There is some hope through an integrated approach that connects several services to provide wrap-around support. Interagency communication is the key. Milwaukee, for example, has implemented a plan that is reducing homelessness, providing support through social services, and reducing street crime. Their initiative is cost effective and helps to give people who are homeless a safe space to call home. In a survey a few years ago, 87% of the people responding confirmed that they would like to be housed.
Shelter is a basic human right, according to the United Nations, and a collaborative effort between private and public agencies will make a difference to everyone who lives in Toronto. The key is in identifying all actors in the play and allocating existing funds that will provide the resources needed.
I understand your point about personal responsibility. It is estimated that there are 5 million beds that aren't being used in private homes every night. Displacing people from parks and other public spaces is a bandaid solution. This is similar to the displacement of low income residents in the downtown that will continue to snowball if sustainable housing initiatives are not promoted and implemented. All levels of government and their agencies have a responsibility find a better way.
I think you missed the point of the post. How would / how could "government and their agencies" help with the deeply personal and complex nature of each individual case - ie. impersonal amoral/immoral bureaucrats, who's basis of power is violence and amoral opportunism, are the least fit for the task. It's "interesting" how you never mentioned VOLUNTARY peaceful charity as being a key. A fish in water.
Also, in another survey a few years ago, 99% of people +-1% confirm they would like a house, a fancy car, a fast computer, and lots of chocolate :).
Dennis, I neglected to mention the years that I spent working for a charity and interacting with other volunteer agencies. There is duplication and waste. Gatekeepers to services who aren't benefiting their clients.
The study I mentioned was commissioned by a well-known charity. The interesting takeaway is that 13% of the respondents were uncomfortable about being housed. Many factors involved, including safety. Another study by a different volunteer run charity indicated that over 50% of TCHC units have experienced some form of home invasion. So, housing without wraparound services is not a complete solution.
I do believe that there are people at all levels of the government who care deeply about the issue and leadership is needed. Integrating the services and funding, including charities, to benefit those who are unhoused and underhoused is cost effective and creates a better society. That is my point.
> "I do believe that there are people at all levels of the government who care deeply about the issue"
Unless they're explicitly libertarian/ancap (like Tim Moen, or anarcho-Queen Sarah), that's almost certainly not true. Someone willing to initiate aggression against peaceful others, someone who doesn't respect the idea of consent, someone who's willing to use brutal physical violence to force me to do things against my will - can't possibly also be a kind benevolent person.
> "leadership is needed"
That's usually a euphemism for brutal heavy-handed Big Brother dictatorial mafia-like intervention. What's actually needed is honesty and morality, a genuine respect for consent. Although Sarah seems to be a rare exception to that, but I doubt you will follow her leadership.
> "13% of the respondents were uncomfortable about being housed"
That's almost certainly because those weren't *their* houses - just like you wouldn't be comfortable living in a stranger's house under a stranger's rules. My point was that it's obvious that people want free things, we didn't need to commission a study to figure that out.
I love seeing thoughtul debate on my posts, and I think both you and Jesse raise really important points. The idea of whether people can be kind or benevolent, even as they are part of structures that harm, or even as they cause harm with their own actions, is one that is worth considering. Coincidentally I am writing something that touches on that idea right now! Hopefully will post today or tomorrow.
Sarah,
There is some hope through an integrated approach that connects several services to provide wrap-around support. Interagency communication is the key. Milwaukee, for example, has implemented a plan that is reducing homelessness, providing support through social services, and reducing street crime. Their initiative is cost effective and helps to give people who are homeless a safe space to call home. In a survey a few years ago, 87% of the people responding confirmed that they would like to be housed.
Shelter is a basic human right, according to the United Nations, and a collaborative effort between private and public agencies will make a difference to everyone who lives in Toronto. The key is in identifying all actors in the play and allocating existing funds that will provide the resources needed.
I understand your point about personal responsibility. It is estimated that there are 5 million beds that aren't being used in private homes every night. Displacing people from parks and other public spaces is a bandaid solution. This is similar to the displacement of low income residents in the downtown that will continue to snowball if sustainable housing initiatives are not promoted and implemented. All levels of government and their agencies have a responsibility find a better way.
kind regards,
Jesse Cohoon
I think you missed the point of the post. How would / how could "government and their agencies" help with the deeply personal and complex nature of each individual case - ie. impersonal amoral/immoral bureaucrats, who's basis of power is violence and amoral opportunism, are the least fit for the task. It's "interesting" how you never mentioned VOLUNTARY peaceful charity as being a key. A fish in water.
Also, in another survey a few years ago, 99% of people +-1% confirm they would like a house, a fancy car, a fast computer, and lots of chocolate :).
Dennis, I neglected to mention the years that I spent working for a charity and interacting with other volunteer agencies. There is duplication and waste. Gatekeepers to services who aren't benefiting their clients.
The study I mentioned was commissioned by a well-known charity. The interesting takeaway is that 13% of the respondents were uncomfortable about being housed. Many factors involved, including safety. Another study by a different volunteer run charity indicated that over 50% of TCHC units have experienced some form of home invasion. So, housing without wraparound services is not a complete solution.
I do believe that there are people at all levels of the government who care deeply about the issue and leadership is needed. Integrating the services and funding, including charities, to benefit those who are unhoused and underhoused is cost effective and creates a better society. That is my point.
> "I do believe that there are people at all levels of the government who care deeply about the issue"
Unless they're explicitly libertarian/ancap (like Tim Moen, or anarcho-Queen Sarah), that's almost certainly not true. Someone willing to initiate aggression against peaceful others, someone who doesn't respect the idea of consent, someone who's willing to use brutal physical violence to force me to do things against my will - can't possibly also be a kind benevolent person.
> "leadership is needed"
That's usually a euphemism for brutal heavy-handed Big Brother dictatorial mafia-like intervention. What's actually needed is honesty and morality, a genuine respect for consent. Although Sarah seems to be a rare exception to that, but I doubt you will follow her leadership.
> "13% of the respondents were uncomfortable about being housed"
That's almost certainly because those weren't *their* houses - just like you wouldn't be comfortable living in a stranger's house under a stranger's rules. My point was that it's obvious that people want free things, we didn't need to commission a study to figure that out.
I love seeing thoughtul debate on my posts, and I think both you and Jesse raise really important points. The idea of whether people can be kind or benevolent, even as they are part of structures that harm, or even as they cause harm with their own actions, is one that is worth considering. Coincidentally I am writing something that touches on that idea right now! Hopefully will post today or tomorrow.
Thanks, Sarah, I appreciate your oil on troubled waters. Best on Monday.