[greenleaf]

I never said anything about the private sector. I fail to see what that has to do with this.

Taxpayers pay for shelters. Taxpayers pay for health care. Would rather have less of your taxpayer money cover costs for shelters, or more of it for health care?

Please give me evidence that health care costs are spiraling out of control here. I'm not seeing it. Besides, we're doing much better here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

Using funds for prevention saves money in the long run. Canada's health care costs are a fraction of the average cost per person in the US. This is because Canadian health care focuses on prevention.

For further reading on why providing housing is better and cheaper for everyone, read: http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

 

[archanfel]

I never said anything about the private sector. I fail to see what that has to do with this.

Taxpayers pay for shelters. Taxpayers pay for health care. Would rather have less of your taxpayer money cover costs for shelters, or more of it for health care?

Please give me evidence that health care costs are spiraling out of control here. I'm not seeing it. Besides, we're doing much better here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States

Using funds for prevention saves money in the long run. Canada's health care costs are a fraction of the average cost per person in the US. This is because Canadian health care focuses on prevention.

For further reading on why providing housing is better and cheaper for everyone, read: http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

My point is you can't find a single private firm that is stupid enough to provide either shelter or health insurance for these people, yet our government insists on doing that since it's always somebody else's money.

I would rather cover neither shelter nor health care for people who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives. If people like to drink themselves to death, it's their choice and society should respect their freedom to do that. As long as they are paying for their own mouthwash, they can drink by the truck load for all I care. Taxpayers have picked up tabs for people's bad choices for way too long. And it's not just a matter of cost. Our choices are increasingly dictated by the government in the name of our own welfare.

 

[GraphicMatt]

You can find NUMEROUS private charities who run shelters. There's centuries of history behind this. Private organizations got into this game long before governments did.

The advantage of government is that it doesn't have to think like a private business. The profit-motive is not the be-all. Its obligation is to the societal good. And, yes, economic good tends to come out of that.

The biggest argument against your "Just let them die!" argument is history. We've tried your strategy. It didn't work.

 

[archanfel]

You can find NUMEROUS private charities who run shelters. There's centuries of history behind this. Private organizations got into this game long before governments did.

The advantage of government is that it doesn't have to think like a private business. The profit-motive is not the be-all. Its obligation is to the societal good. And, yes, economic good tends to come out of that.

The biggest argument against your "Just let them die!" argument is history. We've tried your strategy. It didn't work.

Private charities do not do it for profit or economical good. I would argue the government is not doing it for profit or economic good either. You seem to agree with me.

And I would argue the advantage of government is that it has a much longer view, thus can make long term decisions (much like large corporations). However, that does not mean the government should not expect returns for its efforts eventually.

When did you try my strategy? And my strategy is not "just let them die!". It's about providing opportunities instead of entitlement. History showed that despite all the shelters, people stay trapped in poverty and talents are wasted. Yes, you can score political points by talking big and wasting taxpayer money while people have to wait three years for a social housing unit. I'd rather concentrate our efforts on people who are willing to make responsible choices.

 

[js97]

It's not even about how much they spent, it's about how they've completely misallocated the tax dollars and did not consider the actual benefit of the amount of money allocated, but has used it as a tool to administer an ideological view that the local councillor has of the area.

The shelter is not about providing for the homless. It's about adam vaughan sticking it to the club industry and begining the process of shutting down the entertainment business of the area so he can negotiate more 'deals' for money under the section 37 provision.

The guy doesn't even live there! If he really wanted to get a maximum bang for the tax dollar to provided 'services' for the homeless, he would have forgone the fancy designer furniture and architectural features and the million dollar location.

He could have gotten much better value perhaps a little mroe off the beaten path, more beds, reached out to more homless people etc etc.

It's an issue of spending responsibly because tax dollars are a limited resource. it's about sustainability.
A great G&M article points out issues of sustainability in our healthcare system. The ideas of grand entrance ways and designer reception areas are 'nice' but deliver very little benefit for the end user/patient. Forgo the frills and provide the service.

But, in political terms, the general electorate doesn't pay attention to that. It's not enough of a soundbyte, or headliner. And vaughan has always been about his massive ego and personal agendas.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rom-the-pale-green-maze/article1806958/page2/

 

[grey]

Maybe a better way to solve this is to base the health premium on your health risk. How about those who "require numerous hospital visits over their lifetimes" has to pay their fair share, whereas those who take care themselves don't have to pay as much?

Bad policy. That punishes a huge number of people for no reason, if unintended. This proposal only works if all humans are born with equal immune systems and only become sick by abusing drugs and alcohol.

I just read the rest of your ultra-conservative posts above, and I'm wondering -- how can you stand living in this city? Or Canada, for that matter? What keeps you from living down in sunny Florida or Arizona? I am honestly curious, I'm not being a troll.

The shelter is not about providing for the homless. It's about adam vaughan sticking it to the club industry and begining the process of shutting down the entertainment business of the area so he can negotiate more 'deals' for money under the section 37 provision.

Hahahaha

 

[GraphicMatt]

Private charities do not do it for profit or economical good. I would argue the government is not doing it for profit or economic good either. You seem to agree with me.

Of course they don't. There's no profit to be made providing charitable services. But in the grand scheme of things, there's a cost to poverty and things like charities and government programs can generate significant economic good by containing that cost.

Simplistic analogy: Let's say you run a coffee shop. Business is going pretty good but one day a homeless person starts hanging around outside the store. Customers are bothered by this so your business drops 20%.

Some options to improve the situation: a) Pay the homeless person $10 to go away; b) Call the police and get them to arrest the homeless person; c) Convince City Council to cut funding to the soup kitchen down the street so the homeless person will eventually die or at least get really sick.

Option A offends some of our I-work-hard-for-my-money sensibilities, but it tends to look like the best option. Imprisonment is expensive and provides very few avenues for change. Option C is worst of all because, hey, you know what hurts business even more than a bunch of homeless people hanging around outside your coffee shop? A bunch of sick and dying homeless people hanging around outside your coffee shop.

Extend the analogy to a macro level (10,000 homeless people in front of 10,000 businesses hurt retail business by X%. And then extend beyond retail.) and you start to see what I mean.

And I would argue the advantage of government is that it has a much longer view, thus can make long term decisions (much like large corporations). However, that does not mean the government should not expect returns for its efforts eventually.

There already are returns. Look at successful affordable housing areas like the St. Lawrence Market neighbourhood of Toronto.

When did you try my strategy?

Governments tried your stategy. Post-Industrial Revolution one of the biggest problems cities faced was public health and safety risks due to a large class of people living in poverty.

 

[greenleaf]

The NY Times has had a couple articles on programs to provide housing to the homeless in a more efficient manner: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/a-plan-to-make-homelessness-history/

and the follow up article: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/the-street-level-solution/

It looks like NYC is using a similar program as Toronto.

Some quotes from the articles:

"Another thing that Common Ground discovered was that the homeless were an amalgam of many subgroups. They have now surveyed almost 14,000 chronically homeless people and found that roughly 20 percent are veterans, 10 percent are over the age of 60, 4 percent have H.I.V. or AIDS, 47 percent have a mental illness and 5 percent remain homeless because they can’t find housing with their pets."

"Once in housing, formerly homeless people can become isolated and lonely. If they’ve lived on the streets for years, they may have acquired a certain stature as well as a sense of pride in their survival skills. Now indoors, those aspects of their identity may be stripped away. Many also experience a profound disorientation at the outset. “If you’re homeless for more than six months, you kind of lose your bearings,” says Haggerty. “Existence becomes not about overcoming homelessness but about finding food, panhandling, looking for a job to survive another day. The whole process of how you define stability gets reordered.”

Many need regular, if not continuous, support with mental health problems, addictions and illnesses — and, equally important, assistance in the day to day challenges of life, reacquainting with family, building relationships with neighbors, finding enjoyable activities or work, managing finances, and learning how to eat healthy food."

"Because the properties have many services and are well-managed, Haggerty has found post-housing problems to be surprisingly rare. In the past 10 years, there have been only a handful of incidents of altercations between tenants. There is very little graffiti or vandalism. And the turnover is almost negligible. In the Prince George Hotel in New York, which is home to 208 formerly homeless people and 208 low income tenants, the average length of tenancy is close to seven years. (All residents pay 30 percent of their income for rent; for the formerly homeless, this comes out of their government benefits.) When people move on, it is usually because they’ve found a preferable apartment."