News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 30K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.9K     0 

evandyk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
5,477
I assume what there is has been provided to the police. But what do they care about smashed windows? "Insurance will cover it." I doubt they even investigate.

Certainly our city councilor and mayor don't seem to care.
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
15,539
Reaction score
16,293
City:
Toronto
I assume what there is has been provided to the police. But what do they care about smashed windows? "Insurance will cover it." I doubt they even investigate.

Certainly our city councilor and mayor don't seem to care.
Maybe so BUT all merchants in St Lawrence are members of the BIA (St Lawrence Market Area BIA) and they should raise this with their BIA. Strength in numbers .....
 

evandyk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
5,477
It was pretty sporadic until recently, so probably wasn't a top priority. But I suspect the last few weeks will finally get some attention on the issue.
 

dusk

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
514
They place the shelters both where there is demand for them, and where it is feasible to do so.

Demand in the core for shelters means we create additional supply. However that also attracts more homeless in the core which means more demand for shelters which in turn further increase supply. Isn’t this a negative feedback loop?

We need to spread this type of housing throughout the city. I suggest creating demand in rosedale, summerhill, etc. Why is st Lawrence one of the few neighbourhoods that must wrestle with this burden.
 

dusk

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
514
I assume what there is has been provided to the police. But what do they care about smashed windows? "Insurance will cover it." I doubt they even investigate.

Certainly our city councilor and mayor don't seem to care.
They don’t care. It’s not in mayor Tory’s neighbourhood so he can virtue signal that they’re doing something about the problem.

Ultimately we’ve created a system where folks that are homeless or mentally ill can get away with many things other citizens cannot. Standards need to be uniform.
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
5,288
Reaction score
3,591
City:
Toronto
They don’t care. It’s not in mayor Tory’s neighbourhood so he can virtue signal that they’re doing something about the problem.

Ultimately we’ve created a system where folks that are homeless or mentally ill can get away with many things other citizens cannot. Standards need to be uniform.

I agree

As I said before, I have seen with my own eyes what they get away with. I had a pair of homeless people blatantly rob the security desk of the condo where I worked. All the police did was let one of them off with a warning because she was known to police and had mental health issues.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,126
Reaction score
51,262
Demand in the core for shelters means we create additional supply. However that also attracts more homeless in the core which means more demand for shelters which in turn further increase supply. Isn’t this a negative feedback loop?

We need to spread this type of housing throughout the city. I suggest creating demand in rosedale, summerhill, etc. Why is st Lawrence one of the few neighbourhoods that must wrestle with this burden.

The City just literally opened its newest shelter yesterday, its at 705 Progress. (frankly that's questionable in my mind as its a light industrial/commercial area); nonetheless, the City is aware of the need to distribute these services further afield and is doing so.

Presser here: https://www.toronto.ca/news/city-of-toronto-opens-new-shelter-at-705-progress-ave/
 

dusk

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
514

dusk

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
514
The City just literally opened its newest shelter yesterday, its at 705 Progress. (frankly that's questionable in my mind as its a light industrial/commercial area; nonetheless, the City is aware of the need to distribute these services further afield and is doing so.

Presser here: https://www.toronto.ca/news/city-of-toronto-opens-new-shelter-at-705-progress-ave/
Precisely. We shouldn’t infantilize the homeless or mentally ill. Ultimately people are responsible for their actions. Being homeless or mentally isn’t or shouldn’t be a crime. Harassing people, shooting needles, and breaking storefronts should be. That applies to everyone.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,126
Reaction score
51,262
Precisely. We shouldn’t infantilize the homeless or mentally ill...........

Sure...

Ultimately people are responsible for their actions.

Actually, (severe) mental illness is the legal definition of lacking responsibility for one's actions in a legal sense.

Certainly we can hold people responsible for how they manage any addiction they may have; though that doesn't mean lengthy prison terms would be a preferred solution.

Being homeless or mentally isn’t or shouldn’t be a crime.

Yes.

Harassing people

Sure

, shooting needles

No. That's self-harm unto itself and I don't believe that should be criminal. The issue, to my mind, is not someone choosing to get high, perhaps in a less than wise manner; the issue is how they behave while high, or while facing withdrawl symptoms and in need of another fix.

, and breaking storefronts should be. That applies to everyone.

Yes. But.

The answer is not maximum legal penalties, particularly as they might be applied to someone who has no mental health/addiction issues.

That's expensive and its not particularly helpful/useful. I do agree, that when troubling behavior is occurring, intervention is a must.

But it generally ought to flow from a place of compassion, if at all feasible.

Now, if someone has repeatedly shown either an unwillingness, or inability to stay clean/manage their addiction in a 'responsible' manner; or in the case of mental health, failed to take their medication or otherwise engaged in criminal actions repeatedly, then there is no reasonable alternative except confinement under the Mental Health Act, perhaps for a very extended period of time. But such power should not be used cavalierly.
 
Last edited:

dusk

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
514
No. That's self-harm unto itself and I don't believe that should be criminal. The issue, to my mind, is not someone choosing to get high, perhaps in a less than wise manner; the issue is how they behave while high, or while facing withdrawl symptoms and in need of another fix.
I’m in favour of legalizing all drugs. If someone wants to self harm I’m not opposed to it. Leaving needles on the street, harassing people due to the effect of drugs, etc is not acceptable, full stop.
Actually, (severe) mental illness is the legal definition of lacking responsibility for one's actions in a legal sense.

Certainly we can hold people responsible for how they manage any addiction they may have; though that doesn't mean lengthy prison terms would be a preferred solution.
I didn’t mention lengthily prison terms. Trust me I’m quite compassionate. However, if the law allows someone who’s mentally I’ll to have free reign, something is wrong. We can and should do better. That doesn’t mean building a lot of underfunded shelters in one area.

Let me ask you. What would you do if you had the authoritarian ability to make decisions? I’m curious.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,126
Reaction score
51,262
I’m in favour of legalizing all drugs. If someone wants to self harm I’m not opposed to it. Leaving needles on the street, harassing people due to the effect of drugs, etc is not acceptable, full stop.

I didn’t mention lengthily prison terms. Trust me I’m quite compassionate. However, if the law allows someone who’s mentally I’ll to have free reign, something is wrong. We can and should do better. That doesn’t mean building a lot of underfunded shelters in one area.

Let me ask you. What would you do if you had the authoritarian ability to make decisions? I’m curious.

In the case of addiction:

1) Start by legalizing and/or decriminalizing drugs in respect of the addition issue so as to remove any issue w/people reporting bad dealers/bad stuff to police.

2) Try to create legal and regulated supplies of most recreational drugs that have reduced potency/ill-effect and come with 'reasonable' dosages and warning and where possible are made less addictive.

3) Addiction Treatment must be available virtually on demand; if someone is ready to get help, they should be on a 3-5 month wait list; they should have an inpatient (if required) or outpatient program ready to receive them pretty much the same day; I'd happily eat the cost of the odd unused bed/spot.

4) Address poverty and low-education attainment as these are often linked both to addiction and to particularly bad outcomes w/same. We need to get everyone proper housing, raise them minimum wage; provide a decent disability benefit for those who genuinely can't work, and double-down efforts to ensure virtually everyone graduates High School and is literate and numerate. For those who did drop out there should be free, no-wait list access to return to school programs.

5) If someone, while High/Intoxicated does something criminal, when clearly not in their right mind; they must be detained, and given sufficient treatment to return them to sobriety as quickly as possible. Once sober, they have to admit culpability for their actions, do something, however modest in service of same (such as apologizing in writing to an affected party); and must agree to remain sober thereafter. If means treatment, they must agree to same; or face detention of some form, until they do.

But the emphasis should be on releasing people back into the community where feasible, and to provide a second chance.

Third chances should be much harder to come by; but the focus should remain on assisting the person, if they're willing to receive such assistance; if not, society must be protected.

If there is a repeat problem, on-going, if serious instances of violence are involved, or if someone is persistently refusing help; then long-term confinement should be considered.

****

In respect of mental health not involving addiction the idea would be very similar, except that it is proactive therapy and/or medication that is in order.

Again, if a person can be returned to a lucid state, accept some responsibility for misdeeds and the importance of accepting help and staying lucid if at all possible............then they can be returned the community, at least
for an offense that is overly serious or is a first intervention scenario.

Likewise as to persons with addiction, those that refuse help, and repeatedly cause criminal trouble, ought to be considered for longer-term involuntary commitment; but careful consideration should be given
to other less aggressive options if practical. (for instance compelling someone to live with a parent; or placing them in a semi-open setting w/supervision and assistance available.)
 

dusk

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
514
In the case of addiction:

1) Start by legalizing and/or decriminalizing drugs in respect of the addition issue so as to remove any issue w/people reporting bad dealers/bad stuff to police.

2) Try to create legal and regulated supplies of most recreational drugs that have reduced potency/ill-effect and come with 'reasonable' dosages and warning and where possible are made less addictive.

3) Addiction Treatment must be available virtually on demand; if someone is ready to get help, they should be on a 3-5 month wait list; they should have an inpatient (if required) or outpatient program ready to receive them pretty much the same day; I'd happily eat the cost of the odd unused bed/spot.

4) Address poverty and low-education attainment as these are often linked both to addiction and to particularly bad outcomes w/same. We need to get everyone proper housing, raise them minimum wage; provide a decent disability benefit for those who genuinely can't work, and double-down efforts to ensure virtually everyone graduates High School and is literate and numerate. For those who did drop out there should be free, no-wait list access to return to school programs.

5) If someone, while High/Intoxicated does something criminal, when clearly not in their right mind; they must be detained, and given sufficient treatment to return them to sobriety as quickly as possible. Once sober, they have to admit culpability for their actions, do something, however modest in service of same (such as apologizing in writing to an affected party); and must agree to remain sober thereafter. If means treatment, they must agree to same; or face detention of some form, until they do.

But the emphasis should be on releasing people back into the community where feasible, and to provide a second chance.

Third chances should be much harder to come by; but the focus should remain on assisting the person, if they're willing to receive such assistance; if not, society must be protected.

If there is a repeat problem, on-going, if serious instances of violence are involved, or if someone is persistently refusing help; then long-term confinement should be considered.

****

In respect of mental health not involving addiction the idea would be very similar, except that it is proactive therapy and/or medication that is in order.

Again, if a person can be returned to a lucid state, accept some responsibility for misdeeds and the importance of accepting help and staying lucid if at all possible............then they can be returned the community, at least
for an offense that is overly serious or is a first intervention scenario.

Likewise as to persons with addiction, those that refuse help, and repeatedly cause criminal trouble, ought to be considered for longer-term involuntary commitment; but careful consideration should be given
to other less aggressive options if practical. (for instance compelling someone to live with a parent; or placing them in a semi-open setting w/supervision and assistance available.)
Interestingly enough, with your model most folks I’m referring to would be detained given they’re on the 7th, 10th, and 20th chances, pardon the hyperbole.
 

evandyk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
5,477

jsmith77

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
333
Reaction score
1,242
The co-op recently had a unit on fire due to hoarding, as well as a police sniper unit show up in regards to another incident. Esplanade and Berkeley had a stabbing last week- I’m thinking that there’s more than the shelter contributing to the anarchy. There might be some folks smashing windows for fun, others to steal, other for lord knows what reason.
 

Top