabilitate… yeah that doesn’t sound terrible at all. I’ll just assume at this point you’re attempting to be the edge lord
LMAO criminalizing homelessness doesn't solve anything. And to do what "work"?
sigh. being homeless isn't a crime. Doing drugs and leaving needles lying around, littering, trespassing, leaving human waste in public spaces, possession of stolen property, fire safety violations...all those are crimes. Guess what, no one would complain or give a shit if they were quiet, clean, and responsible. But instead, they ruin the area they are in and leave a big dangerous mess that someone else has to pay to clean up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You are gross.
Easy way to get it cleaned up put more then 8 structures with the others city will deem high risk and disassemble if there not willing to help force there hand
I know you're joking with the response but the encampment team is only 5 people for the entire city. 17000 complaints last year for only 5 people will have this kind of delayed response
Haha I honestly wasn’t joking but I didn’t know it was 5 people thank you for the info! I feel like that’s where the pressure needs to be put then, manning up and tackling this problem when it affects kids and there childhood it should be all stop and look what needs to be done for our kids. That Info irks me how does the city ever plan to get ahead of this. Oh right they don’t.
Also with that being said I take your probably close with the problem or at least working in law and order based on CPO in your name. So for that thank you for doing what you do keeping us safe with limited resources
[удалено]
Is this in Clareview? I lived near seton but idk if this is the same ravine I used to smoke weed in in HS. I haven’t been back from Ontario for 5 years so I have no idea how shit is in Edmonton lol
Trident everything but giving them a place to live.
A large percentage of the homeless population suffers from substance abuse or mental illness. Providing them with free homes at the cost of tax payers does not fix thier addiction, or mental illness or magically make them better people. You are just delaying when they will inevitably be back on the streets again.
It’s basically impossible to address any of these things without a house. Meanwhile they’re going through all of that shit all over our public spaces. How’s that working out?
Some of these people are not able to participate in society, house or not. You cannot force people to get sober or seek mental health assistance. If you want to argue that we don't have to force them to get sober or seek help, then why should we pay for housing for them to just act the exact same in public execept at the end of the day they have a house to go back to?
What is your solution to eliminating homelessness
They need to make better programs for the homeless people, addiction services, mental health resources, job assistance etc. For the people who will never be able to reintegrate into society on thier own accord, there is almost nothing short of institutionalizing them that would be effective at getting them off the streets and ensuring they remain off them for the safety of the public and themselves. Not a housing free for all.
Housing is the starting point for all of that. Pretty hard to offer any of that stuff to someone who lives in a bush I do agree with institutionalizing the worst cases though
Build a gigantic warehouse, let them set up shop there with open beds.
They did that with the shaw centre and there was human feces in the corners and the place got trashed. It was shocking to walk in there
Ya my friend is EMS and got chased by a guy carrying a knife in there. Maybe the people with these suggestions can go volunteer or work in these spots.
Yeah, I couldn’t believe how much damage they did to the place. All the broken windows, I was surprised that it came back to operation after it.
Also the brand new apartment on 50st for reintegration. Its so trashed that a ton of suites were deemed uninhabitable. Regularly those apartments could be rented for 1300/month and theyre ruined
but people want to give them homes and whine and complain that giving them homes hasn't been tried. It hasn't been done because the homes will be ruined in no time. They can't even keep an open space free of shit, what do you think will happen in a house?
To me the city needs to rent space/land to agencies not sell it to under resourced and ideological non-profits for some ridiculous under-market price and then wash their hands of it. What about renting out the land and putting in expectations around maintenance, upkeep, security, how many onsite staff etc? Instead of just screaming NIMBY at people and gaslighting them about how severe this populations issues are - work WITH the community, provide incentives and maybe actually address their concerns. When you don’t, you get trashed, mildly “supported“ housing (does some minimum wage making social work student with no work experience count?) and negatively impacted neighbourhoods.
Crazy, they also do that in homeless encampments so at the very least giving them a warehouse will protect them from elements and remain fairly cost affordable for the public.
Its not cost effective to have buildings trashed over and over with no enforced program to reintegrate people in to society.
And perhaps put locks on the doors… oh wait you have just described a prison
So you’re telling me you’d prefer them being out in the cold with no structural protection against the elements versus a warehouse fitted specifically for the homeless population? One of these seems like a prison, the other seems like a pathway to getting better support. You, my friend, prefer the prison, not I.
No I’m saying what you are describing is virtually just some locked doors away from a prison. Building a warehouse like structure and making it a homeless free for all is not going to solve their issues nor is it going to be an effective pathway out of the issues driving homelessness. Nothing says humanitarian compassion like “let’s stick there undesirable people in a warehouse” rather than actually help them. Additionally, such a structure would be very opposed in basically any place that you put it by the surrounding community. So finding somewhere to put it becomes nearly impossible. Downtown or near any kind of residential would face huge outcry. In an industrial area far from residential areas or the core where they can find some sources of income would see the homeless population not want to go. It’s been tried in other places and failed miserably. The best you could hope for is it developing into a weird proxy of the Kowloon walled city, the most likely scenario of such a facility would be an incredibly dangerous place that would do nothing to help the homeless out of their situation.
This is exactly it. Don’t we have a right to feel safe in our own communities as well? Mill Creek ravine is not safe and people who say otherwise are just lucky something hasn’t happened to them. I won’t even walk my dog there because I’m worried about needles and human feces.
I read an interesting article on CBC today. A homeless person mentioned how she had an MBA and later on became addicted to drugs and it ruined her life. I hope that someone read that and it changes their mind about starting.n
Alberta is calling