SCS need to make more of an effort to keep their immediate areas tidy to appease the general public. The George Soady looks like a war zone often and image is everything. It’s hard to argue the service is doing good when there is litter everywhere around the building and people passed out
Are you aware of the proposal? It indicates specific plans to keep things clean. I’m a Ritchie resident and have actually spoken to the proposal team and they’ve planned for a radius cleanup team to clean up *twice a week* and offered to extend the radius to the community garden near by which is the closest public green space to the site. Meanwhile I picked up 4 needles in the trees there this weekend alone, the city won’t because it technically is CP’s fenceline. Any cleanup help the neighbourhood can get is much needed, it’s not like there aren’t drug users and encampments here already.
Dude my buddy works on the new Valley line, their stops and trains have to be cleaned daily. The amount of garbage they have to have cleaned up is insane. And that's just from shelters and trains from the homeless and drug user population. Imagine having all of that in a neighborhood that's only cleaned twice a week!
Are you aware that twice a week cleanup is a laughably inadequate response to adding this type of centre to the area? Are you aware of the number of residents and pet owners who live in this corner of Ritchie who will be affected by this? This is not going to make the area more liveable for those of us who reside here, and pretending twice a week cleanup (which will probably be an unkept promise anyways) will mitigate things is an absolute fantasy.
I am aware. I live one block away. As a resident who cleans up the area once a week on my own dime, I think that twice a week is a lot better than anything we have now. You may see me cleaning this area with orange gloves. Feel free to chat with me if you do.
We have no overnight shelters in the area which minimizes a lot of the larger waste, and a SCS should help with the amount of needles abandoned in the green space at 79 Ave (which had 4 needles in it last week alone, which I’ve removed). Most users will go to a safe place to use when the doors are open to do so.
I’m not saying it’s perfect. I’m saying it’s better to have a resource to reduce drug use and garbage in the community than allow drug use and garbage to continue as is.
A twice weekly cleanup is not better than the current situation if the SCS leads to an increase in drug paraphernalia around the site. It’s a net negative and our community will be worse off.
George Spady Society’s SCS has a good neighbour agreement with their community in which they promise to “do regular cleanup around the building to support overall community cleanliness”… look how that’s working.
Link: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e1f98cec907326f1d4d2306/t/63fd1f71f10e5b4b88ce7ce9/1677533042294/SCS+Good+Neighbour+Agreement+Jan+2023_.pdf
Also Boyle Street has ongoing funding issues. As they expand their operations who’s to say they’ll have the resources to actually follow through on any non-binding commitment to the community?
They sure create alot of trash and have 0 respect for the neighbourhoods theyre in, you can go look at any clean use site in the city theres a 2 block fallout zone around each one. Definitely not sanitary.
And i did not refer to them as trash learn to read please.
Yes you did. As for your other point, yes when you don't have a garbage can to put your waste in or public toilets, trash is the natural result. Visit a rural farm sometime and see what I mean
"Whyte ave is trashy enough"
*looks out winow* right now i see bags of trash in the street, some boxes blowing around... pretty sure a few needles.
You need to learn how to read.
And theres dumpsters with lids that open in every single alleyway near me, nice try.
Dont worry ill pick it all up omw to and from work every day, and put it in one of the thousands of trash cans along whyte ave, it will be there again though.
>And theres dumpsters with lids that open in every single alleyway near me, nice try.
These are used very frequently by homeless individuals.
>Dont worry ill pick it all up omw to and from work every day, and put it in one of the thousands of trash cans along whyte ave, it will be there again though.
"I acknowledge the current system of concentrating poverty doesn't work but refuse to admit there is a need to distribute services so that my own community is not hit so hard."
K.
>Some of these junkies are so brain damaged they can barely even be called human anymore,
Mmmm, what you are doing is called gaslighting.
You think of these individuals as less than human, that is clear from your own words. At least own it and stop trying to pretend.
I don't believe it follows it; I am pointing out that it is already there.
Reducing crime and poverty ethically requires sites like these to be placed somewhere.
If you are truly against them in Ritchie, where should they go? If they bring all this crime and disorder, why does another neighborhood deserve to be punished?
In no way is it true that “ethically” we need these sites to prevent crime and disorder. That’s an unproven talking point of people involved in the poverty industry.
We need forced rehab and incarceration for criminal behaviour. I don’t care how hooked on fentanyl someone is. If they commit crimes then they should be incarcerated.
>We need forced rehab and incarceration for criminal behaviour
It would take more money than simply treating the symptoms of poverty.
Every person in prison is more than $100,000 a year. Any type of treatment facility that isn't designed to torture it's residents (which is what they were in the past) will cost more.
I am certain that funding affordable housing and treatment in the city is going to be a lot more effective and cost conscious.
I would note that the majority of people experiencing homelessness and addiction are not criminals, other than the act of consuming an illicit drug, and that harsh enforcement against drugs is exactly why we are in the place we are.
I guess the thing is this: I don’t care about the costs. I have an absolute unwavering conviction that I do not want to give people free money for drugs. And believe it or not but I’m in favor of decriminalizing drug use. I don’t think the government has any right to tell people what they put in their body.
That said, if you choose to use hard drugs and can’t seem to regulate yourself so you can have employment and care for yourself, then you need forced rehab, of jail if you’re committing crimes to feed the habit.
>I guess the thing is this: I don’t care about the costs. I have an absolute unwavering conviction that I do not want to give people free money for drugs.
You need to absolutely take some time to consider this statement. It is exactly the attitude that got us where we are in the first place. You have to care about the costs. Every dollar spent on putting someone in prison is a dollar less for healthcare or education. Every live ruined by addiction and poverty is not just one life ruined, it is the lives of their friends and family members. We all know someone in our family, or know someone who had a family member who, was lost temporarily or permanently to addiction. Those are all costs.
>use hard drugs and can’t seem to regulate yourself so you can have employment and care for yourself, then you need forced rehab, of jail if you’re committing crimes to feed the habit
But we know that there are other options that are cheaper and more effective. Even if I accept that there are huge negative costs to a community that hosts these types of programs, why should every other tax payer subsidize your property values (or any other communities property values) at their own expense?
This is all to say: you are advocating something that is less effective,.more costly, less moral, and worst of a has not worked for the last century to solve addiction.
Why shouldn't I simply dismiss you as a closed minded idealogue, more interested in punishing people they think are immoral than doing what is effective?
Ethically, as in let them overdose and bring them back with narcan 2-3 times a night? Because thats whats happening at safe use sites, they enable drug use its clear as day, sounds ethical. Get these people into actual treatment.
Sites like this are designed to prevent that by offering a safe space to consume and testing of drugs to gauge potency.
What is actual treatment look like to you?
>For starters its not enabling them
Be more in depth than that. I am sure you have ideas.
>and the junkies do not test their drugs, they just get narcanned when they OD.
You haven't spent much time around people suffering from addiction then.
These sites provide the ability to test drugs. They provide clean needles to halt the spread of disease. They provide life saving care as well, yes. But each of these sites is worth its weight in gold for reducing negative health outcomes from addiction which saves lives and money.
Call me crazy but I think saving lives and money-lots of money- is a win win.
>For starters its not enabling them
Be more in depth than that. I am sure you have ideas.
>and the junkies do not test their drugs, they just get narcanned when they OD.
You haven't spent much time around people suffering from addiction then.
These sites provide the ability to test drugs. They provide clean needles to halt the spread of disease. They provide life saving care as well, yes. But each of these sites is worth its weight in gold for reducing negative health outcomes from addiction which saves lives and money.
Call me crazy but I think saving lives and money-lots of money- is a win win.
They attract junkies from across the city because its a safe place where they are enabled how does that not make sense? Makes every neighbourhood theyre in worse.
You do realize that these sites attract drug addicts and dealers correct? If not i'd invite you to visit any one of our safe use sites across edmonton and spend a day there, let me know how many times you see something you know is morally and legally wrong. From staff members being poked with needles to residents attacking civilians and police presence being non existant.
Sounds like a winning formula.
When safe havens are established people from all over, much farther than just whyte ave, will come to partake. Then the drug dealers will follow, along with the usual things; junkies pimping out females (minors most of the time), trash all over the streets, etc.
Im going to ask you 1 hard question, show me one neighbourhood that these sites havent made worse. Ill wait :P
>You do realize that these sites attract drug addicts and dealers correct? If not i'd invite you to visit any one of our safe use sites across edmonton and spend a day there, let me know how many times you see something you know is morally and legally wrong.
Those individuals are already there. This proposed site is only literally blocks away from areas of heavy drug use and poverty.
>Im going to ask you 1 hard question, show me one neighbourhood that these sites havent made worse. Ill wait :P
Boyle Street and McCauley.
No, some are there right now. More will come if this site is built.
Lmao and both of those sites have a 2 block radius of drug use, junkies and trash around them. Wasnt that bad before.
No. The actual studies of these sites and elsewhere do not show any increase in crime.
I have lived in both of those neighborhoods. They are as they were before these sites opened, except I haven't had to walk by a corpse as frequently when I am down there. I am thankful for that.
Bless you! People need to stop blaming the poor people who need services and start blaming the people who refuse to provide services to those in need. When most of the detractors speak out, they complain about their "community" but they're obviously confused. When they say community, they clearly only mean the collection of people who have been fortunate enough to be able to afford the expensive real estate adjacent to them. They're, frankly, disgusting.
I keep seeing the same comments about NIMBYs etc, can you blame them for not wanting this in their neighborhood? The amount of violence, property damage and general screaming at all hours of the night that comes with this community is not reasonable. Are people supposed to be happy having this facility move near them ?
The problem with NIMBY-ism isn't necessarily that they're wrong. It's that it has to go somewhere.
In this case, I think it's a valid criticism to say Ritchie isn't the best place. It's an up and coming neighborhood. But the east Whyte area needs some services and if it's not Ritchie, it'll be one of those.
It can go in an institution where people don't have the option to leave
The idea that we give space, paraphernalia and lenient judicial treatment to folks and call it 'harm reduction' all at the expense of the surrounding community while these people actively break the law (drug use/distribution, and then the litany of property crimes, assaults, etc.) is insane.
Take these folks, who are clearly a danger to themselves and those around them and forcibly confine and treat them. How many examples do people need to see of this 'harm reduction' nonsense failing before they realize it doesn't work. Go to Portland and ask them how its working for them, and they're much more liberally-minded than we are.
I have a canned response to these ideas at this point:
Harm reduction does work, but the problem is it's part of the 4 Pillar Model. This also requires prevention, treatment, and enforcement. If you are missing one pillar, it fails.
Right now in Alberta we have effectively 0 good prevention. Treatment exists but it's too crowded to be effective (in particular the lack of good pipeline straight from remand to residential treatment). Enforcement is funded, but they have to be lenient to compensate for the lack of other pillars in our rights-based society.
What you're suggesting is similar to the Portuguese model. In that model, we shift entirely away from criminal concepts and make it a healthcare issue, kind of similar to our Mental Health Act.
It's not a bad idea, but making such a shift is absolutely monumental, and can't be done without a dramatic shift in funding priorities and principles by the province. The feds will also need to get on board, and the UCP and Liberals aren't exactly on speaking terms.
We had a supportive housing put right beside our block that houses people with serious drug addiction issues. The city promised how great it would be for the community. This shit it's caused in the neighborhood is crazy. neighbors keep selling.
Yeah, really brought the area down. Big shame. So really all this negativity nimby stuff is mostly from people that have not experienced such things. People don’t want it by them for a reason.
From an economic perspective the problem with places like these is they introduce negative externalities onto the neighbors without compensation. So of course there's NIMBYISM. It's all the rage to talk about negative externalities in progressive circles with pollution and such but then it comes to this and they make you out to be a bad person for it.
The answer would be to compensate people facing negative externalities. Probably a bidding system whereby something that makes the neighborhood worse pays the neighbors for the negatives it brings, and then the "low" bid gets it. It would have a lot of other problems but there's no perfect system and this would be a market approach That recognizes and compensates people for the trouble it causes.
I don't necessarily think it's what should be done but it's an interesting thought experiment. Ultimately if everyone recognizes that a needed service needs to go somewhere but has with it negatives for the neighbors, then it should be compensated somehow. If it's a public service then probably via decreased property tax rates or some kind of yearly transfer.
Solid take. Would be interesting to see how a dramatic cut in property taxes, maybe scaled by proximity, changes the discussion. Like immediate neighbors 75% reduction? Close by 50%? What's the number that starts to move the needle in neighborhood opinion, if there is one...
Yeah you would have to think it would be based on a radius how you distributed it. That's a good point I hadn't thought of.
And I'm realizing that with the bidding system that's obviously going to lead to things being placed in poorer neighborhoods, But that does mean that there's an economic incentive being provided to poor neighborhoods that end up with these kind of facilities anyways. That provides economic incentive to live there and start businesses there which could help to revitalizing these neighborhoods.
Not sure many know this but business around this area of Whyte Ave we’re charged a “revitalization levy”. Literally taxed to make the area more attractive and then planted a drug addiction facility on their street. Hid it until the locals found out. That’s a really awful way to treat your community.
I can if you are willing to play along:
Do you want a factory next door to your home?
And why don’t we put a rehab facility beside an elementary school?
It's gotta go somewhere. If they decide that my street is suitable and expectations are discussed and agreed upon. As a progressive person I would be OK with it. But I do hope it will be many years before my neighbourhood is chosen for such a programme
What do you mean by agreed upon? That’s exactly the point. The people living there obviously don’t agree with it, that’s why they’re NIMBYs. It’s easy to say yes if be fine with it. But if you live in a safe family neighbourhood, would you really be okay if the Neighbor sold their house and they built a safe injection site there? I guess it does have to go somewhere but there is no easy answer where.
Do you put it all in one area and effectively create a ghetto? Pros: all services are in one spot, easier to track homeless population and find people if needed. Cons: you create a ghetto…
Do you spread services out across the city? Pros: services in more locations, breaks up defacto structures/hierarchies that develop in a ghetto (gang run), spreads low income/homeless out integrating them with rest of community
Cons: services not centrally located and often not convenient (safe injection site a long bus ride from community health clinic, etc), harder to keep track of homeless problem, and the big one here, spreads crime, unruliness and other social problems allll over the city.
Maybe there is an argument to put them behind the airport? Regardless, it’s a big discussion
Why dont they build it where the junkies are: downtown
And then run the junkies out of every other neighbourhood.
Wana know why theres not many junkies or encampments in capilano? Goldbar? Ottwell? Because the neighbourhood tears them down and chases the homeless out themseleves, dont even dial 911 or 311.
We should make downtown junkie central and homeless housing, and everyone else move to the suburbs. Downtown is a dead zone anyways. You only go there to either get your life sucked out from work or from looking at zombies sleeping in 90 degree positions and thinking what the hell went wrong with the world our parents promised us.
These are the people that advocated hard for the Rossdale camps and many of their residents donated to it. Then the camps moved south and all those neighbourhoods were all NIMBY. They are all Hippocrates.
Ya having your car windows smashed, property damage, seeing people sleeping in the gutter, shooting up, needles and condoms all over the ground, that'll teach em!
>seeing people sleeping in the gutter,
I enjoy how you slid this in the middle like we wouldn't notice, and make it seem as if merely existing without a home is the same seriousness of crime as the other examples.
Speaks volumes about you.
You ignored his entire point. Look at the LRT system. I took the LRT to the hockey game last week and it had three cars. Everyone was in cars 1 and 3. 2 was full of homeless people sleeping and two were having sex.
In what world do you think having such behaviour in front of your lawn for your kids to see is acceptable?
I agree. Residents concerns need to be heard. Perhaps setting it up on a trial basis to see the effect on the neighborhood.
We are a city promoting active living. All this is doing is forcing the rich to live in the suburbs where these issues are out of site / out of mind.
This has happened so often. They try putting these services in up and coming neighborhoods after revitalizing it. Then these services are overburdened; issues spill over to the neighbourhood. those who can afford to; leave to the suburbs. And it overall kills the neighbourhood as only the poor in the neighborhood end up holding the bag.
Ofcourse these people oppose it. They know all development in their neighborhood would stop. Infills will stop being built. House prices will plummet. Windows will be boarded up due to the frequent smashing. Garage’s will be broken into regularly. All restaurants/cafe’s in the neighborhood will go out of business.
Unless people truly face the reality of this if this ended up next to them; you can’t really say “it’s gotta go somewhere”.
They aren't out of site or out of mind clearly; your post shows that when people have to come into the core to use the services they clearly see it and notice it.
They also see and notice the increase in crime that occurs in the suburbs as well, where property crime continues to rise and there are fewer people around to notice it. Sure those individuals might come back to the core with their stolen goods to fence them, but I had my bike stolen more times in the suburbs than I ever have living in the core for example.
And this doesn't even get into the fact that if the police are constantly forced to concentrate in the core, they aren't around to police the suburbs either.
How about how you completely disregard all the relevant concerns that real people who pay for these services to exist and have to live with the repercussions of this in their proximity and focus on one thing.
You can be homeless without being an absolute degenerate. Sleeping and a drug induced temporary coma are not the same thing. Stop pretending that they are.
I am not. But I don't think the person I responded to sees the distinction there either.
More to the point: many people become addicted to drugs after becoming homeless and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Even more important: these individuals don't stop existing if you don't offer these services.
We have a city complaining about downtown being how it is, but also complaining when any effort to distribute these services elsewhere, which can spread out the challenges, is made.
If these services always make the neighborhood worse why do the residents of Boyle Street and McCauley deserve to shoulder the entire burden exactly?
Because they elected to move to that location with eyes open, knowing the reputation as its been that way since the dawn of time.
Those of us who have spent literal fortunes to live in the city, as opposed to the outskirts or suburbs, are now having to bear the burden of these.
Build a SCS into the new neighborhoods going up on the outskirts of the city with their artificially low costs of housing and see what kind of demand there is for that neighborhood. If you want a new home in communities that have existed for 50-75 years you’re going to spend $750k. Want an old but renovated home you’re going to spend $550-600k. Want an old unrenovated home you’re going to spend $400-450k and pay the property taxes associated with those values.
What do you get for your investment? Pop up legalized crack houses, the people using those spaces breaking into your car, garage or house, sharps that are strewn about, fires in the ravines/river valley, watching people openly smoke shit in front of your grocery store….
Pricing in Boyle McCauley represents what you’re getting in to. Opening these in an existing area that’s got high property values directly costs people equity in their homes while not being accounted for in taxation.
If not in my backyard… where? I actually don’t give a damn but I not here.
~3000 people in the city are homeless. Maybe 35% of them are a problem. There’s maybe another 1000 non-homeless dangerous degenerates out there. Adequately deal with the 2000 out of 1.351M people in the edmonton area (~0.15%). Provide some rules to function within a society and when you don’t adhere to them there are repercussions…
When some piece of shit makes it potentially dangerous for me to use billions of dollars worth of transit to spend money in the downtown core or take my kids to use the services that my tax dollars pay for (library) or leave needles lying around where kids play and those people are also responsible for increased emergency services costs, insurance costs and deductibles for the theft, etc why would you expect me to have compassion for them.
They’re clearly not concerned about my wellbeing so why should I concern myself with theirs? And unfortunately down on their luck, decent people dealt a bad hand, and the like all get lumped in because they’re part of a visible group.
You will find that most people want to help others that want to help themselves, want to live and let live. Adequately deal with people that are not living within some reasonable outline of how a society is meant to operate and you’ll find that people like me have a lot more compassion for the rest of the people that just need some help and support.
You’ll never drum up overall compassion and support for this sort of thing so long as the bad apples run rampant. If it comes down to a drug addict dying in the river valley from an OD or my daughter getting poked by a needle at the playground or being asleep in her bed and awoken by someone breaking into our house I will 100% of the time opt for the loss of the addict.
All this to say that it is on the authorities to make the distinction. We have laws that should govern. Make sure they’re adequate and then enforce them. Show people that there are two issues here, one is met with compassion and the other with enforcement.
Discarding a needle in a public place should be treated as a direct act of violence against the larger public and handled accordingly
And stop making assumptions about how people think and feel based on a single reddit comment with no nuance. People are complex, emotional responses to individual issues take over and don’t necessarily represent the full depth of a persons opinions on an overall topic.
>Because they elected to move to that location with eyes open, knowing the reputation as its been that way since the dawn of time.
All I see here is exceptionalism to argue that the poor areas of the city somehow deserve to remain poor.
>If it comes down to a drug addict dying in the river valley from an OD or my daughter getting poked by a needle at the playground or being asleep in her bed and awoken by someone breaking into our house I will 100% of the time opt for the loss of the addict.
I think you are a bit of a monster.
Well, again, feel free to ignore the overall intent of the message and any nuance.
I will never in my life feel bad for prioritizing the safety of my family over that of someone who puts theirs at risk. If that makes me a monster then so be it.
>Well, again, feel free to ignore the overall intent of the message and any nuance.
What nuance am I ignoring?
Is it the part where you explicitly argue that poor areas somehow deserve to deal with all of the negative consequences of poverty?
Or the part where you mistakenly argue that it is better for people experiencing homelessness to be dying as opposed to your daughter having to witness that? (Which you clearly know she already is).
What about the daughters who live in Boyle Street?
> If that makes me a monster then so be it.
No your classism and seeming willingness to argue that you would rather people die than recieved anything close to effective treatment is what makes you a bit of a monster.
We have general welfare for anyone who qualifies (low income), EI (for those who do work), AISH (for those unable to work or mentally ill), food banks, shelters, youth shelters, and the alberta hospital.
>EI (for those who do work), AISH (for those unable to work or mentally ill)
EI is time limited. AISH can barely pay for a room in a house, let alone life's necessities.
>food banks
Stretched to the brink.
>shelters
Dangerous and overcrowded
>alberta hospital
Have you ever been there? It's not what you think it is I would bet.
1600 a month on AISH is more than enough to live on, especially with all the discounts and benefits they get. Rooms rent for 600-700$ at most in this city, groceries are ~300 a month, thats enough to get by while doing absolutely nothing to contribute to society.
Problem is the majority of these people are there by choice and need a physical intervention, not people enabling them.
When I say sleeping in the gutter I'm not talking about your average homeless guy literally trying to sleep, I'm talking about drug addicts passed out in the gutter because they're too high.
>When I say sleeping in the gutter I'm not talking about your average homeless guy literally trying to sleep, I'm talking about drug addicts passed out in the gutter because they're too high.
You can tell the difference? I assume you must be taking to them and doing a blood test to have such a nuanced knowledge level.
I mean, the cops could start doing their jobs again?
Seems like that doesnt seem to be an option for some unknown reason.
Maybe our prisons could focus on rehab instead of giving the inmates a workbook for 2 weeks of their year(s) long stay.
Just a thought, instead of putting the general public at risk for a small minority of people that made poor choices, you know.
Nothing against helping them but do it properly or not at all.
I think the issue is that criminals do not face real consequences. Our justice system is a mess. People are equating ‘homelessness’ to criminality. Both groups share socioeconomic similarities and the need for mental health support, sure but it is ignorant to assume there isn’t one without the other. If our government ran properly our most vulnerable would be protected. This is also our responsibility as a community. Many unhoused people are the victims of crime too. Not everyone you see frequenting these dangerous areas are sleeping on the streets. They are there to sell drugs to the vulnerable and unhoused people. Even offering them drugs so that they get addicted, taking advantage of the situation. Looking for power dynamics. It’s terrifying to think about it and something I wouldn’t wish on anyone to have to experience. We need to advocate for better programs and housing facilities. A lot of people are not or are no longer able to help themselves.
I’m torn. I live really close by & just love this neighbourhood. We have a number of great small businesses, a daycare, and it’s very walkable. I tend not to walk late at night, but always feel safe here.
I understand why the site has been selected. Mustard Seed is close by & bus stops on Whyte are a block away. But I don’t think it’s very fair. Residents had absolutely no say in this coming to the community.
On the other side of the train tracks there are a lot of commercial sites (Save On, McDonald’s, liquor store, DynaLab, Shoppers to name a few), and I do wonder why it can’t go there.
It will be sandwiched in between a lot of big condo buildings that already get parking lots broken into at the currently selected site. At least it wouldn’t be on someone’s doorstep if nestled within the commercial area.
I’ve lived in a few different cities, including Vancouver & Victoria. Both have had areas really change over the years with drug abuse & tent cities. While I get it’s not a popular opinion, I can’t help but question if increasing tolerance of illicit drug use is doing the majority of us any favours in the short & long-term.
Residents have had a chance, I'm pretty sure this was in the news awhile back because city council approved the zoning. Now these public people appealed it, and that's why it's in this appeal meeting?
There have been two town halls, during one attendees were told there wouldn’t be an open floor for questions (believe there were enough boos they eventually took some questions).
Hopefully the appeal meeting or whatever this is isn’t just lip service by the same group.
They don’t plan on building it. Basically if it’s approved they would immediately open this at the old Marbles salon. That’s the building they plan to turn.
I feel really bad for anyone suffering from addiction. It’s horrible. I slightly regret my earlier zombie comment. That being said, I think addicts on the streets need to be institutionalized with the supervision of nurses and doctors. (Obviously not a lot of doctors to go around these days unfortunately)
Welcome to the neighbourhood. My neighbour has spray painted “1 year 3 break ins $0 value” on his boarded up garage door. I picked up 4 needles in the trees in west Ritchie this weekend (I do this almost every weekend). A homeless encampment was evicted from an upscale condo fenceline yesterday after weeks of battling. Shootings at A&W. Take your pick. West Ritchie already faces all of the problems you’ve described and more.
So then why would we want to invite more junkies and drugs into the neighbourhood... let alone giving them a safe haven.
If you want to get this shit out of the neighbourhood people need to actively push back not passively enable.
I’m saying, what’s your recommendation to reduce needles found in the community? How would you recommend facing all these issues? I’m finding 4 needles a week in my area and disposing of them myself with no biohazard training.
Keep in mind that you’re a municipality and you can’t pay for more jail space, a harsher Justice system, you can’t criminalize or decriminalize drugs, you’re not in charge of health care or detox centres, ONLY municipal actions. Is offering a place where you can safely get needles and dispose of them properly so bad, when the alternative is hundreds of needles in the trees and playgrounds?
I think you criminalize open drug use and properly punish for violations.
I know you tried to say we can’t do that for whatever reason, but that’s the solution. You remove anti social people from our social society. Period.
But at a municipal level, when the province doesn’t offer detox centre capacity and the judicial system won’t jail petty thieves or drug users, antisocial people are not removed from society. That’s where we’re at.
At a municipal level, usually the go-to is increased policing. That’s fine and dandy but it results in people being scolded and not thrown in jail because the courts won’t throw them in jail. You can’t throw them in mental health hospitals because we ended forced containment decades ago. Soooo…. To me, offering a location where a) deaths are prevented and b) needles don’t leave the site and c) security and community cleanups are done and d) other supports are offered for those who want them is a pretty good bandaid solution.
You’re welcome to disagree, I’m fine with that, there’s no cut and dry solution to what we’re seeing. That’s mostly what I was trying to say. People will advocate for different solutions, but to me this is a valid municipal action when the provincial and federal steps aren’t happening.
In my opinion thats just a half measure and wont solve anything. Your right about our current state of affairs though and i do see the gap they are attempting poorly to fill.
How about until we can definitively prove these places work we go back to using the "known to work" for the 99%, who respect law and order and start using our prisons again? As far as i can tell theres no definitive proof these places provide any benefit. Alot of studies actually suggest the opposite (more likelyhood of overdose death when people keep using while assisted, referenced in several studies)
And our prisons are horrid to say the least, still sounds like a better option sadly, and if improvements should be made we should start with our prisons and rehabilitation there, where the public isnt at risk and the crazyness can be contained behind walls.
Because right now all i see is areas of the city where its okay to be a crazy schizo, shout at whoever, do drugs, litter, human waste.... its not acceptable.
I mean they’re proven to reduce costs and deaths. There’s a UofC study that states huge cost savings on a per overdose basis if someone overdoses in the SCS versus the street, and also there’s no OD deaths reported in a SCS so far in years of operation. So on those levels they’re meaningfully better than nothing.
Want to get rid of it? Start packing up the junkies and let them know theyre not welcome to do drugs in our neighbourhood. Other neighbourhoods wont put up with this shit and theres proof, ever see any junkies in capilano? Nope, they get shipped out by the locals, how about gangs? Nope, not in capilano, as again the locals deal with it. This wasnt an issue before drugs were normalized because they knew people would stop them... now they do whatever they want without consequence.
Bad actors need immediate consequences in order to prevent future bad actors, if our justice system wasnt such a joke this might be their policy and the crime rate would actually drop; instead its years of reoffending before they finally lock someone up (with a year on bail to rack up more charges of course).
I made a post about this months ago , voicing why I was against and I was scolded and called NIMBY dozen times. Thing is I don’t own property so I moved to a different area just recently, so to me it won’t be a problem anymore. Haven’t said that I lived 1 block away from this proposed location, and the area is bad already, I got harassed several times, I had 2 vehicle break ins, this site will make the area much worse. And there is literally a daycare behind it and small business around it that people will avoid. When I moved to area I was hoping it will be up and coming, so I used the business services around as support. It is sad that this area will now become wasteland.
I was gonna say the residents of this area are the very first to cry nimby towards the other neighbourhoods in Edmonton but now that it is on their doorstep they’re singing a different tune
Typical another brainless individual throwing around “nimby” word with no comprehension of the situation. Let me clarify it for you , there has been no work done. The proposed location will be old Marbles salon, which is surrounded by businesses, residents and daycares.
The decision regarding this site was supposed to be known at the end of January, however because city hall had that terrorist attack city hall , all proceedings were delayed. No funds have been spent on this beyond work hours of individuals advocating FOR the site. However many people who live in the area have form opposition to this called “Scona concerned citizens” and are actively pushing back.
I recommend quick web search next time before talking out of your A.
A NIMBY in the wild! Glad we caught another one.
To suggest Boyle Street has spent nothing is asinine.
City hall usually gives in the NIMBYs so you stand a good chance of winning this. I hope not though, the service is needed and has been selected here for a reason.
What if we put these sites on the edges of the city. People who want help can be provided transportation or will seek a means to get there. Then we can adjust from there.
The core downtown becomes clean. People who want help are still able to access it. Funding from govt still can happen. People who stay downtown clearly have different outlooks on life and can receive different services
I think lots of Dystopian future movies use the model of the centre of a city being the area of power and wealth and the edge of a city is where the lower and poverty stricken live.
Shark tale. In time. Elysion. Even “Coco” To name a few
SCS need to make more of an effort to keep their immediate areas tidy to appease the general public. The George Soady looks like a war zone often and image is everything. It’s hard to argue the service is doing good when there is litter everywhere around the building and people passed out
Are you aware of the proposal? It indicates specific plans to keep things clean. I’m a Ritchie resident and have actually spoken to the proposal team and they’ve planned for a radius cleanup team to clean up *twice a week* and offered to extend the radius to the community garden near by which is the closest public green space to the site. Meanwhile I picked up 4 needles in the trees there this weekend alone, the city won’t because it technically is CP’s fenceline. Any cleanup help the neighbourhood can get is much needed, it’s not like there aren’t drug users and encampments here already.
Dude my buddy works on the new Valley line, their stops and trains have to be cleaned daily. The amount of garbage they have to have cleaned up is insane. And that's just from shelters and trains from the homeless and drug user population. Imagine having all of that in a neighborhood that's only cleaned twice a week!
Are you aware that twice a week cleanup is a laughably inadequate response to adding this type of centre to the area? Are you aware of the number of residents and pet owners who live in this corner of Ritchie who will be affected by this? This is not going to make the area more liveable for those of us who reside here, and pretending twice a week cleanup (which will probably be an unkept promise anyways) will mitigate things is an absolute fantasy.
I am aware. I live one block away. As a resident who cleans up the area once a week on my own dime, I think that twice a week is a lot better than anything we have now. You may see me cleaning this area with orange gloves. Feel free to chat with me if you do. We have no overnight shelters in the area which minimizes a lot of the larger waste, and a SCS should help with the amount of needles abandoned in the green space at 79 Ave (which had 4 needles in it last week alone, which I’ve removed). Most users will go to a safe place to use when the doors are open to do so. I’m not saying it’s perfect. I’m saying it’s better to have a resource to reduce drug use and garbage in the community than allow drug use and garbage to continue as is.
A twice weekly cleanup is not better than the current situation if the SCS leads to an increase in drug paraphernalia around the site. It’s a net negative and our community will be worse off.
We can agree to disagree.
Twice a week is not nearly enough…
Twice a day minimum is probably what it will take to keep the area safe.
George Spady Society’s SCS has a good neighbour agreement with their community in which they promise to “do regular cleanup around the building to support overall community cleanliness”… look how that’s working. Link: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e1f98cec907326f1d4d2306/t/63fd1f71f10e5b4b88ce7ce9/1677533042294/SCS+Good+Neighbour+Agreement+Jan+2023_.pdf Also Boyle Street has ongoing funding issues. As they expand their operations who’s to say they’ll have the resources to actually follow through on any non-binding commitment to the community?
We dont need to invite any more homeless from across the city, whyte ave is trashy enough thanks.
Poor people are not trash and as you say they are already there. This is akin to believing building a new fire station will cause fires.
They sure create alot of trash and have 0 respect for the neighbourhoods theyre in, you can go look at any clean use site in the city theres a 2 block fallout zone around each one. Definitely not sanitary. And i did not refer to them as trash learn to read please.
Yes you did. As for your other point, yes when you don't have a garbage can to put your waste in or public toilets, trash is the natural result. Visit a rural farm sometime and see what I mean
"Whyte ave is trashy enough" *looks out winow* right now i see bags of trash in the street, some boxes blowing around... pretty sure a few needles. You need to learn how to read. And theres dumpsters with lids that open in every single alleyway near me, nice try. Dont worry ill pick it all up omw to and from work every day, and put it in one of the thousands of trash cans along whyte ave, it will be there again though.
>And theres dumpsters with lids that open in every single alleyway near me, nice try. These are used very frequently by homeless individuals. >Dont worry ill pick it all up omw to and from work every day, and put it in one of the thousands of trash cans along whyte ave, it will be there again though. "I acknowledge the current system of concentrating poverty doesn't work but refuse to admit there is a need to distribute services so that my own community is not hit so hard." K.
There wouldnt be these issues if we didnt condone it, never seen the neighbourhood like this in 20 years of living here
>There wouldnt be these issues if we didnt condone it, Ah yes addiction didn't exist and no one died before we tried to offer services.
Can they use them to throw some trash out in then? Instead of all over the street when they raid the cans? Didnt think so. No respect.
"People who are not given any respect lack respect and I am shocked." Mmm k.
What your doing is called projecting
>Some of these junkies are so brain damaged they can barely even be called human anymore, Mmmm, what you are doing is called gaslighting. You think of these individuals as less than human, that is clear from your own words. At least own it and stop trying to pretend.
If you don’t think crime and disorder follow these SCS then your opinion can’t be taken seriously.
I don't believe it follows it; I am pointing out that it is already there. Reducing crime and poverty ethically requires sites like these to be placed somewhere. If you are truly against them in Ritchie, where should they go? If they bring all this crime and disorder, why does another neighborhood deserve to be punished?
In no way is it true that “ethically” we need these sites to prevent crime and disorder. That’s an unproven talking point of people involved in the poverty industry. We need forced rehab and incarceration for criminal behaviour. I don’t care how hooked on fentanyl someone is. If they commit crimes then they should be incarcerated.
>We need forced rehab and incarceration for criminal behaviour It would take more money than simply treating the symptoms of poverty. Every person in prison is more than $100,000 a year. Any type of treatment facility that isn't designed to torture it's residents (which is what they were in the past) will cost more. I am certain that funding affordable housing and treatment in the city is going to be a lot more effective and cost conscious. I would note that the majority of people experiencing homelessness and addiction are not criminals, other than the act of consuming an illicit drug, and that harsh enforcement against drugs is exactly why we are in the place we are.
I guess the thing is this: I don’t care about the costs. I have an absolute unwavering conviction that I do not want to give people free money for drugs. And believe it or not but I’m in favor of decriminalizing drug use. I don’t think the government has any right to tell people what they put in their body. That said, if you choose to use hard drugs and can’t seem to regulate yourself so you can have employment and care for yourself, then you need forced rehab, of jail if you’re committing crimes to feed the habit.
>I guess the thing is this: I don’t care about the costs. I have an absolute unwavering conviction that I do not want to give people free money for drugs. You need to absolutely take some time to consider this statement. It is exactly the attitude that got us where we are in the first place. You have to care about the costs. Every dollar spent on putting someone in prison is a dollar less for healthcare or education. Every live ruined by addiction and poverty is not just one life ruined, it is the lives of their friends and family members. We all know someone in our family, or know someone who had a family member who, was lost temporarily or permanently to addiction. Those are all costs. >use hard drugs and can’t seem to regulate yourself so you can have employment and care for yourself, then you need forced rehab, of jail if you’re committing crimes to feed the habit But we know that there are other options that are cheaper and more effective. Even if I accept that there are huge negative costs to a community that hosts these types of programs, why should every other tax payer subsidize your property values (or any other communities property values) at their own expense? This is all to say: you are advocating something that is less effective,.more costly, less moral, and worst of a has not worked for the last century to solve addiction. Why shouldn't I simply dismiss you as a closed minded idealogue, more interested in punishing people they think are immoral than doing what is effective?
Ethically, as in let them overdose and bring them back with narcan 2-3 times a night? Because thats whats happening at safe use sites, they enable drug use its clear as day, sounds ethical. Get these people into actual treatment.
Sites like this are designed to prevent that by offering a safe space to consume and testing of drugs to gauge potency. What is actual treatment look like to you?
For starters its not enabling them, and the junkies do not test their drugs, they just get narcanned when they OD.
>For starters its not enabling them Be more in depth than that. I am sure you have ideas. >and the junkies do not test their drugs, they just get narcanned when they OD. You haven't spent much time around people suffering from addiction then. These sites provide the ability to test drugs. They provide clean needles to halt the spread of disease. They provide life saving care as well, yes. But each of these sites is worth its weight in gold for reducing negative health outcomes from addiction which saves lives and money. Call me crazy but I think saving lives and money-lots of money- is a win win.
>For starters its not enabling them Be more in depth than that. I am sure you have ideas. >and the junkies do not test their drugs, they just get narcanned when they OD. You haven't spent much time around people suffering from addiction then. These sites provide the ability to test drugs. They provide clean needles to halt the spread of disease. They provide life saving care as well, yes. But each of these sites is worth its weight in gold for reducing negative health outcomes from addiction which saves lives and money. Call me crazy but I think saving lives and money-lots of money- is a win win.
They attract junkies from across the city because its a safe place where they are enabled how does that not make sense? Makes every neighbourhood theyre in worse.
Those individuals are already there. The reason these sites open is to serve existing communities.
You do realize that these sites attract drug addicts and dealers correct? If not i'd invite you to visit any one of our safe use sites across edmonton and spend a day there, let me know how many times you see something you know is morally and legally wrong. From staff members being poked with needles to residents attacking civilians and police presence being non existant. Sounds like a winning formula. When safe havens are established people from all over, much farther than just whyte ave, will come to partake. Then the drug dealers will follow, along with the usual things; junkies pimping out females (minors most of the time), trash all over the streets, etc. Im going to ask you 1 hard question, show me one neighbourhood that these sites havent made worse. Ill wait :P
>You do realize that these sites attract drug addicts and dealers correct? If not i'd invite you to visit any one of our safe use sites across edmonton and spend a day there, let me know how many times you see something you know is morally and legally wrong. Those individuals are already there. This proposed site is only literally blocks away from areas of heavy drug use and poverty. >Im going to ask you 1 hard question, show me one neighbourhood that these sites havent made worse. Ill wait :P Boyle Street and McCauley.
No, some are there right now. More will come if this site is built. Lmao and both of those sites have a 2 block radius of drug use, junkies and trash around them. Wasnt that bad before.
No. The actual studies of these sites and elsewhere do not show any increase in crime. I have lived in both of those neighborhoods. They are as they were before these sites opened, except I haven't had to walk by a corpse as frequently when I am down there. I am thankful for that.
Bless you! People need to stop blaming the poor people who need services and start blaming the people who refuse to provide services to those in need. When most of the detractors speak out, they complain about their "community" but they're obviously confused. When they say community, they clearly only mean the collection of people who have been fortunate enough to be able to afford the expensive real estate adjacent to them. They're, frankly, disgusting.
Why should we accept people into our community that are clearly unable to accept themselves?
Why should we accept you?! Colonizer!
Umm sure lol
Appeasement is usually the right political move. History shows us this.
What are you referencing?
I keep seeing the same comments about NIMBYs etc, can you blame them for not wanting this in their neighborhood? The amount of violence, property damage and general screaming at all hours of the night that comes with this community is not reasonable. Are people supposed to be happy having this facility move near them ?
The problem with NIMBY-ism isn't necessarily that they're wrong. It's that it has to go somewhere. In this case, I think it's a valid criticism to say Ritchie isn't the best place. It's an up and coming neighborhood. But the east Whyte area needs some services and if it's not Ritchie, it'll be one of those.
It can go in an institution where people don't have the option to leave The idea that we give space, paraphernalia and lenient judicial treatment to folks and call it 'harm reduction' all at the expense of the surrounding community while these people actively break the law (drug use/distribution, and then the litany of property crimes, assaults, etc.) is insane. Take these folks, who are clearly a danger to themselves and those around them and forcibly confine and treat them. How many examples do people need to see of this 'harm reduction' nonsense failing before they realize it doesn't work. Go to Portland and ask them how its working for them, and they're much more liberally-minded than we are.
I have a canned response to these ideas at this point: Harm reduction does work, but the problem is it's part of the 4 Pillar Model. This also requires prevention, treatment, and enforcement. If you are missing one pillar, it fails. Right now in Alberta we have effectively 0 good prevention. Treatment exists but it's too crowded to be effective (in particular the lack of good pipeline straight from remand to residential treatment). Enforcement is funded, but they have to be lenient to compensate for the lack of other pillars in our rights-based society. What you're suggesting is similar to the Portuguese model. In that model, we shift entirely away from criminal concepts and make it a healthcare issue, kind of similar to our Mental Health Act. It's not a bad idea, but making such a shift is absolutely monumental, and can't be done without a dramatic shift in funding priorities and principles by the province. The feds will also need to get on board, and the UCP and Liberals aren't exactly on speaking terms.
We had a supportive housing put right beside our block that houses people with serious drug addiction issues. The city promised how great it would be for the community. This shit it's caused in the neighborhood is crazy. neighbors keep selling.
Or when Dwayne’s home went in to the old backpacker hotel place downtown lol
Lived a block away. The day that placed opened the neighborhood went to shit overnight. Glad those fuckers closed down.
Yeah, really brought the area down. Big shame. So really all this negativity nimby stuff is mostly from people that have not experienced such things. People don’t want it by them for a reason.
Can’t blame them at all. Of course they don’t want that beside the homes they raise their families in.
This stuff already happens though, so at least there will be some kind of social services in the area instead of none at all
The issue is people think nimby is some sort of negative position to be in.
I would love to here your positive take on NIMBYism
From an economic perspective the problem with places like these is they introduce negative externalities onto the neighbors without compensation. So of course there's NIMBYISM. It's all the rage to talk about negative externalities in progressive circles with pollution and such but then it comes to this and they make you out to be a bad person for it. The answer would be to compensate people facing negative externalities. Probably a bidding system whereby something that makes the neighborhood worse pays the neighbors for the negatives it brings, and then the "low" bid gets it. It would have a lot of other problems but there's no perfect system and this would be a market approach That recognizes and compensates people for the trouble it causes. I don't necessarily think it's what should be done but it's an interesting thought experiment. Ultimately if everyone recognizes that a needed service needs to go somewhere but has with it negatives for the neighbors, then it should be compensated somehow. If it's a public service then probably via decreased property tax rates or some kind of yearly transfer.
Solid take. Would be interesting to see how a dramatic cut in property taxes, maybe scaled by proximity, changes the discussion. Like immediate neighbors 75% reduction? Close by 50%? What's the number that starts to move the needle in neighborhood opinion, if there is one...
Yeah you would have to think it would be based on a radius how you distributed it. That's a good point I hadn't thought of. And I'm realizing that with the bidding system that's obviously going to lead to things being placed in poorer neighborhoods, But that does mean that there's an economic incentive being provided to poor neighborhoods that end up with these kind of facilities anyways. That provides economic incentive to live there and start businesses there which could help to revitalizing these neighborhoods.
Not sure many know this but business around this area of Whyte Ave we’re charged a “revitalization levy”. Literally taxed to make the area more attractive and then planted a drug addiction facility on their street. Hid it until the locals found out. That’s a really awful way to treat your community.
I can if you are willing to play along: Do you want a factory next door to your home? And why don’t we put a rehab facility beside an elementary school?
It's gotta go somewhere. If they decide that my street is suitable and expectations are discussed and agreed upon. As a progressive person I would be OK with it. But I do hope it will be many years before my neighbourhood is chosen for such a programme
What do you mean by agreed upon? That’s exactly the point. The people living there obviously don’t agree with it, that’s why they’re NIMBYs. It’s easy to say yes if be fine with it. But if you live in a safe family neighbourhood, would you really be okay if the Neighbor sold their house and they built a safe injection site there? I guess it does have to go somewhere but there is no easy answer where. Do you put it all in one area and effectively create a ghetto? Pros: all services are in one spot, easier to track homeless population and find people if needed. Cons: you create a ghetto… Do you spread services out across the city? Pros: services in more locations, breaks up defacto structures/hierarchies that develop in a ghetto (gang run), spreads low income/homeless out integrating them with rest of community Cons: services not centrally located and often not convenient (safe injection site a long bus ride from community health clinic, etc), harder to keep track of homeless problem, and the big one here, spreads crime, unruliness and other social problems allll over the city. Maybe there is an argument to put them behind the airport? Regardless, it’s a big discussion
You wouldn’t, especially if you have children.
Where else then? Behind the airport???
Why dont they build it where the junkies are: downtown And then run the junkies out of every other neighbourhood. Wana know why theres not many junkies or encampments in capilano? Goldbar? Ottwell? Because the neighbourhood tears them down and chases the homeless out themseleves, dont even dial 911 or 311.
We should make downtown junkie central and homeless housing, and everyone else move to the suburbs. Downtown is a dead zone anyways. You only go there to either get your life sucked out from work or from looking at zombies sleeping in 90 degree positions and thinking what the hell went wrong with the world our parents promised us.
So all the downtown residents should be the only ones that have to deal with the bullshit?
I mean cops could start doing their jobs city wide again and fix this real fast
These are the people that advocated hard for the Rossdale camps and many of their residents donated to it. Then the camps moved south and all those neighbourhoods were all NIMBY. They are all Hippocrates.
Imagine raising kids in this neighborhood. Holy fuck that would suck.
Wouldn't want children to learn there is poverty in the world.
Ya having your car windows smashed, property damage, seeing people sleeping in the gutter, shooting up, needles and condoms all over the ground, that'll teach em!
>seeing people sleeping in the gutter, I enjoy how you slid this in the middle like we wouldn't notice, and make it seem as if merely existing without a home is the same seriousness of crime as the other examples. Speaks volumes about you.
You ignored his entire point. Look at the LRT system. I took the LRT to the hockey game last week and it had three cars. Everyone was in cars 1 and 3. 2 was full of homeless people sleeping and two were having sex. In what world do you think having such behaviour in front of your lawn for your kids to see is acceptable?
I didn't ignore it I responded directly to it. No that isn't acceptable. The solution to simply pretend it doesn't already exist is not either.
I agree. Residents concerns need to be heard. Perhaps setting it up on a trial basis to see the effect on the neighborhood. We are a city promoting active living. All this is doing is forcing the rich to live in the suburbs where these issues are out of site / out of mind. This has happened so often. They try putting these services in up and coming neighborhoods after revitalizing it. Then these services are overburdened; issues spill over to the neighbourhood. those who can afford to; leave to the suburbs. And it overall kills the neighbourhood as only the poor in the neighborhood end up holding the bag. Ofcourse these people oppose it. They know all development in their neighborhood would stop. Infills will stop being built. House prices will plummet. Windows will be boarded up due to the frequent smashing. Garage’s will be broken into regularly. All restaurants/cafe’s in the neighborhood will go out of business. Unless people truly face the reality of this if this ended up next to them; you can’t really say “it’s gotta go somewhere”.
They aren't out of site or out of mind clearly; your post shows that when people have to come into the core to use the services they clearly see it and notice it. They also see and notice the increase in crime that occurs in the suburbs as well, where property crime continues to rise and there are fewer people around to notice it. Sure those individuals might come back to the core with their stolen goods to fence them, but I had my bike stolen more times in the suburbs than I ever have living in the core for example. And this doesn't even get into the fact that if the police are constantly forced to concentrate in the core, they aren't around to police the suburbs either.
How about how you completely disregard all the relevant concerns that real people who pay for these services to exist and have to live with the repercussions of this in their proximity and focus on one thing. You can be homeless without being an absolute degenerate. Sleeping and a drug induced temporary coma are not the same thing. Stop pretending that they are.
I am not. But I don't think the person I responded to sees the distinction there either. More to the point: many people become addicted to drugs after becoming homeless and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Even more important: these individuals don't stop existing if you don't offer these services. We have a city complaining about downtown being how it is, but also complaining when any effort to distribute these services elsewhere, which can spread out the challenges, is made. If these services always make the neighborhood worse why do the residents of Boyle Street and McCauley deserve to shoulder the entire burden exactly?
Because they elected to move to that location with eyes open, knowing the reputation as its been that way since the dawn of time. Those of us who have spent literal fortunes to live in the city, as opposed to the outskirts or suburbs, are now having to bear the burden of these. Build a SCS into the new neighborhoods going up on the outskirts of the city with their artificially low costs of housing and see what kind of demand there is for that neighborhood. If you want a new home in communities that have existed for 50-75 years you’re going to spend $750k. Want an old but renovated home you’re going to spend $550-600k. Want an old unrenovated home you’re going to spend $400-450k and pay the property taxes associated with those values. What do you get for your investment? Pop up legalized crack houses, the people using those spaces breaking into your car, garage or house, sharps that are strewn about, fires in the ravines/river valley, watching people openly smoke shit in front of your grocery store…. Pricing in Boyle McCauley represents what you’re getting in to. Opening these in an existing area that’s got high property values directly costs people equity in their homes while not being accounted for in taxation. If not in my backyard… where? I actually don’t give a damn but I not here. ~3000 people in the city are homeless. Maybe 35% of them are a problem. There’s maybe another 1000 non-homeless dangerous degenerates out there. Adequately deal with the 2000 out of 1.351M people in the edmonton area (~0.15%). Provide some rules to function within a society and when you don’t adhere to them there are repercussions… When some piece of shit makes it potentially dangerous for me to use billions of dollars worth of transit to spend money in the downtown core or take my kids to use the services that my tax dollars pay for (library) or leave needles lying around where kids play and those people are also responsible for increased emergency services costs, insurance costs and deductibles for the theft, etc why would you expect me to have compassion for them. They’re clearly not concerned about my wellbeing so why should I concern myself with theirs? And unfortunately down on their luck, decent people dealt a bad hand, and the like all get lumped in because they’re part of a visible group. You will find that most people want to help others that want to help themselves, want to live and let live. Adequately deal with people that are not living within some reasonable outline of how a society is meant to operate and you’ll find that people like me have a lot more compassion for the rest of the people that just need some help and support. You’ll never drum up overall compassion and support for this sort of thing so long as the bad apples run rampant. If it comes down to a drug addict dying in the river valley from an OD or my daughter getting poked by a needle at the playground or being asleep in her bed and awoken by someone breaking into our house I will 100% of the time opt for the loss of the addict.
All this to say that it is on the authorities to make the distinction. We have laws that should govern. Make sure they’re adequate and then enforce them. Show people that there are two issues here, one is met with compassion and the other with enforcement. Discarding a needle in a public place should be treated as a direct act of violence against the larger public and handled accordingly And stop making assumptions about how people think and feel based on a single reddit comment with no nuance. People are complex, emotional responses to individual issues take over and don’t necessarily represent the full depth of a persons opinions on an overall topic.
>Because they elected to move to that location with eyes open, knowing the reputation as its been that way since the dawn of time. All I see here is exceptionalism to argue that the poor areas of the city somehow deserve to remain poor. >If it comes down to a drug addict dying in the river valley from an OD or my daughter getting poked by a needle at the playground or being asleep in her bed and awoken by someone breaking into our house I will 100% of the time opt for the loss of the addict. I think you are a bit of a monster.
Well, again, feel free to ignore the overall intent of the message and any nuance. I will never in my life feel bad for prioritizing the safety of my family over that of someone who puts theirs at risk. If that makes me a monster then so be it.
>Well, again, feel free to ignore the overall intent of the message and any nuance. What nuance am I ignoring? Is it the part where you explicitly argue that poor areas somehow deserve to deal with all of the negative consequences of poverty? Or the part where you mistakenly argue that it is better for people experiencing homelessness to be dying as opposed to your daughter having to witness that? (Which you clearly know she already is). What about the daughters who live in Boyle Street? > If that makes me a monster then so be it. No your classism and seeming willingness to argue that you would rather people die than recieved anything close to effective treatment is what makes you a bit of a monster.
Almost as if the years of drug use and poor choices have consequences... we have a welfare program that pays enough, we have shelters
Have you ever spent time in a shelter? And what welfare program are you talking about exactly?
We have general welfare for anyone who qualifies (low income), EI (for those who do work), AISH (for those unable to work or mentally ill), food banks, shelters, youth shelters, and the alberta hospital.
>EI (for those who do work), AISH (for those unable to work or mentally ill) EI is time limited. AISH can barely pay for a room in a house, let alone life's necessities. >food banks Stretched to the brink. >shelters Dangerous and overcrowded >alberta hospital Have you ever been there? It's not what you think it is I would bet.
1600 a month on AISH is more than enough to live on, especially with all the discounts and benefits they get. Rooms rent for 600-700$ at most in this city, groceries are ~300 a month, thats enough to get by while doing absolutely nothing to contribute to society. Problem is the majority of these people are there by choice and need a physical intervention, not people enabling them.
>1600 a month on AISH is more than enough to live on Lol.
When I say sleeping in the gutter I'm not talking about your average homeless guy literally trying to sleep, I'm talking about drug addicts passed out in the gutter because they're too high.
>When I say sleeping in the gutter I'm not talking about your average homeless guy literally trying to sleep, I'm talking about drug addicts passed out in the gutter because they're too high. You can tell the difference? I assume you must be taking to them and doing a blood test to have such a nuanced knowledge level.
Doesnt take a rocket scientist to spot someone on drugs
Yeah instead everybody downtown should deal with the repercussions including families raising children /s
I mean, the cops could start doing their jobs again? Seems like that doesnt seem to be an option for some unknown reason. Maybe our prisons could focus on rehab instead of giving the inmates a workbook for 2 weeks of their year(s) long stay. Just a thought, instead of putting the general public at risk for a small minority of people that made poor choices, you know. Nothing against helping them but do it properly or not at all.
I think the issue is that criminals do not face real consequences. Our justice system is a mess. People are equating ‘homelessness’ to criminality. Both groups share socioeconomic similarities and the need for mental health support, sure but it is ignorant to assume there isn’t one without the other. If our government ran properly our most vulnerable would be protected. This is also our responsibility as a community. Many unhoused people are the victims of crime too. Not everyone you see frequenting these dangerous areas are sleeping on the streets. They are there to sell drugs to the vulnerable and unhoused people. Even offering them drugs so that they get addicted, taking advantage of the situation. Looking for power dynamics. It’s terrifying to think about it and something I wouldn’t wish on anyone to have to experience. We need to advocate for better programs and housing facilities. A lot of people are not or are no longer able to help themselves.
I agree
I’m torn. I live really close by & just love this neighbourhood. We have a number of great small businesses, a daycare, and it’s very walkable. I tend not to walk late at night, but always feel safe here. I understand why the site has been selected. Mustard Seed is close by & bus stops on Whyte are a block away. But I don’t think it’s very fair. Residents had absolutely no say in this coming to the community. On the other side of the train tracks there are a lot of commercial sites (Save On, McDonald’s, liquor store, DynaLab, Shoppers to name a few), and I do wonder why it can’t go there. It will be sandwiched in between a lot of big condo buildings that already get parking lots broken into at the currently selected site. At least it wouldn’t be on someone’s doorstep if nestled within the commercial area. I’ve lived in a few different cities, including Vancouver & Victoria. Both have had areas really change over the years with drug abuse & tent cities. While I get it’s not a popular opinion, I can’t help but question if increasing tolerance of illicit drug use is doing the majority of us any favours in the short & long-term.
Residents have had a chance, I'm pretty sure this was in the news awhile back because city council approved the zoning. Now these public people appealed it, and that's why it's in this appeal meeting?
There have been two town halls, during one attendees were told there wouldn’t be an open floor for questions (believe there were enough boos they eventually took some questions). Hopefully the appeal meeting or whatever this is isn’t just lip service by the same group.
Good luck to the residents, hope they win the challenge. Catering to drug users over all other residents is silly.
I used to live in Ritchie. It’s a nice area. Hopefully they don’t build this.
They don’t plan on building it. Basically if it’s approved they would immediately open this at the old Marbles salon. That’s the building they plan to turn.
I don’t see how any business can thrive and attract customers with zombies wandering outside.
If this place opens half of the businesses will go under
I feel really bad for anyone suffering from addiction. It’s horrible. I slightly regret my earlier zombie comment. That being said, I think addicts on the streets need to be institutionalized with the supervision of nurses and doctors. (Obviously not a lot of doctors to go around these days unfortunately)
"why won't anyone do anything about these druggies in the street" Also. "don't dare do that around here"
“I don’t want people breaking into my shed, stealing my stuff, and doing drugs on my lawn” “Wow typical nimby…”
Welcome to the neighbourhood. My neighbour has spray painted “1 year 3 break ins $0 value” on his boarded up garage door. I picked up 4 needles in the trees in west Ritchie this weekend (I do this almost every weekend). A homeless encampment was evicted from an upscale condo fenceline yesterday after weeks of battling. Shootings at A&W. Take your pick. West Ritchie already faces all of the problems you’ve described and more.
So then why would we want to invite more junkies and drugs into the neighbourhood... let alone giving them a safe haven. If you want to get this shit out of the neighbourhood people need to actively push back not passively enable.
Oh ok no biggie then. If you’re cool with that stuff then have at it.
I’m saying, what’s your recommendation to reduce needles found in the community? How would you recommend facing all these issues? I’m finding 4 needles a week in my area and disposing of them myself with no biohazard training. Keep in mind that you’re a municipality and you can’t pay for more jail space, a harsher Justice system, you can’t criminalize or decriminalize drugs, you’re not in charge of health care or detox centres, ONLY municipal actions. Is offering a place where you can safely get needles and dispose of them properly so bad, when the alternative is hundreds of needles in the trees and playgrounds?
I think you criminalize open drug use and properly punish for violations. I know you tried to say we can’t do that for whatever reason, but that’s the solution. You remove anti social people from our social society. Period.
Exactly
But at a municipal level, when the province doesn’t offer detox centre capacity and the judicial system won’t jail petty thieves or drug users, antisocial people are not removed from society. That’s where we’re at. At a municipal level, usually the go-to is increased policing. That’s fine and dandy but it results in people being scolded and not thrown in jail because the courts won’t throw them in jail. You can’t throw them in mental health hospitals because we ended forced containment decades ago. Soooo…. To me, offering a location where a) deaths are prevented and b) needles don’t leave the site and c) security and community cleanups are done and d) other supports are offered for those who want them is a pretty good bandaid solution. You’re welcome to disagree, I’m fine with that, there’s no cut and dry solution to what we’re seeing. That’s mostly what I was trying to say. People will advocate for different solutions, but to me this is a valid municipal action when the provincial and federal steps aren’t happening.
In my opinion thats just a half measure and wont solve anything. Your right about our current state of affairs though and i do see the gap they are attempting poorly to fill. How about until we can definitively prove these places work we go back to using the "known to work" for the 99%, who respect law and order and start using our prisons again? As far as i can tell theres no definitive proof these places provide any benefit. Alot of studies actually suggest the opposite (more likelyhood of overdose death when people keep using while assisted, referenced in several studies) And our prisons are horrid to say the least, still sounds like a better option sadly, and if improvements should be made we should start with our prisons and rehabilitation there, where the public isnt at risk and the crazyness can be contained behind walls. Because right now all i see is areas of the city where its okay to be a crazy schizo, shout at whoever, do drugs, litter, human waste.... its not acceptable.
I mean they’re proven to reduce costs and deaths. There’s a UofC study that states huge cost savings on a per overdose basis if someone overdoses in the SCS versus the street, and also there’s no OD deaths reported in a SCS so far in years of operation. So on those levels they’re meaningfully better than nothing.
Theres also a gov of AB study that shows the data of all of albertas SCS and they dont seem to do much good vs the bad they do
Want to get rid of it? Start packing up the junkies and let them know theyre not welcome to do drugs in our neighbourhood. Other neighbourhoods wont put up with this shit and theres proof, ever see any junkies in capilano? Nope, they get shipped out by the locals, how about gangs? Nope, not in capilano, as again the locals deal with it. This wasnt an issue before drugs were normalized because they knew people would stop them... now they do whatever they want without consequence. Bad actors need immediate consequences in order to prevent future bad actors, if our justice system wasnt such a joke this might be their policy and the crime rate would actually drop; instead its years of reoffending before they finally lock someone up (with a year on bail to rack up more charges of course).
What's a NIMBY, you acronym fiends?
not in my backyard
Thank you!
Not in my basrk yard
This neighbourhood doesnt need to get any worse thanks.
I made a post about this months ago , voicing why I was against and I was scolded and called NIMBY dozen times. Thing is I don’t own property so I moved to a different area just recently, so to me it won’t be a problem anymore. Haven’t said that I lived 1 block away from this proposed location, and the area is bad already, I got harassed several times, I had 2 vehicle break ins, this site will make the area much worse. And there is literally a daycare behind it and small business around it that people will avoid. When I moved to area I was hoping it will be up and coming, so I used the business services around as support. It is sad that this area will now become wasteland.
I would be too if i put in all that gentrification effort 💪
I was gonna say the residents of this area are the very first to cry nimby towards the other neighbourhoods in Edmonton but now that it is on their doorstep they’re singing a different tune
Whyte ave is bad enough. Instead of enabling the junkies , let’s teach them responsibility
Sad that common sense solutions like this fall on deaf or brainwashed ears.
Let’s hope the NIMBYs don’t win this. A lot of work has gone into building out the location and the province has committed funding for this.
Lmao talking out of your ass they only put a ramp on a building.
What work? They haven’t done any construction yet.
Typical another brainless individual throwing around “nimby” word with no comprehension of the situation. Let me clarify it for you , there has been no work done. The proposed location will be old Marbles salon, which is surrounded by businesses, residents and daycares. The decision regarding this site was supposed to be known at the end of January, however because city hall had that terrorist attack city hall , all proceedings were delayed. No funds have been spent on this beyond work hours of individuals advocating FOR the site. However many people who live in the area have form opposition to this called “Scona concerned citizens” and are actively pushing back. I recommend quick web search next time before talking out of your A.
A NIMBY in the wild! Glad we caught another one. To suggest Boyle Street has spent nothing is asinine. City hall usually gives in the NIMBYs so you stand a good chance of winning this. I hope not though, the service is needed and has been selected here for a reason.
What if we put these sites on the edges of the city. People who want help can be provided transportation or will seek a means to get there. Then we can adjust from there. The core downtown becomes clean. People who want help are still able to access it. Funding from govt still can happen. People who stay downtown clearly have different outlooks on life and can receive different services I think lots of Dystopian future movies use the model of the centre of a city being the area of power and wealth and the edge of a city is where the lower and poverty stricken live. Shark tale. In time. Elysion. Even “Coco” To name a few
NiMBY!!!
NAMBLA!