There was a recent discussion on Reddit in reference to increased security downtown where people were saying that Barlow and Franklin station have suddenly become a lot worse.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MrPeach
- Start date
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Makes sense. I'm only asking because I see this stuff all over the city now when it used to be confined to inner city areas.
gleitch5
New Member
If you are still considering this building I would avoid it at all costs. Besides the homeless issue the building constantly has problems. There was a flood in October that affected 53 units and repairs still haven't been completed. They wont be repairing my unit until June and for the repairs to be completed they require tenants to move out for 2 months and take all belongings with them. Luckily my lease ended this month. Management is terrible and there are constant problems with the building (since the major flood there have been 2 minor floods on my floor and the garage door will sometimes break down leaving tenants stranded).
MichaelS
Senior Member
Which building?
TysonR
New Member
This isn't Calgary related, but sort of related to some of the issues we are seeing. Downtowns of other North American cities are experiencing the same issues, and like Calgary, the issues have ramped up noticeably since covid. This article is from SF.
sfstandard.com
Nordstrom is Closing Downtown SF Stores, Citing Difficult Conditions
The planned closures end the company's 35-year presence in the city.
sfstandard.com
From what I've seen it's the same issue in Edmonton, Vancouver and Ottawa, and from what I've read just about all cities, big and small. Covid made things more visible, but the reason for the higher profile still comes down to drugs. Opioid issues has made drug problems that were bad, even worse.This isn't Calgary related, but sort of related to some of the issues we are seeing. Downtowns of other North American cities are experiencing the same issues, and like Calgary, the issues have ramped up noticeably since covid. This article is from SF.
Nordstrom is Closing Downtown SF Stores, Citing Difficult Conditions
The planned closures end the company's 35-year presence in the city.
darwink
Senior Member
Yeah. When I see a complaint about that this is the result of a government policy, the counter that it is everywhere. We just hear about it in big cities more because that is where media is based.
DougB
Active Member
Some cities are worse than others due to government policy. I live in Austin, which has a far worse homeless and open drug use problems than do San Antonio or Dallas. Part of that is due to Austin being by far the most expensive city in the southwest, part is the hands off approach of the local government. In Dallas, the police will act on open drug use or if homeless people impede access to businesses or make a mess. I saw Dallas police asking homeless to move away from DART stations and arresting a guy who discarded a needle the other day. In Salt Lake City, the police will politely request anyone pitching a tent to take it down and go somewhere else (presumably they will be asked to move no matter where they go, to encourage them to use shelters). The LDS church also sends crews around to "rescue" homeless people, which is probably another incentive for them to move to SF.
SF is a disaster. The homeless problem has killed the city's tourist industry. It is easy to find cheap hotels in touristy areas of the city because the vacancy rate is so high. The car rental companies discourage their clients from parking anywhere in the city due to rampant break-ins. I saw some guys sitting around a fire in Golden Gate Park roasting what looked like a cat.
darwink
Senior Member
As someone who went on a holiday in SF last year I think your impression is grossly misinformed. The Palace and The Fairmont were both full. Standard rooms were going for $1000 USD a night. Every restaurant worth going to had walk up lists and reservations were few and far between.
That being said the Tenderloin was bad. Not as bad as Vancouver’s downtown east side was a year ago, but still pretty bad.
DougB
Active Member
I'm there weekly. I pay less than $150 for rooms that went for $400 in 2019. The Fairmont is a status hotel, so it is immune.
DougB
Active Member
Owner of San Francisco's largest hotels not payin…:
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Continuing from this thread: https://calgary.skyrisecities.com/f...posals-discussion.27153/page-547#post-2054845
I'm saying homelessness is a structural problem. Where there are not enough homes to go around, the most vulnerable of society will find themselves on the outs (poor people, people without family or support networks, people with physical and mental health problems, etc.). There are plenty of people who suffer from mental health issues and addiction in the privacy of their own home. They may have some source of income (a pension, a job, government support, family support, etc.) that allows them to make rent and stay housed. Once rent goes up, they find themselves on the streets and enter a downward spiral where homelessness exacerbates their mental health problems and addiction, making it harder for them to ever exit homelessness. That shoeless, passed out man you described was probably a very different person when he first lost housing, even if he had an addiction or mental health condition at the time.
I have no intention of making this personal, despite your sarcastic name-calling. I did provide a solution: affordable housing combined with case workers. This is basically Alberta's policy right now, but they rely on market-rate rentals. As rent goes up, the government budget for housing covers fewer and fewer actual units. Unless real estate prices in Canada unexpectedly crash, there's really no way around the fact that governments are all levels are going to have to start getting back into the home-building business.
I'm saying homelessness is a structural problem. Where there are not enough homes to go around, the most vulnerable of society will find themselves on the outs (poor people, people without family or support networks, people with physical and mental health problems, etc.). There are plenty of people who suffer from mental health issues and addiction in the privacy of their own home. They may have some source of income (a pension, a job, government support, family support, etc.) that allows them to make rent and stay housed. Once rent goes up, they find themselves on the streets and enter a downward spiral where homelessness exacerbates their mental health problems and addiction, making it harder for them to ever exit homelessness. That shoeless, passed out man you described was probably a very different person when he first lost housing, even if he had an addiction or mental health condition at the time.
I have no intention of making this personal, despite your sarcastic name-calling. I did provide a solution: affordable housing combined with case workers. This is basically Alberta's policy right now, but they rely on market-rate rentals. As rent goes up, the government budget for housing covers fewer and fewer actual units. Unless real estate prices in Canada unexpectedly crash, there's really no way around the fact that governments are all levels are going to have to start getting back into the home-building business.
Red Star
New Member
I'm in a good mood today and I'll meet you halfway. Yes, I'd agree that cheap housing does prevent many people from being homeless. A society with an affordable housing market is beneficial to poor and marginalized people.
However; affordable housing isn't a catch-all solution to ending homelessness. Some people don't belong in society. Some people require serious mental health treatment for addictions and/or chronic mental disorders before they. Just putting homeless people in a free house and having a social worker check up on them once a week is lunacy. Giving someone that suffers from mental illness a free housing unit just gives them and their drug dealers a temporary warm place to "hang out" (let's cross our fingers that the unit doesn't have copper piping). A free home is just a free home...it doesn't treat the underlying reasons of why you were shoeless, passed out and lying in your own excrement.
A couple years ago a young woman was stabbed to death on her way to work by a man suffering from Schizophrenia. That man should have should not have been walking the streets. He should have been in a mental health facility where he could be monitored 24/7 and given treatment for his condition.
It's easy to say "governments are all levels are going to have to start getting back into the home-building business". But it's more efficacious to study and analyze the underlying root causes of homelessness.
It's nothing personal. You are a Vancouverite with an supercilious attitude and your posts are always dripping with condescension. I communicate with you in a similar manner that you communicate with me. If you want to exchange ideas on a public forum we can do it in a civil manner. But until then...don't dish it out if you can't take it.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
You could fill libraries with the amount of research that has been done on the root causes of homelessness, as well as the best policy responses to existing homelessness. I'd start with Homelesshub.ca, which is an excellent resource (https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101):
"An adequate supply of safe, affordable and appropriate housing is a prerequisite to truly ending homelessness in the long term. This includes ensuring that people who experience chronicle and episodical homelessness are prioritized and that systems are in place to enable such persons to receive housing and supports through Housing First programs. In a tight housing market, implementing a Housing First agenda becomes that much more challenging. It is also important to address the supply of affordable housing, in order to broaden access for other priority populations, including women fleeing violence, Indigenous Peoples, families, seniors and youth, for instance." (https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/ending-homelessness)
The best way to sum up the existing research is that housing is a necessary first step to keeping people off the streets. It is virtually impossible to resolve mental health and addiction issues with someone who is not currently in a stable living situation. If you can find the public funds to build massive medical complexes where residents have 24 hour access to on call medical professionals, go ahead. I don't see that investment coming any time soon. But thankfully cheaper options can work for large numbers of homeless, particularly if they can be housed as quickly as possible rather than spending years on the streets.
I'm literally just stating facts. If you choose to interpret all these things about me from a few forum posts, that's on you. And, for the record, I'm a Calgarian who has never lived in Vancouver.
If there's a tone I'm trying to strike, it's brutal pragmatism. Moralistic stances that either demonize or valorize the homeless are a distraction. I think we should give housing to people, even if they're sketchy and hang out with drug dealers, because I think its better than having them live in LRT stations, paying police to constantly chase them around the city, or housing them in extremely expensive jails or hospitals.
Red Star
New Member
Maybe we're talking past each other...
The point I was trying to make (and one that you conveniently continue to step over) is, some people are so mentally ill or suffer so deeply from addictions, they are unable to function without serious support. You can give some people a free house and a fixed income, but they'll still end up on the streets. The guy I saw passed out on the street...you can give him a free house and he'll be back on the streets in less than a year without serious mental health support.
I understand that you're an academic that lives in the wealthy, high-status liberal enclave of Marda Loop, and I'm sure you can quote every study on homeless since the 1980's, but just engage with reality. This video says it all: