Seattle Homelessness

13

Comments

  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 14,260
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's a great program they got going.  I don't see why more communicates don't get creative like this...
    They did all over the US in the 60's and 70's.  We call them "the projects"  It was a failed social experiment that the government tried.

    "The projects" weren't really creative or innovative though.... I'm not even sure we can really called them a completely failed social experiment. I am aware of how it all turned out.... but they did also serve to house people. It was more like a project that had potential but was badly managed and only one-quarter completed than a failed social "experiment". It was certainly a case study in a poorly conceived and executed plan. If they had actually been a creative or innovative social plan, they probably would have worked!
    Not innovative?  They built state of the art high rises for a decent cost when there was nothing, housed those in need, provided schooling and food programs for those that needed.

    And yes they did fail.  I got to live by some of the worst ones ever.  They were a failure because the areas/society they were built in let them fail.  It's different when you got to see them up close and the bad things that happened in them and around them.

    Some of the projects are finally becoming blossoming areas.  It only took 3 generations to happen...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,727
    edited July 18
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's a great program they got going.  I don't see why more communicates don't get creative like this...
    They did all over the US in the 60's and 70's.  We call them "the projects"  It was a failed social experiment that the government tried.

    "The projects" weren't really creative or innovative though.... I'm not even sure we can really called them a completely failed social experiment. I am aware of how it all turned out.... but they did also serve to house people. It was more like a project that had potential but was badly managed and only one-quarter completed than a failed social "experiment". It was certainly a case study in a poorly conceived and executed plan. If they had actually been a creative or innovative social plan, they probably would have worked!
    Not innovative?  They built state of the art high rises for a decent cost when there was nothing, housed those in need, provided schooling and food programs for those that needed.

    And yes they did fail.  I got to live by some of the worst ones ever.  They were a failure because the areas/society they were built in let them fail.  It's different when you got to see them up close and the bad things that happened in them and around them.

    Some of the projects are finally becoming blossoming areas.  It only took 3 generations to happen...
    That's not innovative IMO. I guess we have different definitions of innovation? To me, what you listed are just basic, regular ideas.

    I'm not saying the projects are awesome - as I said, I know all the issues with them quickly becoming ghettos. I just meant they didn't fail in the sense that they did put roofs over people's heads. That's it. And I think the "ghetto-ization" happened specifically because the plan wasn't innovative or diverse enough.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 8,470
    Speaking of public housing done well, here's an article from HuffPo this morning, describing how successful social housing is in Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vienna-affordable-housing-paradise_us_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 14,260
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's a great program they got going.  I don't see why more communicates don't get creative like this...
    They did all over the US in the 60's and 70's.  We call them "the projects"  It was a failed social experiment that the government tried.

    "The projects" weren't really creative or innovative though.... I'm not even sure we can really called them a completely failed social experiment. I am aware of how it all turned out.... but they did also serve to house people. It was more like a project that had potential but was badly managed and only one-quarter completed than a failed social "experiment". It was certainly a case study in a poorly conceived and executed plan. If they had actually been a creative or innovative social plan, they probably would have worked!
    Not innovative?  They built state of the art high rises for a decent cost when there was nothing, housed those in need, provided schooling and food programs for those that needed.

    And yes they did fail.  I got to live by some of the worst ones ever.  They were a failure because the areas/society they were built in let them fail.  It's different when you got to see them up close and the bad things that happened in them and around them.

    Some of the projects are finally becoming blossoming areas.  It only took 3 generations to happen...
    That's not innovative IMO. I guess we have different definitions of innovation? To me, what you listed are just basic, regular ideas.

    I'm not saying the projects are awesome - as I said, I know all the issues with them quickly becoming ghettos. I just meant they didn't fail in the sense that they did put roofs over people's heads. That's it. And I think the "ghetto-ization" happened specifically because the plan wasn't innovative or diverse enough.
    There was diversity at first in some of them but then for whatever reason it all became low income housing and did become ghetto unfortunately.

    These were all set up for failure.

    I wonder what they are going to do in Seattle to change it?


  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,004
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's a great program they got going.  I don't see why more communicates don't get creative like this...
    They did all over the US in the 60's and 70's.  We call them "the projects"  It was a failed social experiment that the government tried.

    "The projects" weren't really creative or innovative though.... I'm not even sure we can really called them a completely failed social experiment. I am aware of how it all turned out.... but they did also serve to house people. It was more like a project that had potential but was badly managed and only one-quarter completed than a failed social "experiment". It was certainly a case study in a poorly conceived and executed plan. If they had actually been a creative or innovative social plan, they probably would have worked!
    Not innovative?  They built state of the art high rises for a decent cost when there was nothing, housed those in need, provided schooling and food programs for those that needed.

    And yes they did fail.  I got to live by some of the worst ones ever.  They were a failure because the areas/society they were built in let them fail.  It's different when you got to see them up close and the bad things that happened in them and around them.

    Some of the projects are finally becoming blossoming areas.  It only took 3 generations to happen...
    That's not innovative IMO. I guess we have different definitions of innovation? To me, what you listed are just basic, regular ideas.

    I'm not saying the projects are awesome - as I said, I know all the issues with them quickly becoming ghettos. I just meant they didn't fail in the sense that they did put roofs over people's heads. That's it. And I think the "ghetto-ization" happened specifically because the plan wasn't innovative or diverse enough.
    There was diversity at first in some of them but then for whatever reason it all became low income housing and did become ghetto unfortunately.

    These were all set up for failure.

    I wonder what they are going to do in Seattle to change it?


    That's a great question. The City has been throwing money at this problem for years and years and the problem continues to grow to the point where it is out of control. Tourists are being accosted. Convention centers are hearing that Seattle may be out of contention for various conventions. Tourism is at risk. There are health and safety concerns for both the people without housing, and for residents of neighborhoods who suddenly find homeless encampments near them. It has become a pretty massive problem. It is going to take more than just throwing money at the issue. We need more opportunity, better conditions for those homeless who are seeking employment (so they can shower, have an address, access to other social services, etc...). We need more beds in shelters, and more shelters in areas of the city where homeless congregate. We need better programs to help the mentally ill get off the streets. We need better programs for those with drug addictions. Even working people, who suddenly find themselves with medical expenses end up on the street as they are left without a way to pay their rent. The cause of homelessness in the city is multi-faceted so there is no single solution to the issue. It is good to see private companies and non-profits stepping in to assist. There are many smart, entrepreneurial people in this city and hopefully we can get some big brains working together to make improvement. It won't come solely from the city government. They've shown that they are not able to adequately address the issue on their own. 
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,727
    edited July 19
    It's a pretty tough situation to handle when the city happens to be one of the few where tons of homeless people migrate to because of the mild climate. Seattle is one of those cities. That is a huge problem in Vancouver too. Even if the current homeless population does get more help, more homeless people just keep on coming. Homelessness is obviously also a state and federal issue, not just a regional/local one.
    But yes, some things that need to be done are things like funding special wards/programs in hospitals, so that ERs don't just keep having a flood of homeless ODs who then just leave and go right back to the street. A new program at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver has just opened a new department that has beds for such people coming into the ER, and it provides services and help to those people rather than just treating and releasing. A safe injection/OD prevention tent has also been set up in the alley behind the hospital. These kinds of things can really help both in the short term and the long term when it comes to making sure that the homeless have more access to and directed help with social aid programs after they have a traumatic event occur.
    The City of Surrey (part of metro Vancouver) also just built a bunch of modular housing specifically for a tent city that had grown in one area and was completely destroying the neighborhood (Vancouver is also currently building several modular housing buildings for this). They built the housing, staffed it with people to help folks transition from the streets and to find work and help with rehab and everything, and then they, with the help of the cops, informed everyone in the tent city, assigned everyone their rooms (which do include private washrooms in each room), and scheduled moving weekend. When that time came, a bunch of people and cops (instructed to help, not be aggressive) went and helped them all pack up and move. They got about 170 people off the street and into free housing that provides support within 48 hours. It worked. Honestly, all these kinds of things take is the will of the government to go ahead and fucking get it done. Metro Vancouver and Seattle are extremely similar when it comes to the homeless issue, so what works here ought to work there too.... except for the problem of the American healthcare system. Not to say we don't continue to struggle with this issue btw. I'm just saying there are some things being done that are really positive, and at least a good step in the right direction. But local government has to REALLY get on board. That's not easy, since most local governments are frozen by power politics and massive egos.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 14,260
    jeffbr said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's a great program they got going.  I don't see why more communicates don't get creative like this...
    They did all over the US in the 60's and 70's.  We call them "the projects"  It was a failed social experiment that the government tried.

    "The projects" weren't really creative or innovative though.... I'm not even sure we can really called them a completely failed social experiment. I am aware of how it all turned out.... but they did also serve to house people. It was more like a project that had potential but was badly managed and only one-quarter completed than a failed social "experiment". It was certainly a case study in a poorly conceived and executed plan. If they had actually been a creative or innovative social plan, they probably would have worked!
    Not innovative?  They built state of the art high rises for a decent cost when there was nothing, housed those in need, provided schooling and food programs for those that needed.

    And yes they did fail.  I got to live by some of the worst ones ever.  They were a failure because the areas/society they were built in let them fail.  It's different when you got to see them up close and the bad things that happened in them and around them.

    Some of the projects are finally becoming blossoming areas.  It only took 3 generations to happen...
    That's not innovative IMO. I guess we have different definitions of innovation? To me, what you listed are just basic, regular ideas.

    I'm not saying the projects are awesome - as I said, I know all the issues with them quickly becoming ghettos. I just meant they didn't fail in the sense that they did put roofs over people's heads. That's it. And I think the "ghetto-ization" happened specifically because the plan wasn't innovative or diverse enough.
    There was diversity at first in some of them but then for whatever reason it all became low income housing and did become ghetto unfortunately.

    These were all set up for failure.

    I wonder what they are going to do in Seattle to change it?


    That's a great question. The City has been throwing money at this problem for years and years and the problem continues to grow to the point where it is out of control. Tourists are being accosted. Convention centers are hearing that Seattle may be out of contention for various conventions. Tourism is at risk. There are health and safety concerns for both the people without housing, and for residents of neighborhoods who suddenly find homeless encampments near them. It has become a pretty massive problem. It is going to take more than just throwing money at the issue. We need more opportunity, better conditions for those homeless who are seeking employment (so they can shower, have an address, access to other social services, etc...). We need more beds in shelters, and more shelters in areas of the city where homeless congregate. We need better programs to help the mentally ill get off the streets. We need better programs for those with drug addictions. Even working people, who suddenly find themselves with medical expenses end up on the street as they are left without a way to pay their rent. The cause of homelessness in the city is multi-faceted so there is no single solution to the issue. It is good to see private companies and non-profits stepping in to assist. There are many smart, entrepreneurial people in this city and hopefully we can get some big brains working together to make improvement. It won't come solely from the city government. They've shown that they are not able to adequately address the issue on their own. 
    This was a problem when I lived there back in the mid 90's!

    Hopefully they can figure out something because nothing seems to be working.  Here in NY it's becoming worse.  In the last five years I've seen the population in the city growing with homeless.

    Has anyone done  a case study on this?  Any links?
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,396
    Most level of governments will never really  care about the homeless.  Homeless don't vote they don't pay taxes, blah, blah ... that's what the politicians really care about taxes so they can buy votes....
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 19,363
    Most level of governments will never really  care about the homeless.  Homeless don't vote they don't pay taxes, blah, blah ... that's what the politicians really care about taxes so they can buy votes....
    To top it off this current administration doesn’t give a hoot about the homeless heck they don’t care about children so why would they care about people living on the streets ...this issue is not even a blip on their radar..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,396
    Most level of governments will never really  care about the homeless.  Homeless don't vote they don't pay taxes, blah, blah ... that's what the politicians really care about taxes so they can buy votes....
    To top it off this current administration doesn’t give a hoot about the homeless heck they don’t care about children so why would they care about people living on the streets ...this issue is not even a blip on their radar..
    No Trump supporter ... who are all those people sleeping on the streets of Detroit during the Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush 1 and on and on.  There is absolutely NO way anyone can pin the homeless problem on any particular party ... the Republican and Democrats own this problem, same as in Canada all levels of government are responsible for the homeless problem...
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 19,363
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 19,363
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/nyregion/obama-to-propose-11-billion-to-combat-family-homelessness.amp.html
    I haven’t looked it up to see if he ever got the green light from Congress..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • PapPap Serres, GreecePosts: 20,061

    Ooh, yeah! All right!
    Were [Pearl] jammin
    I wanna [Pearl] jam it wid you.
    Were [Pearl] jammin, [Pearl] jammin
    And I hope you like [Pearl] jammin too.


    Sep 30, 2006 - OAKA Sports Hall - Athens, Greece
    Jul 11, 2014 - Milton Keynes Bowl - Milton Keynes, UK
  • PapPap Serres, GreecePosts: 20,061

    Ooh, yeah! All right!
    Were [Pearl] jammin
    I wanna [Pearl] jam it wid you.
    Were [Pearl] jammin, [Pearl] jammin
    And I hope you like [Pearl] jammin too.


    Sep 30, 2006 - OAKA Sports Hall - Athens, Greece
    Jul 11, 2014 - Milton Keynes Bowl - Milton Keynes, UK
  • PapPap Serres, GreecePosts: 20,061
    One of the more memorable recordings is the live concert on November 6, 2000 in Seattle. It's the second of two benefit concerts in Seattle, where old friends Pearl Jam and Red Hot Chili Peppers raise more than a half-million dollars for the homeless in Seattle. ~ Henrik Tuxen (Pearl Jam: The More You Need - The Less You Get)
    Ooh, yeah! All right!
    Were [Pearl] jammin
    I wanna [Pearl] jam it wid you.
    Were [Pearl] jammin, [Pearl] jammin
    And I hope you like [Pearl] jammin too.


    Sep 30, 2006 - OAKA Sports Hall - Athens, Greece
    Jul 11, 2014 - Milton Keynes Bowl - Milton Keynes, UK
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 14,260
    I have been hearing hat the homeless problem is getting bigger in Seattle because it is a city that tries to help.

    If you know you won't be bothered living in a tent and there are resources there why wouldn't you go there?

    It's a double edged sword.  Help the people and they all come.  Don't help them then it just remains an ongoing problem.

    If every big city in America did something maybe this wouldn't be a problem or maybe less of one?

    I still would like to see case studies on this.
  • PapPap Serres, GreecePosts: 20,061

    Ooh, yeah! All right!
    Were [Pearl] jammin
    I wanna [Pearl] jam it wid you.
    Were [Pearl] jammin, [Pearl] jammin
    And I hope you like [Pearl] jammin too.


    Sep 30, 2006 - OAKA Sports Hall - Athens, Greece
    Jul 11, 2014 - Milton Keynes Bowl - Milton Keynes, UK
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,727
    I have been hearing hat the homeless problem is getting bigger in Seattle because it is a city that tries to help.

    If you know you won't be bothered living in a tent and there are resources there why wouldn't you go there?

    It's a double edged sword.  Help the people and they all come.  Don't help them then it just remains an ongoing problem.

    If every big city in America did something maybe this wouldn't be a problem or maybe less of one?

    I still would like to see case studies on this.
    They have always all come to the west coast in general largely because of the climate too. Of course they will migrate to places where being homeless is the least painful in every way. If they stopped helping them in Seattle, they'd still all go there just for the mild weather.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 14,260
    PJ_Soul said:
    I have been hearing hat the homeless problem is getting bigger in Seattle because it is a city that tries to help.

    If you know you won't be bothered living in a tent and there are resources there why wouldn't you go there?

    It's a double edged sword.  Help the people and they all come.  Don't help them then it just remains an ongoing problem.

    If every big city in America did something maybe this wouldn't be a problem or maybe less of one?

    I still would like to see case studies on this.
    They have always all come to the west coast in general largely because of the climate too. Of course they will migrate to places where being homeless is the least painful in every way. If they stopped helping them in Seattle, they'd still all go there just for the mild weather.
    I would think that I would go to California for mild weather and no rain.  Seattle would be one of my last choices as far as weather.

    Here in NY we have a big homeless problem too and we have horrible winters but they are here and growing in numbers.  I'd say it's because of the resources and that the mayor does not push to remove them from the streets.

    San Francisco in certain parts has tents everywhere.  Some at random right on the sidewalks of inhabited areas.  I've never witnessed anything like that.

    The town of Ventura has a HUGE homeless community that you don't see.  They live on the beach in homemade huts or live under the bridges and in the washes.  They don't bother locals or vacationers.  I've never seen an area where homeless people lived and didn't panhandle or cause some form of trouble.

    I haven't been in Seattle since 2013 so I am interested to see what the town has transformed to.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,727
    edited July 30
    PJ_Soul said:
    I have been hearing hat the homeless problem is getting bigger in Seattle because it is a city that tries to help.

    If you know you won't be bothered living in a tent and there are resources there why wouldn't you go there?

    It's a double edged sword.  Help the people and they all come.  Don't help them then it just remains an ongoing problem.

    If every big city in America did something maybe this wouldn't be a problem or maybe less of one?

    I still would like to see case studies on this.
    They have always all come to the west coast in general largely because of the climate too. Of course they will migrate to places where being homeless is the least painful in every way. If they stopped helping them in Seattle, they'd still all go there just for the mild weather.
    I would think that I would go to California for mild weather and no rain.  Seattle would be one of my last choices as far as weather.

    Here in NY we have a big homeless problem too and we have horrible winters but they are here and growing in numbers.  I'd say it's because of the resources and that the mayor does not push to remove them from the streets.

    San Francisco in certain parts has tents everywhere.  Some at random right on the sidewalks of inhabited areas.  I've never witnessed anything like that.

    The town of Ventura has a HUGE homeless community that you don't see.  They live on the beach in homemade huts or live under the bridges and in the washes.  They don't bother locals or vacationers.  I've never seen an area where homeless people lived and didn't panhandle or cause some form of trouble.

    I haven't been in Seattle since 2013 so I am interested to see what the town has transformed to.
    I said the west coast - they go all over the west coast, yes ... California is just too hot and sunny for some people though, including the homeless. Seattle has pretty mild winters (and emergency shelters are set up during the rare really cold snaps), and the summers aren't heinously hot either. That is why it's so appealing. Just some rain isn't a huge factor for a lot of people - some like it. Keeps things clean and green.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,396
    Something needs to be done about the lack of affordable housing almost every where...And of course some cities are really bad ... Van, SF are 2 that come to mind.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,727
    Something needs to be done about the lack of affordable housing almost every where...And of course some cities are really bad ... Van, SF are 2 that come to mind.
    Yeah, that is true, and I guarantee you that the affordability crises in those cities has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers, unless you consider the fact that it makes the lives of the asylum seekers harder too, just like it does for everyone else. An affordability crisis in any given large city really isn't going to be significantly impacted by a few thousand people in desperate need of help - certainly not to the extent that one should be using it as an excuse not to help them.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,396
    PJ_Soul said:
    Something needs to be done about the lack of affordable housing almost every where...And of course some cities are really bad ... Van, SF are 2 that come to mind.
    Yeah, that is true, and I guarantee you that the affordability crises in those cities has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers, unless you consider the fact that it makes the lives of the asylum seekers harder too, just like it does for everyone else. An affordability crisis in any given large city really isn't going to be significantly impacted by a few thousand people in desperate need of help - certainly not to the extent that one should be using it as an excuse not to help them.
    It's make their life harder to.  My point being, we do not have enough housing.  The federal government needs to work with the provincial government and municipalities to try to address this.  I am not saying asylum seekers are a problem, I'm saying having to many people needing housing with a shortage of housing is contributing to the problem...and I really do not know how the problem can be fixed...

    I'd rather the government discuss these issue with builders to see what can done as well.

    I live in area where home ownership is still possible, but is quickly getting out of reach, but because home ownership was affordable for just about anyone with a job and a savings plan, apartments have not been constructed much around here ...

    I have ideas but thats all.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,727
    edited July 30
    PJ_Soul said:
    Something needs to be done about the lack of affordable housing almost every where...And of course some cities are really bad ... Van, SF are 2 that come to mind.
    Yeah, that is true, and I guarantee you that the affordability crises in those cities has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers, unless you consider the fact that it makes the lives of the asylum seekers harder too, just like it does for everyone else. An affordability crisis in any given large city really isn't going to be significantly impacted by a few thousand people in desperate need of help - certainly not to the extent that one should be using it as an excuse not to help them.
    It's make their life harder to.  My point being, we do not have enough housing.  The federal government needs to work with the provincial government and municipalities to try to address this.  I am not saying asylum seekers are a problem, I'm saying having to many people needing housing with a shortage of housing is contributing to the problem...and I really do not know how the problem can be fixed...

    I'd rather the government discuss these issue with builders to see what can done as well.

    I live in area where home ownership is still possible, but is quickly getting out of reach, but because home ownership was affordable for just about anyone with a job and a savings plan, apartments have not been constructed much around here ...

    I have ideas but thats all.
    You seem to think that an affordability crisis is all about supply. That is not the case IMO. While supply can be one factor, speculation and foreign investment are usually the main culprits when housing affordability goes out of control.
    But in any case, I think an empathetic person would be focusing on figuring out how to find housing somewhere for these poor people (and for anyone who needs housing), whatever the affordability or supply issue is, not arguing that they need to go the fuck away or the government somehow has to get rid of them. There is indeed room for them, and there are indeed ways to help them without harming others.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,396
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Something needs to be done about the lack of affordable housing almost every where...And of course some cities are really bad ... Van, SF are 2 that come to mind.
    Yeah, that is true, and I guarantee you that the affordability crises in those cities has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers, unless you consider the fact that it makes the lives of the asylum seekers harder too, just like it does for everyone else. An affordability crisis in any given large city really isn't going to be significantly impacted by a few thousand people in desperate need of help - certainly not to the extent that one should be using it as an excuse not to help them.
    It's make their life harder to.  My point being, we do not have enough housing.  The federal government needs to work with the provincial government and municipalities to try to address this.  I am not saying asylum seekers are a problem, I'm saying having to many people needing housing with a shortage of housing is contributing to the problem...and I really do not know how the problem can be fixed...

    I'd rather the government discuss these issue with builders to see what can done as well.

    I live in area where home ownership is still possible, but is quickly getting out of reach, but because home ownership was affordable for just about anyone with a job and a savings plan, apartments have not been constructed much around here ...

    I have ideas but thats all.
    You seem to think that an affordability crisis is all about supply. That is not the case IMO. While supply can be one factor, speculation and foreign investment are usually the main culprits when housing affordability goes out of control.
    But in any case, I think an empathetic person would be focusing on figuring out how to find housing somewhere for these poor people (and for anyone who needs housing), whatever the affordability or supply issue is, not arguing that they need to go the fuck away or the government somehow has to get rid of them. There is indeed room for them, and there are indeed ways to help them without harming others.
    Remember we are in very different areas of the countries.  As a homeowner, I'd love for my real estate to shoot up like TO or Van.  Where I live it's about availability and affordable accommodations...I need not worry to much about speculators.  Properties where I live are not sitting vacant and if they are, not for long...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 42,727
    edited July 30
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Something needs to be done about the lack of affordable housing almost every where...And of course some cities are really bad ... Van, SF are 2 that come to mind.
    Yeah, that is true, and I guarantee you that the affordability crises in those cities has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers, unless you consider the fact that it makes the lives of the asylum seekers harder too, just like it does for everyone else. An affordability crisis in any given large city really isn't going to be significantly impacted by a few thousand people in desperate need of help - certainly not to the extent that one should be using it as an excuse not to help them.
    It's make their life harder to.  My point being, we do not have enough housing.  The federal government needs to work with the provincial government and municipalities to try to address this.  I am not saying asylum seekers are a problem, I'm saying having to many people needing housing with a shortage of housing is contributing to the problem...and I really do not know how the problem can be fixed...

    I'd rather the government discuss these issue with builders to see what can done as well.

    I live in area where home ownership is still possible, but is quickly getting out of reach, but because home ownership was affordable for just about anyone with a job and a savings plan, apartments have not been constructed much around here ...

    I have ideas but thats all.
    You seem to think that an affordability crisis is all about supply. That is not the case IMO. While supply can be one factor, speculation and foreign investment are usually the main culprits when housing affordability goes out of control.
    But in any case, I think an empathetic person would be focusing on figuring out how to find housing somewhere for these poor people (and for anyone who needs housing), whatever the affordability or supply issue is, not arguing that they need to go the fuck away or the government somehow has to get rid of them. There is indeed room for them, and there are indeed ways to help them without harming others.
    Remember we are in very different areas of the countries.  As a homeowner, I'd love for my real estate to shoot up like TO or Van.  Where I live it's about availability and affordable accommodations...I need not worry to much about speculators.  Properties where I live are not sitting vacant and if they are, not for long...
    Really, you'd love for your real estate to shoot up like TO or Van to the detriment of all non-homeowners and the entire city???
    FYI, the majority of home owners in Vancouver want prices to drop as well (excluding these creepy speculators, obviously). We're at the point where business owners can't find employees because nobody earning lower wages can afford to live here. Literally, some restaurants and stores are being forced to close down some days of the week because they can't staff the place. And other businesses are simply closing because they can no longer afford the leases or the rent. And there is just the fact that a lot of home owners now have children who can't properly support themselves because of the housing affordability problem, and no parents wants that. Surely you wouldn't hope for such things just because you'd be making a profit for yourself without doing any work??
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 2,396
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Something needs to be done about the lack of affordable housing almost every where...And of course some cities are really bad ... Van, SF are 2 that come to mind.
    Yeah, that is true, and I guarantee you that the affordability crises in those cities has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with asylum seekers, unless you consider the fact that it makes the lives of the asylum seekers harder too, just like it does for everyone else. An affordability crisis in any given large city really isn't going to be significantly impacted by a few thousand people in desperate need of help - certainly not to the extent that one should be using it as an excuse not to help them.
    It's make their life harder to.  My point being, we do not have enough housing.  The federal government needs to work with the provincial government and municipalities to try to address this.  I am not saying asylum seekers are a problem, I'm saying having to many people needing housing with a shortage of housing is contributing to the problem...and I really do not know how the problem can be fixed...

    I'd rather the government discuss these issue with builders to see what can done as well.

    I live in area where home ownership is still possible, but is quickly getting out of reach, but because home ownership was affordable for just about anyone with a job and a savings plan, apartments have not been constructed much around here ...

    I have ideas but thats all.
    You seem to think that an affordability crisis is all about supply. That is not the case IMO. While supply can be one factor, speculation and foreign investment are usually the main culprits when housing affordability goes out of control.
    But in any case, I think an empathetic person would be focusing on figuring out how to find housing somewhere for these poor people (and for anyone who needs housing), whatever the affordability or supply issue is, not arguing that they need to go the fuck away or the government somehow has to get rid of them. There is indeed room for them, and there are indeed ways to help them without harming others.
    Remember we are in very different areas of the countries.  As a homeowner, I'd love for my real estate to shoot up like TO or Van.  Where I live it's about availability and affordable accommodations...I need not worry to much about speculators.  Properties where I live are not sitting vacant and if they are, not for long...
    Really, you'd love for your real estate to shoot up like TO or Van to the detriment of all non-homeowners and the entire city???
    FYI, the majority of home owners in Vancouver want prices to drop as well (excluding these creepy speculators, obviously). We're at the point where business owners can't find employees because nobody earning lower wages can afford to live here. Literally, some restaurants and stores are being forced to close down some days of the week because they can't staff the place. And other businesses are simply closing because they can no longer afford the leases or the rent. And there is just the fact that a lot of home owners now have children who can't properly support themselves because of the housing affordability problem, and no parents wants that. Surely you wouldn't hope for such things just because you'd be making a profit for yourself without doing any work??
    Yes I would.  Have I ever lead you to believe that I am opposed to making money?  Do you have a pension?  Then it's likely your pension has benefited from real estate at some point.  If you are unhappy with the cost of Vancouver probably all you can do is move.  You don't think adding more people is a problem, I do think it is a problem.  In my case the problem that is there is benefiting me as  an asset, in your case it's a liability and you want to add it.  I'm always going to live in a house, I enjoy not having people around me like ants.  I made housing a priority from day 1 after HS.  As a youngster, I always understood in Canada you need warm housing, then you need food in your belly.  The affordability problem will only get worse because politicians like Fluff.
  • cp3iversoncp3iverson Posts: 4,461
    I usually dont chime in but who wouldnt want the value of their home to shoot up? There’s nothing insensitive or selfish with wanting that.  These are your belongings and investments.  I certainly wouldnt want to be upside down or stagnant on the value.  
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 8,470
    I usually dont chime in but who wouldnt want the value of their home to shoot up? There’s nothing insensitive or selfish with wanting that.  These are your belongings and investments.  I certainly wouldnt want to be upside down or stagnant on the value.  

    All fine and dandy as long as it's a reasonable and sustainable growth. The problem with the sort of growth we're talking about is that all the properties are at ridiculous prices. It doesn't really matter if you own home's value "shoots up" if you'd like to move, say, from a condo to a house because you're starting a family and you can't afford anything. I suppose it's great if you're leaving Vancouver and moving to Winnipeg, though. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 15,239
    Last time real estate markets overheated and prices became overpriced everything went well lol
Sign In or Register to comment.