this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
117 points (96.8% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
153 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It's a bit of a catch-22, unfortunately. Homeless camps are not exactly safe places to live. Fire codes and zoning laws are not arbitrary things, they exist for reasons.

I would find it reasonable to require that the government has to have someplace for those homeless people to go before dismantling their camps, though.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The political problem is that voters who are paying rent tend to be annoyed by the government giving people apartments for free.

Housing first as a model is legitimate and works (at least more than doing nothing or maintaining terrible shelters forever), but the political resentment it builds is a real problem that no amount of finger-wagging makes go away.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

Maybe something like these "tinyshelters" would be a good compromise - they're safer and more comfortable than ramshackle tent-and-cardboard encampments, but they're still far short of what I'd call a "free apartment."

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is it any less dangerous than exposure though?

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

That's a false dichotomy.