News   Apr 28, 2026
 94     0 
News   Apr 28, 2026
 561     4 
News   Apr 28, 2026
 589     1 

Homelessness on the TTC (catch all)

Yes - that is not at all what I am trying to suggest. I am only trying to convey that it does happen (possibly more than I had really appreciated until it was someone I know closely), and those impacted are having as you say "a bad day" - but possibly even worse....There are trade offs here to consider.
 
Folks on the left often forget that those of us, who are law abiding citizens, who pay their fair share of taxes, deserve to live in a clean and safe society. My kid rides the TTC bus every day, and more often than not, there's a hobo occupying the bus shelter and I pray to God that he never intimidates or touches my kid. Who gave that hobo the right to live in a bus shelter; does his wellbeing trump the safety and comfort of my child?
I have much more to say, but the left-leaning crowd on this forum won't like it.
 
I get the impression most people's POVs are formed by the idea of the latter happening despite only the former ever happening to them specifically. A good general rule of thumb in any city is to mind your business. If I see a person sleeping on the subway my first initial thought isn't "wow they should be in jail" it's more "wow we've systemically failed them as a society". Jailing the less fortunate does not solve the reason and cause of why they are the way they are. It's punishing them for faults we continue to allow to persist in our society.

But, again, I get the impression that people are more concerned with tourists seeing this fault rather than actually doing something to properly resolve the causes. Isn't jailing anyone on a whim what people here think authoritatian countries do?

I broadly agree w/this take.....but would add.......is letting a person remain homeless, with untreated mental illness or addiction issues really the kind thing?

I don't favour incarcerating people for being homeless or having mental health issues, that's expensive, unkind and unfair.

But I equally oppose the idea that indifference is kindness. People without homes require housing, people who are unable to obtain or remain in housing due to mental illness or addiction need treatment.

Voluntarily if possible, out patient if possible; but leaving them un-treated and un-housed is just as unkind and unfair as subjecting them to jail.
 
Last edited:
Folks on the left often forget that those of us, who are law abiding citizens, who pay their fair share of taxes, deserve to live in a clean and safe society. My kid rides the TTC bus every day, and more often than not, there's a hobo occupying the bus shelter and I pray to God that he never intimidates or touches my kid. Who gave that hobo the right to live in a bus shelter; does his wellbeing trump the safety and comfort of my child?
I have much more to say, but the left-leaning crowd on this forum won't like it.

On the bolded, 'no'.

But neither does your child's welfare trump that of any other person.

What's wrong with considering the welfare of every person?

Which, by the way, does not mean accepting people sleeping in bus shelters. It means housing them and addressing their mental health needs as appropriate.

It is possible to value public order and safety and do so in a way that is kind and compassionate. These are not mutually exclusive.
 
i usually run into the same gentlemen on my morning commute on line 4 sleeping in the same row of seats. I do wonder what his destination is and if he actually paid to nap on board
 
Enough with the sectarian insults! Jesus Christ. Left wingers don't have a patent on making society unpleasant.
They don't, but it's the usual suspects on UT pushing ideology instead of nuance, while ironically being prejudiced and unwilling to challenge their views, which leads to pushback across the political spectrum. And left wing infighting galore. Some of the same people against involuntary addiction treatment, are oddly negative on Alto.

When involuntary treatment is used in Europe, and certainly in the Nordics which are progressive social democracies, one has to wonder why those people are so deadset on letting others slowly die on the streets. They can't wrap their mind around people refusing help: housing, treatment or otherwise. They've just been told involuntary treatment is bad, so now they're parroting it.
 
Last edited:
I broadly agree w/this take.....but would add.......is leeting a person remain homeless, with untreated mental illness or addiction issues really the kind thing?
I wasn't suggesting this, but I can't physically build a shelter or mental health support facility for someone every time I see them on the street. I think we should be voting for politicians who prioritize their care and rehabilitation rather than vote for politicians who want to incriminate them. The kind thing to do in that moment is mostly to just leave them alone and not leer at them like they're an animal, or ask for them to be jailed as if they were an animal. Compassion for our fellow citizens shouldn't be this difficult but it first requires viewing them as equal citizens.
 
They don't, but it's the usual suspects on UT pushing ideology instead of nuance, while ironically being prejudiced and unwilling to challenge their views, which leads to pushback across the political spectrum. And left wing infighting galore. Some of the same people against involuntary addiction treatment, are oddly negative on Alto.

When involuntary treatment is used in Europe, and certainly in the Nordics which are progressive social democracies, one has to wonder why those people are so deadset on letting others slowly die on the streets. They can't wrap their mind around people refusing help: housing, treatment or otherwise. They've just been told involuntary treatment is bad, so now they're parroting it.
I think, when people are promoting involuntary treatment, which is historically associated with mistreatment of inmates, people are right to be cautious about it. I don't think that's pushing ideology, I think that's rightfully being mistrustful.

The solution, in that case, is not to use "left wingers" as a slur, but to explain how or why the person is wrong in their concerns. What has changed since the days of yesteryear, what new regulatory oversight exists, if any, etc. The folks on the left are not remotely suggesting that people don't have the right to a clean or safe society when they express concerns about involuntary treatment, and anyone who suggests otherwise could reasonably be accused of inciting a flame war.
 
I think, when people are promoting involuntary treatment, which is historically associated with mistreatment of inmates, people are right to be cautious about it. I don't think that's pushing ideology, I think that's rightfully being mistrustful.

If you read more of their absolutist takes, you'd think otherwise. It's not intellectually curious mistrust. Which is why I understand the reactive frustration some people have. I'm very pro-public services and pro state-owned enterprises. But I don't say capitalism bad whenever a more pro-business or libertarian view pops up. Unfortunately, they'd rather have a catfight with a right-winger than read my long posts... (see other threads)

The pattern I notice is: very left on social issues + oddly regressive (and ignorant) on transit and economics, and like I hinted to earlier, close-minded. Look how quickly they came out of the woodwork to say 'asylums bad', the moment involuntary treatment is brought up, as if the asylums of old are anything like the LVM-hem in Sweden.

Involuntary, sometimes indefinite confinement in an asylum (for general mental health in the past) is not the same as modern involuntary treatment protocols on the order of weeks and months (for addiction).

And I'll add: they're free to debate the merits of dissimilar and opposing views, this is not a settled question with a scientific consensus (even consensus can fall apart, see replicability crisis). But all I often see is 'asylums bad' or 'involuntary treatment bad'.

Not the first time this conversation has been had either.
Involuntary treatment may not be as effective as voluntary treatment in many studies, but there are some studies showing involuntary treatment is better. [What most people miss is that] Ultimately, no treatment is what many, if not most homeless end up with. AFAIK: 1. there are no peer-reviewed studies comparing involuntary treatment to no treatment for homeless addicts. 2. There are no studies comparing involuntary treatment to treatment as usual for homeless (cycling through shelters, ERs, jail, little to no treatment depending on TAU definition). 3. There are no studies directly comparing involuntary treatment to housing first for homeless.


Here's a systematic 'review of reviews':

"The evidence indicates that Housing First does not lead to significant changes in substance use. Evidence regarding housing and other outcomes is mixed."

[...]

Here's a Ottawa study comparing housing first to standard care in the community:

"Results: Housing First clients moved into housing more quickly, reported a greater proportion of time housed, were more likely to spend the final six months housed, and had longer housing tenure at 24 months. There was a group by time interaction on problematic alcohol use with more rapid improvement for the comparison group; however, both groups improved over time. The comparison group had a greater decrease on problematic drug use by 24 months. There was no change in physical health and only the comparison group had improvements in mental health by 24 months. The groups had similar improvement on community functioning by 24 months. The comparison group had a greater increase in total quality of life. More specifically, the comparison group had an increase in the family relations-related quality of life, whereas the clients did not. [...[ The Housing First clients reported higher levels of satisfaction with living conditions than the comparison group at baseline and 12 months, but not at 24 months."
 
Last edited:
To all posters in this thread............I again feel the need to strongly suggest that people both avoid personalizing disagreements and broadly 'othering' people though vast generalizations.

I don't care if this is 'right wingers all blank' , 'left wingers all blank', or generalizations associated with men, women, assorted ethnicity or age cohorts. Irrespective of whether any insult is intended when you 'slag' an entire group by labeling them, you automatically illicit push back, and your views immediately become discounted as you should expect.

If someone says to you 'all men of your particular age are so annoying' then attempts to enlighten you about how you're wrong...... you're not listening. You've already decided this person is a jerk.

Lets cut this out and off please. No argument gets added value because 'group a is typically wrong about these things'. Stick to the facts, and being persuasive, please.

Posts that stray without very good reasons may be subject to being reported.
 
The solution, in that case, is not to use "left wingers" as a slur, but to explain how or why the person is wrong in their concerns.
More, why use "left wingers" as a prejudiced slur? Like right-wingers, it's not a monolith. Some left-wingers would deal with homelessness by sending them to the Gulag, and mental problems by even worse. Given there's been right-wing control of Toronto council for much of the last quarter-century, and pushing a decade for the province, I don't see that the situation has improved - it actually seems to have gotten worse, as far as I can see. Back in 2010, you used to see the occasional relatively harmless drunk on the streetcar; but not the kind of stuff you see these days.

I don't even see homelessness itself as a big problem on TTC - it's mostly invisible. Those I've known who were homeless, you'd never have known it from looking at them travelling from a shelter to work.
 
But neither does your child's welfare trump that of any other person.

What's wrong with considering the welfare of every person?
^agreed, but most people with kids seem incapable of grasping this concept, as much as it's perfectly natural to care about your loved ones more than strangers.
 
...is leeting a person remain homeless, with untreated mental illness or addiction issues really the kind thing?..
... letting others slowly die on the streets...
It's not always just about slowly dying, though that's obviously one of the considerations. It can also sometimes be quickly and more disturbingly violent.

If you had a close relative afflicted with having psychotic delusions, regardless of whether or not it involved drug abuse, would you prefer them to be involuntarily apprehended and detained under the Mental Health Act, or be continually released to freely wander around until they get killed jumping off a bridge while trying to fly like bird, by a car while staggering out into traffic, a subway train while climbing onto the tracks (and maybe run over 13 times before anyone notices), etc.?

Even the TTC acknowledged (I think not until after Justin Holmes went over the police reports obtained through a freedom of information request) that there was over 700 of those track trespasser incidents in 2024, so that would be almost two per day. And that's assuming they're all reported and recorded. I have doubts about that, going by how frequently the lines seem to get shut down by these incidents, and how often those of us who regularly use the subway see them occurring.

I suppose there could be a very small number of those that may be something else, but I think it's disingenuous to pretend anything other than most of them involve individuals having psychotic delusions. I heard a former city councillor say it happened sporadically when she was in office 15 or 20 years ago. It had increased to 110 times in 2018, almost 600 in 2022, then the more recent 700+. Someone is more than a little gullible (or thinks the rest of us are) if they're trying to maintain there's somehow been a huge increase in people accidentally falling onto the tracks or absent-mindedly climbing down there to get something they dropped. (Does the TTC really believe this was 700+ different people each doing this once, instead of a large percentage of these incidents involving a relatively small number of them doing it repeatedly?)
link (Mar. 2023 article)
A trespasser on the tracks is one of the scarier delays for train operators as they are often the first to spot the person, sometimes with little time to spare. It used to happen around 200 times a year. Now it’s closer to 600.
Luckily for me, I haven't seen someone actually getting run over (yet).
We're not getting platform edge doors installed across the entire system any time soon. And even if we were, it still doesn't do anything to stop the other ways I mentioned above of how these individuals endanger themselves.

btw, I believe it's very rare for it to ever get announced or make the news when someone does get killed by a subway train, though I think "injury at track level" can often be the term to denote that, if and when it's used, though possibly they may now also avoid using that most of the time.
Are people not allowed in public in your imagined city? Have they done something to hurt you specifically or committed specific crimes against you? Otherwise, people are allowed to exist in public whether you like them or not.
One day in one in the last month while getting off the subway at Keele station, I noticed a woman farther along the platform yelling, "Don't touch me!" and such things, when no one was near her, and moving unpredictably quickly, including getting right to the edge and leaning over the tracks. There were only a few other people there and one or two seeing it from the other platform and doing something with their phone, hopefully notifying security. Not much of an excuse particularly in hindsight, but I'll admit I did nothing myself but quickly move on. (I'd left home, realized I'd forgotten something and was rushing back to get it.)
When I eventually got back to another subway station, I heard Line 2 was shut down because of "injury at track level", and I think I even heard them specify at Keele.
I think I if I had to try to explain this to the woman's relatives, or tried to pretend I was doing something virtuous by not getting her involuntarily apprehended, they might not think too highly of me.
... I'd think screaming racist epithets and throwing stuff is very reportable.
Instead of largely ignoring these type of situations involving mentally unsound individuals (because it's uncomfortable to discuss, or they're afraid of "stigmatizing" or offending someone?), the TTC needs to be more explicit than "harassment, safety concerns or suspicious activity" about what we should be reporting.
 
Last edited:
When I eventually got back to another subway station, I heard Line 2 was shut down because of "injury at track level", and I think I even heard them specify at Keele.
I think I if I had to try to explain this to the woman's relatives, or tried to pretend I was doing something virtuous by not getting her involuntarily apprehended, they might not think too highly of me.
Sorry you had to go through that. Unfortunately, you walk around long enough in a city like Toronto, you eventually run into situations where you wish you did more to help. I've had a similar experience not on the TTC, but near St. Michael's hospital.

Are people not allowed in public in your imagined city? Have they done something to hurt you specifically or committed specific crimes against you? Otherwise, people are allowed to exist in public whether you like them or not.
But they should not be allowed to go against the public interest and public order. What we're talking about isn't like some American towns making it illegal to sleep in your car or in public. We're talking about people on the streets who lack the wherewithal and the state of mind to look after themselves adequately, much less those around them. It costs more when they inevitably end up using emergency services and in the ER.

Besides the nuisance of getting in my face menacingly, I've never had a homeless person do anything criminal to me. If anything, the opposite. When in Montreal, a homeless man returned my phone and refused a reward when I tracked it to a homeless shelter.

It boils down to whether you would welcome more state intervention over the status quo non-intervention. The Nordics arguably have much more state intervention on the mental health and addictions front (and housing front). Much of the mainstream North American left does not take homelessness seriously, some even profiting from it with the homeless industrial complex. They are not incentivized to end homelessness, because they would put themselves out of a job.

Further reading on homeless/non-profit industrial complex:
https://newrepublic.com/article/166383/los-angeles-echo-park-homeless-industrial-complex
https://invisiblepeople.tv/homeless-industrial-complex-homelessness-is-not-accidental/

Everything can be tried but stronger state intervention.

If the stats were reversed, I assume there'd be more support for government intervention.
1777146176256.png
1777146161386.png


The 1 in 4 stat from the Metro Vancouver paper was virally lambasted.
https://web.archive.org/web/2016053...homelessness-at-record-levels-2016-count.html
 
Last edited:

Back
Top