homeless and hopeless in Toronto

The "housing and homeless activists" debate endlessly about whether homelessness is a "supply" problem or an "income/affordability" problem. They have a 'confusing two separate issues' problem.

There is no real housing crisis in Canada. The nations of Europe went through a real crisis at the end of the last world war; in places a quarter of all housing stock was destroyed. It took a decade to fully replace. But no one lived on the streets after the mass flights of populations ended. There is enough housing in Toronto to house everyone, however crummy and overpriced.

Even with brutal minimum wages and welfare rates, people find ways to stay housed. The hard core homeless are so for another reason. If you spend some time talking with them, you can make one generalization; they are people who cannot make it in a conventional rental housing situation.

That is the end of generalizations. Some are creeps who should be put where there is nobody to victimize but others like themselves. Some have had too much abuse laid on them in life and want to be left the hell alone. Some are too timid and gentle, and are bullied out of everything in life. Some are the 'mentally challenged.' Some are 'psych survivors.' And you have the plain old drunks and addicts.

There used to be places for these people. They often were not good places. But often they were havens from the relentless persecution this intolerant society dishes out to those who do not conform. Sometimes people remained in these places until they died. Sometimes they would use the time/space to work out and overcome their problems, and face the world again when they alone decided they were ready.

The 'harm reduction' advocates and other social workers say that they can do nothing for their 'clients' while they are out on the street or in hostels. They have to get them into 'housing,' meaning social housing, and keep them there. But those active in social housing tenant issues know that most social housing would not be good places for most homeless. Some of them would be a nuisance or hazard to other tenants, more often other tenants would be a hazard to them, and sometimes both at the same time.

Social housing was intended to be for people who have no particular problems except that they can not afford a decent place to live at market rents. It cannot be a substitute for 'supportive' housing that protects, supervises, treats, or leaves the hell alone, as its residents want and need.

Such housing will be expensive to build and operate. They will contain people who are barely tolerated at best by 'normal' society. They are not wanted in 'our back yard'.

An arguing point of housing advocates is that it would cost far less to build housing for the homeless on the streets and shelters, than to operate shelters. No. Regular housing would be cheaper. But the shelters are much cheaper than the supportive housing which most of the homeless really need.

The shelter regime in Toronto seems designed to wear people out, with crowding, noise, brightly colored walls, twenty-four hour fluorescent lighting, and exposure to disease. These are torture methods documented by international political prisoner support organizations.

If the homeless flee this and choose to live in the streets, there are plenty of police to make sure they do not bother 'normal' people. Many who work with hard core street people believe most eventually go into a hospital and never come out; their physical state so far gone they cannot recover.

The homeless of Toronto appear to be victims of a cunningly designed quiet holocaust, regulated to eliminate an undesirable segment of the population without raising serious resistance.

The homeless can only try to survive. They cannot advocate for themselves. Worse, they must participate, for what they can get out of it, in the antics of silly 'housing' activists, who are themselves being used to push agendas that have nothing to do with homelessness, and nothing to offer the homeless.

The changes of government locally, provincially, and federally in the past two years have done nothing for the homeless. The Martin government has now promised money for new housing, among other things; if they win the election. Then the provincial government must be willing to pass the money to the city, and the city must be willing to face down 'NIMBYism.'

This will help the homeless only if most of the money goes to supportive housing, along with the money for its high operating costs. It takes years to build housing. Building costs are high right now because of the 'high end' residential housing boom.

So, there will be many more names inscribed on the 'homeless memorial' at Bell-Trinity square, before the last of the homeless finds a home.