|
|
|
This is about homelessness on the TTC. Not about fixing mental health and drug problems That's a different, and much less common, issue. And much easier to deal with when the simple homeless aren't overwhelming the system.
Happens all the time on here, that's all I'm gonna say...
Ok.. here's some stats I found. This is a Gov of Canada report. I will cite it for your reference. (https://housing-infrastructure.cana...nte-mentale-consom-substances-eng.html#toc_7d)
It shows that almost 73% of homeless have either drug addiction issues, mental illness, or in 47% of cases both. I dont know about you, but I dont think anyone forced these people to get on drugs, that was a choice. Bad choices have consequences. As for mental health, these people should be getting treatment for it, and if they cannot manage that themselves, then they should be institutionalized. Providing housing isnt going to solve either of these issues. When you are crazy or stoned all the time, you are a danger to others or are most likely a criminal trying to get your next hit.
Figure 1. Proportion of responses, categorized by incidence of mental health and substance use issues (N=22,159)
All I am saying is focus the effort on fixing the problems for these people instead of letting them roam the TTC,. I dont know why this is so controversial?
now you want to provide them housing when these problems were the things that mostly caused them to lose housing in the first place. The number looks like 40%+
so if we turn around and put them back into free housing, what happens? they get tossed back onto the streets for the same reasons. seems insane.
Reasons for housing loss
Survey respondents were asked about the reasons for their most recent housing loss (respondents could indicate more than one). The most frequently identified response was not having enough income (28%), followed by substance use issues (18%).
The majority of respondents selected only one reason for their most recent loss of housing. However, individuals living with mental health and/or substance use issues were more likely to indicate numerous reasons for housing loss. While only 8% of individuals with neither mental health nor substance use issues reported three or more reasons for housing loss, 18% of individuals with one or both of these health issues reported three or more reasons for housing loss. This may indicate a more nuanced and complex set of needs in order to restore and maintain housing among this population.
Reasons for housing loss are complex, with contributing factors that may be highly intersectional. It is important to note that facing a particular health condition and experiencing homelessness at the same time does not imply a causal correlation. Among respondents reporting mental health and/or substance use issues, 22% noted substance use issues as a reason for housing loss and 16% noted health issues as a reason for housing loss.
First of all, the stats I provided show that drug and mental health issues ARE very common among the homeless - 73% and are accounted for at least 40% of the reason they are homeless in the first place. These need to be fixed first before you can really solve homelessness for them. the stats show that.
A basic income can be a strong investment in mental health | Queen's University Faculty of Arts and Science
As life becomes more unaffordable for more people, we need governments to create policies that will improve public health and well-being.www.queensu.ca
I mean this is free money, rather than free housing, but it literally got homeless people into housing and jobs. And was about revenue neutral. It's not like there's a real cost. Perhaps a saving once you cut down on all the extra costs to deal with the homeless population.
Though cheaper housing here would help too. At least the federal government has been exceeding expectations by making existing houses and rents cheaper. Hopefully house and rent prices can come down another 30% or so.
Let's see the research that says that your solution (what is your solution to homelessness - other than institutionalization?) works - and doesn't cost a lot of money.
What I've seen says it didn't work. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/1834-poor-law
Is it possible both these sources can be correct? Whether it's 60/40, 40/60, 70/30 doesn't really change much to me.
All depends on your definition of left wing.
I've noticed quite a few times in the past some people are quick to use the term "right wing" as an insult, or to discredit/invalidate something.
I know this is offtopic, but there are two threads pretty much dedicated to criticizing Ford and Trump. And being against involuntary treatment seems to more of a left-wing thing IMO. Which is unfortunate because being pro-transit (most UT members I assume) also tends to be left-wing.
This is what I call typical LEFT. they would just cancel any dissent.
Messaged you
Agreed and to expand on your point, treatment for mental illness and/or addiction is a core part of the housing first approach that works so well elsewhere. Just giving people homes isn't enough.
Amen. The thing I disagree with is that drug addiction is both a medical problem and a moral failing. There's truth to both. I dont think people are looking the other way because they "blame" them, rather, I think its just uncomfortable and goes against our Canadian values of being 'nice' all the time. Anyone who dissents or speaks out publicly about this issue is automatically labeled.
We've got three main parties. One on the left, one on the right, and one in the centre.
Neither UK nor France appeared to me to be as bad as we currently are - but they certainly appeared to be worse to me than the 2010s or 2000s.
I agree, but I would also argue that in Toronto, local politics is pretty far left - not quite Vancouver levels thank god, but almost. Most local politicians are card carrying NDP. A lot of these sociological studies are grounded at the local level and funded by City of Toronto to justify their ever increasing social budgets.
