The City of Toronto has no regard for the local communities where they put these shelters.
They place the shelters both where there is demand for them, and where it is feasible to do so.
I feel for the homeless but if they are habitually violent, have mental health or drug issues they need to be relocated or forced to seek treatment. They are a definite danger to the communities in which they reside and unfortunately the City of Toronto turns a blind eye to that fact.
While I agree that people who are a danger to others need to be removed from society until they are no longer such.......
You do realize police/City powers are limited in such cases; the most they can generally do is a get a 72-hour hold on someone. There are rare cases where more is possible..........
But assuming the problem results from being 'high' on something, the person generally no longer poses a danger once they are sober, and must be released under current laws; in the alternative, if the problem results from a mental illness
that can be controlled by taking prescription medication, once they are medicated and return to a normal state, they are again free to go.
Your issue really isn't with police/by-law in many cases, who can only do so much; its with the laws, regulations and policies as they pertain to mental health and addiction, particularly as it relates to those who perpetually
cause problems, usually due to a relapse, and/or failing to take their medication, again.
The City does not run CAMH or the various mental health wards at the hospitals; neither they nor the police can direct how these are run, and whether someone faces an extended commitment (the latter also being the subject of a legal process).
The process is described here:
Generally, there are two ways for someone to end up in a mental health care or psychiatric facility — voluntarily or involuntarily. In each province, there are guidelines governing who can request or order admittance to these facilities, how long individuals may stay or be kept, and the...
www.legalline.ca
The question is one of defining harm (to self or others); including assessing a patient's ability to adhere to a prescribed behavior, be that sobriety or the taking or prescription medications.
In general, the system currently defers to any positive affirmation by a person who is mentally capable of giving one at the time, that they will abide by the above.
*****
Safe injection sites are very different from shelters, and they do merit some critical examination; I happen to favour legalizing a wider range of drugs with the ability to acquire safe supplies in reasonable dosage sizes, which is plausible for many recreation substances; for those where it is not, I would still favour decriminalization.
That would address people's ability to report people to police who may be providing tainted drugs etc.
There is little doubt these facilities have saved dozens or even hundreds of lives (active medical intervention, plus prevention) ; but its not clear to me that that's having a net positive effect on survival rates of those with addiction.
I think there is some basis here for reflecting on whether we have the right model in place.
But one does have to remember that this was seen as alternative to people using back alleys, or parks or doughnut shop washrooms.
