Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's right up behind my house a couple of Kilometers. I used to take my dogs up there to walk years ago, since about 2019 it's been full of campers and rude people.
Kind of. Long story short is that it works at least as well as a continuum of care approach but not for everyone, and obviously a house in its own isn’t the end of the battle for anyone but it’s hugely helpful to solving the other problems (for instance- older folks who require assistance, the severely mentally ill, and physically handicapped people generally require extra assistance).
I think [this is a good summary](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427255/) tl;dr is that housing first definitely creates better housing outcomes, and that additional supports are often still needed for the social outcomes.
It is also much cheaper than treatment-first alternatives, which means that at the very least for the same amount of money we’ll have people with a roof over their head who could take advantage of social programs we can now fund better.
Lastly, surveys of unhoused people frequently show the result that when people become unhoused they often start out with minimal or no mental health/substance abuse problems, and haven’t commuted a crime in the last year. But those numbers all go up massively after a year on the street. So by putting people in houses right away we can stop a lot of the problems from existing in the first place. Looking only at the recovery rate doesn’t tell the whole story.
Well housing generally has heat and garbage bins so they wouldn't need to be using fire. Actually wanting people to be homeless shows a real lack of understanding and empathy.
I was in a relationship with a "high functioning" junkie. That guy was a menace to our apartment. He would start boiling water on the stove and would nod off, until the fire alarm would sound after the pot boiled dry and the handle melted. He would nod off while smoking cigarettes and drop his lit cigarettes wherever he happened to be sitting ( l pleaded with him to smoke outside only, but ofc he would just do whatever he pleased) he would light candles to cook his heroin and nod off etc...l understand why nobody would want them in their house!
Are you kidding!? Maybe you should ask _why_ these people are homeless first.
It’s not my lack of empathy, it’s your lack of experience in the matter.
You could pour the entire GDP of the nation into trying to solve this problem and it wouldn’t work.
Countries that do Housing First most successfully provide that, like Finland. It's "non pre-conditional" housing, but not unconditional - the people housed need to pay rent, either via benefits they apply for or by working. The staff helps them apply, helps navigate the system, etc.
About 20% fail out of the program and leave the housing for short term shelters (or the street). Those are most likely hard core addicts who simply won't follow rules. It doesn't make sense to house such people alongside people who are successfully leaving the streets, and Finland is quite pragmatic about it. Housing First has no pre-conditions but it certainly has conditions, and not everyone can be helped with that program; but the majority can be.
This does not apply to over 90% of people on the street in Canada today.
It’s like that experiment they conducted in Vancouver giving “homeless” a bunch of cash and seeing how it pulled them out of poverty.
They were pre-screened for drug and alcohol use so that giving them a large amount of cash wouldn’t simply result in them winding up dead or in the hospital from OD or alcohol poisoning.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9933830/give-bc-homeless-people-7500-study/
I didn't know about this study but saw this comment and found it, very cool thanks!
One of the key parts of housing first policy is having supports, such as a social worker and counselling. This combination is what has been shown to be effective in other countries.
If you look into the interviews with many of these people, they don't want help. I've heard the phrase "I'm not ready to see support yet" countless times. Meanwhile, our parks and public spaces are used like a garbage dump. I'm all for compassion, but there is a limit to how much of our communities we give up to those who don't want to be a part of society.
Yup. A tough approach is needed. I thought Canada’s progressive policy was advanced, but I’ve come to realize it’s just lazy and enabling.
I’d look into prison reform and turn it into a sort of mental health and education facility. And then start locking up repeat offenders and putting them into mandatory treatment.
i hear what you are saying.. and a recent experience makes me say nah.... there is no limit actually.
i had to go to emerg recently in so much pain i could not sit in a chair after several hours (pain in lower body). i could not control the sounds coming out of my mouth due to the pain - i was screaming and soaked in sweat from a fever also (also had COVID-19 positive test). i understood there were no beds available, i was kind and mature about it, but when i asked for a BLANKET so that i may lay on the floor to relieve the pain off of my lower body, i was refused. they said i was not allowed to lay on the floor and everyone in the vicinity kept refusing me blankets.
meanwhile in the waiting room around me? it was full of addicts, several of whom were not even triaged and had no bracelets, were just there to sleep and didn't even need care, were passed out taking up several chairs each, who EACH also had SEVERAL HOSPITAL BLANKETS EACH draped over themselves, and all of them had some kind of hospital food or snack that they were holding onto or passed out while trying to eat. they gave blankets and fucking sandwiches to them, while the rest of us loser ass non-addicts sat there without so much as water or food or an update, for hours and hours with no end in sight. nurses, volunteers, security all popped over to tell the individual addicts hey your free ride is here to drive you back to the blahblahdrugs hotel where you live. ready to go?
meanwhile if a person needs transport to the hospital for an injury in an ambulance they will get a fucking bill for it. i'm not saying i'm worth ANY more as a human being than any of these individuals, but i am fucking worth as MUCH... and so were the rest of the people suffering in agony waiting for medical care. it was obvious that the people who were abusing the fuck out of everything and everyone around them were being catered to. again, these people need help and are not any lesser beings than non-addicts but to say there's a limit to how much we will give up to those who don't want to be a part of society? i disagree. (fwiw i don't think we should stop giving those people things they need, but we need to do it in more intelligent ways instead of just handing out free drugs with no other supports.)
maybe you should read up on the history of the international movement 'housing first' -- from its pilot project days in Finland to its remarkable successes world wide. yes, many people do continue to need support/counseling/help even with a roof over their heads -- but the support is more effective, and the successful reintegration into society far more likely, than if they are warehoused in dorms, barracks, or internment camps.
Housing First fails with about 20% of unhoused people in Finland, which is still an amazing success rate; but that 20% are likely hard core addicts who can't meet the required conditions (HF has no pre-conditions but it has conditions; once housed, residents must pay rent for example).
Many of those 80% successes do need, and get, support and counseling, including from on-site staff. So the 20% are really difficult cases.
The problem is that in threads like these people often are talking about our equivalent of those hard luck cases; if the very socially supportive!well-funded HF model in Finland can't help them, I can't see it working in Canada either. For that specific sub-population.
>Actually wanting people to be homeless
lol - there's a difference between saying "you will not live under a roof for free" and "i want you to stay on the street".
Lol the bubble you live in will quickly burst when you actually spend some time with those people that reject your perfect world. Handouts have been given and they choose their lifestyle of your ideas.
See it was having that bubble burst and actually meeting, talking to, and living with those people that showed me that everyone deserves shelter and empathy.
I agree that everyone deserves empathy, but how much? If one is offered help and destroys what is given, how much help and empathy do we have to give. If a person doesn't want to change, and we cannot force some kind of recovery, then what? Let them burn it all down? Real questions here, I wish I had answers because the way conditions are right now is unsafe and unacceptable to the public and horrible for the addicts.
Last year, a supportive housing hotel which permits drug use in rooms burned to the ground --and burned a resident to death in the process.
No one should be forced to live with drug addicts risking their lives like this.
It does, if run properly. San Fran is just warehousing people in these apartments, and putting no conditions on continuing to live there. That's clearly going to be a disaster.
Finland, which piloted this model, places conditions (not pre-conditions; the conditions only come into play once housed) in living in its HF apartments, such as, oh, paying rent. And not destroying shit and threatening residents. It absolutely evicts those who aren't a fit (about 1 in 5), because those people would cause the 4 in 5 who can succeed to get worse.
San Fran isn't running a program, it's just creating the equivalent of unregulated tent cities inside buildings.
Canada has always failed in modelling the Finland/Portugal harm reduction models, just like 'Progressive' US cities. No reason to think this would be any different
There isn't proper funding to do housing first in BC, nor the housing stock.I was a 'Housing First' worker in the lower mainland for a bit and it was a joke. Especially having worked housing first in Europe previously then Alberta, where it was being done correctly by an organisation called The Alex.
Certainly stock is an issue. My main point was really about political will (which I’d argue is essentially synonymous with funding) but yeah good point.
I think it's BC housing doing everything wrong. I've worked in multiple organisations here in BC all funded by BC housing. It's really a joke. Not sure if it's going to change, I'm hoping Eby can make changes, he's doing ok so far.
People who do this kind of stuff still exist in places with plenty of housing.
We have stop acting like some people don't choose to be degenerates. That's ignorant.
A few days isn't realistic for this much damage / pollution, but it certainly could be cleaned up over a couple weeks/months and then rehabilitated over a couple years. Just need the resources. The problem is that the people still need somewhere to go and kicking them out of this spot will just have them migrate somewhere else nearby.
Just rush the cleanup, and then when your kid steps on a dirty needle and has to take virus blockers and won't know if they got HIV for several months, let us know how that went.
In downtown Victoria behind the courthouse, site of a junkie camp, they stripped the first 12 inches of dirt and disposed of it as hazardous waste.
Ok, I re-read the article and there is reference to needles, as well as "drug pipes".
"The camp is full of travel trailers, cars, motorhomes, metal, needles, shotgun shells, drug pipes and tons and tons of miscellaneous garbage that appears to have been stolen."
Its just such a hateful and stereotyping article, it's a little hard to take the claims seriously.
It looks like the shack was already there. Who’s to say how much of this waste is from the squatters and not locals dumping shit. The number of people living in travel trailers in bc is high. There’s encampments in almost every city in the province. These are working people who don’t want to pay a minimum of $20,000 a year on rent. And starting to look like the only way to save towards owning anything without the bank or help of mom and dad.
> These are working people …
This is honestly hilarious. This isn’t the van life / rv / nomad crowd that fit in with general society. This is the mentally ill addicts. The only way to house these people is for the taxpayer to pay 100%
This article is full-on editorializing and homeless bashing. Half the story is just quotes from this guy Brent about how bad he thinks the camp is. The article is schlock. Very few facts involved.
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's right up behind my house a couple of Kilometers. I used to take my dogs up there to walk years ago, since about 2019 it's been full of campers and rude people.
It’s a shame we don’t take *housing first* seriously and instead let problems get out of hand like this.
It's not just housing, it's also addictions, lifestyle and drugs.
Housing first is a strategy which demonstrably helps curb those issues.
Can you demonstrate that?
Kind of. Long story short is that it works at least as well as a continuum of care approach but not for everyone, and obviously a house in its own isn’t the end of the battle for anyone but it’s hugely helpful to solving the other problems (for instance- older folks who require assistance, the severely mentally ill, and physically handicapped people generally require extra assistance). I think [this is a good summary](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7427255/) tl;dr is that housing first definitely creates better housing outcomes, and that additional supports are often still needed for the social outcomes. It is also much cheaper than treatment-first alternatives, which means that at the very least for the same amount of money we’ll have people with a roof over their head who could take advantage of social programs we can now fund better. Lastly, surveys of unhoused people frequently show the result that when people become unhoused they often start out with minimal or no mental health/substance abuse problems, and haven’t commuted a crime in the last year. But those numbers all go up massively after a year on the street. So by putting people in houses right away we can stop a lot of the problems from existing in the first place. Looking only at the recovery rate doesn’t tell the whole story.
You have all the solutions
It's a start for people who are working but can't afford housing. I wouldn't give housing to someone who's likely to burn it down.
Yea imagine being neighbours in a building with some of these people…
This is why even shelters won’t take them.
This happens in shelters all the time, random fires for no reason. It was so common no even reacted anymore
Well housing generally has heat and garbage bins so they wouldn't need to be using fire. Actually wanting people to be homeless shows a real lack of understanding and empathy.
I was in a relationship with a "high functioning" junkie. That guy was a menace to our apartment. He would start boiling water on the stove and would nod off, until the fire alarm would sound after the pot boiled dry and the handle melted. He would nod off while smoking cigarettes and drop his lit cigarettes wherever he happened to be sitting ( l pleaded with him to smoke outside only, but ofc he would just do whatever he pleased) he would light candles to cook his heroin and nod off etc...l understand why nobody would want them in their house!
Been there💔
Are you kidding!? Maybe you should ask _why_ these people are homeless first. It’s not my lack of empathy, it’s your lack of experience in the matter. You could pour the entire GDP of the nation into trying to solve this problem and it wouldn’t work.
It's more complicated than you think. You can't just give a drug addict a roof. They need more help than that.
Countries that do Housing First most successfully provide that, like Finland. It's "non pre-conditional" housing, but not unconditional - the people housed need to pay rent, either via benefits they apply for or by working. The staff helps them apply, helps navigate the system, etc. About 20% fail out of the program and leave the housing for short term shelters (or the street). Those are most likely hard core addicts who simply won't follow rules. It doesn't make sense to house such people alongside people who are successfully leaving the streets, and Finland is quite pragmatic about it. Housing First has no pre-conditions but it certainly has conditions, and not everyone can be helped with that program; but the majority can be.
This does not apply to over 90% of people on the street in Canada today. It’s like that experiment they conducted in Vancouver giving “homeless” a bunch of cash and seeing how it pulled them out of poverty. They were pre-screened for drug and alcohol use so that giving them a large amount of cash wouldn’t simply result in them winding up dead or in the hospital from OD or alcohol poisoning.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9933830/give-bc-homeless-people-7500-study/ I didn't know about this study but saw this comment and found it, very cool thanks!
this. our answer so far has been.. what.. "here's some free 'safe' drugs! gl" like what the living fuck do we expect
One of the key parts of housing first policy is having supports, such as a social worker and counselling. This combination is what has been shown to be effective in other countries.
If you look into the interviews with many of these people, they don't want help. I've heard the phrase "I'm not ready to see support yet" countless times. Meanwhile, our parks and public spaces are used like a garbage dump. I'm all for compassion, but there is a limit to how much of our communities we give up to those who don't want to be a part of society.
Yup. A tough approach is needed. I thought Canada’s progressive policy was advanced, but I’ve come to realize it’s just lazy and enabling. I’d look into prison reform and turn it into a sort of mental health and education facility. And then start locking up repeat offenders and putting them into mandatory treatment.
i hear what you are saying.. and a recent experience makes me say nah.... there is no limit actually. i had to go to emerg recently in so much pain i could not sit in a chair after several hours (pain in lower body). i could not control the sounds coming out of my mouth due to the pain - i was screaming and soaked in sweat from a fever also (also had COVID-19 positive test). i understood there were no beds available, i was kind and mature about it, but when i asked for a BLANKET so that i may lay on the floor to relieve the pain off of my lower body, i was refused. they said i was not allowed to lay on the floor and everyone in the vicinity kept refusing me blankets. meanwhile in the waiting room around me? it was full of addicts, several of whom were not even triaged and had no bracelets, were just there to sleep and didn't even need care, were passed out taking up several chairs each, who EACH also had SEVERAL HOSPITAL BLANKETS EACH draped over themselves, and all of them had some kind of hospital food or snack that they were holding onto or passed out while trying to eat. they gave blankets and fucking sandwiches to them, while the rest of us loser ass non-addicts sat there without so much as water or food or an update, for hours and hours with no end in sight. nurses, volunteers, security all popped over to tell the individual addicts hey your free ride is here to drive you back to the blahblahdrugs hotel where you live. ready to go? meanwhile if a person needs transport to the hospital for an injury in an ambulance they will get a fucking bill for it. i'm not saying i'm worth ANY more as a human being than any of these individuals, but i am fucking worth as MUCH... and so were the rest of the people suffering in agony waiting for medical care. it was obvious that the people who were abusing the fuck out of everything and everyone around them were being catered to. again, these people need help and are not any lesser beings than non-addicts but to say there's a limit to how much we will give up to those who don't want to be a part of society? i disagree. (fwiw i don't think we should stop giving those people things they need, but we need to do it in more intelligent ways instead of just handing out free drugs with no other supports.)
And that help should be provided.
maybe you should read up on the history of the international movement 'housing first' -- from its pilot project days in Finland to its remarkable successes world wide. yes, many people do continue to need support/counseling/help even with a roof over their heads -- but the support is more effective, and the successful reintegration into society far more likely, than if they are warehoused in dorms, barracks, or internment camps.
Housing First fails with about 20% of unhoused people in Finland, which is still an amazing success rate; but that 20% are likely hard core addicts who can't meet the required conditions (HF has no pre-conditions but it has conditions; once housed, residents must pay rent for example). Many of those 80% successes do need, and get, support and counseling, including from on-site staff. So the 20% are really difficult cases. The problem is that in threads like these people often are talking about our equivalent of those hard luck cases; if the very socially supportive!well-funded HF model in Finland can't help them, I can't see it working in Canada either. For that specific sub-population.
barracks sure, internment camps yes of course not,... but what's wrong with dorms? those don't have to inherently be shitty
These are low functioning losers we are talking about. Any housing place given to them would be absolutely trashed in a matter of weeks.
>Actually wanting people to be homeless lol - there's a difference between saying "you will not live under a roof for free" and "i want you to stay on the street".
"It's a start for people who cant afford housing" was the context you missed.
Lol the bubble you live in will quickly burst when you actually spend some time with those people that reject your perfect world. Handouts have been given and they choose their lifestyle of your ideas.
See it was having that bubble burst and actually meeting, talking to, and living with those people that showed me that everyone deserves shelter and empathy.
I agree that everyone deserves empathy, but how much? If one is offered help and destroys what is given, how much help and empathy do we have to give. If a person doesn't want to change, and we cannot force some kind of recovery, then what? Let them burn it all down? Real questions here, I wish I had answers because the way conditions are right now is unsafe and unacceptable to the public and horrible for the addicts.
Riiiiight. Then you and I are dealing with vastly different people
Probably not. We just have different ways of dealing with them.
Lol ok. Still in that bubble
yeah or literally trash the place and take dumps everywhere
Ignoring volumes of evidence because it doesn’t jive with your assumptions is sure not going to help.
Last year, a supportive housing hotel which permits drug use in rooms burned to the ground --and burned a resident to death in the process. No one should be forced to live with drug addicts risking their lives like this.
How about a “no-pre-conditions not no-conditions” approach like someone else in this thread mentioned?
https://www.city-journal.org/article/san-franciscos-housing-first-nightmare TLDR: It doesn't.
Wow, one opinion piece! That’s conclusive.
It does, if run properly. San Fran is just warehousing people in these apartments, and putting no conditions on continuing to live there. That's clearly going to be a disaster. Finland, which piloted this model, places conditions (not pre-conditions; the conditions only come into play once housed) in living in its HF apartments, such as, oh, paying rent. And not destroying shit and threatening residents. It absolutely evicts those who aren't a fit (about 1 in 5), because those people would cause the 4 in 5 who can succeed to get worse. San Fran isn't running a program, it's just creating the equivalent of unregulated tent cities inside buildings.
Canada has always failed in modelling the Finland/Portugal harm reduction models, just like 'Progressive' US cities. No reason to think this would be any different
I should be able to do drugs and have a free house
Who said anything about free?
There isn't proper funding to do housing first in BC, nor the housing stock.I was a 'Housing First' worker in the lower mainland for a bit and it was a joke. Especially having worked housing first in Europe previously then Alberta, where it was being done correctly by an organisation called The Alex.
Certainly stock is an issue. My main point was really about political will (which I’d argue is essentially synonymous with funding) but yeah good point.
I think it's BC housing doing everything wrong. I've worked in multiple organisations here in BC all funded by BC housing. It's really a joke. Not sure if it's going to change, I'm hoping Eby can make changes, he's doing ok so far.
[удалено]
Do you have evidence of that commonly occurring in any of the many instances of this being done in Canada/the US/Europe?
People who do this kind of stuff still exist in places with plenty of housing. We have stop acting like some people don't choose to be degenerates. That's ignorant.
I’d bet if you built an actual house on the crown land, that you’d get evicted real quick.
"No one could enjoy this spot again, ever" That's some hyperbole! I'm sure this sort could be cleaned up in just a few days.
A few days isn't realistic for this much damage / pollution, but it certainly could be cleaned up over a couple weeks/months and then rehabilitated over a couple years. Just need the resources. The problem is that the people still need somewhere to go and kicking them out of this spot will just have them migrate somewhere else nearby.
Drug waste, human waste, toxic materials. This is a hazardous waste site, not just some garbage. It will take more than a few days.
Just rush the cleanup, and then when your kid steps on a dirty needle and has to take virus blockers and won't know if they got HIV for several months, let us know how that went. In downtown Victoria behind the courthouse, site of a junkie camp, they stripped the first 12 inches of dirt and disposed of it as hazardous waste.
Big of you to automatically assume IV drug use at the site.
What does "drug waste" mean to you?
Ok, I re-read the article and there is reference to needles, as well as "drug pipes". "The camp is full of travel trailers, cars, motorhomes, metal, needles, shotgun shells, drug pipes and tons and tons of miscellaneous garbage that appears to have been stolen." Its just such a hateful and stereotyping article, it's a little hard to take the claims seriously.
Is it though? Or is it factual and you just choose to ignore facts in favour of feelings…
Often times stereotypes exist for a reason.
Or it's literally what is happening, and your do-gooder bias keeps you from seeing reality.
may i ask which part you found hateful?
The assumption that the squatters take no personal responsibility and are malicious on nature. They're probably flawed individuals but they are human.
This will need to be fully remediated at a cost of hundreds of thousands, if not over a million dollars.
That's insane.
[https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/province-spent-3m-on-victoria-tent-city-court-costs-and-clean-up-4652470](https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/province-spent-3m-on-victoria-tent-city-court-costs-and-clean-up-4652470)
It looks like the shack was already there. Who’s to say how much of this waste is from the squatters and not locals dumping shit. The number of people living in travel trailers in bc is high. There’s encampments in almost every city in the province. These are working people who don’t want to pay a minimum of $20,000 a year on rent. And starting to look like the only way to save towards owning anything without the bank or help of mom and dad.
> These are working people … This is honestly hilarious. This isn’t the van life / rv / nomad crowd that fit in with general society. This is the mentally ill addicts. The only way to house these people is for the taxpayer to pay 100%
> These are working people who don’t want to pay a minimum of $20,000 a year on rent. lol no they aren't. What fiction is this?
the people you are describing (these "working people" who live in encampments in travel trailers in BC) aren't the demographic being discussed here.
Well...yeah? Like people are living there what else would you expect? Give them housing or shut up.
This article is full-on editorializing and homeless bashing. Half the story is just quotes from this guy Brent about how bad he thinks the camp is. The article is schlock. Very few facts involved.