O
Oliver Tweed
Guest
HA, that is a great cartoon.
|
|
|
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
I said that government should help find them shelter. Where do you think that shelter funding will come from? It comes from you, I, and everyone else who pays taxes, plus amounts we pay directly to charities like the United Way. Every time I pay tax or give to charity, I'm helping my greater community. Thus, I feel no shame in refusing to promote the continuance of the begging culture that's growing on Toronto's streets.
Your position seems to be akin to attacking those who refused to give to squeegie people, since if you're not helping them, you're a bad person, regardless of your other contributions back to the community.
S
spmarshall
Guest
I kind of agree with AdA, kind of. I am angry that governments have largely got out of the social housing business, though some projects are being built again. Deinstitutionalization in theory is a great idea - integrate people into society, but there is no social net to help, so many end up on the streets.
Gentrification has removed a lot of the lowest-priced permanent addresses, mainly the SROs (rooming houses), and the issue of the "hidden homeless" and the near-homeless is big. The pandhandlers are the tip of the iceberg.
That said, I would rather pay more in taxes to make a bigger dent in this (along with higher taxes for better public transit, tuition fee freezes and/or reductions, other social programs, etc), and would be pleased to do so if it got more homeless off the streets. That would do even more good than to give to the UW or change to the homeless, and in many ways, it is better to give a decent amount to UW or other charities (Salvation Army, ShareLife, etc), for service that will help than to give change, but I refuse to take the "it will only go to booze" attitude (why should I care, in a way), so once in a while I still give a little bit.
That said, there's a "hard core" that will continue to remain homeless - charities like the United Way and more shelters will help. I could not afford to give change to all pandhandlers I come across anyway (I work in an area with a high concentration of homeless).
But a lot of people do not share my centre-left views, so that all but rules out my ideal answer.
Gentrification has removed a lot of the lowest-priced permanent addresses, mainly the SROs (rooming houses), and the issue of the "hidden homeless" and the near-homeless is big. The pandhandlers are the tip of the iceberg.
That said, I would rather pay more in taxes to make a bigger dent in this (along with higher taxes for better public transit, tuition fee freezes and/or reductions, other social programs, etc), and would be pleased to do so if it got more homeless off the streets. That would do even more good than to give to the UW or change to the homeless, and in many ways, it is better to give a decent amount to UW or other charities (Salvation Army, ShareLife, etc), for service that will help than to give change, but I refuse to take the "it will only go to booze" attitude (why should I care, in a way), so once in a while I still give a little bit.
That said, there's a "hard core" that will continue to remain homeless - charities like the United Way and more shelters will help. I could not afford to give change to all pandhandlers I come across anyway (I work in an area with a high concentration of homeless).
But a lot of people do not share my centre-left views, so that all but rules out my ideal answer.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Again, we must remember that while all beggars are beggars, not all beggars are homeless. We must resist the trend of automatically associating the two. In my experience, most obviously homeless people I see are rarely begging, since they're either asleep on a bench or just sitting in the park.
It's the beggars with the "feel guilty" signs outside of Toronto's live theatres, concert halls, subway stations and malls that I feel need to go, as they are directly affecting Toronto's appeal to both GTA residents and tourists. Other North American cities, such as Atlanta, have outright banned any begging in a designated "tourist triangle". Perhaps this is the approach needed. Again, let's provide the shelter for the true homeless, and then get rid of the begging.
It's the beggars with the "feel guilty" signs outside of Toronto's live theatres, concert halls, subway stations and malls that I feel need to go, as they are directly affecting Toronto's appeal to both GTA residents and tourists. Other North American cities, such as Atlanta, have outright banned any begging in a designated "tourist triangle". Perhaps this is the approach needed. Again, let's provide the shelter for the true homeless, and then get rid of the begging.
C
cdl42
Guest
Queen & Dufferin:
Heads up from Spacing and Torontoist.
Heads up from Spacing and Torontoist.
S
SD2
Guest
Does CBS have some sort of ad agreement with the TTC and other billboard advertisers in the city?
I see their logo everywhere.
I see their logo everywhere.
C
cdl42
Guest
CBS is the billboard company... they're the ones who manage the billboards on the TTC and all across the city.
A
adma
Guest
They replaced the old "Viacom" logo.
Of course, the best thing is that they maintain the lozenge-shape tradition of E.L. Ruddy...
Of course, the best thing is that they maintain the lozenge-shape tradition of E.L. Ruddy...
D
Darkstar416
Guest
It's also led to competing corporate juxtapositions like this...
S
spmarshall
Guest
LOL!
Ewwww. Hockey Day in Canada. Watching a tribute to minor-league hockey brats and hockey moms is certainly not my kind of entertainment.
Ewwww. Hockey Day in Canada. Watching a tribute to minor-league hockey brats and hockey moms is certainly not my kind of entertainment.
F
fiendishlibrarian
Guest
Depends on the hockey moms...
B
building babel
Guest
Briefly, back in the '70's or '80's ( one of those decades ), the billboards around town used to sport spiffy little logos that said "Claude Neon".
A
adma
Guest
70s. Claude Neon vanquished the ghost of E.L. Ruddy...
B
buildup
Guest
Achitower:
7 Carlton?
7 Carlton?