News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

bodsbods9090 said:
They were camping on top of the roof??? Of a private facility? Christ.

I've been to numerous events at that Ukrainian Center in my life. Great hall and a lot of memories. I've always seen homeless people there but this is beyond anything I've ever seen.

Pathetic it's getting THAT bad there.
Click to expand...
That's not what the article says.

The issue was highlighted this week when someone posted a photo online of tents atop the organization’s roof speculating homeless people set up encampments there.

Yehven Burlaka told CTV News Edmonton those tents actually belong to the Ukrainian National Federation.

He said they recently used them during a children’s camp for Ukrainian refugees and after washing them, decided to dry them on the building’s roof.
Click to expand...
 
constance_chlore said:
That's not what the article says.
Click to expand...
I didn't have the sound on but there's pictures on tents on a roof. I'll see if I can find some headphones and listen. My bad.

Yup, my bad. I didn't read the article. Just saw pics of the roof and tents.

But I stand by what I said. That area is worse than it's ever been. I won't be going to any events there any time soon.
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
Its a hard question I've spent alot of time mulling about. The solutions are long term, specifically in investing in subsidized (not "affordable") housing like Civida/Right at Home/HomeEd. We don't have accurate numbers on the number of subsidized housing units but its been pretty much stagnant since we stopped building welfare rate housing to balance the budgets in 1993/94. The waitlists are now bordering on 30,000-40,000 families. We need investment with a capital B, not the piddly crap we have seen so far. I am pleased with the city's focus on pushing forward the supportive transitional housing throughout the city, that will make a dent in the most difficult cases. But it doesn't change the fact the system is spitting people out onto the streets faster than we can house them.

In the short term, ending the "intent to rent" requirement would be a first step in making it easier get people housed. We also need the rental portion of Alberta Works increased to something even remotely feasible, my suggestion is pegging it to a market measure of the bottom 10% of housing stock. That would make finding and securing a place atleast doable.

Edit: I would add we desperately need to do the work to get rid of the "Welfare Wall", the point around 20k a year where the loss in supports (Healthcare supports, childcare supports, housing supports) all fall off a cliff much faster than employment income can compensate for. Expand the eligibility of those supports so they last for a long time after people leave income support (especially because early employment after income support tends to be sporadic and tenuous) and redesign the good idea/bad execution of the Canada Worker's Benefit.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit surprised you didn’t propose a Minimum Basic Income as it would eliminate many of the conflicts you note as well as the duplication and shortfalls of myriad services and their collective shortfalls from all three levels of government. It would also be fully transportable as new employment and housing options become available for individuals.
 
Food and Shelter security is a must in this time in history. A "negative" income tax would greatly help people who need a basic living standard (at least as a starting point). The amount of wealth created in present day western societies is at an all-time high. I have changed my thinking over the years -- I now believe, having seen many instances of it, that people who don't have to stress themselves over food, shelter and health are more than likely going to fill the "next void" (in a progressive sense) with ambition to match their own specific set of interests -- how could that be bad for society.
 
kcantor said:
I’m a bit surprised you didn’t propose a Minimum Basic Income as it would eliminate many of the conflicts you note as well as the duplication and shortfalls of myriad services and their collective shortfalls from all three levels of government. It would also be fully transportable as new employment and housing options become available for individuals.
Click to expand...
While personally I am a fan of both the concepts of a minimum basic income or a universal basic income, I do not believe either are politically feasible. It comes down to our weird obsession with "who deserves support". We have spent vast sums of money and created incredible bloated and intricate bureaucracies just to make sure "only those who deserve support get it", which creates a host of barriers, unintended consequences. The UCP, the party of "red tape reduction" has exponentially introduced layers of red tape to access supports for this very reason.

And its not just those who see themselves as paying for the supports that have this view, its often those receiving supports. One of the most disheartening realization was that many many people on income support strongly believe income support should be cut back because "those other people don't deserve it" while obviously they do. Their expectation is that those "other undeserving folks" will lose their supports while they won't. It's absolutely crazy, but it does help me understand how people in the states can so viscerally hate "Obamacare" while being dependent on it. At the end of the day, Many seniors who receive OAS won't be happy receiving supports from the same program as people with disabilities, and people with disabilities won't be ok receiving the same supports as people who are "just poor", and housed poor folk won't be ok receiving the same supports as those on the streets, etc.....

Its a problem I really wish we could overcome, as a streamlined Universal Basic Income or Guaranteed Minimum Income would greatly reduce our bureaucratic bloat and eliminate so many barriers and perverse incentives. But I have yet to see anybody working on the problem really address it.
 
The worst part about the poverty is that it’s reaching smaller centres as well. Red Deer and Wetaskiwin are having challenges with homelessness. Is there a way to provide some kind of social services?
 
Am I missing something in this article about Montreal adding 6,300 additional below-market housing units with a $2million fund (split between 4 groups)?

How are they adding so many units for so little money?

"The Old Mission Brewery says it will receive $400,000, which will allow it to add 237 units to its housing stock by 2028."

Another group receiving $500,000 will be able to double its housing units from 1,000 to 2,000.

globalnews.ca

Montreal says new housing fund will help create 6,300 non-market units in 10 years - Montreal | Globalnews.ca

The Old Mission Brewery says it will receive $400,000, which will allow it to add 237 units to its housing stock by 2028.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top