4 ms·
>Quite a few cities have actually solved this problem. They provide housing and all of the additional services, like hygiene facilities, food, and security. Gra
by somerandomqaguy 2y ago
>Quite a few cities have actually solved this problem. They provide housing and all of the additional services, like hygiene facilities, food, and security. Granted, they only solve it for certain cohorts, but it demonstrates that it is rather trivially solvable. That's going to lead to hot political quarreling, so it's a good place to stop.
Most of those services are available AFAIK, there's charities in most major Canadian cities that provide those basics. Without them the homeless population would probably be triple what you can see, and from what I've heard the majority just need it short term to get back on their feet.
But they can only offer those to people without substance abuse problems (drugs and alcohol are banned in those shelters), and those are the folks you'll mostly see out and about. You'd need some sort of institution with far greater resources to handle those, like an asylum. North America just seems to have a sordid history with the like.
- bsder 2y ago> You'd need some sort of institution with far greater resources to handle those, like an asylum. North America just seems to have a sordid history with the like. Does anywhere not have a sordid history with asylums? I'm genuinely asking as it seems like such facilities always devolve into pseudo-prison for the undesirable no matter what.
- buckle8017 2y agoThe thing about asylums is that they're always going to be terrible, but the standard isn't good, it's better. Is a terrible asylum better or worse than living on the streets?
- carlosjobim 2y agoWorse for the inmates, better for the general public.
- wahnfrieden 2y agoShelters in Toronto are full and unable to house everyone in need on a daily basis