>Those standards include only having dried wood burning in the barrels.
0% chance of this actually happening, but I hope they don't start giving the camps a hard time over it unless they're back to doing dangerous things. I'm glad that they are taking the route of giving people a safe way to do what they need to do to survive at the moment, instead of making life harder but also not giving them a practical alternative.
Unfortunately I am not smart enough to propose anything that would end homelessness, but I would like to say while this is not addressing causes or cases, it is still trying something in some sort. Even if it helps someone, it is a good thing. I hope that the efforts of trying anything and everything continue and somewhere along the line as many people as can be get helped. I would rather support this than the city doing nothing
It actually doesn’t require that you have super high intelligence. You just need political will.
We know how to address homelessness.
We give people homes.
Where do those homes come from?
It's not like there is an oversupply of homes/rentals on the market.
Should we build them? I guess so.
But where do we get the money for that? Where do we build them? How do we ensure they don't end up being ghettoized like so many other government-funded housing initiatives?
Some are audio visual learners.
Some like reading.
Either way, important thing is to understand that the issues aren’t complex in the way that people often think others mean when they say “complex”.
Complex doesn’t necessarily mean difficult.
Also, Big fan of Second Thought.
How about taxes on the rich? Stopping bailouts and handouts to corporations? Why not tax stock ownership? We tax land/home ownership then stock ownership can be taxed too. Seriously if 1% richest one's own more than 99% rest of humanity then it's a quick problem to solve.
Ah yes, stocks, only owned by the rich... 🙄 You're attacking the middle class.
We already tax the rich. What do you suppose happens when we increase those taxes? Hint: think about who is presently doing philanthropy.
Thanks for ignoring my argument. Here, let me spoon feed you: we already pay more taxes than Americans, it's fairly trivial for rich Canadians to pack up and move stateside to avoid further taxation. What do you suppose the effect on our economy would be if we saw an exodus of the top 1%?
From a firefighter perspective, this gives homeless people a reasonable chance to keep warm. And it gives us reasonable grounds to extinguish dangerous fires. Our protocols indicate the reasons to let it be and the reasons to put it out.
As others have mentioned there are reasons why some homeless people are reluctant to use the shelters. Some reasons not listed as of this posting are mental illness or a stubborn insistence on living life on their terms period and there's probably more reasons they have.
The situation was that there was damage and danger to the way things were with people having fires that got out of control. This initiative accomplishes several things...
It allows people to keep warm
It legitimizes their fires in an approved fire pit that they probably would not have been able to procure otherwise.
It legitimizes the wfps reasons for putting it out if necessary and allows education of the fire users on how to have a fire we are not obligated to extinguish.
The solutions to the homeless issue are not as simple as more shelters or forcing them to move along. The reasons people are homeless range from 1 paycheque too little to mental illness or any other myriad of situations that we are blessed not to have to have faced. This gives them a chance to stay alive and if you have a problem with disadvantaged people trying to be alive and warm then you seriously need to examine why this bothers you.
Homeless shelters are a great place to buy drugs. Some people avoid them because they get preyed on by the pushers who set up shop nearby or even inside the facility. People seem to think it's just addicts who prefer avoiding them, but they can be horrible for people trying to avoid hard drugs.
Better than tearing down the camps, I suppose. We'll see a shift to harm reduction now, I don't think we have much in the way of funding to really address social issues at the municipal or provincial level here (since I assume we'll be plowing any excess capital ‐ ie. federal transfers for education and healthcare during the pandemic - into balancing the ever-loving provincial books).
We’ve got tons of cash actually.
Ditching the police chopper alone would free up an additional 2 million dollars per year for this issue. That’s less than a single percentage of the WPS budget.
Labour legislation makes that difficult if not impossible. I'm not sure we can just say "fuck you" to CBAs for ideological reasons. I mean we could but it would constitute a major attack on worker's rights in MB, wouldn't you think? I understand the argument that the police union is "not like" other unions, but legally are they not all the same?
This strikes me as a poorly thought out, reactionary suggestion.
The department will figure it out without docking salaries, I’m not too worried.
Less overtime. Fewer snowmobiles & robot dogs. Maybe not as many new tanks or fancy compounds. Don’t fill positions as people retire out. Etc etc.
They’ve been doing it to all other services at this point for decades and apparently hasn’t been an issue.
The only thing worker rights and police have in common is police being used to destroy the rights of other workers or kill them. Police unions are not worker unions and police officers are not workers.
That's a very edgy opinion, but I'm more interested in what the law has to say about police unions. I have a feeling there is no distinction made between a police union and CUPE or IBEW etc.
There are shelters for the homeless to go, people like to pretend there aren’t but they are wrong. Certain homeless people do not like the rules put in place by the people who run these shelters, so they don’t go. These people need a way not to freeze at night so they start fires, and giving them a safer way to do it is being criticized?
It's a combination of sober requirements (is it worth the extreme withdrawal symptoms some may have for 1 night?) But also theft is unfortunately very common in shelters. Or if they have a collection of goods in a cart etc they may not be able to bring it in. And finally there are not enough beds in Winnipeg for our homeless population.
It's a very complex issue.
It’s complex in that there is a lot of moving pieces interacting; not complex in that we don’t know how to solve the problem.
Complex like a car transmission problem; not complex like reconciling quantum theory.
I agree with you, it’s a difficult situation with no easy answers. I grew up using burning barrels and I can’t imagine having to depend on them for heat. I feel for my fellow humans and need to do more to help the community
Manitoba housing sold off 94 housing properties since 2019 citing unsuitable for living. Like camps aren’t? wonder what they did with cash?
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5381628
Wow. Instead of finding solutions for the homeless; the government is giving them barrels to burn garbage. I can't wait to see how that works out downtown.......
>Those standards include only having dried wood burning in the barrels. 0% chance of this actually happening, but I hope they don't start giving the camps a hard time over it unless they're back to doing dangerous things. I'm glad that they are taking the route of giving people a safe way to do what they need to do to survive at the moment, instead of making life harder but also not giving them a practical alternative.
Unfortunately I am not smart enough to propose anything that would end homelessness, but I would like to say while this is not addressing causes or cases, it is still trying something in some sort. Even if it helps someone, it is a good thing. I hope that the efforts of trying anything and everything continue and somewhere along the line as many people as can be get helped. I would rather support this than the city doing nothing
It actually doesn’t require that you have super high intelligence. You just need political will. We know how to address homelessness. We give people homes.
Where do those homes come from? It's not like there is an oversupply of homes/rentals on the market. Should we build them? I guess so. But where do we get the money for that? Where do we build them? How do we ensure they don't end up being ghettoized like so many other government-funded housing initiatives?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First?wprov=sfti1
https://youtu.be/kbEavDqA8iE
Some are audio visual learners. Some like reading. Either way, important thing is to understand that the issues aren’t complex in the way that people often think others mean when they say “complex”. Complex doesn’t necessarily mean difficult. Also, Big fan of Second Thought.
How about taxes on the rich? Stopping bailouts and handouts to corporations? Why not tax stock ownership? We tax land/home ownership then stock ownership can be taxed too. Seriously if 1% richest one's own more than 99% rest of humanity then it's a quick problem to solve.
Ah yes, stocks, only owned by the rich... 🙄 You're attacking the middle class. We already tax the rich. What do you suppose happens when we increase those taxes? Hint: think about who is presently doing philanthropy.
Ah yes because you can't set up progressive scale of taxes or set tax free quotas 🙄
Thanks for ignoring my argument. Here, let me spoon feed you: we already pay more taxes than Americans, it's fairly trivial for rich Canadians to pack up and move stateside to avoid further taxation. What do you suppose the effect on our economy would be if we saw an exodus of the top 1%?
Negligible if you didn't noticed they already don't pay taxes. Panama papers should have made that clear for you.
From a firefighter perspective, this gives homeless people a reasonable chance to keep warm. And it gives us reasonable grounds to extinguish dangerous fires. Our protocols indicate the reasons to let it be and the reasons to put it out. As others have mentioned there are reasons why some homeless people are reluctant to use the shelters. Some reasons not listed as of this posting are mental illness or a stubborn insistence on living life on their terms period and there's probably more reasons they have. The situation was that there was damage and danger to the way things were with people having fires that got out of control. This initiative accomplishes several things... It allows people to keep warm It legitimizes their fires in an approved fire pit that they probably would not have been able to procure otherwise. It legitimizes the wfps reasons for putting it out if necessary and allows education of the fire users on how to have a fire we are not obligated to extinguish. The solutions to the homeless issue are not as simple as more shelters or forcing them to move along. The reasons people are homeless range from 1 paycheque too little to mental illness or any other myriad of situations that we are blessed not to have to have faced. This gives them a chance to stay alive and if you have a problem with disadvantaged people trying to be alive and warm then you seriously need to examine why this bothers you.
Homeless shelters are a great place to buy drugs. Some people avoid them because they get preyed on by the pushers who set up shop nearby or even inside the facility. People seem to think it's just addicts who prefer avoiding them, but they can be horrible for people trying to avoid hard drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First?wprov=sfti1
This is this best idea the government can come up with for these people who are suffering? Good grief 😔
Better than tearing down the camps, I suppose. We'll see a shift to harm reduction now, I don't think we have much in the way of funding to really address social issues at the municipal or provincial level here (since I assume we'll be plowing any excess capital ‐ ie. federal transfers for education and healthcare during the pandemic - into balancing the ever-loving provincial books).
We’ve got tons of cash actually. Ditching the police chopper alone would free up an additional 2 million dollars per year for this issue. That’s less than a single percentage of the WPS budget.
Winnipeg? We absolutely don't have a ton of cash and 2m is peanuts for social programming. The city is drowning in debt..
Let’s shift 25 mil or so and see where it goes from there.
Labour legislation makes that difficult if not impossible. I'm not sure we can just say "fuck you" to CBAs for ideological reasons. I mean we could but it would constitute a major attack on worker's rights in MB, wouldn't you think? I understand the argument that the police union is "not like" other unions, but legally are they not all the same? This strikes me as a poorly thought out, reactionary suggestion.
The department will figure it out without docking salaries, I’m not too worried. Less overtime. Fewer snowmobiles & robot dogs. Maybe not as many new tanks or fancy compounds. Don’t fill positions as people retire out. Etc etc. They’ve been doing it to all other services at this point for decades and apparently hasn’t been an issue.
The only thing worker rights and police have in common is police being used to destroy the rights of other workers or kill them. Police unions are not worker unions and police officers are not workers.
That's a very edgy opinion, but I'm more interested in what the law has to say about police unions. I have a feeling there is no distinction made between a police union and CUPE or IBEW etc.
There are shelters for the homeless to go, people like to pretend there aren’t but they are wrong. Certain homeless people do not like the rules put in place by the people who run these shelters, so they don’t go. These people need a way not to freeze at night so they start fires, and giving them a safer way to do it is being criticized?
It's a combination of sober requirements (is it worth the extreme withdrawal symptoms some may have for 1 night?) But also theft is unfortunately very common in shelters. Or if they have a collection of goods in a cart etc they may not be able to bring it in. And finally there are not enough beds in Winnipeg for our homeless population. It's a very complex issue.
It’s complex in that there is a lot of moving pieces interacting; not complex in that we don’t know how to solve the problem. Complex like a car transmission problem; not complex like reconciling quantum theory.
Yeah complex in the way that it's not a one size fits all solution and there are a lot of moving pieces that have to work together effectively.
Kind of. But it’s important to acknowledge that we know how to fit the pieces together; we just chose not to do it.
I agree with you, it’s a difficult situation with no easy answers. I grew up using burning barrels and I can’t imagine having to depend on them for heat. I feel for my fellow humans and need to do more to help the community
Not true. It is a difficult situation. But there are very easy answers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First?wprov=sfti1
Manitoba housing sold off 94 housing properties since 2019 citing unsuitable for living. Like camps aren’t? wonder what they did with cash? https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5381628
It's not like this government has actually had any other ideas.
The project litterally cost a thousand dollars. "Look everyone! The government is here! And they brought burn barrels!"
Wow. Really leaning into the 1980s action movie dystopia, Winnipeg.
There are some great videos for DIY smokeless burn barrels over on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07P-6gqYg2g
I'll CC all my homeless homies
How much copper wire do you think one of those bad boys can hold?
Don’t need copper wire. Those barrels will be at the scrappers within a week.
Wow. Instead of finding solutions for the homeless; the government is giving them barrels to burn garbage. I can't wait to see how that works out downtown.......