9 ms·

What happened when a city started accepting - not evicting - homeless camps

40 points by amichail 2y ago

gwbas1c 2y ago
> “One of the largest groups of homelessness we see growing is simply people who don't have enough money to pay rent, and that’s new,” > They note that multiple high-rise condominiums are under development in Halifax - none of which, they say, are affordable. Remember, part of the cause of unaffordable housing is simply not building enough housing. When there isn't enough housing, the rich displace the poor, as this article shows. Perhaps part of the solution is encouraging the rich to move to the nicer condos, so the more affordable housing is freed up for those who need it?
Izkata 2y ago
Star Trek's "Sanctuary Districts", almost right on time. Wrong country though. They were introduced in the Deep Space Nine two-parter Past Tense, aired at the beginning of 1995 and was set just a couple of months ago in 2024 (it was a time travel episode, stuck in their past). The episode was also about how they were a total failure in what they were intended for (out of sight, out of mind, and the people in them never got the assistance they needed), and that they had to be gotten rid of. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sanctuary_District https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sanctuary_District
nativeit 2y ago
Very much related: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a62875397/homelessness-in-america/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a62875397/homelessness...
jzellis 2y ago
I have decades of experience with homelessness, as a journalist, a direct outreach activist and for brief periods as a homeless person myself, many years ago. Most homeless people don't start out mentally ill or addicted to drugs, but people who are mentally ill or addicts often end up homeless because there's no support system for them, at least in the US. Your local mental health system is a lot more poorly funded and overstressed than you almost certainly realize, and the same is true of drug treatment programs. It's easy to say people shouldn't have started doing drugs; as easy as it is to say that nerds who can't just get laid should learn not to be creepy dorks, and just as ignorant of reality. Many homeless people become dependent upon booze or drugs to either numb the suffering of their existence or to keep going under horrible conditions. If you weren't allowed to sleep anywhere for fear of arrest or assault, you'd probably take speed too, despite what you might believe about yourself from the comfort of having a roof over your head. There are serious logistical problems inherent in all the solutions that affluent people consider "obvious", because they haven't actually thought them through or lack the life experience to understand why they won't work. Building housing out of the way where you don't have to see it is a nonstarter, and if you can't logically deduce why you have no business expressing a firm opinion about the situation... but I'll spell it out for the slow folks. If you're homeless, and you get a room, what's the next step? You might think it's getting work but in fact, due to America's idiotic state/federal system, it's usually getting ID. Where do you get ID? Government buildings. Where are those usually located? Downtown. Where can a person with limited skills get work? Day labor. Where do you go for day labor work? Usually downtown. But where is the actual work done? Usually in the suburbs or industrial districts, which means you're commuting on a bus from wherever you got warehoused away so people don't have to look at you to downtown, and then off to the suburbs, often back downtown to get your pay, and then back out to Human Warehouse Land. I met a couple in Vegas who'd lost their house due to both of them being laid off. They slept in a tent in an empty lot with a few hundred other people in an industrial area north of downtown, bothering no one. They both got work, but on the edges of town, so they had to get up before dawn to catch a bus to work. So when the cops came at 7am to roust everyone out of this lot and slash up any tents left standing after the 15 minutes they gave everyone to gtfo (which I've seen happen with my own eyes), these folks weren't there... and came home to find all their possessions ripped to shreds and left in a Dumpster or to simply blow away on the street. And that's not the exception: it's the norm for homeless folks. It's only getting worse due to the increasing cost of housing and living. And maybe you don't give a rat's ass and you think life isn't fair. I agree with you. So let's tax the shit out of rich people and use the money to build houses for poor people who can then sit on their asses and do nothing if they want to. Or is that the kind of injustice you actually do care about? Because of you think paying more taxes when you'll never want for a meal in your life is more unfair than sleeping in an empty lot because you lost some genetic lottery or don't have the Bank of Mommy and Daddy to cover you when you feel like starting a business, you might want to consider that you're not a rational decision maker but simply a bit of a prick.
- latentcall 2y ago
  Wonderful comment that expresses exactly how I feel on this way better than I could. Thank you.
- ashconnor 2y ago
  That's what the book Evicted by Matthew Desmond taught me. People end up in these situations for a variety of reasons.
- beedeebeedee 2y ago
  > Most homeless people don't start out mentally ill or addicted to drugs, but people who are mentally ill or addicts often end up homeless because there's no support system for them, at least in the US. > Many homeless people become dependent upon booze or drugs to either numb the suffering of their existence or to keep going under horrible conditions. > There are serious logistical problems inherent in all the solutions that affluent people consider "obvious", because they haven't actually thought them through or lack the life experience to understand why they won't work. You nailed it. Great post- I wish the folks arguing against actually helping people who are homeless would read this (especially the part about the couple in Las Vegas).
exabrial 2y ago
Because any homeless discussion instantly turns into an Ad Hominem attack on HN, let me preface this with please don't respond to my comments with that. Taking a public asset and reserving it for exclusive use by certain individuals is not right: Thats a fancy way of saying: parks are not campgrounds. These types of policies are plain wrong, and cities should know better by now. Furthermore, as we've seen time and time again, this is a shortsighted, temporary alleviation that ultimately dooms a neighborhood. Both petty and violent crime increase overnight, vandalism on surrounding properties skyrocket, the places are littered with trash that ends up in the ocean, property values drop, and are ultimately boarded up until the encampment moves somewhere else and the cycle repeats. Homelessness is a hard problem to solve because it requires individual attention. Measures like these make it worse, not better. If the city wants to help, the best thing they can do is listen to local charities, outreaches, churches, etc and clear the regulatory path for them.
- mass_and_energy 2y ago
  Whoops, you forgot to put your sources! Accidents happen, so I'm interested to read this post-edit.
- card_zero 2y ago
  Some lines that stand out: > The city is waiting for the provincial government to ramp up affordable housing construction. Nova Scotia has not built any new public housing units since 1995. > “One of the largest groups of homelessness we see growing is simply people who don't have enough money to pay rent, and that’s new,” [the director of housing and homelessness in Halifax] said, adding that includes seniors, students, and entire families. > They note that multiple high-rise condominiums are under development in Halifax - none of which, they say, are affordable. “We would like to be treated like people,” said Samantha Nickerson, who lived with her fiance, Trent Smith, at the same encampment [...] “Some of us really are trying hard to get our lives back together and work.” So, have we seen exactly this time and again? In this instance, if property values drop, would the encampment really move somewhere else - why? - or would it move into the now affordable properties?
  - 2y ago
TulliusCicero 2y ago
> Mr Chauvin said the designated encampments are born out of a realisation that the city has run out of options to immediately address its housing crisis. > The city is waiting for the provincial government to ramp up affordable housing construction. Nova Scotia has not built any new public housing units since 1995. "Has run out of options" = "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!" Western governments have just become NIMBY-entrenched. The whole culture and bureaucracy is designed to make building things expensive, painful, and time-consuming, and then we look around and wonder why we can't seem to build enough housing. The various regulations were mostly well intentioned, but we've obviously gone too far. If private companies are unable to provide more of a product even when demand is obvious and prices are high, something is very wrong. And yes, it would be great if governments could get off their asses and make housing themselves too.
- beedeebeedee 2y ago
  It's not just regulations to prevent new housing, it is corporate driven inflation on all goods as well as housing
  - TulliusCicero 2y ago
    It's mostly not the corporations in this case. I mean, there's the algorithmic price fixing that's a problem for sure, but if we had enough housing that would only be a minor issue. Price fixing is simply a much bigger problem any time regulations make it harder to get new entrants, new "disruptors". Plus, there's an avenue that avoids corporations entirely: public housing. But our local and state governments can't get off their asses long enough to actually address the problem directly, it's so much easier to either let people suffer or blame dastardly 'greedy landlords'. (Landlords are greedy of course, but that's not new, and they can only make their greed manifest to the extent that competition is limited)
- guitarbill 2y ago
  > Western governments have just become NIMBY-entrenched. The whole culture and bureaucracy is designed to make building things expensive, painful, and time-consuming, and then we look around and wonder why we can't seem to build enough housing. Time and time again, companies have shown they will cut corners to make money. Much regulation exists to prevent people from being injured or killed, or for other legitimate reasons. Let's at least start by acknowledging that. (Of course petty bureaucrats and regulation do exist.) > The various regulations were mostly well intentioned, but we've obviously gone too far. How is this obvious? By the fact there is not enough housing where people want to live, and too much housing in other less desirable places? In the Western world in general? In Canada? In the US? In specific areas of the US/Canada? > If private companies are unable to provide more of a product even when demand is obvious and prices are high, something is very wrong. Unable... or unwilling? There's a difference between affordable housing and available housing. And ways to fix that other than flooding the market with so much housing to force an overabundance. That's kind of wasteful, too. For example, allowing developers to pay a one-time fine if they don't provide any affordable options in a new huge apartment block is probably a poor strategy. I'm all for making things better. The "too much regulation" thing is just a bit too facile of an argument. In the US at least, there usually exist places where there is less regulation. Weirdly, people don't automatically move there.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
wannacboatmovie 2y ago
Halifax? This isn't Phoenix or SF for that matter. The temperature drops to -7C in the winter. Will the city take the blame when these people all freeze to death because the city officially allowed them to play camp as part of some sociological experiment? Unfortunately, the responsible thing - building a shelter - is overlooked by cities because shelters have rules. Like no drug use - which in some confusing twist of logic is perceived as cruel. It's also bothersome that these articles find the one or two people genuinely down on their luck - unable to find work and the like. It makes for biased reporting. The 80/20 rule applies here. I guess the ones pooping on the BART and babbling gibberish are hard to interview.
- c0brac0bra 2y ago
  A UCLA study 'found that a mental health “concern” affected 78% of the unsheltered population and a substance abuse “concern,” 75%.' [0] [0] https://capolicylab.org/health-conditions-among-unsheltered-adults-in-the-u-s/ https://capolicylab.org/health-conditions-among-unsheltered-...
  - tristor 2y ago
    78% and 75% are pretty close to 80%, it may not be an exact Pareto distribution, but it's "close enough for government work".
incomingpain 2y ago
You have the right to free movement on public land. You may bring belongings with you. The government has essentially no power to evict or prevent homelessness. This is a nationwide problem caused by the federal government. I very much disbelieve that Halifax only has 200 homeless. Completely impossible, implying someone is murdering the homeless or the city falsified this number. The latter being where im going. It's very sad to me that we allow our federal government to do this to our fellow citizens. We imminently need an election.
- kspacewalk2 2y ago
  >It's very sad to me that we allow our federal government to do this to our fellow citizens. We imminently need an election. What specifically will a conservative government do differently/better?
  - incomingpain 2y ago
    there were some homeless issues during the financial crisis during Harper. Lets not politicize needlessly. We know homelessness is a crisis now and not from many decades of low to no homeless issues. Exception being above. So whats the supply demand if it were a free market? World war level immigration numbers attempting to blitz the 2030 worker shortage problem. Leading to a large increase to demand. Smart long term, but short term we now have significant consequences. https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/01/25-international-students-basement-brampton/ https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/01/25-international-student... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/death-to-canada-vancouver-rally-1.7346760 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/death-to-can... https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/failed-to-protect-hindus-canadian-leaders-after-khalistani-attack-on-hindu-sabha-mandir-women-kids-beaten-101730683160210.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/failed-to-protect-... But the federal government also intentionally and heavily decreased supply. Carbon tax greatly impacts mining, concrete operations, lumberjacks, etc. A regressive tax that's in each cycle doing increasing damage to the economy. We are getting uncharacteristic tax breaks and shameless $250, not because of any attempt to buy votes, but because the economy is collapsing. Major productivity crisis. But worse yet... 5% interest rates on mortgages? The entire real estate market, which is highly manipulated by the federal government has some extreme consequences that need to be addressed. The winner of the next election can simply stop doing the above and it should solve the problem.
rilindo 2y ago
All that is left is to have law-enforcement round up homeless/unhoused person move them into those camps and we will officially be in the Star Trek timeline.
- chikere232 2y ago
  No no, that would put responsibility for humane living conditions on the local government. If you force people into camps, human rights organisations will start expecting you feed them and generally keep them alive. If you just allow them to camp somewhere without getting bulldozed, you have less liability
ttul 2y ago
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an ingenious legal innovation. Section 7 guarantees that everyone, “has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Lawyers and advocates have used this mechanism to advance many notable improvements in human rights in Canada since the Charter came into force in the early-1980s. The camping example cited in this article is just one of many s.7 success stories: 1. In the last 20 years, s.7 forced the most conservative government of the last 50 years to permit safe injection sites, which have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives in the years since. In the immediate area surrounding “Insite,” the first such safe injection facility, overdose deaths decreased by 35%. This compared to only a 9% decrease in the rest of Vancouver. [1] At the facility itself, there were zero overdose deaths, because medical staff were able to administer naloxone in every case. While the approach remains controversial, in Canada there is no debating that addicts have a right to “life, liberty, and security of the person,” even in the context of using illegal drugs. 2. The Supreme Court used Section 7 to strike down Quebec's ban on private health insurance, ruling that excessive delays in the public system could threaten security of the person when patients face serious physical pain or death [2]. While this challenge perhaps puts the single-payer public provision of healthcare at risk, ultimately it forced the provinces to take public healthcare more seriously and to invest more despite the financial challenges of doing so. 3. The courts established that Section 7 protects psychological integrity, particularly in child protection cases. This led to guaranteeing fair hearings for parents in custody matters and ensuring legal representation for indigent parents when necessary for a fair hearing [3]. The history of the Canadian state in relation to aboriginal children is awful and continues to be awful, but this ruling cracked the door open on making important changes to the system. 4. The Supreme Court determined that imposing imprisonment without requiring mens rea (guilty mind) violates fundamental justice, establishing that Section 7 prohibits both substantive and procedural injustice [4]. This prevents the justice system from throwing people in jail whose mental capacity made it impossible for them to understand that what they were doing was wrong. Ultimately, it guides the justice system to ensuring that people with mental challenges are funneled appropriately into treatment rather than being put in jail. The police are also restrained from fishing expeditions where they bait low-IQ people into becoming terrorists only to be caught in the act (yes, that actually happened). And more… The right to make reasonable medical choices without fear of criminal prosecution, the ability to choose where to live, parental decision-making rights regarding children's education and health, and more. Sources [1] Does evidence support supervised injection sites? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685449/?t&utm_source=perplexity https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685449/?t&utm_sour... [2] Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Char... [3] Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Canada.ca: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-righ... [4] Life, liberty and security of the person under the Charter (91-6E): https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/916-e.htm https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/916-e.htm [4] [PDF] The Brilliant Career of Section 7 of the Charter https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=sclr https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?... [5] Charterpedia - Section 7 – Life, liberty and security of the person https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...
bobajeff 2y ago
I wonder how poor people in tents will fair in Canadian winter. I'm imagining many people freezing to death. But maybe homeless encampments are better prepared than I'm imagining. In any case I think it's a step in the right direction it's at least better than arresting homeless people for being homeless. What kind of dystopian nightmare city outlaws being homeless? Talk about kicking someone when they're down.
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  > it's at least better than arresting homeless people for being homeless In Massachusetts, (which still can have some nasty winters,) some homeless will turn to stupid petty crime to get arrested for the winter. IE, they'll look for a cop, pretend not to notice, and then commit the least harmful crime they can.
- oooyay 2y ago
  > I wonder how poor people in tents will fair in Canadian winter. I'm imagining many people freezing to death. But maybe homeless encampments are better prepared than I'm imagining. Look no further than Portland, OR. We have built temporary shelters as "warming facilities" and we spend a lot of money in our budget to get them new tents, sleeping bags, and other materials every year. The motto here from the citizenry is largely, "Just build tiny home villages" but Multnomah County requires multiple committees and processes that drag on for years to do such things. Until you come up with a permanent solution you will have a recurring, burning hole in your budget that will grow with the homeless population. Additionally, many of these folks rampantly damage the environment and city landscape which will also cause more budget shortfalls even after you get them into housing.
eightys3v3n 2y ago
I would support this in my neighborhood given some kind of recourse for problematic repeat offenders in the community the same way we have for our housed neighbors.
cavisne 2y ago
Bizarre article, it makes it sound like this is some new experiment and a contrast to the US? Homeless camps were effectively legalized by a 2018 court ruling in the US, as long as there isn’t shelter space. Sounds simple enough, build more shelter space. However in the west coast cities that was interpreted by local zealots as “shelter space that allows heavy drug and alcohol use”. A bed is not enough for this scenario, you need a separate structure per person. West coast cities have been supporting camps like this (tiny) one in Halifax for decades. Very recently the 2018 ruling was overturned, there are still thousands of camps supported by billions in government funding.

40 points by amichail 2y ago

> “One of the largest groups of homelessness we see growing is simply people who don't have enough money to pay rent, and that’s new,” > They note that multiple high-rise condominiums are under development in Halifax - none of which, they say, are affordable. Remember, part of the cause of unaffordable housing is simply not building enough housing. When there isn't enough housing, the rich displace the poor, as this article shows. Perhaps part of the solution is encouraging the rich to move to the nicer condos, so the more affordable housing is freed up for those who need it?

Izkata 2y ago

Star Trek's "Sanctuary Districts", almost right on time. Wrong country though. They were introduced in the Deep Space Nine two-parter Past Tense, aired at the beginning of 1995 and was set just a couple of months ago in 2024 (it was a time travel episode, stuck in their past). The episode was also about how they were a total failure in what they were intended for (out of sight, out of mind, and the people in them never got the assistance they needed), and that they had to be gotten rid of. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sanctuary_District https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sanctuary_District

nativeit 2y ago

Very much related: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a62875397/homelessness-in-america/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a62875397/homelessness...

jzellis 2y ago

I have decades of experience with homelessness, as a journalist, a direct outreach activist and for brief periods as a homeless person myself, many years ago. Most homeless people don't start out mentally ill or addicted to drugs, but people who are mentally ill or addicts often end up homeless because there's no support system for them, at least in the US. Your local mental health system is a lot more poorly funded and overstressed than you almost certainly realize, and the same is true of drug treatment programs. It's easy to say people shouldn't have started doing drugs; as easy as it is to say that nerds who can't just get laid should learn not to be creepy dorks, and just as ignorant of reality. Many homeless people become dependent upon booze or drugs to either numb the suffering of their existence or to keep going under horrible conditions. If you weren't allowed to sleep anywhere for fear of arrest or assault, you'd probably take speed too, despite what you might believe about yourself from the comfort of having a roof over your head. There are serious logistical problems inherent in all the solutions that affluent people consider "obvious", because they haven't actually thought them through or lack the life experience to understand why they won't work. Building housing out of the way where you don't have to see it is a nonstarter, and if you can't logically deduce why you have no business expressing a firm opinion about the situation... but I'll spell it out for the slow folks. If you're homeless, and you get a room, what's the next step? You might think it's getting work but in fact, due to America's idiotic state/federal system, it's usually getting ID. Where do you get ID? Government buildings. Where are those usually located? Downtown. Where can a person with limited skills get work? Day labor. Where do you go for day labor work? Usually downtown. But where is the actual work done? Usually in the suburbs or industrial districts, which means you're commuting on a bus from wherever you got warehoused away so people don't have to look at you to downtown, and then off to the suburbs, often back downtown to get your pay, and then back out to Human Warehouse Land. I met a couple in Vegas who'd lost their house due to both of them being laid off. They slept in a tent in an empty lot with a few hundred other people in an industrial area north of downtown, bothering no one. They both got work, but on the edges of town, so they had to get up before dawn to catch a bus to work. So when the cops came at 7am to roust everyone out of this lot and slash up any tents left standing after the 15 minutes they gave everyone to gtfo (which I've seen happen with my own eyes), these folks weren't there... and came home to find all their possessions ripped to shreds and left in a Dumpster or to simply blow away on the street. And that's not the exception: it's the norm for homeless folks. It's only getting worse due to the increasing cost of housing and living. And maybe you don't give a rat's ass and you think life isn't fair. I agree with you. So let's tax the shit out of rich people and use the money to build houses for poor people who can then sit on their asses and do nothing if they want to. Or is that the kind of injustice you actually do care about? Because of you think paying more taxes when you'll never want for a meal in your life is more unfair than sleeping in an empty lot because you lost some genetic lottery or don't have the Bank of Mommy and Daddy to cover you when you feel like starting a business, you might want to consider that you're not a rational decision maker but simply a bit of a prick.

latentcall 2y ago
Wonderful comment that expresses exactly how I feel on this way better than I could. Thank you.
ashconnor 2y ago
That's what the book Evicted by Matthew Desmond taught me. People end up in these situations for a variety of reasons.
beedeebeedee 2y ago
> Most homeless people don't start out mentally ill or addicted to drugs, but people who are mentally ill or addicts often end up homeless because there's no support system for them, at least in the US. > Many homeless people become dependent upon booze or drugs to either numb the suffering of their existence or to keep going under horrible conditions. > There are serious logistical problems inherent in all the solutions that affluent people consider "obvious", because they haven't actually thought them through or lack the life experience to understand why they won't work. You nailed it. Great post- I wish the folks arguing against actually helping people who are homeless would read this (especially the part about the couple in Las Vegas).

exabrial 2y ago

Because any homeless discussion instantly turns into an Ad Hominem attack on HN, let me preface this with please don't respond to my comments with that. Taking a public asset and reserving it for exclusive use by certain individuals is not right: Thats a fancy way of saying: parks are not campgrounds. These types of policies are plain wrong, and cities should know better by now. Furthermore, as we've seen time and time again, this is a shortsighted, temporary alleviation that ultimately dooms a neighborhood. Both petty and violent crime increase overnight, vandalism on surrounding properties skyrocket, the places are littered with trash that ends up in the ocean, property values drop, and are ultimately boarded up until the encampment moves somewhere else and the cycle repeats. Homelessness is a hard problem to solve because it requires individual attention. Measures like these make it worse, not better. If the city wants to help, the best thing they can do is listen to local charities, outreaches, churches, etc and clear the regulatory path for them.

mass_and_energy 2y ago
Whoops, you forgot to put your sources! Accidents happen, so I'm interested to read this post-edit.
card_zero 2y ago
Some lines that stand out: > The city is waiting for the provincial government to ramp up affordable housing construction. Nova Scotia has not built any new public housing units since 1995. > “One of the largest groups of homelessness we see growing is simply people who don't have enough money to pay rent, and that’s new,” [the director of housing and homelessness in Halifax] said, adding that includes seniors, students, and entire families. > They note that multiple high-rise condominiums are under development in Halifax - none of which, they say, are affordable. “We would like to be treated like people,” said Samantha Nickerson, who lived with her fiance, Trent Smith, at the same encampment [...] “Some of us really are trying hard to get our lives back together and work.” So, have we seen exactly this time and again? In this instance, if property values drop, would the encampment really move somewhere else - why? - or would it move into the now affordable properties?
- 2y ago

TulliusCicero 2y ago

> Mr Chauvin said the designated encampments are born out of a realisation that the city has run out of options to immediately address its housing crisis. > The city is waiting for the provincial government to ramp up affordable housing construction. Nova Scotia has not built any new public housing units since 1995. "Has run out of options" = "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!" Western governments have just become NIMBY-entrenched. The whole culture and bureaucracy is designed to make building things expensive, painful, and time-consuming, and then we look around and wonder why we can't seem to build enough housing. The various regulations were mostly well intentioned, but we've obviously gone too far. If private companies are unable to provide more of a product even when demand is obvious and prices are high, something is very wrong. And yes, it would be great if governments could get off their asses and make housing themselves too.

beedeebeedee 2y ago
It's not just regulations to prevent new housing, it is corporate driven inflation on all goods as well as housing
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  It's mostly not the corporations in this case. I mean, there's the algorithmic price fixing that's a problem for sure, but if we had enough housing that would only be a minor issue. Price fixing is simply a much bigger problem any time regulations make it harder to get new entrants, new "disruptors". Plus, there's an avenue that avoids corporations entirely: public housing. But our local and state governments can't get off their asses long enough to actually address the problem directly, it's so much easier to either let people suffer or blame dastardly 'greedy landlords'. (Landlords are greedy of course, but that's not new, and they can only make their greed manifest to the extent that competition is limited)
guitarbill 2y ago
> Western governments have just become NIMBY-entrenched. The whole culture and bureaucracy is designed to make building things expensive, painful, and time-consuming, and then we look around and wonder why we can't seem to build enough housing. Time and time again, companies have shown they will cut corners to make money. Much regulation exists to prevent people from being injured or killed, or for other legitimate reasons. Let's at least start by acknowledging that. (Of course petty bureaucrats and regulation do exist.) > The various regulations were mostly well intentioned, but we've obviously gone too far. How is this obvious? By the fact there is not enough housing where people want to live, and too much housing in other less desirable places? In the Western world in general? In Canada? In the US? In specific areas of the US/Canada? > If private companies are unable to provide more of a product even when demand is obvious and prices are high, something is very wrong. Unable... or unwilling? There's a difference between affordable housing and available housing. And ways to fix that other than flooding the market with so much housing to force an overabundance. That's kind of wasteful, too. For example, allowing developers to pay a one-time fine if they don't provide any affordable options in a new huge apartment block is probably a poor strategy. I'm all for making things better. The "too much regulation" thing is just a bit too facile of an argument. In the US at least, there usually exist places where there is less regulation. Weirdly, people don't automatically move there.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

wannacboatmovie 2y ago

Halifax? This isn't Phoenix or SF for that matter. The temperature drops to -7C in the winter. Will the city take the blame when these people all freeze to death because the city officially allowed them to play camp as part of some sociological experiment? Unfortunately, the responsible thing - building a shelter - is overlooked by cities because shelters have rules. Like no drug use - which in some confusing twist of logic is perceived as cruel. It's also bothersome that these articles find the one or two people genuinely down on their luck - unable to find work and the like. It makes for biased reporting. The 80/20 rule applies here. I guess the ones pooping on the BART and babbling gibberish are hard to interview.

c0brac0bra 2y ago
A UCLA study 'found that a mental health “concern” affected 78% of the unsheltered population and a substance abuse “concern,” 75%.' [0] [0] https://capolicylab.org/health-conditions-among-unsheltered-adults-in-the-u-s/ https://capolicylab.org/health-conditions-among-unsheltered-...
- tristor 2y ago
  78% and 75% are pretty close to 80%, it may not be an exact Pareto distribution, but it's "close enough for government work".

incomingpain 2y ago

You have the right to free movement on public land. You may bring belongings with you. The government has essentially no power to evict or prevent homelessness. This is a nationwide problem caused by the federal government. I very much disbelieve that Halifax only has 200 homeless. Completely impossible, implying someone is murdering the homeless or the city falsified this number. The latter being where im going. It's very sad to me that we allow our federal government to do this to our fellow citizens. We imminently need an election.

kspacewalk2 2y ago
>It's very sad to me that we allow our federal government to do this to our fellow citizens. We imminently need an election. What specifically will a conservative government do differently/better?
- incomingpain 2y ago
  there were some homeless issues during the financial crisis during Harper. Lets not politicize needlessly. We know homelessness is a crisis now and not from many decades of low to no homeless issues. Exception being above. So whats the supply demand if it were a free market? World war level immigration numbers attempting to blitz the 2030 worker shortage problem. Leading to a large increase to demand. Smart long term, but short term we now have significant consequences. https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/01/25-international-students-basement-brampton/ https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/01/25-international-student... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/death-to-canada-vancouver-rally-1.7346760 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/death-to-can... https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/failed-to-protect-hindus-canadian-leaders-after-khalistani-attack-on-hindu-sabha-mandir-women-kids-beaten-101730683160210.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/failed-to-protect-... But the federal government also intentionally and heavily decreased supply. Carbon tax greatly impacts mining, concrete operations, lumberjacks, etc. A regressive tax that's in each cycle doing increasing damage to the economy. We are getting uncharacteristic tax breaks and shameless $250, not because of any attempt to buy votes, but because the economy is collapsing. Major productivity crisis. But worse yet... 5% interest rates on mortgages? The entire real estate market, which is highly manipulated by the federal government has some extreme consequences that need to be addressed. The winner of the next election can simply stop doing the above and it should solve the problem.

rilindo 2y ago

All that is left is to have law-enforcement round up homeless/unhoused person move them into those camps and we will officially be in the Star Trek timeline.

chikere232 2y ago
No no, that would put responsibility for humane living conditions on the local government. If you force people into camps, human rights organisations will start expecting you feed them and generally keep them alive. If you just allow them to camp somewhere without getting bulldozed, you have less liability

ttul 2y ago

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an ingenious legal innovation. Section 7 guarantees that everyone, “has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Lawyers and advocates have used this mechanism to advance many notable improvements in human rights in Canada since the Charter came into force in the early-1980s. The camping example cited in this article is just one of many s.7 success stories: 1. In the last 20 years, s.7 forced the most conservative government of the last 50 years to permit safe injection sites, which have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives in the years since. In the immediate area surrounding “Insite,” the first such safe injection facility, overdose deaths decreased by 35%. This compared to only a 9% decrease in the rest of Vancouver. [1] At the facility itself, there were zero overdose deaths, because medical staff were able to administer naloxone in every case. While the approach remains controversial, in Canada there is no debating that addicts have a right to “life, liberty, and security of the person,” even in the context of using illegal drugs. 2. The Supreme Court used Section 7 to strike down Quebec's ban on private health insurance, ruling that excessive delays in the public system could threaten security of the person when patients face serious physical pain or death [2]. While this challenge perhaps puts the single-payer public provision of healthcare at risk, ultimately it forced the provinces to take public healthcare more seriously and to invest more despite the financial challenges of doing so. 3. The courts established that Section 7 protects psychological integrity, particularly in child protection cases. This led to guaranteeing fair hearings for parents in custody matters and ensuring legal representation for indigent parents when necessary for a fair hearing [3]. The history of the Canadian state in relation to aboriginal children is awful and continues to be awful, but this ruling cracked the door open on making important changes to the system. 4. The Supreme Court determined that imposing imprisonment without requiring mens rea (guilty mind) violates fundamental justice, establishing that Section 7 prohibits both substantive and procedural injustice [4]. This prevents the justice system from throwing people in jail whose mental capacity made it impossible for them to understand that what they were doing was wrong. Ultimately, it guides the justice system to ensuring that people with mental challenges are funneled appropriately into treatment rather than being put in jail. The police are also restrained from fishing expeditions where they bait low-IQ people into becoming terrorists only to be caught in the act (yes, that actually happened). And more… The right to make reasonable medical choices without fear of criminal prosecution, the ability to choose where to live, parental decision-making rights regarding children's education and health, and more. Sources [1] Does evidence support supervised injection sites? https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685449/?t&utm_source=perplexity https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685449/?t&utm_sour... [2] Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_7_of_the_Canadian_Char... [3] Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Canada.ca: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-righ... [4] Life, liberty and security of the person under the Charter (91-6E): https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/916-e.htm https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/916-e.htm [4] [PDF] The Brilliant Career of Section 7 of the Charter https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=sclr https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?... [5] Charterpedia - Section 7 – Life, liberty and security of the person https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/chec...

bobajeff 2y ago

I wonder how poor people in tents will fair in Canadian winter. I'm imagining many people freezing to death. But maybe homeless encampments are better prepared than I'm imagining. In any case I think it's a step in the right direction it's at least better than arresting homeless people for being homeless. What kind of dystopian nightmare city outlaws being homeless? Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

gwbas1c 2y ago
> it's at least better than arresting homeless people for being homeless In Massachusetts, (which still can have some nasty winters,) some homeless will turn to stupid petty crime to get arrested for the winter. IE, they'll look for a cop, pretend not to notice, and then commit the least harmful crime they can.
oooyay 2y ago
> I wonder how poor people in tents will fair in Canadian winter. I'm imagining many people freezing to death. But maybe homeless encampments are better prepared than I'm imagining. Look no further than Portland, OR. We have built temporary shelters as "warming facilities" and we spend a lot of money in our budget to get them new tents, sleeping bags, and other materials every year. The motto here from the citizenry is largely, "Just build tiny home villages" but Multnomah County requires multiple committees and processes that drag on for years to do such things. Until you come up with a permanent solution you will have a recurring, burning hole in your budget that will grow with the homeless population. Additionally, many of these folks rampantly damage the environment and city landscape which will also cause more budget shortfalls even after you get them into housing.

eightys3v3n 2y ago

I would support this in my neighborhood given some kind of recourse for problematic repeat offenders in the community the same way we have for our housed neighbors.

cavisne 2y ago

Bizarre article, it makes it sound like this is some new experiment and a contrast to the US? Homeless camps were effectively legalized by a 2018 court ruling in the US, as long as there isn’t shelter space. Sounds simple enough, build more shelter space. However in the west coast cities that was interpreted by local zealots as “shelter space that allows heavy drug and alcohol use”. A bed is not enough for this scenario, you need a separate structure per person. West coast cities have been supporting camps like this (tiny) one in Halifax for decades. Very recently the 2018 ruling was overturned, there are still thousands of camps supported by billions in government funding.