News   Dec 08, 2021
 138     0 
News   Dec 07, 2021
 1K     1 
News   Dec 07, 2021
 432     0 

How to solve homeless issue?

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,777
Reaction score
2,720
Location
Majorca
Yeah, the ones who are afraid of shelters make sense.....the ones who moan about hotel stays don't.

I have a good friend who is a street nurse and she tells me about how some of the ones who get sent to hotels bitch about the free food and Starbucks coffees they get brought to their rooms.
Some also turn down hotel acommodation because of how tightly controlled the drug scene is and because they aren't allowed guests in their rooms.
It seems privilege comes in many forms. ;)

Even she (my nurse friend) has nothing nice to say about these particular homeless folk.


There are others who chose (yes, of their own volition) to camp out last summer and subsequently fell into the drug (mostly fentanyl) trap and are now stuck in a death spiral. I'm talking people in their 20s out of middle class homes.

Idiots.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,771
Reaction score
32,557
Location
Toronto/EY
Here's how not to solve homelessness: The City's new Report to next week's Economic and Community Ctte.

The into to the item is here: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.EC25.5

The Glossy Report, some 84 pages long, which cost $$$ to put together, and says remarkably little about its primary purpose is here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ec/bgrd/backgroundfile-171730.pdf

This sort of thing makes my blood boil. (proverbially, of course) . Endless blather about everything except what needs doing. Lets examine this through a lens or seven, lets improve our data collection, lets study this, contemplate that
work towards something else and coordinate better while were at it.

Gah!

There are two core mandates: Provide people who need it, immediate shelter, in safe, dignified conditions. Find them permanent housing, appropriate to their needs and circumstances, ASAP.

What needs improvement is not a mystery, does not require further study or analysis, no re-inventing of the wheel is required.

This department directly controls shelters. For that part, they need to stop building people warehouses that aren't terribly functional, where residents routinely fear for their safety, where cleanliness/hygiene of the facility itself is suspect, where residents feel unwelcome and worry that their stuff will be stolen. They are really bad people warehouses.

The solution is already there in the RapidHousing/Modular Housing program.

Build S-R-O (single room occupancy) facilities where residents have their own private room, including small bathroom. Said room to have an electronic lock on the door, and be limited in access to the resident and to staff, the latter
under limited and compelling circumstances.

Reduce facility size to a maximum of 60. This reduces neighbourhood impact and objection, but also gives staff a chance to get to know residents by name and take greater interest in their welfare.

Lower the number of cases that each case manager/intake worker has to deal with so they can spend more time on actually addressing the needs of each client.

Nag other relevant divisions to do their job and build more permanent housing faster; and more long term care/institutional care for those who need that.

In the interim, place those who can manage on their own in private sector housing, if there is no non-profit/RGI option available.

***

Do not consider the equity of these moves, do not examine even one though a lens of any kind........just house people, that's all!
 

Bayer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
1,423
Reaction score
1,049
Build S-R-O (single room occupancy) facilities where residents have their own private room, including small bathroom. Said room to have an electronic lock on the door, and be limited in access to the resident and to staff, the latter
under limited and compelling circumstances.
Agreed, except for limiting access to the resident. You don't want this to be a detention centre or to assume that all homeless people are hopelessly incapable of managing themselves instead of just, you know, being poor.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,771
Reaction score
32,557
Location
Toronto/EY
Agreed, except for limiting access to the resident. You don't want this to be a detention centre or to assume that all homeless people are hopelessly incapable of managing themselves instead of just, you know, being poor.

If you meant the resident could have a guest, I'm fine w/that; I'm merely meaning that its private space.

If your meaning that staff ought not to have access; at all, ever, I don't think that's viable; you don't even enjoy that privilege where you live (nor do I); which is to say, a Landlord always has a right of entry in
an emergency; and under additional circumstances dictated by law, in the latter case, generally with 24-hour notice.

That's all I was allowing for; was that staff could enter if they had reasonable belief that the unit was being lit on fire, the plumbing had burst and was flooding the building or some other lawful justification for entry was on offer.
 

Bayer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
1,423
Reaction score
1,049
If you meant the resident could have a guest, I'm fine w/that; I'm merely meaning that its private space.

If your meaning that staff ought not to have access; at all, ever, I don't think that's viable; you don't even enjoy that privilege where you live (nor do I); which is to say, a Landlord always has a right of entry in
an emergency; and under additional circumstances dictated by law, in the latter case, generally with 24-hour notice.

That's all I was allowing for; was that staff could enter if they had reasonable belief that the unit was being lit on fire, the plumbing had burst and was flooding the building or some other lawful justification for entry was on offer.
Of course, I was merely suggesting that people housed this way should have the same rights as any tenant.
 

Admiral Beez

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,781
Of course, I was merely suggesting that people housed this way should have the same rights as any tenant.
And the same responsibilities. Surely illegal activity such as drug use would violate any lease?

If we want to solve Toronto's homeless situation we need to deal with the genesis of homelessness.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,771
Reaction score
32,557
Location
Toronto/EY
And the same responsibilities. Surely illegal activity such as drug use would violate any lease?

If we want to solve Toronto's homeless situation we need to deal with the genesis of homelessness.

Huh? Drug use is not grounds for eviction unto itself, anymore than consumption of alcohol.

The rules around evictions are quite clear, non-payment of rent, (if applicable)(including partial and late payments if persistent); wilful damage to property; unreasonable interference with the rights of other tenants. (exception, personal use by landlord, major renovation/demolition)

There isn't much else.

Specifically, this is addressed right on the Tribunal web page:

1634410339743.png


You will notice, simple possession/use is not listed.

That could still be a basis for eviction if the use unreasonably interfered with the rights of other tenants/safety etc.


Underlying Act:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06r17/v18#BK70 See S.61
 

Top