Blovertis
Active Member
This idea that you can "pacify" a neighbourhood by plunking down a homeless shelter in the middle of it was always ridiculous. How tranquil is the corner of Queen and Sherbourne?
|
|
|
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I'm glad other councillors see through Vaughan's most ridiculous scheme. They're taking Federal dollars which are supposed to be used to fight homelessness in order to buy an expensive building at a key intersection in order to accomplish Vaughan's pet project of killing the club district.
robbiedigital
Banned
At least I'll have someone to give what remains of my "let me mix a drink in a coke bottle for the subway/streetcar ride" drink
To be honest, as an older 20 something, I don't go down to that area as much as I used to (which was at least once or twice a week), and I don't live there, so I have no bias towards the situation, but this is such a ludicrous idea it's not even funny.
Forget about weekends at 2am, what about weekdays? Do they think that the homeless folks are just going to lounge on the patio and not leave that specific area? What about Queen St? What about the Paramount area? There are enough homeless around there, they don't need to attract more!
I sound like a snob, but it truly makes no sense. I think that it will be dangerous for the homeless as well...in the sense that there will be booze and drugs everywhere, and, I'm sure some idiots will come out of the clubs drunk and looking for a fight.
Is the status of this thing still up in the air? I heard it was going forward.
To be honest, as an older 20 something, I don't go down to that area as much as I used to (which was at least once or twice a week), and I don't live there, so I have no bias towards the situation, but this is such a ludicrous idea it's not even funny.
Forget about weekends at 2am, what about weekdays? Do they think that the homeless folks are just going to lounge on the patio and not leave that specific area? What about Queen St? What about the Paramount area? There are enough homeless around there, they don't need to attract more!
I sound like a snob, but it truly makes no sense. I think that it will be dangerous for the homeless as well...in the sense that there will be booze and drugs everywhere, and, I'm sure some idiots will come out of the clubs drunk and looking for a fight.
Is the status of this thing still up in the air? I heard it was going forward.
Conrad Black
Senior Member
Homeless shelters generally have an early (10PM/11PM) curfew. Doubt there will be much interaction between the shelter residents and the party crowd.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
^I think that is a bit naive. Anyone who knows how homeless and social service centres impact the street in their neighbourhoods knows that they are beacons of congregation for street people and characters directly and not directly related with the services provided. In addition while "poverty" is not a crime as pointed out by Andreapalladio, the presence of most homeless and social services centre in my neighbourhood do have an impact on criminal activity in the area such as drug use in the rear laneways, vandalism, assaults, and street prostitution. It's not like they are nuclear bombs dropped on the neighbourhood but they are definately negative and the staff and operators are in my experience dismissive of complaint or any notion of responsibility for the actions of their clients.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
I'm not trying to start a fight, but I find it incredibly ironic that you start the post by calling his Lordship "naive" and then proceed to cite "drug use in the rear laneways, vandalism, assaults" among the ills that accompany shelters.
I'm still on the fence about the appropriateness of a shelter at the corner of Peter/Richmond, but I can't imagine the addition of a shelter (and the simultaneous loss of 5 nightclubs) would appreciably worsen the incidence of drug use in the rear laneways, vandalism or assaults in the club district.
CDL.TO
Moderator
The dealers won't even have to move. They'll be able to serve their daytime customers and nighttime customers in the same location. Either that, or the TPS could save some cash by opening up a cop shop right across the street.
Jdot
Active Member
It's funny that Vaughn wants to put a homeless shelter there to "kill the Entertainment District", thereby opening it up to condo development. Once the Entertainment District fills up with condos, the homeowners arent going to want that homeless shelter there.
It just seems like a loose-loose situation really.
The city needs to promote the area as an all-day entertainment district. Sure, the clubs can stay, but we should see some small playhouses/theatres open in the area, along with restaurants and other daytime/early evening entertainment uses. BUT, that should only happen after the Entertainment District by-law (banning all clubs from outside the E.D.) is tossed out the window. I really cant see why this has stayed on the books for so long. Why hasnt Vaughn tried to kill the E.D. by-law as a means of getting rid of the district? It will definitly disipate once clubs are allowed to open elsewhere in the city. Sure, clubs will remain there, but not in the concentration they are currently at.
It just seems like a loose-loose situation really.
The city needs to promote the area as an all-day entertainment district. Sure, the clubs can stay, but we should see some small playhouses/theatres open in the area, along with restaurants and other daytime/early evening entertainment uses. BUT, that should only happen after the Entertainment District by-law (banning all clubs from outside the E.D.) is tossed out the window. I really cant see why this has stayed on the books for so long. Why hasnt Vaughn tried to kill the E.D. by-law as a means of getting rid of the district? It will definitly disipate once clubs are allowed to open elsewhere in the city. Sure, clubs will remain there, but not in the concentration they are currently at.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
Vox,
I was speaking in general to comment on the strain of thought that shelters are somehow neutral or their impact on the street is limited to the activities directly associated with the programing at the facility. I was not commenting on the relative level of criminal activity in the entertainment district or the relative impact of the proposed shelter vis a vis a particular nightclub.
I was speaking in general to comment on the strain of thought that shelters are somehow neutral or their impact on the street is limited to the activities directly associated with the programing at the facility. I was not commenting on the relative level of criminal activity in the entertainment district or the relative impact of the proposed shelter vis a vis a particular nightclub.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
Fair enough. But since it is a question of context, I thought I should point out that the Club District is not neutral territory vis-a-vis the shelter ramifications you enumerated.
MetroMan
Senior Member
I can't believe they're going ahead with this. This is the most hard headed decision I've seen from council in a long while.
Hoarding is up and I'm cringing at what this corner is going to look like on a how summer night.
Hoarding is up and I'm cringing at what this corner is going to look like on a how summer night.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
It astonishes me how the self-righteous Vaughan could possibly think wasting scarce federal anti-homelessness money on expensive clubland real estate just to please a handful of neighbourhood NIMBYs is a noble idea.
BobBob
Senior Member
^ Are neighbourhood NIMBYs really pleased with a homeless shelter coming to this prominent corner? Seems like a lose-lose-lose-lose for everyone: the city, the homeless, the clubbers and the residents.
MetroMan
Senior Member
Somehow my mind has come up with an itinerary to blame myself for all this.
I'm involved in the Cantina Charlie's club across the street. Prior to Cantina, Fez Batik was a thriving college hangout. It was packed every weekend and doing really well.
Cantina Charlie's appeals to that crowd and we single handedly hit the wind out of Fez who folded just a couple of months after Cantina opened.
With that real estate available, Vaughn saw his goal and took it.
I can't for the life of me see how using up such valuable land (with the largest front patio in the district) as a homeless shelter can make any business sense. Off with Vaughn's head.. seriously. I'll be the first to campaign for his nearest competitor in the next election.
I'm involved in the Cantina Charlie's club across the street. Prior to Cantina, Fez Batik was a thriving college hangout. It was packed every weekend and doing really well.
Cantina Charlie's appeals to that crowd and we single handedly hit the wind out of Fez who folded just a couple of months after Cantina opened.
With that real estate available, Vaughn saw his goal and took it.
I can't for the life of me see how using up such valuable land (with the largest front patio in the district) as a homeless shelter can make any business sense. Off with Vaughn's head.. seriously. I'll be the first to campaign for his nearest competitor in the next election.
urbandreamer
recession proof
Maybe...caution this is a radical plan
...all homeless people should be offered jobs as bartenders, waitresses etc in neighbourhood bars? Take an alcoholic (surely describes most bartenders I know or drug addict (ditto) or someone with mental issues (ditto...hey I'm gonna be popular soon and give him/her a $500-$2000/week gig. How many homeless shelters do you need?
...all homeless people should be offered jobs as bartenders, waitresses etc in neighbourhood bars? Take an alcoholic (surely describes most bartenders I know or drug addict (ditto) or someone with mental issues (ditto...hey I'm gonna be popular soon and give him/her a $500-$2000/week gig. How many homeless shelters do you need?