How widespread are the homeless/mental health/addiction issues in your city/province?

[theman23]

Originally Posted by giallo

I'm still kinda shocked that this isn't the biggest deal in Canada right now. Like, I would have imagined an across-the-table, bipartisan plan with every level of government involved to fix this ASAP.

Instead, we get a federal government saying that it's technically "not their responsibility", and municipalities still blocking 11 unit low rise projects from being built in their neighbourhoods.

As far as I'm concerned, the housing crisis has become the biggest issue Canada has faced in my lifetime next to the 1995 referendum vote, and things just keep getting worse and worse.

Before 2022, there was little acknowledgement outside of forums like this one or reddit that housing was becoming unaffordable. The Liberals ran a campaign ad in 2021 about how successful they were at keeping housing affordable, and no one batted an eye. The family shown in the video was living in a single family home that would have cost millions of dollars at the time. Even on this forum there were posters arguing the same. Some of them still do, but thankfully they're becoming increasingly rare.

Now there's wide consensus that there is a problem, but hardly anyone is willing to acknowledge that what we're doing is wholly insufficient to address it. We need to triple housing completions each year to keep up pace with demand, but no one has come out with a plan to tell us how we're going to be doing this or if not how far off the mark we're going to be. As long as we keep applauding politicians each time they make announce (and re-announce) some form of tinkering, there isn't going to be any serious progress on this front. Moves like removing the GST on rental housing and the Housing Accelerator are good in a vacuum, but amount to little in the big picture.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

An article from Uganda-based Monitor of all places (via Agence France-Presse) about the growing "humanitarian crisis" in Canada.




https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/new...s-soar-4390268


Based on those estimates, that would mean somewhere between 0.6-1.8% of the Canadian population is currently homeless. Perhaps we do need to start framing the housing issue as a humanitarian crisis.

Also made it to the front pages of Japan Times:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...a-prices-soar/

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's interesting because this person was firmly in the harm reduction, counselling, etc. camp but said this problem was too much and "somebody needed to do something".

This is hilarious. You seriously missed the opportunity to reply something along the lines of “yes, YOU [pointing to the person] need to go buy earplugs”…?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Based on those estimates, that would mean somewhere between 0.6-1.8% of the Canadian population is currently homeless. Perhaps we do need to start framing the housing issue as a humanitarian crisis.

You’re aware that if we immediately imported an astronomical quantity of new suckers, the % of the Canadian population that’s currently homeless would instantly drop? Who says no one is doing anything?

[niwell]

I would be curious if the percentage of junkie/addict types is really that much higher than 10 years ago or so*. Whereas two factors have made it an exponentially worse and visible problem:

-Toxicity of street drugs due to influx of Fentanyl and related mixtures replacing more "traditional" problems like alcoholism.

-Massive increase in housing costs leading to an actual numerical decrease in SROs and other traditional forms of truly "affordable" housing for these types. Despite a massive population increase too, so proportionately even less is available.


We can have all the social programs in the world but I don't think much progress will be made until we tackle those issues. And really, the housing issue is the big one as you aren't going to make strides in reducing addiction when people's lives remain so precarious.


*I have a family member who's been an addict for decades, in and out of jail, rehab at least 5 times, etc. so had a bit of a peek into this going back a while now. It was always grim but it seems far more dangerous to all involved these days.

[theman23]

The Vancouver Homeless Count data was presented in a recent CBC video.
You can see the numbers at 49 seconds.

While the numbers aren't a comprehensive count of the homeless population, they're a useful way to track trends.

Homelessness has increased by 32% since 2020 and 75% since 2014.

You can view the video here, or click the Youtube link tomorrow.
• Video Link

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by theman23

The Vancouver Homeless Count data was presented in a recent CBC video.
You can see the numbers at 49 seconds.

While the numbers aren't a comprehensive count of the homeless population, they're a useful way to track trends.

Homelessness has increased by 32% since 2020 and 75% since 2014.

You can view the video here, or click the Youtube link tomorrow.
• Video Link

The numbers are only for homeless indigenous individuals. So yeah, that's what they are capturing.

[niwell]

Again, I wonder how this corresponds with the decline in SROs and other affordable bedrooms. The days of renting a tiny room in a shitty flophouse are over it seems.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The numbers are only for homeless indigenous individuals. So yeah, that's what they are capturing.

No - those are the total numbers of homeless found by the point-in-time counts in Greater Vancouver since 2005, not just indigenous homeless.

There were 4,821 homeless in total. The breakdown for the sheltered and unsheltered numbers, and all the other data, including the municipal breakdown, is here.

There are 1,187 in total more homeless than 3 years earlier, 325 more in the City of Vancouver, and 416 more in Surrey.

There were 1,461 unsheltered found by the survey in total, 432 more than three years ago. (That's actually less than in 2008). The number of sheltered homeless increased by 755 since 2020.

There were 58 more unsheltered in the City of Vancouver than in 2020 (to 605), 55 more in Richmond, 58 more in Burnaby and 128 more in Surrey (to 301).

King County, (Seattle) our nearest neighbour to the south, with a population of 2.37m, had 13,368 homeless people in their 2022 point-in-time count. Greater Vancouver has 2.65m population.

Calgary with roughly half the population of Greater Vancouver had 2,782 homeless in 2022, 795 of them unsheltered.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The numbers are only for homeless indigenous individuals. So yeah, that's what they are capturing.

They counted both, the percentages I reported were for the total count.

Originally Posted by Changing City

No - those are the total numbers of homeless found by the point-in-time counts in Greater Vancouver since 2005, not just indigenous homeless.

There were 4,821 homeless in total. The breakdown for the sheltered and unsheltered numbers, and all the other data, including the municipal breakdown, is here.

There are 1,187 in total more homeless than 3 years earlier, 325 more in the City of Vancouver, and 416 more in Surrey.

There were 1,461 unsheltered found by the survey in total, 432 more than three years ago. (That's actually less than in 2008). The number of sheltered homeless increased by 755 since 2020.

There were 58 more unsheltered in the City of Vancouver than in 2020 (to 605), 55 more in Richmond, 58 more in Burnaby and 128 more in Surrey (to 301).

King County, (Seattle) our nearest neighbour to the south, with a population of 2.37m, had 13,368 homeless people in their 2022 point-in-time count. Greater Vancouver has 2.65m population.

Calgary with roughly half the population of Greater Vancouver had 2,782 homeless in 2022, 795 of them unsheltered.

Don't think these point in time counts are meant to compare cities with each other, since the methodology likely differs in each city. They're meant to track temporal trends and offer qualitative data:

Limitations
While the Point in Time homeless count methodology is generally considered to produce an undercount of those experiencing homelessness, various other factors may have also impacted the accuracy of the 2023 Homeless Count in Greater Vancouver. The value of the Count remains the comparison of trends over time.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by theman23

Don't think these point in time counts are meant to compare cities with each other, since the methodology likely differs in each city. They're meant to track temporal trends and offer qualitative data:

These days the methodology for point-in-time counts is pretty consistent across different locations, (especially so in Canada). All point-in-time counts are thought to undercount the total number of homeless people, and most if not all studies have a similar statement to that effect.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Again, I wonder how this corresponds with the decline in SROs and other affordable bedrooms. The days of renting a tiny room in a shitty flophouse are over it seems.

Not sure if it’s the same in Ontario or BC, but here in Quebec, in addition to market pressures, there’s also the fact that the authorities have declared war to SROs. I used to be my hometown’s main SRO operator, now out of my three, I was forced to raze one (the lot is worth a lot more now), another is vacant waiting for demolition (again the lot would be worth a lot more with the building gone), and the third is vacant too but I’ll probably convert it to college student housing (badly needed and a MUCH nicer tenant demographic).

This guy (link below) committed suicide by throwing himself in front of the train downtown earlier this year: he had been my SRO tenant for ~15 years before the government kicked him to the street by forcing the closure of that SRO building of mine for extremely minor code issues (all my tenants were happy and wanted to stay, but then someone showed up saying he was from The Government and was here to help; and it ended with a former tenant deliberately laying down on train tracks.)

https://www.latribune.ca/2023/04/07/...0946db3620b9b/

Two weeks ago I had a RBQ inspector in another building of mine for something unrelated (which I passed with flying colors) and he brought up that SRO building, pointing out they actually did me a favor by kicking everyone to the street. It’s true that the property is worth a lot more now, but was it worth the human tragedies? I would say no, but it wasn’t my decision; I’m just again getting richer personally through hardship imposed to other people by deliberate government choices.

tl;dr version: SRO buildings are vanishing. I had three, have zero now, and have no plans to ever operate any again in my lifetime.

[niwell]

^Yep. While they are grandfathered-in in Toronto it’s effectively impossible to build new ones outside of the central city (where the economics no longer make sense). John Tory of all people tabled a bylaw to legalize new construction in outer boroughs but it didn’t pass at council. Now they are kind of allowed as of next year but again, economics. Why build a rooming house when you can charge 3x as much to students!

I’ve had a few friends over the year who likely would have ended up homeless if it weren’t for $300 rooms in shitty rooming houses. Not great but they had a bed and access to a shower, kitchen etc. Also have lived next to rooming houses in Parkdale and the Junction Triangle. Yes they were a bit sketchy and often had tenants drinking on the patio but I never had an issue - most people kept to themselves and the few interactions I had were pretty friendly. I got the sense they weren’t going to mess with neighbours like you get now in some areas with the uptick in homelessness.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

This guy (link below) committed suicide by throwing himself in front of the train downtown earlier this year: he had been my SRO tenant for ~15 years before the government kicked him to the street by forcing the closure of that SRO building of mine for extremely minor code issues (all my tenants were happy and wanted to stay, but then someone showed up saying he was from The Government and was here to help; and it ended with a former tenant deliberately laying down on train tracks.)

I was talking to somebody who develops affordable housing and he complained that often with the new developments people argue that they're "not nice enough". But they have a budget so if you make each unit nicer you get fewer units, and if politicians demand too much or keep changing what they demand the projects don't get built at all. If you're a NIMBY this can work out great; you block the rooming house project in your backyard and you're on the record looking like a saint to a casual observer, demanding more help for the people you screwed over.

He also had some interesting stories about the tenants doing things like pawning the microwaves in their units. A lot of the amenities you add will just be destroyed. We really need a bigger variety of housing for different kinds of occupants, with the low end, to be frank, perhaps looking a lot like a prison cell with no lock on the door (a secure, warm, dry, clean, lit place that's hard to mess up; vastly superior to a tent).

[Xelebes]

Went out to do some dancing tonight. Saw three people being treated for poisoning on my way. Didn't even go downtown. Two of them at Southgate and only one being treated on Whyte.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by niwell

I would be curious if the percentage of junkie/addict types is really that much higher than 10 years ago or so*. Whereas two factors have made it an exponentially worse and visible problem:

-Toxicity of street drugs due to influx of Fentanyl and related mixtures replacing more "traditional" problems like alcoholism.

-Massive increase in housing costs leading to an actual numerical decrease in SROs and other traditional forms of truly "affordable" housing for these types. Despite a massive population increase too, so proportionately even less is available.

Agree with this hypothesis, though I'd add a third point: changes to policing & bail rules. Up until the recent past the most aggressive, violent individuals would likely be in jail. Now, they're either arrested and released the next day, or ignored entirely by the police. Even if this group is a relatively miniscule population, they have a huge impact on crime and general disorder.


In unrelated news, the government here in BC, where all drugs are decriminalised, is now looking at banning...cigarettes?

https://globalnews.ca/video/10011413...te-smoking-ban

[casper]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Agree with this hypothesis, though I'd add a third point: changes to policing & bail rules. Up until the recent past the most aggressive, violent individuals would likely be in jail. Now, they're either arrested and released the next day, or ignored entirely by the police. Even if this group is a relatively miniscule population, they have a huge impact on crime and general disorder.


In unrelated news, the government here in BC, where all drugs are decriminalised, is now looking at banning...cigarettes?

https://globalnews.ca/video/10011413...te-smoking-ban

In BC decriminalisation only applies to four types of drugs, in small quantities and away from areas where children are frequently found.

As for BC cracking down on cigarettes, it would amount to alignment of BC rules with the rest of the country. BC still permits cigarette sales in drug stores; something that is banned in most of the country. The idea of adopting some of the rules in New Zealand and other parts where soles to young people is banned in interesting, but I strongly doubt Canada would ever go there. Restrictions on retailers being issued licenses to sell tobacco is a different matter.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Agree with this hypothesis, though I'd add a third point: changes to policing & bail rules. Up until the recent past the most aggressive, violent individuals would likely be in jail. Now, they're either arrested and released the next day, or ignored entirely by the police. Even if this group is a relatively miniscule population, they have a huge impact on crime and general disorder.

Good point. It's unfortunate things tend to be looked at through such a black and white lens these days. I'm generally in favour of lenient bail as jail (moreso than prison) tends to be a horrible place that turns petty criminals into violent offenders. But it seems that a lot of the issues are being committed by a small group of repeat offenders - there has to be a way to actually target this without ruining it for anyone else. Not that I have much hope for that. We're much more likely to overcorrect once this truly reaches a certain point I fear.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by niwell

Again, I wonder how this corresponds with the decline in SROs and other affordable bedrooms. The days of renting a tiny room in a shitty flophouse are over it seems.

Id argue SROs are a form of homelessness.

If the housing market wasnt so distorted by cheap money and easy lending , people without addiction issues who work for minimum wage 40 hours a week should be able to find a studio apartment without spending more than 1/3 of their income.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Id argue SROs are a form of homelessness.

If the housing market wasnt so distorted by cheap money and easy lending , people without addiction issues who work for minimum wage 40 hours a week should be able to find a studio apartment without spending more than 1/3 of their income.

I absolutely agree on the working 40 hours a week for a studio apartment part, but I do think there will always be a need for "lesser" forms of housing. The proviso is it should be very, very cheap. Even if we're not looking at those with addictions or other issues lots of bands and other Canadian artists were able to make it in the early 2000s by working part time jobs and living in cheap rooms. Working enough to pay the rent and devoting the rest of your time towards creative pursuits. That's simply not possible anymore.