News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 3.4K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 1.2K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 2K     0 

Shabby Public Realm

junctionist said:
With that said, one problem with homelessness in Toronto that is rarely talked about is that many 905 suburbs lack shelters of their own. Instead, they direct their homeless to Toronto. Some literally buy their homeless residents transit tickets to get to Toronto.

I believe that every 905 suburb should have a robust shelter and affordable housing system. All cities in the region should share the burden, but some have neglected the issue or downright refused to open their own shelters. That's unacceptable because it means that the homeless of the region become downtown Toronto's burden.
Click to expand...
Good points. As I said, like bears to the dump, desperate people will go to wherever the pickings are. The reason 905 suburbs send their addicted and addicted homeless to Toronto is that they know that instead of sending them back, we‘ll feed them and look away when they turn our parks, ravines and sidewalks into squats.

Solving homelessness should be a federal and provincial matter, not a municipal one. Until it is, we’re stuck.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Good points. As I said, like bears to the dump, desperate people will go to wherever the pickings are. The reason 905 suburbs send their addicted and addicted homeless to Toronto is that they know that instead of sending them back, we‘ll feed them and look away when they turn our parks, ravines and sidewalks into squats.

Solving homelessness should be a federal and provincial matter, not a municipal one. Until it is, we’re stuck.
Click to expand...
The downside of making it a provincial responsibility is that they will become less sensitive to local concerns when it comes to shelters, etc. To be honest, it would be a lot more cost effective to provide services outside the downtown core.
 
junctionist said:
With that said, one problem with homelessness in Toronto that is rarely talked about is that many 905 suburbs lack shelters of their own. Instead, they direct their homeless to Toronto. Some literally buy their homeless residents transit tickets to get to Toronto.

I believe that every 905 suburb should have a robust shelter and affordable housing system. All cities in the region should share the burden, but some have neglected the issue or downright refused to open their own shelters. That's unacceptable because it means that the homeless of the region become downtown Toronto's burden.
Click to expand...

And more youth shelters/student housing in the 905 suburbs. Students are living in homeless shelters because there are nothing affordable to rent.

financialpost.com

Rents are so high in Toronto that students are living in homeless shelters

Lack of supply is one of the reasons rents for one-bedroom apartments have increased 20% since last year. Find out more.
financialpost.com financialpost.com
 
gabe said:
And more youth shelters/student housing in the 905 suburbs. Students are living in homeless shelters because there are nothing affordable to rent.

financialpost.com

Rents are so high in Toronto that students are living in homeless shelters

Lack of supply is one of the reasons rents for one-bedroom apartments have increased 20% since last year. Find out more.
financialpost.com financialpost.com
Click to expand...
It’s a big country with colleges and universities from coast to coast. If you can‘t afford or find housing in Toronto, go somewhere else.
 
Probably very few folks in Toronto have a serious problem with homeless people who are non-violent, polite to passerby, and respectful of city and private property.

But every discussion about homeless on the internet, that I've seen, eventually turns into a virtue signalling game where conflation between different types of homeless is all but guaranteed as individuals, and factions, try to one up each other, a tragedy of the commons so to speak.

It's quite clear that everywhere where the violent homeless go there's a huge backlash. Nobody wants to live in fear of being assaulted, stabbed, etc., for a single minute if they can help it, so any realistic proposals must include ways to separate out the different types of homeless.

And that includes those who are so far gone, the very heavy drug users, that the kindest mercy would be immediate imprisonment.

But since the benefits of action are diffuse and the costs concentrated in the few folks who gain from having overall homeless numbers increase, it will likely will not happen until some huge tragedy occurs to galvanize enough voters into action .

Which of course makes society very cynical thus leading to issues like the degradation of public spaces. In effect a race to the bottom.
 
Last edited:
MichaelZ said:
And that includes those who are so far gone, the very heavy drug users, that the kindest mercy would be immediate imprisonment.
Click to expand...
Why do you think treating an illness needs imprisonment? I certainly agree that we need more TREATMENT facilities and accept that some people may need to be 'confined' there while being treated (as it the old 'asylums') but to send drug addicts to a regular prison is CERTAINLY not the answer!
 
DSC said:
Why do you think treating an illness needs imprisonment? I certainly agree that we need more TREATMENT facilities and accept that some people may need to be 'confined' there while being treated (as it the old 'asylums') but to send drug addicts to a regular prison is CERTAINLY not the answer!
Click to expand...
I will repeat:
But every discussion about homeless on the internet, that I've seen, eventually turns into a virtue signalling game where conflation between different types of homeless is all but guaranteed as individuals, and factions, try to one up each other, a tragedy of the commons so to speak.

If you expect a substantive reply, the usual expectation is to first offer a substantive comment. I'm pretty laissez-faire in regards to asking questions, but even in my case I expect you to at least try to address my comment. Like not conflating different types of homeless together.
 
I just want for downtown east what much of the rest of the city gets, nice public spaces without the parks and sidewalks taken over by squats. Just yesterday I was down at the eastern Beach neighbourhood, and not a single encampment, no addicts sprawled across the sidewalk and not a single beggar. Why do they get to live thusly?

Again, the issue is the same as bears at the dump, downtown east is the epicentre of food and support for the city’s homeless, addicted and mentally ill street people. As long as the food source is there, the bears will not be deterred.
 
MichaelZ said:
I will repeat:
But every discussion about homeless on the internet, that I've seen, eventually turns into a virtue signalling game where conflation between different types of homeless is all but guaranteed as individuals, and factions, try to one up each other, a tragedy of the commons so to speak.

If you expect a substantive reply, the usual expectation is to first offer a substantive comment. I'm pretty laissez-faire in regards to asking questions, but even in my case I expect you to at least try to address my comment. Like not conflating different types of homeless together.
Click to expand...
You made specific note of 'the very heavy drug users' (which I copied) and my response was about with them. Of course, there are different kinds of homeless folk and clearly one-size does not fit all. Violent and threatening folk MAY need to be arrested, those who shoot up and 'embarrass' regular citizens with their presence in our parks and on our streets need treatment.
 
DSC said:
You made specific note of 'the very heavy drug users' (which I copied) and my response was about with them. Of course, there are different kinds of homeless folk and clearly one-size does not fit all. Violent and threatening folk MAY need to be arrested, those who shoot up and 'embarrass' regular citizens with their presence in our parks and on our streets need treatment.
Click to expand...
Okay thanks for replying with something resembling a substantive point. I'm not sure what you meant by ''embarrass' regular citizens with their presence,' it doesn't seem likely anyone walking along has embarrassment at the top of their mind after a threatening encounter, but let's put that aside for now.

Usually when a community is threatened by a few, for the greater good of everyone, not just for one particular group or another, the violent and threatening definitely need to be arrested, and not just arrested and shuffled out right after. It doesn't matter who does the shuffling, a cycle of catch and release clearly ends up harming everyone. If you disagree that's fine, different people have different views.

I mention imprisonment because homeless shelters, and any other non-controlled facility, are actually some of the worst possible places to put these folks, since they in fact scare away otherwise well-behaving homeless, thus defeating their purpose. This logic also applies to those who can't control themselves, such as but not limited to very heavy drug users.

Your first reply, after the initial question, was simply just stating your own personal views with some added word play:

'I certainly agree that we need more TREATMENT facilities and accept that some people may need to be 'confined' there while being treated (as it the old 'asylums') but to send drug addicts to a regular prison is CERTAINLY not the answer!'

Notice how in the text there's a jump to assuming a 'regular prison' and then declaims against an assertion you yourself made.

I'm taking the time to explicitly spell out things since you seem like an otherwise productive poster, this kind of writing style only undermines the credibility of the writer as most folks who've been around the block can tell what's what.
 
Last edited:
So Popeyes went ahead and disfigured the lovely heritage building at Christie and Dupont (previously a Starbucks, who treated it with far greater respect):
EEDEA765-0400-403D-BAD5-14BBC220EDF7.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top