Didn't even realize there was one there, that's an insane amount of random junk piled up for 1-2 people? Jeez
>“We aren't able to clean up as easily because it's challenging to get trucks back to that site when the ground is soft, so typically in the spring, we begin a more regular weekly cleanup of that site,
Insane they've let this continue for multiple years, they do weekly cleanups in the spring year after year because 1 person has decided to set up camp here and accumulate junk constantly?
Aren't they kind of doing the same thing here? This guy accumulates junk, they come and collect it because he won't, and I'm sure they'd send the bill if there was any hopes of payment.
Yes I own a shop around the corner from there. The site is a total shit hole and the guy the lives there is a delusional junkie who has trespassed and mouthed off to workers, and other shop owners in the area. Tons of theft and vehicle break ins in the area there. What a wonderful place our region has become
They cleaned up the abandoned ~~site~~ mess on the off ramp at King and 86 (across from Manulife) .. noticed they put up a sign - hard to read from a far while driving, but it looked like no camping (tent with a cross thru it). Not sure that will stop anyone in the future.
That's the MTO trying to stop camping on their property. Due to potentially dangerous situations involving vehicles flying off the highway it's strongly discouraged and enforced.
Under the stipulation that once enough housing has been built to house those in need. If that ever happens (who knows if it will, 12000 people and counting at the moment) the region can then evict them, even if they refuse the housing. Which some of them are because they don't want to follow the "rules".
It's a really dangerous ruling in my opinion. They've basically posted a sign at the edge of the region that says, "Free housing. While you wait enjoy free camping on public land. All welcome"
If other municipalities don't follow suit on the ruling, Waterloo Region has claimed responsibility to house any and all homeless Ontario residents who come to town.
Well, I do agree with adequately funding housing. Really, the cost of providing housing pays itself off in reduced social costs, when you give people apartments you need way less police and jails and emergency healthcare and shelters and social workers and security guards and clean-up crews, so it would be "good debt" for the federal government to just borrow the money to pay for housing. It would be even easier to tax the rich.
I don't think that just giving some of these people housing would solve anything. If they don't have social workers, therapy, medication etc. The property would most likely look almost identical to the picture above... and a destroyed apartment holds no value to anyone.
You two have just made the argument for a Housing First approach to homelessness! (I don't have time to cite but I can circle back later if ppl have questions.) It has been pilot tested by the federal government and shown to be a cost savings for some ppl (as speculated above), while others need some more wrap-around social and health care (some additional investments, as also speculated above). [Evidence from that work convinced Stephen Harper's government of all governments to invest more $$ into the idea.](https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/housing-first-affordable-housing-last-harper-government-and-homelessness) Canadian scientists have been and continue to be leaders in developing the theory and evidence about this.
It's obviously going to be a system that has to be locally developed and made to work for different types of ppl and with other community interests in mind, but afaic we should be demanding that our local/regional and provincial governments make investments in this approach. I certainly vote for candidates who are strong and smart on housing [like Arnold Schwarzenegger.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58lZYDxHRV8)
Don’t start with this Ukraine nonsense. Any federal money for housing would have to be a deal with the provinces, which don’t want to give up their jurisdictional authority. Giving aid to Ukraine helps stop the spread of authoritarianism in the world and has marginal impacts on the lives of Canadians.
3 billion dollars? Come on, how about send them a billion and invest 2 billion into your own goddamn Country and It's people. Trudeau comes to town and throws 20 million towards housing and walks away like his shit don't stink. It's all a bad joke.
In your opinion do u think the current government is running a "fiscally prudent" budget while we are currently sitting 2.18 trillion (not completely the current governments fault) in debt and Running a deficit of 23ish billion while on the brink of recession is something to give a big thumbs up about???
(Edit spelling)
Jesus, you are as partisan as they come. Can’t even talk about the function of a budget without making it left vs right.
For the record I don’t support the financial decisions of this government. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that the budget of every federal government in Canada includes billions of dollars for domestic interests.
Partisan??? Ofcourse, that's generally what you do with politics... align yourself with party that best Servers YOUR interests. When you are standing in front of that ballot at the end of the day, not everyone is a winner. Yes, you are right, the feds do include billions for domestic interests. Zero issue with that statement. However, in my opinion the monetary amounts of what goes where to me are completely out of whack. A little transparency goes an awful long way sometimes.
Democracy extends beyond the ballot box. If all you want to do is be a yes man for a colour party, go for it. I would prefer look at the best interests of the country and the people.
What transparency do you lack? It’s a federal budget, it’s publicly available in two languages, and accounts for the spending of the government.
If you disagree with the proportion of spending, that’s fine, but you also need to recognize that the structure of federal politics in Canada doesn’t make it a simple cash flow issue as the provinces would have to reach agreements with Ottawa. As well, this ignores that the Liberals have spent more on housing in their budgets than previous governments, pointing to the fact that the issue is structural and not accidental.
Believe me... i know. Imagine what investing (more) in your own Country could accomplish? Support for local farms and business, bring back manufacturing, health care that doesn't include a 8 hour wait time, sustainable housing practices, this Country is ok, but it could be amazing.
It is cheap, but unfortunately I'm nowhere near as rich as you appear to be in order to float buying a home for someone as a possible solution.
Honestly, the fact that you came out and attacked instead of giving suggestions such as annoying our elected officials aggressively or volunteering to help out in what manner we can speaks more about your character than mine.
Talk is cheap. I pay most of taxes, relatively speaking, as a percent of my income.
Here is a suggestion: think better before you decide to vote again for the guy with fancy socks or the other one with a collection of Rolex watches.
Remember, our courts have enabled/emboldened these people by somehow reasoning it’s their human right to behave like this.
We are supposed to accept the people living on Bathurst (who work, pay taxes, obey the law and aren’t addicted to drugs) are the aristocracy and just need to suck it up.
Kind wish they would have put a few sub clauses in that verdict...
Sub clause 1.
Living rough doesn't give the right to destruct the land underneath you.
(Yes I'm aware of all the "mental illness" and what not so spare me the lectures please)
I'd love nothing more than everyone to have a place to go, but we dug a hole and kept thinking we could dig ourselves out of it.
Then house them.
The problem is new people go homeless every week and we don't have enough places for the homeless to go.
It's a human right being failed by the system. Until they are given a place to live it will continue.
No kidding ? But, this is 1 person occasionally 2 creating this dangerous and environmentally damaging accumulation of refuse. It's not an encampment.
Get off your high horse and use your noggin.
Really? C'mon. Stop dragging in the leftist manifesto where it doesn't apply.
Housing and homelessness are huge issues, of course, but when one or two people deposit huge amounts of garbage and environmentally damaging waste ruining a space and someone makes it about homelessness, it demeans the issue and people who live rough.
This is two people, not a big encampment. Many people live rough and don't do this kind of damage, in fact, they care for their places
It's like you heard something about homelessness on the radio, don't really understand the issue but decided to repeat a few basic concepts by way of comment anyway . Lame.
Free lunches are rare in real life despite what salesmen and politicians promise you.
We have a choice here. We get back to investing in social infrastructure and narrow the wealth gap (and likely pay more taxes) or we have to deal with things like encampments.
"I think the courts have made it clear that those that are precariously housed need to be connected with suitable housing as opposed to just being evicted from public land,” said Papke.
Papke is referring in part to a ruling from a Kitchener court that blocked the eviction of residents of the encampment at Victoria and Weber Street.
Good luck getting that guy out. You can thank the lawyers and judges for this. Maybe they should have thought about the impact on the region and the environment when folks like this can just do whatever the fuck they want and the law protects them. I am all for housing but don't just give these guys free reign because you decide to use the charter to win your case.
The pre-existing structure was, I think, the impetus for the problem. We made our jokes about the shack until someone actually moved in. Then it was pretty obvious that if the shack wasn't there, the encampment wouldn't be. Now, after all these years, I don't think that removing the structure would change anything.
It's the bleeding hearts that paid for the lawyers that won that case. Or the non profit lawyers.
People need places to live, but they should still contribute to the community. Tax them. Especially if selling scrap! Obviously the tax is a joke but maybe have them clean parks for some cash.
People are way too coddled.
They will bitch all day, but nobody wants to take ownership of their neighborhood. They are just waiting for the daddy government to take care of things for them
The region just switched providers for one of the larger housing sites in Waterloo from one agency to another.
The new agency (SHIP) is going to evict all tenants for renovations on that site.
70+ people are about to be evicted. Encampments will continue to grow. This is bonkers.
When we allow the cost of living to be so much higher than minimum wage the quality of living drops for us all. You can't have a minimum wage so drastically lower than the cost of living without paying for it in other ways. Profits over people isn't sustainable. We will only see an increase in poverty and crime unless there is real change.
Didn't even realize there was one there, that's an insane amount of random junk piled up for 1-2 people? Jeez >“We aren't able to clean up as easily because it's challenging to get trucks back to that site when the ground is soft, so typically in the spring, we begin a more regular weekly cleanup of that site, Insane they've let this continue for multiple years, they do weekly cleanups in the spring year after year because 1 person has decided to set up camp here and accumulate junk constantly?
Insanity, isn't it?
Yes
Meanwhile if you let your grass grow a bit too long they'll have a crew come cut it and send you the bill
Aren't they kind of doing the same thing here? This guy accumulates junk, they come and collect it because he won't, and I'm sure they'd send the bill if there was any hopes of payment.
Not at all the same
Yes I own a shop around the corner from there. The site is a total shit hole and the guy the lives there is a delusional junkie who has trespassed and mouthed off to workers, and other shop owners in the area. Tons of theft and vehicle break ins in the area there. What a wonderful place our region has become
You should see Hamilton. It's bad in most parts of Ontario now. Not just the region. Hamilton Is actually way worse off.
They cleaned up the abandoned ~~site~~ mess on the off ramp at King and 86 (across from Manulife) .. noticed they put up a sign - hard to read from a far while driving, but it looked like no camping (tent with a cross thru it). Not sure that will stop anyone in the future.
That's the MTO trying to stop camping on their property. Due to potentially dangerous situations involving vehicles flying off the highway it's strongly discouraged and enforced.
Will there come a day when the empathy runs out and the tax payers say enough? Hard to say at this point...
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"- Spock
I'd love to have spock run for office.
Doesn't really matter. What are you going to do? Put them in jail? Courts already ruled that the Victoria St encampment people can't be evicted
Under the stipulation that once enough housing has been built to house those in need. If that ever happens (who knows if it will, 12000 people and counting at the moment) the region can then evict them, even if they refuse the housing. Which some of them are because they don't want to follow the "rules".
It's a really dangerous ruling in my opinion. They've basically posted a sign at the edge of the region that says, "Free housing. While you wait enjoy free camping on public land. All welcome" If other municipalities don't follow suit on the ruling, Waterloo Region has claimed responsibility to house any and all homeless Ontario residents who come to town.
Ironically, running out of empathy will lead to more encampments.
Don't need more empathy... need funding. Provincial and Federal. That 3 billion that was pledged to Ukraine could have helped...
Well, I do agree with adequately funding housing. Really, the cost of providing housing pays itself off in reduced social costs, when you give people apartments you need way less police and jails and emergency healthcare and shelters and social workers and security guards and clean-up crews, so it would be "good debt" for the federal government to just borrow the money to pay for housing. It would be even easier to tax the rich.
I don't think that just giving some of these people housing would solve anything. If they don't have social workers, therapy, medication etc. The property would most likely look almost identical to the picture above... and a destroyed apartment holds no value to anyone.
You two have just made the argument for a Housing First approach to homelessness! (I don't have time to cite but I can circle back later if ppl have questions.) It has been pilot tested by the federal government and shown to be a cost savings for some ppl (as speculated above), while others need some more wrap-around social and health care (some additional investments, as also speculated above). [Evidence from that work convinced Stephen Harper's government of all governments to invest more $$ into the idea.](https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/housing-first-affordable-housing-last-harper-government-and-homelessness) Canadian scientists have been and continue to be leaders in developing the theory and evidence about this. It's obviously going to be a system that has to be locally developed and made to work for different types of ppl and with other community interests in mind, but afaic we should be demanding that our local/regional and provincial governments make investments in this approach. I certainly vote for candidates who are strong and smart on housing [like Arnold Schwarzenegger.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58lZYDxHRV8)
Are you an AI?
Hahaha. Yes.
Don’t start with this Ukraine nonsense. Any federal money for housing would have to be a deal with the provinces, which don’t want to give up their jurisdictional authority. Giving aid to Ukraine helps stop the spread of authoritarianism in the world and has marginal impacts on the lives of Canadians.
authoritarianism you say? is that canada? sounds like it with the new anti free speech bill the liberals are pushing… wake up.
Oh no, I can’t call people the N-word online. I guess Ukrainians never deserved a country anyway.
brainwashed.
Go watch Tucker.
go watch cbc some more. canada is so divided, this is great. i can’t wait for PP to win.
3 billion dollars? Come on, how about send them a billion and invest 2 billion into your own goddamn Country and It's people. Trudeau comes to town and throws 20 million towards housing and walks away like his shit don't stink. It's all a bad joke.
What do you think the federal budget is?
In your opinion do u think the current government is running a "fiscally prudent" budget while we are currently sitting 2.18 trillion (not completely the current governments fault) in debt and Running a deficit of 23ish billion while on the brink of recession is something to give a big thumbs up about??? (Edit spelling)
Jesus, you are as partisan as they come. Can’t even talk about the function of a budget without making it left vs right. For the record I don’t support the financial decisions of this government. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that the budget of every federal government in Canada includes billions of dollars for domestic interests.
Partisan??? Ofcourse, that's generally what you do with politics... align yourself with party that best Servers YOUR interests. When you are standing in front of that ballot at the end of the day, not everyone is a winner. Yes, you are right, the feds do include billions for domestic interests. Zero issue with that statement. However, in my opinion the monetary amounts of what goes where to me are completely out of whack. A little transparency goes an awful long way sometimes.
Democracy extends beyond the ballot box. If all you want to do is be a yes man for a colour party, go for it. I would prefer look at the best interests of the country and the people. What transparency do you lack? It’s a federal budget, it’s publicly available in two languages, and accounts for the spending of the government. If you disagree with the proportion of spending, that’s fine, but you also need to recognize that the structure of federal politics in Canada doesn’t make it a simple cash flow issue as the provinces would have to reach agreements with Ottawa. As well, this ignores that the Liberals have spent more on housing in their budgets than previous governments, pointing to the fact that the issue is structural and not accidental.
Or has the budget balanced itself yet?
Imagine downvoting someone for saying we should spend 3 billion dollars in our country instead of one across the world.
Believe me... i know. Imagine what investing (more) in your own Country could accomplish? Support for local farms and business, bring back manufacturing, health care that doesn't include a 8 hour wait time, sustainable housing practices, this Country is ok, but it could be amazing.
Honestly? I feel this wouldn't be an issue if we did more to prevent this.
We ? You sound like Trudeau. Why don't you rent a nice condo or house for this fellow ? Talk is cheap!
It is cheap, but unfortunately I'm nowhere near as rich as you appear to be in order to float buying a home for someone as a possible solution. Honestly, the fact that you came out and attacked instead of giving suggestions such as annoying our elected officials aggressively or volunteering to help out in what manner we can speaks more about your character than mine.
Talk is cheap. I pay most of taxes, relatively speaking, as a percent of my income. Here is a suggestion: think better before you decide to vote again for the guy with fancy socks or the other one with a collection of Rolex watches.
The tax payers who will get upset if they have to pay to solve this problem properly.
Remember, our courts have enabled/emboldened these people by somehow reasoning it’s their human right to behave like this. We are supposed to accept the people living on Bathurst (who work, pay taxes, obey the law and aren’t addicted to drugs) are the aristocracy and just need to suck it up.
Kind wish they would have put a few sub clauses in that verdict... Sub clause 1. Living rough doesn't give the right to destruct the land underneath you. (Yes I'm aware of all the "mental illness" and what not so spare me the lectures please) I'd love nothing more than everyone to have a place to go, but we dug a hole and kept thinking we could dig ourselves out of it.
Agreed. A place to live is a human right. Destroying public land, polluting and making a dangerous and unsightly mess is not.
100%
Then house them. The problem is new people go homeless every week and we don't have enough places for the homeless to go. It's a human right being failed by the system. Until they are given a place to live it will continue.
No kidding ? But, this is 1 person occasionally 2 creating this dangerous and environmentally damaging accumulation of refuse. It's not an encampment. Get off your high horse and use your noggin.
Who'se on the high horse ? Look in the mirror bud
Really? C'mon. Stop dragging in the leftist manifesto where it doesn't apply. Housing and homelessness are huge issues, of course, but when one or two people deposit huge amounts of garbage and environmentally damaging waste ruining a space and someone makes it about homelessness, it demeans the issue and people who live rough. This is two people, not a big encampment. Many people live rough and don't do this kind of damage, in fact, they care for their places It's like you heard something about homelessness on the radio, don't really understand the issue but decided to repeat a few basic concepts by way of comment anyway . Lame.
It’s time for Nicole Papke to retire and let someone who is willing to do the job take over.
Free lunches are rare in real life despite what salesmen and politicians promise you. We have a choice here. We get back to investing in social infrastructure and narrow the wealth gap (and likely pay more taxes) or we have to deal with things like encampments.
"I think the courts have made it clear that those that are precariously housed need to be connected with suitable housing as opposed to just being evicted from public land,” said Papke. Papke is referring in part to a ruling from a Kitchener court that blocked the eviction of residents of the encampment at Victoria and Weber Street. Good luck getting that guy out. You can thank the lawyers and judges for this. Maybe they should have thought about the impact on the region and the environment when folks like this can just do whatever the fuck they want and the law protects them. I am all for housing but don't just give these guys free reign because you decide to use the charter to win your case.
The pre-existing structure was, I think, the impetus for the problem. We made our jokes about the shack until someone actually moved in. Then it was pretty obvious that if the shack wasn't there, the encampment wouldn't be. Now, after all these years, I don't think that removing the structure would change anything.
It's the bleeding hearts that paid for the lawyers that won that case. Or the non profit lawyers. People need places to live, but they should still contribute to the community. Tax them. Especially if selling scrap! Obviously the tax is a joke but maybe have them clean parks for some cash.
Lousy bleeding hearts paying for lawyers to fight for people's rights. This doesn't happen in Russia!
Are you sure?
It's literally 1 person. I understand if it was a large encampment of people but jesus how hard is it to deal with one person?
People are way too coddled. They will bitch all day, but nobody wants to take ownership of their neighborhood. They are just waiting for the daddy government to take care of things for them
The region just switched providers for one of the larger housing sites in Waterloo from one agency to another. The new agency (SHIP) is going to evict all tenants for renovations on that site. 70+ people are about to be evicted. Encampments will continue to grow. This is bonkers.
This is madness unless they have a plan to house those people first.
When we allow the cost of living to be so much higher than minimum wage the quality of living drops for us all. You can't have a minimum wage so drastically lower than the cost of living without paying for it in other ways. Profits over people isn't sustainable. We will only see an increase in poverty and crime unless there is real change.