"It's the right thing to do."
Lots of the usual rhetoric,but once again the solutions are vague.
Money will not fix the problem in itself.
Only those who truly want to change their lives can do that,regardless of what they are handed.
And I would sure like to see the math Chudnovsky used to arrive at these figures.

Andyfreeze looked at item one of 3 reasons to end homelessness.

Item 3 should catch the eye of all the naysayers as follows:
________________________________

3. Cheaper to house and support the homeless than to do nothing. He says it costs about $55 thousand a year in policing, health care, courts, jails, and social workers to do nothing. He says it costs about $37 thousand a year to provide a home.
___________________________________


The Simon Fraser University report that provide this information, conservatively estimated the homeless population as 11,500 people.

The taxpayer saving, by doing something rather than doing nothing, of $18,000 per person per year is great. 11,500 times $18,000= $207.4 million.

There are some real nice social housing blocks available near Chernobal. I hear the radiation levels are coming down nicely now. If that's too good there are plenty of other grand social housing schemes in Russia that are sitting empty and waiting for the homeless to come back. We have some relatives about 100 km south of Chernobal, they could visit. Sweet!

Everyone of us have Air Miles we could/should donate. Lets solve homelessness now. We could have the streets cleaned up in a week if we are put some effort into this. Have someone doing the passports, someone baking some cookies and packing warm clothes. A little pipe ban at the airport to give the homeless a great sent off, it'll be grand and exciting. Everything is free in Russia, and big sausages too!

Or we could send those Simon Fraser University activitists over to study homelessness in Russia and see if their math missed anything?

There is no "END" to homelessness... if anything, it is a growing industry and will have a large number of crusaders who will work that industry for their own purposes... ignoring those daily tragedies who will be fodder for their selfish agendas.

It would be better, in my opinion, to provide stronger funding for those agencies who have the ability and experience to manage that slice of despair, such as the Sally Ann, instead of allowing the creation of a new parasite in disguise.

V.

Not all people are selfish but quite a few seem to be. As long as the selfish people are warm, fed and clothed they seem not to care about those less fortunate.

I suspect facts and figures will not help persuade the selfish people that it is okay to help others.

If there were such a thing as karma perhaps the selfish people could return and spend a lifetime trying to get out of poverty themselves.

1. the federal government does not provide housing for me, and I pay taxes. Why should anyone expect the gov to provide housing?

2. The provincial government does not provide housing for me, and I pay taxes. See above

3. If the 250k of low income earner want a better life that comes from a better income, get trained. This is where the government should focus the efforts concerning homelessness.

4. Health, whether mental or physical should always be a primary concern of our government. Using institutions to house the residentially challenged is abuse of one system to address another serious issue. Granted, many homeless have mental problems and should likely be permanently "housed". A crackhead or physically capable lazy a$$ should not be in the mental health institution just to stay warm.

5. Property values and rental rates will always vary. Unless we live in a commune, there is little that can be mandated or regulated for this.

Three simple reasons homelessness will never be eliminated.
1. Some people have no desire to be part of mainstream society. These are the anarchists, substance dependent, plain lazy, and the mentally infirm that will not fit into many regulated programs. The right thing to do is no necessarily providing something for free to one segment of the population on the backs of the productive and self sustaining.

2. Homelessness is only disruptive to the rest of the community if there are no other options for these folks. People are like water, they will take the path of least resistance. If they can find handouts, they will capitalize, ergo, if you put a soup kitchen somewhere, homeless people will frequent that area.

3. If a home is provided for free, it will be under appreciated. It will not be maintained, the resident will allow destructive activities.

This recent ruling concerning tents in Victoria was a good one in my opinion. If homelessness is to be addressed it will not and can not be solved by the government. the government only needs to make an allowance for the homeless to have a place to be. Designate a parcel of land that can be monitored by authorities, provide sanitation and potable water, and leave the rest alone. The homeless will then be off the streets, mostly out of sight, still be under government jurisdiction and monitoring. Social services would still be able to provide services, and would be able to locate individuals.
In larger cities, there could be a multitude of these designated areas.

If we continue with these absurd action being proposed, we will continue with the same result, see definition of insanity. Not all issues can solved. the government is not in the business of housing the populace. The government is to see to the sustainable welfare of its citizens through law and regulation. The individual citizen and immediate family a responsible for their own housing.

Well said Loki!

Building homes fer some First Nations people seems to work, doesn't it? Anyone wanna argue the fact that a person can't appreciate anything unless they work for it? Well? In any area of the city it is not hard to pick out homeowner homes vs. rental homes. Go figure.

When is our next City forum so we can hear what the candidates have to say about other things besides Homelessness? We need some new faces on Council. I hope the Connaught and Miller residents remember which council members listened to us and the ones that didn't when the Backpacker site was before Council. There were only two Council members that are running for re-election who did listen to our concerns and we cetainly remember who they are.This City has got to stop putting all the problems in one area. Eight Million Dollars , we could have bought four apts. in different parts of the city for that amount of money and housed twice as many people.Could it be location , location , location.

.."The Simon Fraser University report that provide this information, conservatively estimated the homeless population as 11,500 people.

The taxpayer saving, by doing something rather than doing nothing, of $18,000 per person per year is great. 11,500 times $18,000= $207.4 million..."

I just noticed that the provincial government budget is $400 million dollars already! SFU is FU'd

On the 18th about 1pm. on Queensway and Patrica Bul. there were some people standing with signs saying everyone needs a home. I guess they are letting us know what we can expect to be living in the old Backpacker site. Maybe even pedophiles. These people probably drive to their nice homes in other areas. I wonder if they have any concerns for the saftey of the people living in this area?

Hey again bitter... maybe if the Chamber of Commerces pulls those questions out of a hat, then asks those questions to the candidates you can hear their answers. Your best bet is to ask them yerself. That is how it works in this town. John/Jane Public can't stand up and ask questions. For what reasons I am ready to listen to have them explained to me.

Harbinger, we have selective forums not public forums. When questions are screened it is not a public forum. Also when the questions are put to particular candidate do we get an unbiased answer?
Some Candidates seem to get more questions than others. It would be nice to have an open forum.