Oh, well. Let's look at the bright side. Maybe "It's the best place on Earth ~ to be homeless in."

No increased Property Taxes. No increased water and garbage bills. No worries about using too much electricity, and being hit with Hydro's second tier bill increases. Or even their overall rate increase as of April 1st. And no Carbon Tax to pay on the heating bill.

No concerns that you missed out on last year's Home Renovation Tax Credit for a new roof, or whatever.

Or that you'll have to pay HST on those new "energy efficient" windows, or furnace, come July 1st. And who cares if they put in water meters or not, and if they do, you can only afford to bath once a week?

Or if you're in compliance with the latest zoning regulation that tells you what MORE you now can't do on "your" property?

And you've got the full HST credit to the low-incomed coming up. Why with all those advantages, it's surprising there's only 259 taking advantage of them!

They're all counting on us to keep on working and paying those taxes.

Socredible, this post is not of your better ones. Why direct this kind of sarcasm at people who find themselves without a proper home, often without being able to help themselves?

Most of the homeless would gladly pay all the taxes and fees if they could afford to, I am sure.

Ah, well.

Dont bet on it Mr Prince George. A lot of what Socredible says is true.

Im not 100% sure what they mean by **Homeless** or Homeless living in a shelter. Some of the homeless stay in facilities overnight and then leave in the morning and return at night. Others have regulars places to stay. The **homeless** that moved into the apartments at 17th and Queensway get a one bedroom suite, and stay there. A part of the cost is taken from their welfare cheques, however they do have some meals served, and laundry facilities etc;. As a matter of interest these apartments cost $234,000.00 each to build. They built 18 as far as I know. Thats a hell of a lot of money.

There are three meals a day available at St Vincent de Paul, or the Salvation Army, for the homeless, and of course they get their welfare cheques for approx $600.00 per month. Some of them do not want to livein a residence as they would have to pay for it out of their welfare, so in the **summertime** they live on the street and keep the money. For a lot of them the money is spent on alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs.

Some of course live in residences and try to make a go of it, and they should be commended., For those who smoke, drink, drug, and gamble, get free cloths every couple of weeks, and free meals everyday, and do nothing to better their lot, I have little sympathy for.

As I said before, we need a better definition of homeless.

Governments do not have enough money to support a massive over bloated bureaucracy, all of the special interest groups, and the homeless.

The homeless are just going to have to get by the best they can. They are on their own.

Sickening love how you people beat on the most vulnerable. What do you people have against them anyways? You sound like a bunch of Nazi's. Terrible behavior from grown men. Some people have no feeling or compassion at all. It't sick. Hope you never need anything.

Way to godwin!

Actually chrislivingdowntown, the nazis probably treated their homeless people better than we do, unless of course the homeless happened to be jewish, or not white.

Before Hitler came to power, Germany was filled with what we could classify as homeless people. The nazis brought prosperity to the (white) Germans, which is why the man and the party were so loved. It wasn't just because Hitler gave great speeches.

White single mothers were also treated better by the nazi government than our government, too.

People forget that nazis stood for socialism.

Pointing this out doesn't make me a believer or supporter of nazis, but it does show us that civilization is doing a terrible job of protecting our vulnerable and needy, even compared to nazi germany, one of the most evil regimes the world has known.

Prince George:- "Most of the homeless would gladly pay all the taxes and fees if they could afford to, I am sure."
------------------------------------------
So would we all, Prince George. If we could afford to.

I don't have the same penchant for digging up statistics that others on here do, but the last time I saw the relevant figures I seem to recall the number of homeless had risen substantially from where it was ten years ago.

I would take it from that that it's becoming increasingly difficult for people to afford to stay in a home of their own. And all the tax shifts (increases to us, generally) and fee increases we've been hit with haven't exactly aided their efforts.

I guess I'm a little like Palopu, I have every sympathy for those who're down on their luck due to circumstances often beyond their control, and do their best to cope with a difficult, if not impossible, situation.

And not much use for 'freeloaders', who are only "homeless" as a matter of choice. And even if they were given a home, free gratris, and everything else, would be too useless to even try to keep it up.

But I think I would differ with most in regards to the solution for that. In my view, there really is no 'physical' need for anybody in this country to be homeless. We don't lack the materials, the land, the labor, or the skills and knowledge necessary to provide a home for everyone. And it need not be some standardised, low-cost shack either. We could do way better than that, for all. What it really comes down to is strictly a matter of 'money'.

What Charles has posted above illustrates the problem, when he writes, "Governments do not have enough money...."

Well, obviously NOT. BUT NEITHER DO 'WE'. And especially after we give half a years earnings to "Governments", every year, and it's still not enough FOR THEM, nor what's left, FOR AN EVER INCREASING NUMBER OF US!

If it were, we wouldn't have homelessness, nor any of the other problems which we could easily fix "physically", but can neve seem to get a handle on "financially".

We could, and as a first step should, cut spending on that "massive over bloated bureaucracy" (and especially at the TOP of it, where the most blatant over bloating 'moneywise' prevails ), and on "special interest groups", where there's also too much waste.

But beyond that, if something needed is "physically possible, socially desirable and morally correct" then it should ALWAYS be able to be made FINANCIALLY POSSIBLE, too. And it can be.

But NOT just through the savings we've engendered, NOR through more taxation, obviously. For no matter how much we "cut" where cuts should be made, we're still going to find we're short of 'money'. Publicly, and privately, too, for most of us.

The answer to that is NOT a 're-distribution' of 'money' through taxation, or by any other means. For no matter how you re-distribute an insufficiency (of 'money), it's still an insufficiency. It has to be changed in its ongoing relationship to its alter ego, PRICE.

This is not difficult to do.

The problem with Nazi Germany is that it embraced the same philosophy that is governing us "financially" today.

Is it a sane system that dictates you have to make a machine gun before you can buy a cabbage?

Yes, indeed, the Nazis cured the problem of 'homelessness', and many other social ills that prevailed in the regimes that pre-ceded them.

But with them it still was, as Herman Goering said, "Guns before butter." In other words, they needed to make what was really superfluous, the munitions of war, (unless you're out to conquer the world, that is), in order to distribute enough 'incomes' to buy the other things people actually needed and wanted.

And we attempt to do the same thing today, or soon will, when Olympic Games and Site C Dams, or drives to "capture" export markets, fail to do the trick.

As most of you know I have lived downtown for two and a half years before I moved on. I go downtown every day. I see the same people everyday. Some have got off the drugs while others haven't. But for those who have. I am glad for them. I feel more comfortable around them then anyone else. Mainly because they are real with real problems. I don't know if I can help anyone there but I am around to listen. I guess I have that compassion because I left an abusive family moved out here at 19 and never looked back. Did I do well. Not really but I survived and always will. If anyone knows me on this site then they know what I mean. Being homeless is no fun. It hurts and I know very well how hard it is to get stable. Stable is the word here. Look I don't have answers that can solve homelessness in Prince George but I can understand it. As for family well I for one can tell you it took many years for me to reconnect with family. Even now I still wonder if it is all worth trying. I love them but I can't make them all care. At this point in my life I have learned that yes I made dumb choices in my life. But I am alive and I have my health. Being homeless is much more then someone just doing drugs and has given up on life itself. Not everyone came from perfect little families that mommy and daddy loved the children and they all went to school to become well off and living high. Some people have had to struggle all the way with no breaks. It's those people I feel that are the real winners in life. So the next time you see a homeless person or a drug addict. Just remember that it could of been you.

Its so Carole James will know how many votes she'll get next election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Canada

The linked writing on the homeless in Canada seems relatively unbiased and quite informative about the spectrum of causes.

I still find it amazing how many people think we are seeing people who are less human than they are just because they are homeless.

An intersting quote from the linked writing: "Another common misunderstanding surrounds the homeless who prefer not to use the shelter system. In addition to rules and regulations, shelter users must accept crowded shelter conditions, which carry a high likelihood of TB exposure in inadequately ventilated room, along with risks of bedbugs, scabies, and lice infestations"

and this one: "Homelessness is a problem that largely affects white native born Canadians. Immigrants and visible minorities are far less likely to be homeless."

Od course we count homeless now. BUT, does anyone ever inspect the facilites we have here and how they measure up to a standard of cleanliness and safety?" What are those standards? Who is responsible for enforcing those standards? How does this community measure up to other communities? Are the facilities that have replaced the PG Hotel better or worse than the Hotel provided, for instance?

Like many things, aren't we attacking the problem of homelessness from the wrong end?

Wouldn't it be better to take measures to make it easier for people to buy and own their own homes?

And be able to maintain them, and themselves, in them? Rather than to try to get them into some kind of shelter after they've failed and become homeless? Or never had any chance in the first place of getting a place of their own?

In my opinion, every government we've had since WAC Bennett went out of office in 1972, has, with only minor exceptions, made it more difficult for people to buy, own, and stay in their own homes. It's no wonder that the number becoming homeless continues to rise, and the cost of trying to deal with the problem, (from the WRONG end, as we're wont to do with so many things), continues to rise as well. Only at a faster rate. It's really a losing battle continuing on the way we are. We're going backwards, not forwards towards any sensible, practical, overall solution.

The term "homeless" covers a pretty wide swath, as far as why and how people are homeless.
We already know most homeless are either addicts,drunks,or mentally ill.
Some are all of the above, and some are simply deadbeats working the system.
The more "homeless" friendly a place is,the more you will have.
I have never figured out the point to constantly totalling up the number of "homeless" when nothing ever changes.
What is the point here?
Is a light bulb suddenly going to come on and someone will say.."wow!...now we know what to do with them...problem solved!"
No it's not,and nothing will change.
Anyone who is on welfare for any length of time should be monitored.
Instead,our gobvernment simply hands out the cheques for ever,with no accountability at anytime.
Once you are in the system,you are there forever, with no questions asked.
What's wrong with this picture?