Mark's correct: there's a close connection between high rents and high rates of homelessness. Salim Furth observes that in cities where rents are reasonable, there’s a kind of private safety net, provided by family and friends who have spare rooms. But in cities where rents are high, they don’t have room to spare. https://morehousing.ca/spare-room
CBC ran a story a couple years ago with a woman who was making $67,000/year and homeless (she was couch-surfing), after she called into a CBC show. https://morehousing.ca/middle-class-and-homeless
Wealthy NIMBYs are especially disconnected from the needs of greater society. They’re also fearful of seeing some of the homelessness and related aspects that exist in downtown Victoria. What they don’t realize is that their current zoning increases homelessness and makes it more likely to show up in their neighbourhoods.
Sorry Mark - but HOMELESSNESS is not about zoning - it's about mental health & need for more addiction treatment. we don't need more overpriced YIMBY or NIMBY housing. The development industry has sadly failed BC on the AFFORDABILITY front & now is crying for concessions to allow them to make even more UNAFFORDABLE housing even quicker by pushing for Bill M216 - a Bill that must be stopped before it is passed. https://consultation-portal.leg.bc.ca/consultations/154
No, we know you’re wrong because in the United States, places with higher rates of drug addiction and worse mental health crises have lower rates of homelessness. What they have is affordable housing which means many people who struggle can still afford to rent a room or an apartment. In Vancouver, rooms at $1000 and one bedroom apartments are $2400.
If drug addiction and mental health issues drove homeless rates, we see higher rates of homelessness in those places, but we don’t.
Of course mental illness & addiction leads to homelessness. Couldn't it be more obvious? Someone without control over their mind is certainly not able to take control of their day-to-day life including finding housing & is more vulnerable to uncaring drug dealers. Government policy also lead to/causes BC homelessness such as closing down mental health facilities, booting the most vulnerable people out of programs and leaving them to fend for themselves on disability payments so out of wack with the cost of living, they're bound to end up on the streets & preyed on by drug dealers.
Mental health issues and drug addiction are risk factors but the structural reason we have the homelessness problems we have is because housing is too expensive.
As I said before, if you look into the evidence, you’ll see that across North America, places with high housing costs have more homelessness than places with lower housing costs. There’s a reason it is western coastal cities where homelessness is so prevalent, because housing is so expensive in the cities located there. Those cities are also the most expensive because they have limited land to expand into, and so they must zone to allow for higher density.
That’s where people like you come in, who block density because they dislike change despite the effects it has on the people in the most vulnerable situations. I know you think you don’t because the rentals are “expensive” but those rentals are taken up by people who can afford them, freeing up space in more affordable places they vacate. I realize this is a complex line of reasoning, but you’d realize it’s true if you looked into the evidence, rather than just assume you know the causes of homelessness.
Huh. So it's something like "a four-storey building would make us more like Victoria" + "Victoria has street homelessness" => "a four-storey building would result in street homelessness." Even though it's exactly the opposite: *lack* of housing in a high-demand area results in homelessness.
I defer to you but it feels like keeping neighbourhood character is a dog-whistle for not wanting anyone who can’t afford a $1.4 million home. Who knows, a high density building might include low income individuals/formerly homeless individuals, hence the decision to block. My anecdotal experience is local worry and hostility to a subsidized/affordable housing in North Saanich (Prosser place) because it has a small number of units for unhoused people. I can only imagine Oak Bay’s response to a similar single building.
Mark: We live in Canada - not the U.S. - yur stats are WRONG. Here is some REAL Canada data. Plus my wife with a Psych degree disputes your U.S. data. https://thetyee.ca/News/2010/06/22/MentalIllnessHomeless/print.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22703566959&gbraid=0AAAAA-r3eEBZIvWe4LB8dQ72zf8CVFfZW&gclid=CjwKCAiA3L_JBhAlEiwAlcWO58HbNkovdaJGiVK6uweImQewR9oRTU9rPJ9N1pr7mzstLQX-pxSz9RoCwuAQAvD_BwE
Mark's correct: there's a close connection between high rents and high rates of homelessness. Salim Furth observes that in cities where rents are reasonable, there’s a kind of private safety net, provided by family and friends who have spare rooms. But in cities where rents are high, they don’t have room to spare. https://morehousing.ca/spare-room
CBC ran a story a couple years ago with a woman who was making $67,000/year and homeless (she was couch-surfing), after she called into a CBC show. https://morehousing.ca/middle-class-and-homeless
Wealthy NIMBYs are especially disconnected from the needs of greater society. They’re also fearful of seeing some of the homelessness and related aspects that exist in downtown Victoria. What they don’t realize is that their current zoning increases homelessness and makes it more likely to show up in their neighbourhoods.
Sorry Mark - but HOMELESSNESS is not about zoning - it's about mental health & need for more addiction treatment. we don't need more overpriced YIMBY or NIMBY housing. The development industry has sadly failed BC on the AFFORDABILITY front & now is crying for concessions to allow them to make even more UNAFFORDABLE housing even quicker by pushing for Bill M216 - a Bill that must be stopped before it is passed. https://consultation-portal.leg.bc.ca/consultations/154
No, we know you’re wrong because in the United States, places with higher rates of drug addiction and worse mental health crises have lower rates of homelessness. What they have is affordable housing which means many people who struggle can still afford to rent a room or an apartment. In Vancouver, rooms at $1000 and one bedroom apartments are $2400.
If drug addiction and mental health issues drove homeless rates, we see higher rates of homelessness in those places, but we don’t.
Of course mental illness & addiction leads to homelessness. Couldn't it be more obvious? Someone without control over their mind is certainly not able to take control of their day-to-day life including finding housing & is more vulnerable to uncaring drug dealers. Government policy also lead to/causes BC homelessness such as closing down mental health facilities, booting the most vulnerable people out of programs and leaving them to fend for themselves on disability payments so out of wack with the cost of living, they're bound to end up on the streets & preyed on by drug dealers.
Mental health issues and drug addiction are risk factors but the structural reason we have the homelessness problems we have is because housing is too expensive.
As I said before, if you look into the evidence, you’ll see that across North America, places with high housing costs have more homelessness than places with lower housing costs. There’s a reason it is western coastal cities where homelessness is so prevalent, because housing is so expensive in the cities located there. Those cities are also the most expensive because they have limited land to expand into, and so they must zone to allow for higher density.
That’s where people like you come in, who block density because they dislike change despite the effects it has on the people in the most vulnerable situations. I know you think you don’t because the rentals are “expensive” but those rentals are taken up by people who can afford them, freeing up space in more affordable places they vacate. I realize this is a complex line of reasoning, but you’d realize it’s true if you looked into the evidence, rather than just assume you know the causes of homelessness.
Here’s where to start: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6I_QByhhqA
Huh. So it's something like "a four-storey building would make us more like Victoria" + "Victoria has street homelessness" => "a four-storey building would result in street homelessness." Even though it's exactly the opposite: *lack* of housing in a high-demand area results in homelessness.
I defer to you but it feels like keeping neighbourhood character is a dog-whistle for not wanting anyone who can’t afford a $1.4 million home. Who knows, a high density building might include low income individuals/formerly homeless individuals, hence the decision to block. My anecdotal experience is local worry and hostility to a subsidized/affordable housing in North Saanich (Prosser place) because it has a small number of units for unhoused people. I can only imagine Oak Bay’s response to a similar single building.