ERSTE LESUNG: BC verwandelte ein 56-Millionen-Dollar-Hotel in eine barrierefreie Unterkunft. Es ist jetzt eine unbewohnbare biologische Gefahr
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/b-c-turned-a-56-million-hotel-into-a-low-barrier-shelter-its-now-an-unliveable-biohazard
14 Kommentare
An excellent example of good intentions gone wrong when there’s no support services wrapped around it.
Low-barrier shelters inherently come with much higher support requirements. It appears (given what has happened to it) that none were provided and, guess what happened?
In the end, the people they’re trying to help suffer with the loss of shelter locations, local businesses suffer (really feel sorry for the poor nightclub owner) and of course, taxpayers suffer with wasted tax dollars.
The people involved in this decision should be fired but we know that won’t happen anytime soon.
Will Hopper support the kind of comprehensive homelessness mitigation programs we’d need to actually solve this crisis?
Or will he and his right wing media colleagues continue to fight tooth and nail against them while acting like the failure of half-measures like these hotels proves the ineffectiveness of approaches to homelessness, addiction, and mental health that don’t end with the person in crisis imprisoned or deceased?
We need some public housing for completely irresponsible people. Something made of concrete with a drain you can just firehose clean.
[removed]
The bare land was worth $56M.
What is needed is supportive / transitional housing, but that would cost a lot more. Shelters are not suitable for long term housing and the vast majority of these „tenants“ have serious issues that make them unsuitable for market housing.
[removed]
I’m confused. I’ve read reports from „experts“ that claim that if you house the homeless they all of a sudden act responsibly and value having somewhere to live….
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Whoever thought this idea was a good idea needs their head examined and be given the task of cleaning up the mess they created
Frankly if you want to help the homeless you really do need to be able to seperate out the merely down-on-their-luck from the people with serious issues such as addiction or mental health issues.
For the down on their luck you can have housing programs like this, let people get back on their feet, etc.
For the people with serious addictions you need involuntary treatment centers, an entire network of social workers, and people checking in on them. Being an addict isn’t a crime, but being a menace to society who is hopelessly on a path to an early grave isn’t something we should let happen either.
And for the people with serious mental issues, we should restart asylum programs. I know that the old system of asylums were rife with abuse, and treated people like animals, but we can do it better today. There are some people who may need permanent placement to look after them. There are some people who need inpatient programs and medications. And maybe some who only need counselling.
But all of this would cost billions. It would be worth it for society and the homeless too, but governments don’t want to commit serious resources to an issue of this scope.
Half-assed trying and then failing means they can dust their hands and say „guess there isn’t a solution“. It makes the issue appear individual again, so the public blame individuals. It’s a societal problem though, and the solutions are societal in scale.
Just like how Chaz/chop failed in Seattle. People need rules, laws and regulations. This free spirit nonsense is stupid and does damage.
This is what systemic failure looks like in real life. It’s not just government, and it’s not just individuals, it’s what happens when housing, mental health care, addiction support, and economic stability are all breaking at the same time.
The failure here isn’t the housing model, it’s trying to replace a full support system with just a building. Low-barrier housing only works when it’s backed by 24/7 staff, on-site mental health and addiction support, harm reduction, and consistent case management. The whole point is to meet people where they are and help them stabilize, not just contain the problem in one building. Without that, we’re concentrating high-needs people without the support they require, and the outcome is predictable.
The uncomfortable truth is that in our current system, more people are closer to that edge than they think and without addressing the root cause, the situation will continue to get worse.
There’s all this pearl clutching about the damage to an end of life building but no one stopping to consider that that’s factored into the equation and this is still the most cost effective solution? I’m not saying this is a good thing, just that our government is cheap af and voters wouldn’t have it any other way and reward this again and again.
This isn’t incompetence. Government knows this will happen but they go with it anyway.
As is typical with this sort of right wing hit piece there is no alternative on offer. Implied is the notion that we need to lock everyone up in some sort of prison like asylum but that would require enormous expenditure in infrastructure and labour. Something that no one is really willing to pay, certainly not fiscally conservative governments.
If not that what is the other alternative? More street homelessness? Never any actual solutions presented.
The reality is that the government actually did a very savvy thing here in that they bought a bunch of prime downtown hotel real estate at depressed prices during the pandemic. They then took people off the street.
Obviously it would be ideal if these places were run extremely well with such a surplus of staff and supports that damage never occurred. This is what I would support. However that would require remarkably more expenditure that no one is willing to spend, more tax revenue to support such expenditure, and this gets voted down every time. Every alternative to this status quo slumlord approach put forward by every BC government I have ever known is even more expensive.
Depressing stuff but all this *gasp* damage is the intentional, least bad outcome of the fiscally conservative managed budget that voters demand. Conservatives being disingenuous that they wouldn’t do the same.
Who would’ve thought? Give those who aren’t in a proper state to house themselves, housing and access to drugs with 0 need for rehabilitation, and it becomes like the streets they were „rescued“ from.
The homeless/addicted don’t need shelter. They need rehab. Anyone pretending otherwise hasn’t dealt with the homeless/addicted. Until we stop pretending that these people are just like an average citizen who just don’t have the means to get by, we won’t progress.
Stop giving them handouts with a blank cheque and actually HELP. I’m so sick of it. What a waste of everyone’s time, and now buildings are filled with biohazards, all because the organizers expected the inhabitants to 180 on their own. They won’t.
Because this idea was from its get-go an idiotic one based off kumbaya wishful thinking and a deliberate ignorance of realpolitik considerations. „Low barrier shelters“ will naturally cater to those who cannot find shelter elsewhere, because the vast majority of those who are perpetually homeless have some kind of debilitating drug addiction or mental illness, more often than not both.
And this „plan“ was never going to result in positive outcomes, just wasted taxpayer dollars and more justifiable anger at our policymakers.
That’s not to say the government does not have a duty of care for them nor am I saying I’m against spending public funds to solve this issue, but rather, we need a new approach… involuntary treatment and a harm prevention model rather than harm reduction or whatever.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.