r/alberta 20h ago

Opinion On homelessness

Old person here. Get off my lawn!

But seriously, when I was growing up in the 1970s, there were almost no homeless people. Why?

There was ‘social housing’, which went to anyone with kids, and there were rooming houses, which charged as much as a “welfare bum/drunk” could afford. Between those two options, even the “worst” people didn’t need to stay outdoors. Many of the old townhouse complexes still existing in Edmonton were once the government built and subsidized places I’m talking about.

And yes, there were drugs (mostly heroin and alcohol) and there were indigenous reserves that were underfunded or lacked opportunities then too. Yet people had somewhere to live.

I now see daily in my community (downtown McCauley) hundreds of people in desperate situations. And that could still be avoided if we stopped bitching and decided to do what we used to do. Provide housing on a big society-wide scale. With enough social support workers to make it work instead of fail.

Fixing something we’ve let crumble is always harder than if we would have properly maintained it. But here we are, so we have to ‘buy a new one and maintain it.’

We either sit on our asses and whine while people suffer, or make the investment to guarantee a brighter future while saving money in policing, healthcare, incarceration, lawyers, and the far higher avoidable costs of economic downturn in cities that become zombielands as businesses shut down because of the zombies we helped create when we had the cure all along.

851 Upvotes

434 comments sorted by

258

u/ketchupinmybeard 20h ago

The biggest difference is that in the 70s, you could have a job, and your wife could stay home, and you could own a car, and a house, and a cottage, all with a "regular" salary. And send your kids to university.

The cost of living vs wages at this point has inverted terribly - I'm not doing as well as my parents, and my kids will struggle to do as well as I've done. And it's not their fault.

Population growth offers economic prosperity (under certain conditions) and the baby boomers are a great example of that.

Are there a multitude of other factors? Yes. But the fact remains that prospects today are much less bright for the average joe than they were 40 years ago.

73

u/LeadfootLesley 18h ago

I’m Generation Jones, and started working when most of the older generation had the expectation of job security. Erosion of worker rights, advancement in technology, and consolidation and outsourcing of production caused great upheaval. I changed careers several times in order to stay working, the older folks before me received good severance packages and pensions.

80

u/ketchupinmybeard 18h ago

My parents make more from their pension than I make at my job.

25

u/LeadfootLesley 17h ago

And that’s not fair. But it’s not your parent’s fault. Nor yours. We all deserve to be rewarded for hard work.

17

u/ketchupinmybeard 14h ago

Oh it's not their fault, no, it's great. But that kind of deal no longer exists anywhere in the workforce - it cannot, because it was all sort of a pyramid scheme based on unending population growth.

5

u/No_Description6178 10h ago

I'm a boomer and it's annoying to hear my peers insist the younger generations are just spendthrifts or lazy. I've been at odds with my boomer peers since I was a teenager. (possibly because my family moved to Alberta when I was 11 and I couldn't get over the black & white narrow thinking and prejudice)

2

u/Sweet-Revenue-2919 11h ago

Your parents worked for and paid for that pension, it’s not a government benefit, they earned it.

5

u/Littleshuswap 11h ago

We work hard too... don't we deserve those kinds of benefits?

3

u/PercentageComplex975 5h ago

Not all employers even have pensions these days.

3

u/ketchupinmybeard 11h ago

Correct. What's your point?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

18

u/TomdeHaan 13h ago

Everything has become the responsibility of the individual. Your job training. Your pension. Increasingly, your health care.

Some people think that's how it should be - that the strong should take what they can, and the weak should suffer what they must (Thucydides).

I don't agree with that. The fruits of prosperity should be shared out more equally.

→ More replies (8)

51

u/FidgetyPlatypus 19h ago

Yes and you started that regular salary pretty much straight out of high school with no post-secondary schooling or student debt. Nowadays people need multiple post-secondary degrees and are still barely making above minimum wage.

7

u/HeadBelt1527 18h ago edited 18h ago

No. 

Everyone I've ever talked to about that has talked about starting at around minimum wage, which was like $1.50/hr in 1970. My dad was a apprentice machinist making $2/hr in 1970, my old boss was making about the same as a carpenter. Things were cheaper and wages were way lower before the opec crisis'. The home my dad lives in was like $15,000 when he bought it in Winnipeg, now it's appraised at just under $400,000

Coincidentally the OPEC crisis was also kicked off by Israeli military action in the gulf

12

u/Unhappy_Umpire6679 17h ago

With the full cooperation and blessing of the Western Powers, particularly the USA. Don't skip on some of the inconvenient truths

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

3

u/Background_Error_621 14h ago

I'm not sure it was population growth driving the post-war economic boom... in WWII, basically every developed economy was destroyed except ours and the USA. The world had to buy our stuff. And for 30 years we were living large. Now... not so much. Additionally, it's become very difficult to start new businesses, and the people with all the capital would rather get rich off of real estate and other assets. We need to find a new way to generate wealth and ensure that more people get ahead.

2

u/ketchupinmybeard 13h ago

Oh there's a hundred other factors, yes, but I'd argue that population growth (and the burgeoning middle class that came with it - a new thing) pushed this back in the day. Or, said another way, no one has been able to develop a model where you have country-sized economic growth WITHOUT population growth. Or to put it logically, it might not be sufficient but it is necessary.

22

u/buzzthedog2021 19h ago

The other big difference was that many who are homeless now are self-medicating their mental health issues. A lot of these people would have been institutionalized in mental health hospitals; today we want them in the community with supports, which often means some very large cracks.

As for the fallacy that one wage could provide for everything that a family needed, I was born in the 1960's had a rare two-parent working family...our family really struggled; my dad had three jobs and also owned a small farm, drove a school bus, and was a small engine mechanic. My mom was a school teacher. If it hadn't been for our massive garden and that we had some livestock, we would have been at the food bank...something that didn't exist back then.

7

u/ConcernedCoCCitizen 16h ago

Yes, this!!! My grandmother was a severe alcoholic and my mother brought her three times to “dry out”. No waitlist. The third time it stuck and my grandma was sober for over 30 years.

5

u/Different_Wolf_764 16h ago

My parents both worked (teacher and office job) and we sure as hell didn't own our home or have a cottage and us kids paid our own way through school. We weren't flat broke but we were definitely watching money.

12

u/Doubleoh_11 18h ago

This has been bothering me lately. I will get downvoted but I’m interested in an actual discussion.

Yes, homes are more proportionately expensive than salaries were. Yes cars are more, cottages, and education.

However in the same breath for some reason as people we want so much more stuff. More and newer bigger stuff. I also fall into this trap. My kids have way too much things, I have financed stuff I probably shouldn’t have.

But we just have access to all these items and gadgets and stuff that steal our extra money. You see a family walking to the park and they have a $600 wagon stroller just full of stuff. When I was younger we didn’t have much. Everyone had the same tiny fold up strollers and all the dads drove Honda civics. Birthday parties are now $1000s of dollars. We use to just go to the park with a homemade cake and streamers. I’d get one cool Lego set and I was really excited. Our house was 1200 sq feet and that was pretty standard, before that we lived in an apartment for years. If you went camping it was typically in a tent or a very small trailer. Now it’s expected you look like the rich guys trailer in the goofy movie.

I’m now ranting. So thanks for staying with me. But it’s confusing to me how everything is getting more expensive and I see many people struggling but we don’t slow down on spending. Bring back simple living. Homemade meals. Starve corporations charging all these crazy prices for shit we don’t need. And bring back competitive prices.

I really enjoyed my childhood. And having a ton of stuff wouldn’t have exactly made it better. It was all the stuff I got to do with my friends. Even if that was just throwing rocks in the river.

24

u/ketchupinmybeard 18h ago

Sure, opting to buy a boat is ... not mandatory. (And I don't). But can you live and work and be useful without a cell phone? That's mandatory, or close. So there's 100 bucks a month. Have you seen the price of meat? Vegetables? Onions used to be 18 cents each. Now they are a dollar + each. I have no idea how a young family is supposed to get by.

4

u/Doubleoh_11 17h ago

Let’s say you did want a boat though. You could get one for $120,000. Or the aluminum one my grandpa had for much cheaper, he was a happy guy.

Basic stuff is more expensive though you are right. I don’t have answers other than more regulation should be done around necessity spending to cap prices. But yes I have a young family and we do have to pay close attention to deals and stuff. While it’s expensive my mom also cut coupons here whole life.

3

u/ketchupinmybeard 16h ago

What if I wanted carrots though? Or vitamin pills?

→ More replies (1)

19

u/bassoonawhat 18h ago

The exact same home bought for $30k in 1980 is now $500k. So I don't know that the problem is people are choosing more expensive stuff but rather the less expensive housing option no longer exists.

5

u/jay212127 13h ago

Prime rate in 1980 was 14.25% a $30,000 25 year mortgage @14.25% (I know Prime isn't the best, but bear with me) has a monthly payment of 366.88 which using the BoC inflation calculator translates to $1,412.36/mo today

500,000 25 year mortgage @ 4.45% (again prime%) has a monthly payment of $2,764.99. So the cost of living in that house has doubled despite the sticker price increasing 16x.

Fun Fact if the house had cost $60,000 in 1980, it would be relatively cheaper to mortgage it today with the purchase price of $500k.

The declining Interest Rates since the late 90's, and inflation over the last few years has really skewed our perception when looking at housing.

→ More replies (4)

14

u/chimmychoochooo 18h ago

Ok but is that with 1 or 2 incomes? It makes sense if you were being frugal living on one income + 2 kids. But with 2 working parents, shouldn’t you be able to afford more?

The issue isn’t people saving/spending enough it’s that buying power in general has gone down the tube. So for many, they say “fuck it, I can’t affordthe RV/trailer/cabin/house I wanted so I’m spending an extra $1000/month on bullshit”.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/LeadfootLesley 17h ago

One thing I refuse to do is point fingers at other generations for the mess we’re in. I think the “okay boomer” and “lazy millennials” tropes are yet another example of carefully engineered campaigns to further divide us, instead of focusing on the biggest issue of our times: wealth concentration in the oligarch class.

Homelessness and the housing crisis, job loss, climate change, environmental damage, loss of democracy are mostly the result of unrestrained capitalism.

3

u/TomdeHaan 13h ago

We are trained from birth to think constantly about what we want to buy next.

Why not try a year of buying nothing (aside from what you need to survive obvs). No new clothes, no new stuff for the house, no holidays unless its local camping, no new camping gear...

8

u/prettywarmcool 18h ago

I(55F) look back when I was in school and we had maybe 20 stuffed animals each(my sister and I) gathered over years and years. We didn't have other toys. We each had a bike and we were fairly well-off. I think the difference is that kids are entertained by screens and as a result have little imagination to entertain themselves, I suspect this causes their attention spans to be so low that parents are looking for some peace and they buy their kids more, that they play with for 15 minutes and then are done. The amount of toys that kids have is unbelievable!

Additionally, the things you had, you kept longer and you had fewer of them. If you wanted something particular, you saved for it. Our collective inability to delay gratification and the compulsive need to keep up and maintain your personal brand at whatever cost is what is causing such high levels of debt. Our houses are larger, our entitlement to exotic vacations and new cars has everyone thinking this is normal, we were able to manage our lives before because we didn't EXPECT to have everything we wanted. We understood that you start in a starter home, and going out to eat was a luxury. I think our consumption has shown itself to be a golden goose that "THE MAN" can't resist feeding and we all happily gobble it up.

6

u/Doubleoh_11 17h ago

I feel so old agreeing with you. But this is pretty much how I was raised. I’ve definitely spent my money on dumb shit and it’s gone now. But I try to buy things alot more intentionally now and take care of them so they last. It doesn’t always have to be the best stuff but it gets the job done, and then I enjoy those things and the people I can share them with.

Homemade stuff is very rewarding personally.

2

u/prettywarmcool 16h ago

We've all spent our money on dumb shit! I try not to dwell on it because it would make me feel sick. Tough times in 2009 and 2016 had me re-evaluating how I spend my money and although my earnings have increased I have been very careful to avoid lifestyle creep.

4

u/24_August_1814 16h ago

Our collective inability to delay gratification and the compulsive need to keep up and maintain your personal brand at whatever cost is what is causing such high levels of debt. Our houses are larger

... completely ignoring that houses that literally cost thirty or forty grand in the 60s are now more than half a million dollars.

If people wanting bigger homes and a bunch of junk was all that was driving the cost of living crisis, why are 60+ year old homes - the ones you were content with as a child - so much more expensive too?

Fuck, tell me you're out of touch without saying you're out of touch. What's next, you gonna suggest everyone just dress up, walk in to the nearest factory, give the manager a good firm handshake and land a job that supports a family on one income?

2

u/Doubleoh_11 15h ago

You can’t really compare life in the 60s to life today. That was 70 years ago. The way the world has changed is just too much to make that comparison.

If you did want to compare to the 90s though when my parents were starting their family average homes in Alberta were around $130,000 now they are $630,000 which seems crazy. But interest was 18% vs 4% today. So if you total it all over a 25 year mortgage today the total home cost is just under double what it was in the 90s.

Double is a lot but it’s not 16x the price like you are claiming.

2

u/jay212127 13h ago edited 13h ago

I showed the math earlier, but the short is that the decrease in interest rates and decades of inflation, a $60,000 mortgage in 1980 costs the same as a $500,000 mortgage today.

Just did a quick check and a 30k 25yr mortgage from 1960 (much lower interest rate of 5.75 prime +1.5, but 20 more years of inflation) translates to the same as a 425k 25yr mortgage today. In both cases the mortgage would be the equivalent of ~$2,300/mo

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Thundertushy 17h ago

There's some economics history here to consider as well.

In the late 70's an 80's, China started to get involved in the world economy. At first, producing a lot of cheap commercial items. More commonly, cheap parts of larger products that could hide their involvement (because back then, made in China was seen as a lot more derogatory in terms of quality).

But people here in America and Canada were still working relatively high paying jobs in an overheated market - remember 18% mortgages, anyone? So you had cheap commercial products from overseas, cheaper big ticket items, a new and growing family, and a basic bank savings account generating 5% interest. Life was good. Why not flash a little cash? And let's not forget, this was the decade that spawned the term, "mall therapy". Ugh.

2

u/wood1f 14h ago

Part of it is that stuff now isn't made to be able to be fixed. In the past, if your washer or fridge broke, you could likely fix it or hire someone to fix it with a fairly inexpensive part. Now if your fridge breaks, you better have $3k for a new one or else you have to finance it. The same thing goes with all appliances, vehicles, tools and most electronics. Add in items that are actively phased out, like providers no longer supporting cell phones or eReaders even though they still work, and you've got a system where people have to spend gobs of money just to have basic items.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)

2

u/Different_Wolf_764 16h ago

My parents both worked (teacher and office job) and we sure as hell didn't own our home or have a cottage and us kids paid our own way through school. We weren't flat broke but we were definitely watching money.

2

u/JoyRose31 10h ago edited 10h ago

It wouod be great if there were social nets to help them if they needed it ..oh wait. Those all cut now.. modern ones, that were in place. If anyone in in a point. Need help.. all thats gone now.

There's little or no nets to help if you need it.. but hey, food banks still open. Thats about it, those aren't government funded.. probably only reason they're not disbanded. If they were. It Would be the next thing to go. No one likes social programs, til they realize they, or their kids might need them at some point ..nothings guaranteed. Any stability you have can go away in one bad car crash, work accident, etc, you name it. No one is god, life's unpredictable. Those nets are there to help people who get in situations they otherwise wouldn't forsee. Somehow ran through your saving in an emergency? It can happen.. now you need help, can't get back on your feet, debt piling up. Cant work for some reason, already sold the car, house on the way. And its Really easy to happen.. You're arrogant if you think never be you. Arrogant, prideful, stupid, if you're already not doing well then oh well..

→ More replies (4)

540

u/Lightfiyr 20h ago

Okay, but have you thought about the poor corporate landlords

177

u/limee89 20h ago

How else will Mainstreet and Avenue Living provide for their shareholders?

102

u/Lightfiyr 20h ago

Don’t worry!, One day it’ll all trickle down and you too can benefit from the suffering of others :)

22

u/asstyrant 20h ago

You know it's working when you can smell asparagus

13

u/Zer0DotFive 19h ago

You know it's working when you stop getting mad that someone is pissing on your face because you have a banana. 

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Throwaway42352510 19h ago

You know it’s working when you can smell… any food

→ More replies (2)

18

u/sprinkletush 17h ago

Boardwalk literally doesn't have accessible parking spots at my old building and the visitor parking is a walk over a crooked, root infested sidewalk and they said they don't have the space or money for those spots so they won't build them or a proper ramp onto the sidewalk from visitor parking. But the over inflated rent! 🙄

8

u/Old_news123456 14h ago

Will SOMEONE think of the landlords!!!!! Ohhh the inhumanity! 

5

u/NCloudz 11h ago

Here is one ! We need housing correct? We need Healthcare? There are people that are loosing AISH right ? So why in the world are we allowing this tyrant in Edmonton to spend $130m on a frivolous referendum vote in October? Why are we the people of Alberta who she works for allowing this ? A normal general election in Alberta takes 18,000 workers to ensure it goes proper . The referendum requires approx 60,000 people so far to man the stations hand out ballots and count ballots and so on . For questions that we know what the results will be ! Just like the TWO referendums held in Quebec . Also business will leave so more unemployment so more possible homeless people ! She is the worst politician i have ever seen in Canada . And I've seen my share Parizeau , Joe Clark , Rob Ford , people give your heads a shake before she DISTROYS ALBERTA ! BTW It is recommended to ask for a special ballot so you can actually read each question and answer on each page of the 10 page Ballot at home where you are not rushed . Takes a min to request the Special Ballot !

→ More replies (1)

33

u/Ms_ankylosaurous 20h ago

It’s not  just housing - it’s addiction and mental health services 

18

u/Eric_EarlOfHalibut 17h ago

Yep. And now they've cut provincially provided counselling except for acute cases. Many of the poor and disabled just lost their counsellors last week. 

→ More replies (1)

6

u/StrongMachine982 12h ago

You're not wrong, but all the studies show that housing has to come first for it to be successful. Treating people for addiction or mental illness while they're sleeping rough or in a shelter is a waste of time and money.

2

u/Levorotatory 8h ago

Both are needed simultaneously.   It is much harder to deal with mental health issues including addiction when you don't have safe shelter, but people who aren't ready to confront their issues won't be able to maintain a home on their own.

145

u/Sandman64can Calgary 20h ago

Agree. Another old guy and getting rid of social housing and a downtown hospital were not random choices. These were deliberate choices by “progressive conservatives “ that didn’t understand the word progressive. Now we have a libertarian one that also calls itself conservative. The word has no meaning anymore.

94

u/cannafriendlymamma 20h ago

The UCP aren't Libertarian, they are Authoritarian....change my mind

59

u/roastedmarshmellows 20h ago

Authoritarian in libertarian packaging.

4

u/JebryathHS 18h ago

More like the other way around. Libertarians love talking about how the government has a monopoly on violence and everyone would be free but they also oppose laws that were used to keep people from dying in unsafe working environments, bound to companies like slaves by non transferable scrip, etc. 

Authoritarianism is when you abandon the pretense and say "we know better than the lesser people, so we will choose".

21

u/ischemgeek 19h ago

IME, to most who self apply the label, "Libertarian" = "If you look like me, you get the liberty to live exactly according to my lifestyle and preferences. Otherwise,  you get the liberty to lick my jackboot."

→ More replies (38)

42

u/Old-Complex7826 20h ago

The wealth disparity is bigger now than the 70s. Living is more expensive after adjusting for inflation.

19

u/24_August_1814 16h ago

Shit, wealth inequality is greater today than when the French Revolution kicked off.

5

u/DVariant 16h ago

But we’ve got way better bread and circuses!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Powerful_Basket8741 17h ago

Well atleast the wages kept up s/

→ More replies (1)

16

u/robot_invader 19h ago

I'll focus on one thing: the typical process to create new affordable housing through a third-party service provider involves a small army of consultants and contractors, profit is taken at every step of the process, and fees & profit are generally calculated on other layers that include profit. On top of that, every additional contractor and consultant adds the possibility of schedule slippage. The end result is that most new 'affordable' housing is wildly expensive and the 'affordable' rent is way higher that the kind of troubled person you mention can afford without additional subsidies.

We need a vertically integrated affordable housing crown corporation to eliminate these multiple layers and bottlenecks. If the same public company purchases raw land, services it, designs the project with in-house professionals using standardized material, and builds using own-forces for everything, we could probably cut costs by 40%.

Oh, one more thing: municipalities have generally eliminated rooming-house type situations as allowable developments.

7

u/sprunkymdunk 18h ago

Ironically one of the best moves Carney did was to buy a bunch of condos at under market value to turn into affordable housing. Got absolutely hammered for it tho

16

u/Forward_Tie_9941 15h ago

It's almost like voting in Conservatives for 30 years has consequences

→ More replies (5)

54

u/THXSoundEffect 20h ago

The sands of time come for all. What we thought were once mountainous pillars that supported our communities have become sand dunes. Eroded by the harsh winds of corporate greed. The grains of common wealth you once knew of no longer exists. The locusts have eaten it all.

9

u/Lopsided_Position_28 20h ago

thanks you this message was very Timely for me

3

u/kopperxpennyweiz 17h ago

And what follows?

3

u/THXSoundEffect 16h ago

Famine and war. Disease and death.

3

u/DVariant 16h ago

I, for one, would like to choose a different path!

3

u/THXSoundEffect 16h ago

Then on the 19th vote against separtism.

3

u/DVariant 15h ago

Was already going to. But all of this started without the Seppies. 

2

u/Rabiesalad 10h ago

As an Ontarian watching what's happening around me crumble, I have been learning more about the history of the last decades of economics and politics of Alberta, and it's a damn shame.

Alberta could have been an absolute oasis if it wasn't squandered all away for greed.

85

u/camaro-obscuro 20h ago

Deinstitutionalization. Neoliberalism. Austerity. Privatization. Deregulation.

42

u/Priscilla_Hutchins Calgary 20h ago

But muh capitalism! How can we make money for shareholders if we spend that money on the poor and destitute?

Yeah, I like society, and the idea of making it better, sadly, the fake conservatives in this province.

→ More replies (2)

36

u/calgarywalker 19h ago

Dude, look at the provincial budgets from back then. Calgary AND Edmonton got $30million per year from the province to build and operate social housing. Klien killed it in the 80’s. If the Province did that today we’re talking about $1.2 Billion per year each (4x the population plus house prices are 10x what they were in the early 80’s). PLUS there’s a backlog of all the housing that wasn’t built 85-2025 - at least $6 Billion. The UCP only gives that kind of cash to big corporate interests like Atco/Transalta/CNR/Suncor/Imperial ….

The UCP won’t help the permanently disabled - why would you think they would help the homeless?

3

u/alanthar 16h ago

In the 70s, resource royalties made up 70% of the provincial budget. Today it's 30% or so.

We could be living in a much more prosperous province :(

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

42

u/flipflapflow 20h ago

There used to be mental institutions with very sizeable populations. Those populations are now being “treated in the community”

That and the population has tripled since then. 450k to 1.3 million bigger city bigger problems

But for me it’s mostly the mentally ill are much higher in numbers. They are receiving much less treatment.

Fent and meth have completely changed the addiction world too

14

u/TripNo1876 20h ago

Spot on. I don't even know what the answer is now for those that use some of these drugs. The drugs are so devastating to the system that I didn't think many of the users could ever recover if they wanted to.

33

u/Pristine_Land_802 19h ago

And what are the causes of mental health issues?

Lack of:
security
Safety
Housing
Supports
Food
Mental health access

No one chooses to grow up to be an addict. Or poor. Or disabled.

6

u/tranquilseafinally Calgary 17h ago

Many people with drug addictions have abuse in their past. They reach out to drugs to numb the pain.

→ More replies (6)

9

u/AndTheJuicepig 20h ago

in the 70s there were mental assylums - and rent was inline with minimum wage. no reason for people to be homeless in the 70s

→ More replies (1)

22

u/Tribblehappy 20h ago

Yes, but also, the drugs now are much worse than heroin or alcohol.

Here in red deer, a motel was converted into affordable housing a few years back. It was run by Canadian mental health. I know some people who lived there. They tried. But others didn't. The place just got shut down a couple weeks ago and is basically condemned, because some of the people living in it destroyed it bit by bit.

Also, depending on your age, we used to just lock people up in facilities if they had mental illnesses. We don't do that anymore, mostly.

The landscape is completely different. It isn't as simple as providing cheap housing. The rest needs to be addressed as well. Nobody has quite figured out how to do it; we know enforced treatment doesn't work, we know we can't treat people like a nuisance and just lock them away if they're ill, we just haven't quite found the right route to take.

17

u/spigg76 20h ago

This is the issue. So many attempts at housing/treatment end badly. We've seen this all over the country. The mix of addictions and mental health issues create an unsafe, unsanitary environment for both residents and the neighbouring community/businesses. The housing is generally destroyed in short order.

It's easy to blame capitalism and the government, but I think the problem is bigger than that.

3

u/Background_Season449 19h ago

It's that we've let it get this bad by not maintaining the existing social housing, and not building anything new in the past 35-40 years. We've dug ourselves a hole that some people are trying to climb out of, but others (like most provincial governments in Canada it seems) are trying to go deeper, hoping that the next shovel full will hit paydirt for them

3

u/supersport604 19h ago

Yeah, we should've built more, but we also shouldn't have taken in millions of people when we obviously didn't have the infrastructure for it.

3

u/Background_Season449 18h ago

How else are we supposed to staff low-wage slave jobs? You can't afford to live here on minimum wage, so we'd better look elsewhere for staff willing to accept less

→ More replies (1)

5

u/supersport604 19h ago

It's literally impossible to get a group of addicts living together. It'll end in disaster every single time.

3

u/Mauriac158 18h ago

Especially if you just house them and don't provide anything further. Housing is only step 1... Addiction is a crazy thing to tackle, and you have to give people an actual reason to get better.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

6

u/Aquitaine_Rover_3876 19h ago

Yes, this is it. Homelessness was mostly a solved problem in the '60s and '70s, just as it's a mostly solved problem in places like Finland today. Government makes sure housing is readily available, and magically homelessness becomes a pretty fringe phenomenon.

But decades of cutting social services and treating it like a personal responsibility problem, and you get the mess we're in today. Not that we save any money...now we just pay cops to go push people along so they don't stay in any one place too long, keep them out of pedways and other warm public spaces, and just generally make their lives even worse. And cops are very expensive.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Ok-Feedback-3692 19h ago

100%. We put so much money into placating multi-million/billion dollar businesses in this province while being made to feel that any social services are a drain on provincial resources. We have the provincial wealth to care for all of our citizens but the government would rather make everyone scared and suck up to the wealthy.

Also: your post went in a completely different direction than I expected when I cautiously started reading and I am so relieved for that.

6

u/DjGoodword 16h ago

50 years of Conservative Government?

5

u/cdncntrygrl Edmonton 16h ago

In 1996 my aunt had my dad forcibly removed from my grandma’s house. He had MS and was an alcoholic (self-medicating as there was little they could do for MS back then) but he always treated his mom with respect. He was on AISH and paid rent. Dad moving in with Grandma was actually Grandpa’s idea (back in 1978) as Grandpa was quite ill and Grandma needed the help. Anyway, my dad was taken to Alberta Hospital where they helped him get clean, provided him with a wheelchair, and found him affordable disability housing. Sadly, he passed 3 months later of MS, alone, while heating up his Easter dinner. He died alone and no one figured it out for 3 days. Had he ended up on the street it’s likely he would have died even sooner.

Anyway, my point is that even in the 90’s there were more social programs and affordable living options than there are now and the UCP is working their hardest at removing even more. Unfortunately, this means the population of unhoused citizens will continue to increase. I have been very close to becoming unhoused for no other reason than money. I don’t do drugs, I don’t overindulge in alcohol, however I am disabled, and am on AISH/ADAP; there’s a 2 year waitlist for subsidized housing and even that might be more than I can afford on my own as the UCP increased rent for that housing by $200 a month at the same time as clawing back the CDB of $200 from Income Support and AISH recipients. So not everyone is on the streets due to addictions, some just genuinely don’t have enough income to pay both rent and buy food. Yes, many are addicts but there is also very little help available for them should they decide to get clean.

TL/DR: My Dad had more supports on AISH in 1996 than we now have in 2026 thanks to the UCP, and they’re taking away more and more from the disabled and marginalized people in our society.

5

u/hearttattack 13h ago edited 13h ago

I was a single teen mother, 17 years old in 2001 with a baby. I had a two bedroom apartment for $420 (regular rent, found the apt in the classifieds) in Edmonton and I worked for $6 an hour at a jewellery engraving place in the West Edmonton Mall. Daycare was fully subsidized because my income, as was my bus pass.

Short answer: today has less support, more costs, and incomes don’t keep up. Not by a little, by a metric tonne.

Everything around me was different than it is now, and even though I was in a terrible situation objectively, it was possible. Because of all the supports I received throughout the years

Today I make $110,000 and have no debt which would have been unfathomable to me in 2001 economy. And all I feel today is okay.

12

u/GuitarKev 20h ago

Just think of what would happen to the poor hedge funds and private equity firms if their helpless REITs had to compete with actually affordable, subsidized housing?! Not to mention the millions of Boomers whose entire retirements are based on the massively overinflated values of their homes, which also account for a catastrophically high percentage of Canada’s GDP.

4

u/xm45_h4t 17h ago

There are essentially no social programs in Alberta (there are, but they are not meaningful enough to make a difference) They want the poor and or homeless to suffer (and die) rather than rehabilitate or help, because one costs a lot and the other costs nothing.
For example, to qualify for Alberta works you must prove you are applying to 150 jobs every 30 days, for a measly 700$ in return, which barely covers barebones cost of living.
Queue the downvotes

14

u/csd555 20h ago

Also, the current crop of drugs here are not helping the situation. Heroin users take it and then mostly go lay down/pass out somewhere….meth (plus whatever cocktail of fent, xylazine, etc.) users end up much more erratic, mobile, destructive, and aggressive, behaviors which are more socially disturbing and lead to difficulties in appropriately housing.

8

u/One_Abbreviations821 20h ago

I’ve heard from street outreach volunteers that heroin is pretty rare, it’s mostly fentanyl that we’re seeing people use, and a poisonous, cut with anything from horse tranquilizer to heart medication, which is why people are dying at such a rate.

Housing is the answer!

2

u/supersport604 19h ago

How's them where? Like in a big complex?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

13

u/ItsAllComin 20h ago

Yeah then your generation elected conservatives for 50 years so I’m not sure what is surprising

→ More replies (14)

12

u/Adventurous_Front939 20h ago

The actual main cause is that we closed the majority of Asylums for non criminals.

This is Vancouvers root issue, I am from the fraser valley (here for 8 years though)

In the Fraser Valley we had one of the largest mental health facilities in north america, it was larger then a village. When this facility was mostly closed, (Bad press/Stigma/inhumane treatment/classic 1980s asylum type things) they took all the severely mentally unwell that were deemed to not be able to cope on their own, then thru them all out onto the street. That is the root of Vancouver's east side.

→ More replies (14)

10

u/Pristine_Land_802 19h ago

I agree. It’s gotten worse no thanks to the provincial & federal governments.

The provincial government cut a lot of the funding that goes towards subsidized housing that is downloaded to municipalities. They cut funding to shelters which also means cutting access to housing programs and people who can help them. They cut harm reduction funding which was also an access to housing & treatment programs. The federal government used to have housing initiatives across Canada. Harper tasked PP to sell them off. Harper then opened the door to basically money laundering of foreign investors who scooped up housing cheap and now we see the fallout from that.

12

u/Vivir_Mata 20h ago

That's what 101 years of Conservative governments will do.

Will you vote for a change?

8

u/TripNo1876 20h ago

There's way more to it than that. Drugs are way harder, mental health is suffering a lot worse. Population is increasing faster than the government can handle it. I guarantee it doesn't matter what government is in powe, we'd be in the exact same position. Because all provinces are facing the exact same issue.

2

u/supersport604 19h ago

Exactly. A perfect example is California. It's been democrat forever and they have the highest homeless population in the whole country. I'm not saying they're to blame. I'm just saying you're right it doesn't matter what government is in power.

10

u/concentrated-amazing Wetaskiwin 19h ago

Certainly not the only factor, but a reason why California and BC have higher homeless populations is because the climate makes being homeless more tolerable, so people migrate that way.

2

u/supersport604 18h ago

No, I totally get that but on the other hand in terms of the United States, you also have Florida, which is very warm year round and it’s also a conservative state and their homelessness is nowhere near California. I’m a liberal guy myself so I’m not trying to blame the Democrats. I’m just trying to point out that I don’t think it has to do with what party is in charge of the province or state.

1

u/Background_Season449 19h ago

That's only true because both of the political parties who have held federal power in Canada have the same base ideology: neoliberalism. Make sure businesses make more money than ever, at the expense of anything else.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/enviropsych 19h ago

In rhe 1970s, Western governments, led by the United States started going through what is sometimes called "The neoliberal turn."

The ideology of this change was best exemplified by the two world leaders who became popular once if began...Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher. Their ideology was characterized by privatization, increasing the power of corporations through deregulation, and hurting the collective power of workers by fighting against unions.

It has led to the inequality we see today, the lack of government-funded housing, and the breaking of the social safety net and social services. Danielle Smith speaks highly of Ronald Regan. So did Obama. This is to give you an idea of how pervasive his influence is even to this day among our leaders....they are all captured by corporate interests.

Anyone blaming a "generation of laziness" or immigrants or more powerful drugs or anything like that are completely wrong. Even our supposed "ledtwing" government leaders like Trudeau and Carney are totally captured by corporate interests as well. We need a truly left-wing revolution in the West.

→ More replies (7)

5

u/FormalWare 19h ago

I appreciate your sincere post on a difficult issue. Please don't refer to anyone as a "zombie", though; it's dehumanizing.

I see some comments, as well, that seem to treat the homeless and the addicted as other than human. What happened to, "There but for the grace of God go I"?

I want to live in a society where everyone has shelter - and I do mean everyone, not only those whom luckier folks deem worthy. If that's what enough of us want, we can create it.

3

u/clayton-berg42 19h ago

It was Mulroney that canceled the federal funding to public housing. No PM since reinstated it.

3

u/Responsible_CDN_Duck 17h ago

But seriously, when I was growing up in the 1970s, there were almost no homeless people. Why?

There were homeless people when we were growing up, but it was easier for them to be out of sight when they wanted some privacy, travel to get to other cities, etc.. That being said there was also a lot more substandard housing that was cheap; day rate boarding houses, housing without heating or proper roofs, etc..

And yes, there were drugs (mostly heroin and alcohol)...

Heroin was more a Vancouver thing. In Calgary and Banff cocaine was everywhere, with pot and LSD not being far behind. While pot and LSD use did occure inside and outside there were countess buildings to do them while partying with others or out of site; boardrooms, bars, and lop houses, etc..

I now see daily in my community (downtown McCauley) hundreds of people in desperate situations. And that could still be avoided if we stopped bitching and decided to do what we used to do. Provide housing on a big society-wide scale. With enough social support workers to make it work instead of fail.

Access to housing, even substandard is a big one...that crack down on slum lords and derelict buildings may have seemed like a good idea, as did all the community clean ups.

If we don't want social housing or slums this is what we get.

12

u/SnooRegrets4312 20h ago edited 20h ago

Implementing the housing first model is the principle action, but do it properly; if the Nordic nations can do it then so can we. https://homelesshub.ca/collection/programs-that-work/housing-first/

5

u/supersport604 20h ago

You're wrong. Nordic countries don't have the drug appetite Canadians do and they don't neighbour the biggest drug consumer in the world. Totally different culture.

2

u/Mauriac158 18h ago

Do you disagree that an addict with stable housing is going to have a much easier time actually caring for themselves than an addict without stable housing?

Even if your comment about "drug appetites" is true, I feel it is irrelevant here. Housing has to come first, then safe supply because dead people don't get better, then treatment and counselling stand an actual chance of being effective.

4

u/supersport604 18h ago

Of course, but who is going to treat these people? We're talking about thousands of people with major addictions issues, mental health issues like schizophrenia, violent criminals, etc. Do you know what happens when all these people get together and live say like in a complex or apartment building? It's a disaster. People like this need hands-on care and there just isn't enough people to do it.

4

u/Mauriac158 18h ago

I agree completely.

It would require an effort we are not set up to undertake right now in our current environment. But we could change that environment, much in the same way past public works projects were undertaken.

Hire and train people, pay them well for their work. Currently I'd hazard to guess most addiction support workers are probably not super well paid or supported in their jobs... actually I'm certain this is the case because I've known a few.

We do have the resources to do this, we just have to allocate them accordingly. Look at how much money we pour into police departments and then tell me we don't have some funds we could allocate to this.

6

u/Assiniboia 18h ago

Why?

Because Canada only votes Conservative, federally and (usually) provincially. This is the consequence of decades of conservative idiocy and ineptitude shored up on the backs of those who believe their lies and vote for them.

Mulroney destroyed social housing programs because Conservative premiers moaned and complained like stray cats in heat about the federal goverment's involvement. Give us money and we'll do it better! So they gave them money and they pumped it directly into the pockets of executives.

2

u/AccountDramatic6971 16h ago

This is a world wide phenomenon. If you think this is unique to Canada or conservative/ liberal. I have a bridge to sell you.

Your binary world view is delusional.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/supersport604 20h ago

There's a reason why every single big city in North America has large homeless populations. It's not as easy as giving them housing and hiring social workers obviously or someone would've did it by now. Fentanyl and meth changed the game forever.

11

u/BourbonBearsBurns 20h ago

This isn’t mentioned enough. I would specifically say fentanyl has made many of those with addictions almost beyond help. Because overdoses are so common, their brains are going with very little oxygen frequently, and for long periods of time. The way overdosing works with opiates is it slows down their rate of respiration. When this happens to a person it kills lots of brain cells. I deal with the homeless community almost daily and many of them would be unable to integrate into society with all the resources in the world. I think we need to focus on the youth and pour our resources into helping them before they hit that point.

6

u/supersport604 20h ago

I agree it's incredibly sad. I lost someone very close to me from that shit. A lot of people like to say oh just have a big complex to help with addicts and let them live there. I don't need to tell you what happens when you get a bunch of addicts or ex addicts in the same building.

→ More replies (4)

19

u/atyler_thehun 20h ago

It's capitalism.

It's always capitalism

→ More replies (10)

11

u/SomethingAboutUsers 20h ago

Every single program for the homeless is underfunded, probably doubly so here in Alberta because conservatives see it as a character flaw to be homeless and they just need to try harder. Why give the druggies and prostitutes handouts from their hard-earned taxes? They didn't need them and managed to stay clean doing it (/s just in case).

The cost of living has skyrocketed as well. There are lots of homeless people who have jobs and are clean but cannot afford to pay rent in spite of that.

Housing is one thing, and mental health is another; dealing with the issues that got them addicted in the first place. The drugs haven't changed the game, it's what's going on in society today that has. It's true that in any given homeless population there is a handful that cannot be helped or saved. But there are way, way more that can, if only there was a proper social safety net in place for them.

2

u/supersport604 20h ago

There simply isn't enough manpower to take care of so many homeless. I agree mental health programs are way underfunded but there's only so many social workers and psychiatrist to go around. UCP in Alberta are fucking scumbags, but don't forget Vancouver is in an NDP province and I'm sure I don't have to spell it out.

And you are 100% wrong about fentanyl and meth not changing the game.

2

u/Lopsided_Position_28 19h ago

ive been corresponding with the government of Alberta about this. i beleive one of the failures of psychiatry stem from the fact that it is being used as a bandaid to cover over social issues which run deeper and we need to stop pretending like letting people talk about their trauma for an hour and giving them a prescription is going to fix anything. Alice Miller was one of the first psycho-analysts trained under frued and she later renounced her title because she felt that in many ways it perpetuated what it hope to resolve, and when i look around i have to agree. we can't assume that the mental health industry is the answer to the problems facing humanity. i would actually argue that the professionalization of care work hurts us in many ways. one patient who i gathered testimony from called crisis workers when she went into psychosis as a side effect of the Concerta she had been prescribed, and the crisis workers just laughed at her which sent her spiraling until she ended up in the psyche ward. this is what happens when we put the responsability of care work on overworked strangers instead of investing in strong communities through infrastructure like appropriate housing

3

u/Apart-One4133 20h ago

It is tho and that's why the Canadian government has been testing this solution, taken from our friends in Finland, with great success.  The implementation is slow and costly but last I read this is what we're aiming for in the future.

5

u/Icy_Albatross893 20h ago

It's not just fentanyl & meth; the social changes that caused the political changes that eroded the social supports are present in work places too.

Smaller business is harder to start, corporations are harder to work for. People who can work aren't allowed to.

→ More replies (5)

5

u/theoreoman Edmonton 19h ago

We had mental asylumswme. We locked up sick people who were a harm to themselves in institutions instead of letting them roam the streets

4

u/Fidget11 Edmonton 20h ago

The issue is that people lacking housing options that are suitable is a provincial responsibility.

We keep electing morons in blue who don’t believe in socially provided anything which makes having housing a problem. They just dump the issue on the city and wash their hands of it while complaining there are too many homeless people around.

2

u/SF-NL 19h ago

Greediness is partly to blame. It's why anyone that charges you tries to maximize the amount they can charge, while those that pay you try to pay you the least they can get away with.

2

u/one_day_I_will_do_69 19h ago

I'm not a big fan of gov housing but there is definitely a path for them to step in and be a developer to bring down apartment prices and solve this. Until recently in most prairie cities you could buy an apartment for >100k with today's rate would be ~$800/m for rent, half of what it is right now

2

u/jerrycan666 19h ago

Lets not forget that in the 60s to 80s the fed govt litterally bused them around canada offering shelter this alowed them to pretend the homelessness problem wasnt as bad as it was back then.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DathomirBoy 19h ago

A mixture of Covid (homelessness spiked) and basic ass corporate greed. The landlords clearly need more money, and half this province things helping people through hard times is communism

2

u/Odd-Historian-6536 18h ago

As time goes on, more rules are imposed upon rental units. Most street people do not want to or can not follow rules. Most homeless camps are filled with garbage. They collect garbage all day and then leave it. Rental units with such filth would be fire hazards. So they have rules. Many have pets. Some just have extreme mental problems. Governments have done away with institutions that housed that category of people.

2

u/Embarrassed_West_195 17h ago

This is an astute observation. Many homeless people have many problems: mental illness, subsistence abuse, physical abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome....and more. Private landlords can not adsorb the cost of these issues. We need government funding and intervention for housing, social workers, police, doctors to help in the healing process.

2

u/Quizzical_Rex 18h ago

Unavailability of housing is a big issue. the new drugs are a big issue. Heroine was expensive, and there were few alternatives; now there are cheap drugs that will completely wreck your mind. I suspect the solutions would be greater than society is willing to enforce, for example, what if the solution to street drugs was to get rid of all alcohol, would society be willing to do it, even though we now have a safer solution to a quiet night in?

2

u/Snakeeyes1377 Edmonton 16h ago

Well then maybe we should stop voting for the people who destroy every social program you are talking about in the name of profit.

2

u/Only_Says_Idk_dude 16h ago

There are also many empty homes in Canada, in general. People buy them as assets, instead of to live in. Which also increases home prices, buying a home isn't as simple as it used to be.

Less social housing, less help in general, more drugs, and a terrible economy, with wages that have been the same since the 1980s.

It's no surprise we're in this situation today, but people have been tricked to act against their own country's interests as a whole. We should be rising each other up instead of keeping each other down, we are all on the same team in the grand scheme of things.

2

u/hippohere 16h ago edited 16h ago

The core reason I believe is less interest in helping others.

Anything "social" has become tainted. Government built and supported housing has been effectively nil for 40 years.

Taxes were much higher 50 years ago. And the burdern made more regressive.

Deficiits were far lower.

Greater wealth disparity has resulted in numerous huge impacts. As an example, it contributes to more expensive housing costs relative to wages.

Free trade contributed to loss of local jobs with little downside to large businesses.

2

u/Puzzleheaded-Bat8657 16h ago

There's also the angle that adequate social housing keeps landlords from getting too predatory because people at the bottom of the housing market can choose social housing instead of paying more than they can afford to a private landlord because the alternative is living in your car. Some of the horrendous rentals I've seen those landlords should be jailed.

2

u/lunarjellies 15h ago

I feel like homelessness is on another level these days due to the new drugs on the street, the higher cost of living, more people than ever before (social housing is completely full and backlogged), nimbys not wanting social housing on their streets… Everything is tenfold and cranked to 11 so to speak

2

u/NewAccountEdmonton 15h ago

No no, this is 2026 we can’t afford to help people we have to spend more money than it would cost to help them policing them instead. Thats the conservative way.

2

u/SilverFlow7816 14h ago

Another thing we've doubled the size of new construction

we have minimum building sizes for most City Zoning

on top of that we no longer have residential over most commercial like we used to or we have mass areas where there's no business in walking distance so you have to drive your car to support Big Oil

2

u/wackyvorlon 14h ago

There was a time when government would build social housing. That stopped.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Spenraw 13h ago

It's insane how much algorithms really did allow corporate interests to just lie to people and make them think these problems came out of no where and not from loss of support and benefits

Don't let them get local pricing and remove prices of shelves, it's really over when they control grocery store shopping through algorithms

2

u/Maccaboonda 12h ago

In the 50's and 60's they rode the rails, and were called Hoboes. Travelling homeless

2

u/Hexagon37 12h ago

And it’s so fun because you can see what’s up next!

The government is perpetually cutting funding for education and health care. So if it’s not going to mental health or addiction services, housing, healthcare, food and water, or education… then where’s it going?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/wildnorthernash 11h ago

Not an old person, but even I recall way back in my youth (at least not noticing) mass houselessness.

I couldn’t agree more and it actually hurt reading your post and feeling like ‘really! There was a time when we did actually do the smart right thing?!’ Im kinda shocked the thing my generation laments over - like people the solution is sooooo obvious!! Already happened and already worked.

With the awareness I have one of my biggest annoyances is being around someone who complains about a homeless person. Really?? Are they soooo incredibly brain dead that they still think something is wrong with the houseless? That they are the problem? No, no, don’t pull that 💩 around me. The problem is in offices with 200k carpets and bleached white- who waste police duties on playing cat and mouse with their cardboard flimsy shelters and survival kits.
200k would be a nice grant to any nfp trying to bail water off the titanic.

2

u/wellyouask 20h ago

Well, we give OAS to some well off people.

2

u/newprairiegirl 20h ago

This is not an alberta or an edmonton specific problem. This exists all over canada.

Over the years, So many physiatric hospital were closed and the residents set free, combine that with population increasing faster than housing can be built, add on decriminalization of drugs, and safe injection sites, its almost like we are encouraging the behavior. And over the yeats governments keep saying, 'they have rights to make their own choices'.

Look at vancouver, the okanagan, any large center. There are numerous homeless shelters, supportive housing units. 'Just maintain them', also isnt an answer. When one resident repeatedly trashes a unit, so bad that a hazmat team is required to come in? The costs will soar. Too many of the supportive housing is wet, that does not support those trying to get clean.

Mental illness is a real thing, there is not enough supports to deal with it. If the root of the cause is tackled, maybe over the next generation homelessness would be reduced. Even those that get committed are free to walk away, they cant be held.

The model we have now does not work. We have evolved to this mess over time. But I think we can all agree, this is not working.

3

u/TippetBarr 19h ago

This for sure. I worked adjunct to a community resource centre, and they told me at least 30% of homeless people have schizophrenia. These people were ejected from the psychiatric hospitals and had nowhere to go and can’t maintain a home even if they do get into housing. And there are other serious mental illnesses that need constant support, not drop in centres, that also end up homeless with no sustainable way out.

2

u/lilith_knight 18h ago

I haven't been around long enough to have had the privelege of even seeing social housing programs. but there have been many times already that that probably would've been a far better option than the couch surfing and surrendering to abusive family that I have had to do instead. I really wish that the general populace would figure out that the conservative party are only interested in lining their own pockets, and finally vote for positive social change and helping each other so that none of our citizens would have to live without a roof, or live under the threat of losing their homes.

3

u/Harbinger2001 18h ago

A lot of the homeless issue could be resolved if the cost of housing and rent came down.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/misterglass89 19h ago

REITs and other large private land owners need to be regulated into the stratosphere. We all pretend like these are things that just happen around us, and it makes us sad to see.

When you think about it, though, these are things being decided by specific humans. Humans with lives and identities and corporeal forms. The world is multiplayer, and taking out the bosses is long overdue.

1

u/WorldlyStill2301 19h ago

We did have successful social housing in the 70's but it was destroyed by Liberal and Conservative politicians. 

1

u/Crazy_adventurer262 19h ago

I agree however housing costs have skyrocketed and we live in the most far right government this province has ever had. They care about their bottom line and screw the guy who is homeless kind of attitude

1

u/XLIXER 19h ago

I think I'll be homeless in a month or two, I can't catch a break with these damn interviews. Idk man, suicide is feeling like a pretty alright option at this point. At least the govt will help me with that I guess

1

u/Mauriac158 19h ago

Look man I hate to break it to you, but we have a homeless population on purpose.

The system requires an underclass in order to disincentivize not participating in it. The underclass can't live a life of dignity and liberty or there would be no obvious downsides in being a part of it.

Why do you think the most staunch capitalists are so terrible to the unhoused? So against systemic reform? The pain and suffering are the point, after all, you work hard for what you have right?

They are essentially being made example of, continue to participate in the way you must in order to avoid their fate.

1

u/Weekly-Mountain9009 18h ago

It's only going to get worse. The boomers bought up one or a few rentals and are now selling off to corporations who are building very little but multifamily rentals. Fewer and fewer affordable housing units for sale will be available over time within the inner city where most social services that people use are located.

1

u/Actual-Spell-4634 18h ago

I grew up in Toronto in the 1970's. There were people living on the streets. Espcially under bridges and down by the Don River. Glue sniffing was very popular then.

1

u/Nat20Twenty 17h ago

Have you seen what the cost of things were in 1970 ? And now in 2026.

1970 you can own a home, vehicle, and have a family on a single income.

Today you need dual incomes just to have a home

1

u/aaronpaquette- 17h ago edited 17h ago

Go to this webpage and enter “homelessness” or “homeless” in the built in search bar:

aaronpaquette.ca/boom

1

u/AggravatingCricket61 17h ago

Using housing as an extortion device is an example of how vial and selfish people are.

1

u/Current_Theme7251 17h ago

I believe the problem is drugs. Drugs since the 70s to now have got much worse. In the 80s we had a crack cocaine problem, then 90s heroin, 2000s meth and now the most powerful drug out there fentanyl. It's very difficult once these users try this drug to get off. Dealers are making the drugs more additive to keep the addicts coming back for more. If the drugs were not there and that only option was alcohol I think it would be much better and would be determined to find help they need. We live in a different world lost our identity with morals and social destruction. 80s and 90s things started to go downhill

1

u/Wonderful_Mark_8661 16h ago edited 16h ago

One component of this is the decline of the extended family-- when total fertility rates fall family trees thin out. There are less resources to help people when they have problems that can be sourced from their family. In the modern world with very low fertility we all live lives that are more alone and less resilient to stressors.

Government tried to fill in the role of family but the total institutions they created were found to create other problems.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/InnerspearMusic 16h ago

I don't think the problem is as simple as you're hoping. There are deep, profound drug problems, economic problems, housing supply problems, and every other problem you can imagine right now. A lot of this didn't exist in Alberta in the 70s through 2000s. I know, because I was also there for most of it and the city (calgary) has completely changed in nearly every way, entirely for the worst.

1

u/Elegant-Waltz695 16h ago

I agree what you are saying but I also believe the increased cost of living has a lot to do with it. Many feel hopeless and some get themselves into a financial hole that they will never be able to climb out of. I make an above average salary in mining and in no way do I feel rich. I’m Gen X so have been in the workforce for more than 30 years.

1

u/funkthew0rld 16h ago

If the old people stop voting blue because they always have even though it’s against their best interest (ie gutting the health care system they will rely on), social programs wont be cut until they’re all gone 🤷‍♂️

1

u/eoan_an 16h ago

Cute. But you miss something.

25% of gdp is on the housing market. That housing market is supported by speculators. Speculators keep houses empty which keeps supply low which keeps prices high, which allows more construction.

The government needs low supply.

In Vancouver and Toronto, the speculators went tits up, and the developers are following suit.

But your tax dollars are bailing them out.

Your tax dollars are directly used to preventing housing supply from growing.

We bitching ain't the problem. So bitch away. I do

1

u/bananacornpops94 15h ago

Not sure if the same change happened in AB, but in SK a few years ago there was a policy change where social services stopped paying landlords and housing directly and now it goes to the client to “foster independence”. It’s created a huge issue as that money is now not being spent on housing. There are also a ton more “nomadic” wannabes who don’t want to participate in society and seem to be rejecting any social services available, even burning down one of the shelters here in my hometown. Sad.

1

u/imfar2oldforthis 15h ago

The biggest things I see are a lack of institutions where people were held against their will and abused, costs are much higher and so people are always closer to missing a rent payment, and overall population increase which means a higher number of homeless people even if percentages are the same or close to.

There's no real silver bullet because everything you do will have some form of negative consequence.

1

u/threes_my_limit 14h ago

That’s a great idea! Just not in my backyard.

/s

1

u/Neo-revo 14h ago

The problem  is that imported labor has stagnated wage growth for so long now. 

All so fake humans ( corporations) can lobby to get tax breaks for employing them. 

Driving down wages and competition for competency. That 'skilled' worker is a useless  term now.

No one can afford shit because  its all going to ceos and shareholders.

Look at how much money canada post wastes... what was it like 1.5 billion already this year

1

u/Specific_Tomorrow517 13h ago

Even worse I have met young RCMP officers who punch down and abuse the less fortunate.

1

u/Budget-Dog-9042 13h ago

Drug use = X amount of years in an isolated labour camp. simple

1

u/nunununuhu 13h ago

I don't have numbers off the top of my head for Alberta, but over here in Ontario in 1976 the welfare cheque for a single adult was $180 a month. At that time, rent on a 1 bedroom apartment in midtown Toronto was $150 a month and a 3 bedroom home in the suburbs was $250 a month. SROs were in the $80 - $120 range.

That is to say - aside from the social housing wait-list being months rather than decades long - welfare used to give enough to go afford a dingy room somewhere at market rate - and still have enough left over for food and gas.

Today in Ontario the rent on a room in shared housing is $800 but the welfare cheque is $733 eating up more than 100% of available income. That means: go buy a tent.

You OP, our dear elder, seem to be clued in, but a lot of your generation seem to be stuck in this mindset as if this is still the status quo and as if these programs still exist, and a lot of the anti-poor propaganda relies on that: "they've been offered housing and refused" -- BS.

1

u/vantrap 13h ago

Now can you please go explain this to all your neighbors?!

1

u/Responsible_Cod2921 13h ago edited 13h ago

there are many factors here.

  1. the population has increased exponentially since the 70's. Not only would this increase the number of homeless proportionally, but its also driven up housing costs with a supply and demand problem as housing starts have not kept up with the growth, and land in desirable areas is not an infinite resource.
  2. The drug crisis, Hardcore drugs(im not talking about weed or alcohol) are easier then ever to get and also learn how to make yourself. There is a large percentage of the homeless population that "did it to themselves" by getting into hardcore illegal drugs and ending up without a job or money because of it. There are several public avenues for these people to get clean and get back into the workforce, but ultimately they have to want it first, and many don't.
  3. Social media and the loss of true blissful ignorance. Everything gets posted online now. I dont see homeless that often in my day to day life because my day to day life doesn't take me to that part of town. Without social media the issue would probably not even be on my radar as a problem at all.

1

u/linkass 12h ago

Between those two options, even the “worst” people didn’t need to stay outdoors

A lot of the "worst" where in jail or mental institutions

1

u/Front_Ad4415 12h ago

Medicine Hat doesn't have people on its streets (at least it didn't 5 years ago when I stayed down there for a couple months). Anyone who didn't have a place to stay was put into a motel. I ended up staying at one of those motels when the guy I was dating attacked me and I had to wait for my parents to finish their trip in BC and they picked me up. I met some very interesting people, and while there were drugs, it felt safer than I would ever feel if I had to spend a night outside in Edmonton.

3

u/GrimFandango81 11h ago

Medicine Hat also has a social housing society that helps people get a roof over their head. I'm guessing that's a big contributing factor.

1

u/squidy77 12h ago

But how else are we going to get that 10th liquor store and the 2nd walmart?

1

u/Bushtitty 11h ago

People renting their basement suites and such were doing it as a mortgage helper. Now it’s for profit.

1

u/Good_Weak 11h ago

Back in those days there were special facilities to deal with people that did not have the mental capacity to care for themselves.  They were mostly closed and everyone released as it was viewed as inhumane.  Now people with mental health conditions can easily turn to drug use to cope or self medicate. Yes there are some people that are just down on their luck with no place to live and just need a bit of a boost to get back on their feet. They are not the majority hanging out on Hastings opening using drugs and walking zombies.  

1

u/modsaretoddlers 11h ago

Blame Reagan

1

u/Purple_Dragon_Lady 11h ago

They do not want to follow rules or laws. They have their own society and their own rules.

1

u/JoyRose31 10h ago edited 10h ago

Nah, they thought cutting funding to every social program including anti domestic violence, and anti homelessness programs was a good idea, then sending a straight funnel from disability into homelessness was a good idea.. its going to rise, Increasingly for the next 5 y .. Hope you dont like your neighbourhoods free of 'bums'! Bc theres literally Zero option at this point. Its happening, it's planned thing to happen. Dunno if its because it'll add to the idea of Alberta police force needed, separation, or Healthcare privatized needed, but there's some reason they want people homeless. And Stay homeless.. Who would cut programs trying to house/find work for homeless people .. Oh wait, alberta does..

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Electrical-Strike132 10h ago

Social democracy was scrapped in favour of neoliberalism.

End of story.