Coolibop
Active Member
Speaking of...
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
zang
Senior Member
It's interesting that the intersectional stations are all on there, and yet not equally represented in each direction.
Northern Light
Superstar
No, it is not. There are many turns of phrase you choose from, mentally ill, schizophrenic, those suffering from psychosis....... and more...........your choice of term is derisive and demeaning, not kind or caring.
You should be. Appearing to be kind, respectful and polite means other people will give your views weight and serious consideration.
Their absence means a likelihood of your posts being dismissed by most.
It also increases your chances of being suspended from the forum for violating the behavior code.
Clown is also insulting and derisive and all-caps only draws attention to that, it does not improve the quality of the word chosen or the argument.
I more or less agree with this last bit (though it requires some nuance and finesse) .............but you know if you want others to read that far, let alone give weight to this idea, you need not to have made them tune you out in anger over the first few paragraphs.
APTA-2048
Senior Member
They’re like so close to getting it that these people need to be cared for, but somehow chooses to be a dick about it.
mcbg1
Active Member
Why would the city spend millions on platform doors when it's spending millions on renaming Dundas Square and Dundas Station? They surely got their priorities right.
APTA-2048
Senior Member
How many stations exactly could we do with the money spent on renaming Dundas Square? Last I checked, the renaming didn’t even cost one million.
mcbg1
Active Member
Spending just one dollar on this renaming without public consultations is too much given there are people using our streets as public bathrooms and injection sites while our taxes are being raised every year
Mihairokov
Senior Member
I see everyone who is absolutely miserable have found this thread. Good stuff.
generalcanada
Senior Member
Contrary to what the rage-bait American Postmedia have told you the city isn't spending anything to rename Dundas square or Dundas station.
Steve X
Senior Member
I’m sorry but if the city does have unlimited funds, they should help everyone.
However with so little money, I do agree it’s better to spend on people with a future. Like the health system selects people for organ transplant, the city should choose better.
Also I do think there should be some public bathrooms for everyone to use. Just in case anyone needs it. That includes regular cleaning.
However with so little money, I do agree it’s better to spend on people with a future. Like the health system selects people for organ transplant, the city should choose better.
Also I do think there should be some public bathrooms for everyone to use. Just in case anyone needs it. That includes regular cleaning.
T3G
Senior Member
First of all... eww, what a horrific statement.
Second of all, even if I agreed with your statement, taking care of the vulnerable benefits everybody. It is disingenuous to frame this as choosing to spend on people with a future, or not. Nobody, and I mean nobody, benefits from finding homeless people OD'ed down some alleyway or frozen to death in bus shelters, from people who are so far gone that they are shitting in the street or in TTC seats, or running around attacking people. Even from a purely utilitarian, heartless POV, all of society is lifted up when we help the homeless.
But of course, ew. What a horrendous way to speak about other human beings. The measure of a society is how it treats those on the bottom of its totem pole, not "those with a future" (whatever that means. I guess, by virtue of economic productivity and outlook, CEOs and other business douchebags are the only ones who the city should actually be spending money on).
ShonTron
Moderator
I’ve already dealt a three day vacation to one member who went way too far. Please keep this on topic.
generalcanada
Senior Member
CAREFUL straddling the line of eugenics VERY CLOSELY
81-717
Active Member
Damn, I was downtown around that time, I would've stopped by too if I knew she'd be there. If only it were announced in advance.
Northern Light
Superstar
With the admonishment from @ShonTron in mind......... I'd still like to politely and clearly address this.
Lets forget, for a moment, having a social or other conscience........... Lets make it hard math.
So, assuming you don't wish to advocate for intentionally causing harm...(which I trust you do not); we need to consider the following.
Leaving someone unhoused or untreated (properly) for addiction or mental illness results in the following adverse costs.
1) The disadvantaged souls themselves will end up in hospital ERs (they do now) for things ranging from gout, to frost bite, to dehydration to overdose.
These interventions are expensive. From a hospital accounting perspective (where you charge back the cost of overhead), every ER visit by anyone costs a minimum of 4k.
If you require medications, an extended stay/hospital admission, surgical or other interventions those costs can be vastly higher.
2) If these persons end up completely w/o shelter, they are either on the street, in a doorway, in a back alley or in a park. Putting aside the misery they may suffer as a result, there is an adverse economic impact. Coldly, it hurts tourism, the night economy, perceived public safety etc.
Interventions to get those folks off-the street, repeatedly, are also costly with teams of 2 or more professionals usually working together, often supported by police.
3) For a variety of reasons, some such persons will interact with the legal system, perhaps because of crimes they commit, but just as often as victims of same. Court time is expensive, jails are expensive.
4) If you do get them off the streets short term but don't address underlying health issues and/or don't permanently house them. Shelters run at over $6,000 per person per month. (24/7 staff and security are costly).
5) Delays experienced by riders on TTC are also costly in productivity and quality of life, completely apart from the cost of response to various incidents by TTC and Emergency personnel.
****
The notion that if we 'cut people off' because they're hard to help we will 'save' money that can be redeployed on the deserving is simply incorrect, even with the coldest and harshest of assessments.
That does not mean that we can't employ different solutions/techniques than what we employ today, or that some of those might not be described as 'tough love'. But there is no case to be made for 'ostriching' and
imagining the problem will self-resolve through low to no intervention.
Kindness and altruism, by and large are profitable from a societal point of view. We should behave with kindness in any event; but the cold hard math still works in favour of that world view.
High quality intervention, including permanent housing, is the lowest cost, highest revenue, long term play.
***
Edit to add: I don't think crisis teams at every station 18 hours a day is the most cost-effective or just plain effective use of dollars in the longer term. But as a short term play while we address the systemic and structural issues from housing to healthcare to platform edge doors, there's some sense to the effort, at least at stations known to experience inordinate challenges.
Last edited: