[Richard White]

This thread is designated for the discussion of homelessness on the various transit systems in the GTA.

 

[generalcanada]

while this is targeted towards america, this applies to canada as well

 

[SubHuman]

This could come across as nit-picking, but part of the problem could be people being misled by terminology. "Homeless" isn't necessarily inaccurate, but it implies that the main problem with the people in question may be something along the lines of their minimum wage job meaning they can't afford their rent. That's not really the main issue involving those who are yelling at the demons that exist only in their minds, urinating and defecating on the floor inside subway cars or stations, or walking on the tracks and into the tunnels.

Edit: Maybe “Mentally Unsound on GTA Transit”, or something like that, would be a more suitable heading for this thread?

 

[Northern Light]

while this is targeted towards america, this applies to canada as well

It does.

I wish to offer these observations:

1) Imprisoning someone while cruel and excessive, does actually ensure they will be 'housed' and fed.

2) Imprisoning someone, almost certainly costs the state more than providing a shelter bed; and vastly more than providing conventional affordable housing.

The above, would seem to make the folly of under-funding social benefits and housing rather obvious; but somehow that doesn't seem apparent to many of the decision makers.

 

[Richard White]

It does.

I wish to offer these observations:

1) Imprisoning someone while cruel and excessive, does actually ensure they will be 'housed' and fed.

2) Imprisoning someone, almost certainly costs the state more than providing a shelter bed; and vastly more than providing conventional affordable housing.

The above, would seem to make the folly of under-funding social benefits and housing rather obvious; but somehow that doesn't seem apparent to many of the decision makers.

Here's the thing.

If someone is shooting up heroine every night they will not be allowed into a proper shelter. When offered treatment they would likely refuse rather than give up the drugs or not be able to comprehend what you are saying.

Sometimes, incarceration is the only option if it means getting sober. It may cost more but the long term benefits outweigh the short ones.

 

[lexaprofessional]

It does.

I wish to offer these observations:

1) Imprisoning someone while cruel and excessive, does actually ensure they will be 'housed' and fed.

2) Imprisoning someone, almost certainly costs the state more than providing a shelter bed; and vastly more than providing conventional affordable housing.

The above, would seem to make the folly of under-funding social benefits and housing rather obvious; but somehow that doesn't seem apparent to many of the decision makers.

1) Sure, imprisoning someone is cruel. So is sleeping on the streets of a Canadian city on a January night. Homelessness is much more cruel than even being institutionalized.
2) You're assuming that a) that person would be safe in a shelter bed. and b) that person wants a shelter bed. Both of which are not a given. I've not seen the cost of affordable housing compared to imprisonment, so I can't make that assertion, but I think once again that this assumes that individuals sleeping rough ALWAYS want affordable housing or addictions treatment, which is absolutely not always the case.

For some people that are unhoused, (some, not all, not even many) that "lifestyle" provides them with a measure of freedom that isn't present either in a shelter setting or a supportive housing setting. If these people break the law, either by using drugs in public, committing acts or threats of violence, or otherwise making people feel unsafe, they absolutely should be arrested and face prison time if convicted. The rule of law should apply to all, even those that are unhoused.

 

[generalcanada]

I find it interesting whenever people bring up heroine addicts in homeless population up. as if thats an indication of the person and not the situation. As if the general population as a whole arent full of drug addicts themselves

Is alcohol not a drug? is weed not a drug? how many people in the general population are alcohol addicts? how many people in general population are coke addicts?
Are you not aware of the massive doping crisis in north America since like 2014?
Some cant last a few hours without a drink because of the situation they are in. Doesnt mean they should be denied shelter,

 

[Northern Light]

1) Sure, imprisoning someone is cruel. So is sleeping on the streets of a Canadian city on a January night. Homelessness is much more cruel than even being institutionalized.

I could swear that was the exact point I made.

2) You're assuming that a) that person would be safe in a shelter bed. and b) that person wants a shelter bed. Both of which are not a given.

I don't recall asserting either of those assumptions.

I've not seen the cost of affordable housing compared to imprisonment, so I can't make that assertion

Here, let me help:

Cost of prison in Canada:

https://johnhoward.ca/blog/financial-facts-canadian-prisons/

Average - $115,000 per year per person

Cost of Toronto shelters per person:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-homeless-shelter-spaces-plan-1.6999159

$253 per bed, per night. or $92, 345 per bed, per year.

Cost of a market rent studio apartment in Toronto, full price:

$1,500 per month

, but I think once again that this assumes that individuals sleeping rough ALWAYS want affordable housing or addictions treatment, which is absolutely not always the case.

Again, I made no such assumptions or assertions.

For some people that are unhoused, (some, not all, not even many) that "lifestyle" provides them with a measure of freedom that isn't present either in a shelter setting or a supportive housing setting. If these people break the law, either by using drugs in public, committing acts or threats of violence, or otherwise making people feel unsafe, they absolutely should be arrested and face prison time if convicted. The rule of law should apply to all, even those that are unhoused.

There is no disagreement that if someone is violent or threatening or otherwise engaging in criminal behavior they can and mostly likely should be arrested. That was not the focus of the piece, the focus was arresting people for being encamped, tented or otherwise homeless even if they were guilty of nothing else.

 

[Northern Light]

Here's the thing.

If someone is shooting up heroine every night they will not be allowed into a proper shelter. When offered treatment they would likely refuse rather than give up the drugs or not be able to comprehend what you are saying.

Sometimes, incarceration is the only option if it means getting sober. It may cost more but the long term benefits outweigh the short ones.

That's not what the piece was about, I take it you didn't watch it.

The piece was not about people suffering from mental illness or addiction, but about those who could not find any other shelter than a tent or a grate or a bench.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

As an aside - just being nitpicky about spelling - it's heroin, not Wonderwoman.

Carry on.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

1) Sure, imprisoning someone is cruel. So is sleeping on the streets of a Canadian city on a January night. Homelessness is much more cruel than even being institutionalized.
2) You're assuming that a) that person would be safe in a shelter bed. and b) that person wants a shelter bed. Both of which are not a given. I've not seen the cost of affordable housing compared to imprisonment, so I can't make that assertion, but I think once again that this assumes that individuals sleeping rough ALWAYS want affordable housing or addictions treatment, which is absolutely not always the case.

For some people that are unhoused, (some, not all, not even many) that "lifestyle" provides them with a measure of freedom that isn't present either in a shelter setting or a supportive housing setting. If these people break the law, either by using drugs in public, committing acts or threats of violence, or otherwise making people feel unsafe, they absolutely should be arrested and face prison time if convicted. The rule of law should apply to all, even those that are unhoused.

Not streaming (I don't particularly like the word "triage" in this case, but whatever) the population basically wrecks the shelter system as well - because you end up with people who can otherwise benefit from it refusing to use it because of theft/drugs/whatever. That is about as suboptimal an outcome as we can get.

AoD

 

[afransen]

Cost of a market rent studio apartment in Toronto, full price:

$1,500 per month

Problem is that for many of these folks, you can't simply rent them an apartment and leave them to their own devices, with untreated mental illness and addiction. Part of that market rate for a rental unit is a decent credit score, which is indicative of some degree of having your sh!t together. Landlords will want more if they are having to deal with hiring plumbers to fish used syringes out of clogged toilets or dealing with neighbour complaints about hoarding, bad odours, aggressive behaviour, etc.

 

[gabe]

Problem is that for many of these folks, you can't simply rent them an apartment and leave them to their own devices, with untreated mental illness and addiction. Part of that market rate for a rental unit is a decent credit score, which is indicative of some degree of having your sh!t together. Landlords will want more if they are having to deal with hiring plumbers to fish used syringes out of clogged toilets or dealing with neighbour complaints about hoarding, bad odours, aggressive behaviour, etc.

Yep. Also they are a huge fire risk . As we saw during the COVID lockdowns when the city used hotels as shelters. Both Novotel and Bond place had fires. I know Kitchener and Guelph lost hotels when they were intentionally set on fire by the homeless living there. These people are extremely mentally ill. You just can't stick them in a hotel or affordable apartment.

 

[Northern Light]

Problem is that for many of these folks, you can't simply rent them an apartment and leave them to their own devices, with untreated mental illness and addiction. Part of that market rate for a rental unit is a decent credit score, which is indicative of some degree of having your sh!t together. Landlords will want more if they are having to deal with hiring plumbers to fish used syringes out of clogged toilets or dealing with neighbour complaints about hoarding, bad odours, aggressive behaviour, etc.

I think this misses the point.

The video which I still don't think anyone has actually watched is about jailing people NOT for being violent or using drugs, but simply for being in a tent.

My point is therefore that it is cheaper to house that person who is not demonstrating behavioral issues, outside of financial need, in proper housing, than it is to jail them.

Yes, there are people who need greater and more expensive care; in either an institutional or quasi-institutional setting. Yes that care is more expensive than a market-rent apartment. However, even then, its likely not more than the cost of prison.

I can only find some older data here, but from 2010, high-support housing (so quasi-institutional, but not a psychiatric hospital) was $115 per day. or just under 42k per year. Even if we doubled that, it would be almost a 1/3 cheaper than a year in prison.

https://www.gjcpp.org/pdfs/Alternate%20Level%20of%20Care%20-%20Economic%20Argument%20Poster.pdf

Now, if the care required is an indefinite stay in a psychiatric hospital, then, we're more expensive than prison. Still, I'd wager its cheaper than the adverse effects of leaving that person untreated and unhoused.

 

[crs1026]

I think this misses the point.

The video which I still don't think anyone has actually watched is about jailing people NOT for being violent or using drugs, but simply for being in a tent.

Which is totally unacceptable, but this is the straightforward end of the issue. We ought to ba eable to deliver enough housing so that no one needs to be in a tent.

Now, if the care required is an indefinite stay in a psychiatric hospital, then, we're more expensive than prison. Still, I'd wager its cheaper than the adverse effects of leaving that person untreated and unhoused.

This is the population that is the problem for transit. Many such people are not in a good way, but far short of what it takes for a police officer to lawfully detain them, or for a physician to lawfully commit them involuntarily to an institution.... or for that matter to insist that they take their meds. And then there are drunks and addicts, who are slovenly or aggressive when high but much less so once the drugs wear off.
One would think that these people would be kept out of transit, but any detention is a violation of "rights" and the authorities are reluctant to push the issue, partly to avoid rights issues and partly because that merely shifts the issues to the street, and very likely with no alternative shelter made available.
I am not aware of any treatment option that can be imposed short of the individual meeting the criteria under the Mental Health Act.
I do think that on pure grounds of hygiene, this population ought to be ejected from transit, but I suspect that would only be upheld in court if the individual were offered immediate access to washing and laundry.
As to people who are aggressive or harassing - again, I would want them ejected, but again I suspect this would only be upheld only if they are offered immediate mental health support. I suspect this would have to be far more meaningful care than just a drive to CAMH or an ER.... can't just be an exercise in drop off and make the problem continue somewhere else.

Toronto is not atypical.... my first ride on the Ottawa LRT recently included a woman bedding down under a sleeping bag and then smoking crack on the tram.

I'm not hopeful.

- Paul