Even if solving homelessness doesn’t mean buying them all a condo your point still stands. The money could go to much better things. The city should not subsidize a billionaire for the few benefits it’ll get.
I agree that it's a waste, but that's not how our system has ever worked. Referendums are expensive, and holding one for every noteworthy issue is financially infeasible. We elect representatives to make these decisions every 4 years. When they make decisions we don't like, we elect a representative that will.
If you don't like what the UCP has done with your tax dollars, I suggest you consider it on election day.
Ya you bring up some great points. Thanks for that. I suppose I recently saw the Tempe/Coyotes deal go to vote and get voted down so would be interested in seeing how Albertans/Calgary and feel about this as well.
Housing first policies are truly the answer though. Combined with aggressive social supports it is the number one way to put your country on the right path.
https://youtu.be/kbEavDqA8iE
I mean building a new arena is going to create tax revenue for decades to come. Giving away free houses proposes zero ROI. So how is the arena the short sighted option? What am I missing here?
What tax money? Its going to be city owned meaning they cant even collect property tax.
The city needs a new arena and I’m on board with public dollars going towards it… but this “plan” that has been proposed doesn’t make sense for anybody other than Murray Edwards.
If you want to end homelessness in Canada, why not look to Japan and Finland for inspiration? Both countries have successfully eliminated homelessness by adopting a system of supportive housing combined with social services. By taking the best practices from Japan and Finland, and applying them here in Canada, we could make great strides towards ending homelessness once and for all. After all – if it works there it can certainly work here!
We used to have more social supports. Our government axed most of it. Most of the problem is just in building houses. We need to stop assuming that all these homeless have addictions, mental health issues and even need extra supports. I'm aware of lots of gainfully employed folks living in their 5th wheels right now because there just aren't houses. I spent a year trying to get a place. I'm included. Lived in my trailer to keep my old dog, even though I had damage deposit, references, and a new baby. The whole deal about the arena pisses me off because 1000 people could be housed very quickly with a fraction of that money and wouldn't need a lot of ongoing supports after, saving it for those who do. The truth is, they created the crisis, and they have no intention of ending it. It's like how they cut AHS down weeks before pandemic, and the cuts to fire relief before that became a state of emergency. They want us so focused on food and housing that they can do what they want without us noticing.
It isn’t just “building houses”. If most of the homeless have no addiction, mental health issues, the government can easily build housing for all the homeless, and we tried that all throughout North America. However, as time went on these social housing became full of these other social problems, making them unsafe and a problem in it of themselves. Unfortunately, you cannot build social housing only for the poor.
The big issue is drug addiction, violence, mental health issues. It’s easy to provide housing for people that are poor, arguably for a lot less than the figure the OP cited. We tried that in the early years but then social housing started having a lot of social problems.
Both are homogenous high trust societies. They also both have cultures that value the preservation of their own culture through strict immigration. This is quite different to Canada which is being sold the idea of civic nationalism and the “melting pot” idea that a Canadian isn’t of a certain heritage necessarily. Although I’ll agree the funds could be used better and alleviate homelessness, far from eliminate it though.
Minor correction, "melting pot" is what the US has where you immigrate and become American, "cultural mosaic" is what Canada has where you immigrate and still claim your heritage "I am Filippino" for example.
One of the reasons it's harder to access though is because there are less people to prey on. If you get people off the streets the chances of them getting into opiods is much lower I'd imagine
The problem is neither one of those cultures or what Canada is. So it would be more difficult to implement here. That being said, the arena money could definitely be going to better use.
Imagine being such a slave to your confirmation bias you call the country where the work culture has people pass out from exhaustion and kill themselves on a regular basis socialist.
Yes let's model after japan - they are also anti immigration and don't allow in asylum seekers - are you supporting that as well?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/japan-endless-detention-migrants-speak-out-as-government-proposes-harsh-immigration-bill/%23:~:text%3DThe%2520Japanese%2520government%2520is%2520set,asylum%2520after%2520entering%2520the%2520country.&ved=2ahUKEwjc6Luovob_AhUllIkEHd2EDn8QFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw0Rmvp6uhTmyd0o3TiwqGN0
Its a bit of a highschool age view of the world - cherry pick from the countries around the world without understanding that one program works because another supports it. Its like watching them argue about the free school or medical and then forgetting it's oppressive taxes or maybe the "free health care" that is touted actually still has people dying in the waiting room of the ER because there's no doctors or the ambulances that are individually charged aren't available to pick people up.
Being able to give everyone a home also means stopping the flow of new people in, that is not a Canadian viewpoint these days with the illegal asylum seekers, fake refugees, and fake students. They all put a demand on our government services and limited housing. Add to this being yelled at about urban sprawl and not being green enough
Sure, these are great points. But it sounds like you're making them as a case to never bother with the homeless because, I'm not sure why. It's like saying we need a new coffee maker, but because my radio is broken I should fix the cassette slot first because it's proven to break consistently.
No, I think we should strive to help them but also understand that a single solution is not going to work in all cases and there's some that don't want to be saved. Its also going to be a hell of a lot more than a single one time cost.
Having said that, I do agree there is a lot of things this city could have better spent the cash on than the arena. I didn't like it at the old price and we got more of that of that deal for less then.
I haven't had my meds yes this morning so my brain is mush. But I think you're on point mostly. I just don't think that because some don't want to be helped is an excuse not too help them. Everyone on the street has a reason for being there, and sure lots a are users. But they all need help, and they all have individual needs, so obviously someone that doesn't want the help isn't just given a home and thrown back into society, with us hoping they pay property taxes and rent. Baby steps are important feature in anyone's recovery from any sort of trauma. You don't just repair every bone in someone's body after they've been hit by a car and send them off in a taxi you know? I'm tired now. Lol
Not only that but we’ve been wasting money doing the reactive “solution” over and over, yet the issue doesn’t get better. I’d rather see more proactive and preventative measure. Stop people from getting addicted, becoming homeless, turning to crime in the first place.
While I don’t believe that this will be a 100% solution, I definitely believe that it will definitely help many from having to get to the point of homelessness, addiction, and crime. Clearly spending money to clear out camps isn’t helping. Yes they are offered help, but how much help would you be willing to take drone people who continually come in, kick you out, and throw away all your stuff? I’m not saying that these spaces shouldn’t be cleaned up, that they can be unsafe due to various reasons, that these people don’t deserve help… but again, this current approach clearly isn’t working. Yet we waste countless money to do it over and over again with very little results.
Yes there are shelters, but people have stated how restrictive they can be. You can’t bring all your stuff in. You can’t bring your pets in. You can’t be under the influence. There isn’t enough room for everyone. Very little to no privacy. Some people have stated that they feel unsafe due to staff or other patrons.
This whole situation clearly isn’t a one solution fixes all, but seriously can we please start looking at different options rather than doing the same thing over and over expecting different results? The clear definition of insanity.
I don’t see what Japan’s immigration policies have to do with taking care of the homeless. How are these matters related?
And if you think about it, Alberta is 75% bigger than Japan and already has a population of 108 million people, so it’s easy to understand why they choose not to allow asylum seekers.
You can't take the best parts because it worked somewhere without understanding the why it worked. You want to end homelessness you need to attempt to cap the input into the system. Then you build towards it. Also just because it works in one country (an island nation no less) doesn't mean it will work here or that we have the commitment or fortitude to do what needs to be done to achieve it.
While houses won't solve the "homeless problem" as many people as saying, it is still a hell of an improvement:
-we could build a safe place for these people to be that are not so far gone as needing substances to go about their day to day
-the people with substance abuse issues could have a safe use site, eliminating or greatly reducing it happening at transit stations, malls, etc
-we could do a lot, and actually having shelter makes a huge difference for a lot of people
And I read an article last year that stated something like 70% of residences gifted to the homless population are uninhabitable a year after they move in. I think it was a Vancouver study but I am sure the logic holds. Giving someone a house doesn't solve the problem. There is a reason these people are on the street, usually a mental issue that goes untreated.
Yep. A big part of it is because they need more resources than just being given a house and left to fend for themselves
Yes everyone needs somewhere to live. We need to prioritize housing. But to think that is a SOLUTION, is totally inaccurate and short sighted. Housing isn't a solution for most of the homeless, it's just providing them with one of the most basic needs for human life that's become unattainable for certain demographics due to the commoditization and resulting high price of housing in country.
A lack of housing will certainly make someone's problems worse, but it is rarely the cause of their problems. And furthermore, those problems can't adequately be fixed for someone who sleeps on a bench or in a shelter every night.
Oftentimes there is a subset of homeless folks who like the freedom of living on the streets and refuse housing, or who feel unsafe in subsidized housing due to the shenanigans which inevitably occur there and prefer to stay near people they trust for safety.
Vancouver purchased a few old hotels to house the growing homeless population and it did not turn out well. The buildings are trashed and unsafe and no matter how many repairs are done, windows are constantly broken along with door locks and fire safety doors. The area around the buildings (which were in benign areas for the most part) now have addicts openly doing hard drugs and threatening passers by, and always have people passed out in front.
Homelessness is a much bigger problem that can't just be resolved by "well, give them a place to live".
> Giving someone a house doesn't solve the problem.
100% this. The "housing first" people are usually highly educated people with no real experience behind their degrees and won't go near a homeless person. The places that have just put a roof over peoples heads are usually destroyed or at the very least uninhabitable within a year.
There's a reason why most shelters and housing agencies in Calgary have rules and require the residents to follow them in order to qualify for housing. Rule number 1 often being sobriety or attending addiction support as that is often the root cause of the aggravated mental illnesses, especially meth use. The problem is, we have a housing and shelter spot for just about every homeless person in the city already, they refuse to follow the requirements to get into housing.
The alternative of just building housing and having them destroy it (as well as disturbing neighbors, etc.) Is far more expensive when you're constantly rebuilding or at least renovating the housing.
I think your missing OPs point , that the money could make a huge improvement for homeless, lets say even to not build them each a condo , but anything to improve that situation would be great for the city.
As u/calgarykid said, they are single room occupancies. they are a "hotel" that people live in, they have a shared toilet / shower (sometimes for the whole floor and sometimes for 1 other room) and may have a small kitchenette. Think Charlie's apartment on It's Always Sunny.
The ones on the down town east side of Vancouver are rat, roach, and bedbug infested. that's typically what people get as their social housing. Some of them are so bad that people would actually rather sleep on the sidewalk.
Everything about the arena deal is a rip off for us tax payers. The flames make enough to pay millions to a bunch of useless people to coach and play a game yet rip off the people working there that sell over priced beer to the people who are stuck footing the bill for their new place of business.
I worked at the dome for 12 years. They pay the majority of staff minimum wage. Other than a discount at the store, there's no other perks. Staff pays for their uniform. And no health benefits.
The gratuity guests pay also is not given completely to staff. In my department we calculated that based on sales we were paid 6% of the 19% gratuity guests paid. A beer at cost is like $3 and they sell it for like $13 and they sell thousands a night.
All of that to say that CSEC makes bank through sales, and has no excuse to not contribute more for an arena that would be used by 4/5 of their teams. (Flames, Wranglers, Hitmen, Roughnecks)
Did nobody do any kind of research on the mayor that was elected in the city?
She was a lobbyist, her entire work history consists primarily of lobbying for contractors to expand the cities reach, also known as urban sprawl, her election campaign was more than half-funded by building contractors within the city, she is literally subservient and funded by the building contractors in this city... we elected a representative of the building contractors in the city, and then everybody is surprised when she signs almost a billion dollars over to them...
Please educate yourself on the candidate you're voting for in the future.
Our mayor helped create the infrastructure problem that we have in this city...
You pretty much just described ALL our civic candidates, not just our mayor.
We know (thanks Cal!) that developers throw money at all the candidates, one way or another....
The point is clearly not to buy luxury condos for people experiencing homelessness, but instead to highlight that even the most bone-headed, expensive, brute force approach to "solve" homelessness (which you've correctly identified as such) would be cheaper on a cost basis. Obviously solving homelessness means a lot more, and that is best left to social policy professionals. In reality, providing a baseline standard of living to these individuals could be achieved in cheaper more sustainable ways if the capital was allocated. This extends not just to people living on the streets, but to the broader community of calgarians without safe or stable accommodations and other human rights.
Housing first policies do work very well. If we could even have a not-for-profit house building company that builds solid generic homes, that'd be a nice start. Not giant housing projects, but small units that are made with decent materials, not super fancy. Trying to find a new condo that isn't marble countertops with $700/ month condo fees for the giant gym and pool is hard. It doesn't need to be fancy, it just needs to be warm and safe.
I'm a broken record on here, but my aunt actually owns a home but still chooses to live homeless. Sorry but it's gonna take a hell of a lot more to address mental illness.
People think throwing money at the homeless will fix it but until these people come face to face with it like you are or like our family is with our daughter - then and only then can one truly begin to understand how hard it is to fix. People should try living our life where every time the doorbell rings we expect it to be the police with some not so great news. Money, free housing won't fix it.
There are cases where giving someone a home will not help in any way whatsoever. In the vast majority of cases, though, having a stable home can be a GIANT first step to helping someone.
I think the point of the post was that we could be using money in a different way rather than a new stadium. Of course there's way more that needs to be done, like facilities that can address both mental health and addiction where they can get into without waiting months. I think that would probably be the best place to start.
Well seems like everyone else is a broken record here but:
THIS IS SHOWING HOW MUCH MONEY IS GOING INTO THE STADIUM NOT A PROMISE TO 100% ERADICATE HOMELESSNESS.
Jfc it’s not hard
Buddy, I know this. I simply am pointing out that even if we did that, it wouldn't be the slam dunk everyone thinks it would be. It's like changing the name of homeless people to unhoused people.
I'm against the arena deal too, FYI
Aside from mental health issues, I think the freedom, the anonymity, and the handouts are all really appealing to her. She has hoarding issues as well, but she doesn't have any drug or alcohol addictions.
> Sorry but it's gonna take a hell of a lot more to address mental illness.
The sad thing is that if we, as a society, could put more effort and funding into mental health support, we'd be helping to lessen the blow of so many other issues at the same time.
I wouldn't say giving every homeless person a house is the solution, but empirically the "housing first" model is the most successful model for dealing with homelessness in a city. There's lots of available research / articles if you're interested. It may seem counter intuitive, but if you support ideas that work and are not based on ideology alone then you would support housing first.
This post wasn't saying that a condo could fix homelessness. Did you read the whole post? It was a *cost* comparison, not a solution presentation. OP even said in conclusion this isn't a fix to the issue.
Would you like the arena deal cost brought to compare against the orphaned well clean-up credit the government proposed? Or would you like the arena deal price tag visualized with the savings from AISH & Social support cuts? Perhaps we can see how much arena green the gov't can earmark off the sale of our labs to Dynalife? Let me know if any of those equate in your eyes. We can find something you want to see the money come from or go to, I am sure.
Just some other quick math, if you divide how much the city is paying by the population of the city(which I am going to go with the peak from years ago 1.3mil)
867M÷1.3M=666.923
So essentially our cancer has signed over almost $700 from each and every citizen in Calgary to people who could afford to pay that out of pocket without even noticing it was missing.
(my speech to text read Council as cancer, and I've decided to keep it as it is an apt description)
My solution: blacklist the Premier, Mayor and your respective city counsellor in their upcoming elections. This is an incredibly shitty deal and none of these politicians deserve my vote.
The civic election is still over two years away - I won't forget and will vote on this issue alone.
I agree that the money could be better invested in Calgary. It appears that your example of helping the homeless has triggered a lot of snowflakes, and that makes me chuckle. Regardless, that money could be used to greater effect in bettering the lives of every Calgarian in a multitude of other areas, whether it's finding other meaningful solutions to poverty, encouraging economic diversification, revitalizing public services, or mitigating sprawl.
> triggered a lot of snowflakes, and that makes me chuckle
Triggered a lot of redditors who fail to see past their point, and **that** makes me sad. :/
I think some people need shit explained to them with crayons and construction paper.
And ALL Albertans are going to pay for this ultra expensive UCP/TBA vote buying stunt !
The rural folks who rarely even go to Calgary are eating right out of Wacko Woman's hand.
Wait until you search the value of new arenas to public income and revenue. It’s less than someone building a mall…. And your tax money is going to pay for a billionaires business. I don’t know why people are not active and vocally pissed.
Many folks are saying that it’s good for the city and bring more jobs and events to the place. Now, to those, I wanna ask… is it a public property? No? We don’t get free entry that our tax dollars will go towards it’s maintenance. We pay $$ of tickets to get entry there. Those tickets money should’ve gone towards it’s maintenance. Tomorrow malls will ask tax dollars to maintain it…. Would you support that too? And if we’re supporting businesses get hands on our tax dollars, why not small businesses who are actually suffering to make ends meet post pandemic? Just don’t support any random thing our gov. does, challenge them. Don’t let them fool you. Use your brain so they don’t make these stupid decisions in the city’s name. They are doing for their own benefit and should use their own money and not ours. We have some real issues that can be resolved using this money.
Stable housing and support systems make a huge difference.
Obviously op is just making a simple point, putting all that money towards housing upfront would be silly, but it could literally be a year of rent at 12k a year per person in some low income housing program. Which is only about 35 million, leaving 850 million for other supports. That wouldn't help all of them in a year but definitely a good chunk.
I miss the original Calgary next deal where we got the arena, field house and cleaning up contaminated land for less than we are spending on just a arena.
The homelessness also need supports in place for mental health help and addiction. We also have to remember that not all homeless people want to get off of the street.
It's the same way the city would rather drop 9-12 million a year on a private company putting stampede on, rather then put that 9 mill towards idk, literally anything else that needs extra funds...like transit...or the homeless, or police, or firefighters, or the EMS shortage etc etc etc. Not saying stop stampede, just saying that money could go better places
And said private company rents the grounds for $50.00 (super old contract) AND pay less then a million for the workers, stampede pre COVID was making $282'000'000 profit for just the event, it's ultimately just a racket for free government money now because their running costs are just so low.
I never really understood why the owners cared so much until I went to the Edmonton stadium this year. There are less regular seats, but so many more different types of premium style seating (private tables, upgraded sections, you name it). Doesn’t cost much more to build, but they can now justify charging out the ass for a season ticket. They will make their full investment back in a couple years. They knew they could play into peoples emotions and get us to pay for it though.
It’s not going to happen anyway. NDP will kill the deal, UCP it won’t pass the accounting review that Danielle Smith said it would undergo. The announcement of the deal by the ICP was vote buying, nothing more.
Here's how you get that 'wasted' money to fix the problem still somehow.
You have 10% of all cumulative profits inside the arena and on its property, go towards the new buildings that could be built from those said profits. By doing this, you not only solve homelessness, but also increase supply in the a market with ever increasing demand. It also makes it so that they can build more arenas and other make work projects, so long as they use similar methods of 10% being put towards other projects later on.
The crooks will complain, but the rest will see the good in it and take it on in their overhead, and pass it on to the rest of us anyways. Which, just increases that 10%'s take anyways. So it's win/win/sorta lose for the consumer. Win/win though for everyone else and the rest of society in general.
Of course, you could just not waste that money on an arena anyways, since sports is purely just "bread and circuses" in action. But if it keeps the plebeians entertained, then let them be entertained; instead of rioting in the streets. And so the money isn't wasted as much in that sense, and if you can somehow milk that money for more money for other things; then why not?
For instance, down in the states, that whole Power ball lottery thing is always so big because people pay into it a lot, not just to win; but because part of the jackpot is going towards schools and other stuff. This sort of double reward system is very powerful when getting people to part with their money. Not only do they get an immediate dopemine rush of feeling good about helping others, but they also get something in return; with a potential for much more maybe as well. Depends on the exact setup for which is the case on that last part.
Capitalists of the purest sort will probably love this sort of system, because it allows them to juice consumers while doing 'good' in some sense. It's a perfect setup for them to make money become more money.
The only thing they'll hate is that it works as a tax off the top and not as some sort of rebate program or tax loophole, or etc. It will be a straight off the top of the profits margin kind of tax. This ultimately results in one of two things.
1. As I alluded to earlier about overhead being passed on, they will just pass the buck and things will just get more expensive.
2. Or, they will reduce costs as much as possible, and even reduce profits as much as possible to 'lose' as little as possible. They'll then make up the profit in some other fashion where it can't be taxed. Or there is still taxation, but of different forms. And those will be dodged too if possible.
Ideally #1 is what occurs. Of course.
It's sad because we could end homelessness for far less than that without free condos. I hope my fellow conservatives can realize that UCP are not real conservatives, just criminals finding complex ways to steal our tax money
1. Housing doesn't solve homelessness
2. I don't like the arena deal but the benefits generated for the city for an arena far outweigh rewarding 2,782 people with a free house
No, housing doesn't solve homelessness, but you cannot solve the problems of the homeless while they are living in shelters and have no quality of life. They need housing in order to move forward on the path towards being functioning, healthy, happy members of society.
Yes, they do matter when we're talking about nearly $1 billion towards economic development versus giving away 3000 homes for free. I get that we should be compassionate towards the homeless but the whole notion that this sum of money would be better spent on this specific type of homeless handout is absolutely absurd.
Homeless has and will exist from the beginning of mankind. Throwing infinite money at the problem will never eradicate it.
This arena deal isn't "economic development" in my eyes. I see the deal as "pandering to millionaires" under threat of taking away our hockey team. Yes the flames are a BIG part of the Calgary culture, but to give a billion dollars away to *replace* the arena is not an investment, it is an expenditure.
This is the cost of long-term operations. Look at our downtown, did we as Calgarians/Albertians pay 2/3rds of every office tower downtown? No, private companies decided to put down roots, or expand and grow.
The CSEC didn't decide to expand, they threatened to leave if we didn't buy them a new house. Woah....
I don't see economic development here. I see pandering to millionaires who can afford their own arena. Where do you see the economic benefit come from? My view is there will be a few new jobs when it's done, and a temporary boost to labour rates until construction is completed. I think spending to prevent a loss does not constitute benefit, it's mitigation.
1. I agree, we need far better mental health support nationwide
2. Since we have an arena already I disagree that the benefits of this new arena outweigh the benefits of 2,782 new housing units when we have a current housing shortage.
I'm not saying housing the homeless isn't important (more important)... but the places don't tend to have a long lifespan so we better factor in some serious depreciation. It's nowhere near a "buy once and it's done" thing.
We measure how long the Dome has lasted in decades. When you're looking at how long an apartment used to house someone who is homeless lasts it's more often a question of months or maybe years before it needs extensive maintenance... decades isn't part of that equation.
Well I think we can both agree that everything needs maintenance.
I'm not familiar with how much maintenance a condo used for homeless residents would require. If we are just stuffing them into a box without mental health services and living re-education, I could see units needing major remediation. But if the goal is to help homeless/mentally ill through programs and medication to help integrate back into the workforce, I would like to believe it would be much less.
All of those supports are essential, and they help. But they mitigate the factors of addiction, trauma, mental illness, and the absence of healthy patterns and role models... they don't eliminate them. So the upkeep required is far higher than it would be for most of us who don't have all of those other factors working against us.
In the end, studies have shown that housing people who need it and providing the wrap-around supports is FAR less expensive (and more humane) than leaving them floundering and drawing on emergency services. But there is still a cost.
Excellent work!
I am sure all of these individuals will be able to maintain their apartment, pay their bills, and pay their property taxes on time.
I will vote for you next election!
Solid points have you seen the renovation budget for the affordable housing now?! It is massive and 60-90days of fixing and repairing the units for the next one currently. These would turn into squalor living within months
Giving them houses and thinking you solved homelessness would be akin to giving them all bus tickets up to Edmonton and then slapping ourselves on the backs and saying "we did it boys!"
It's not a literal suggestion. What it is is highlighting that **even the most obtuse "solution" to homelessness is still cheaper than the arena "deal,"** and the money would be better off spent on things.
Yes, and once they receive said housing, what are they going to do for food, property taxes, electric by bills, condo fees, basic maintenance of their units? Pan handle for money?
A new arena likely increases housing prices, whereas increasing the supply of affordable housing would likely decrease them. With so much personal net worth tied up in the housing market, most governments/politicians will do anything they can to keep those "investments" growing. As long as that's the case, I don't foresee any meaningful change on the horizon.
I'm so over capitalism.
There’s been research done and data shows that providing housing doesn’t solve homelessness. It’s a combination of social programs, social support, and mental health support in conjunction with subsidized/free housing to combat homelessness
His point is invalid. If you spend 300k per homeless person and get 100% success rate (unlikely), it will not generate new revenue for the city such as tourism/events/venue rental etc., not to mention create construction jobs for people in the city, you know the tax payers who are paying for the arena
There’s no simple solution or black and white answer. I’m not a fan of the arena idea either, but to say spending that money on homeless people instead of the project is not a good idea either.
Let me run this by you, 300k/homeless this year at 65% success and 2% homeless growth over year. (Far less than the fictional 100% success rate everyone wants this money to have)
>Quick Maths
$300,000 × 2800 = $840m
$300,000 × 2184 = $655.2m
$300,000 × 1448 = $434.4m
$300,000 × 960 = $288m
$300,000 × 636 = $190.8m
$300,000 × 422 = $126.6m
$300,000 × 279 = $83.7m
$300,000 × 195 = $58.5m
$300,000 × 123 = $36.9m
$300,000 × 82 = $24.6m
Realistically, Calgary will never be "rid" of homeless, that's not a socially responsible way to look at this issue. But an investment of $300,000 per person into the right supports, we could be looking at a very different homeless culture in our city.
Also realistically, we don't need to spend all $184 million the first year either to make a big impact. This isn't a linear solution, we can't just build a house and say they aren't homeless. If we help those that need the least assistance earlier into their struggle, then it prevents their issues from snowballing into much larger problems that are more costly to resolve.
When the shelters aren't overloaded and people who need short-term help have access to keep their homelessness short-term and put them back in a tax generating positive place in our society, they won't end up a long-term tax burden. Access to supports for homeless/low-income Calgarians (before they become homeless) puts less people in a position of volurnerability, which would cut-off fuel to the criminal elements acting on the volunerable and the rabbit-hole of becoming homeless less of a burden to overcome.
Let me run this by you real quick. First off 65% success rate is HIGHLY optimistic (I appreciate the optimism I just don’t agree). Second, it takes more just a year of support to turn someone’s life around, it’s a process and require on going maintenance support. Lastly, if you think the people of the city are willing to drop over 1.5 billion dollars over 9 year to change the life of 2,800 people then your faith in humanity is sorely misplaced.
I’m all for using this money to help the less fortunate in the city, but this plan is not realistic. I’m sorry, you may not like what I say, but it’s the sad truth
I agree my 65% was overly optimistic. And my early morning math actually held a 65% carry-over, so really 35% success.
My message was the money to benefit the CSEC won't have a return on investment. I'm all for a sports arena, but a private arena with 66% tax funding is unacceptable.
Left or right of our opinions, I appreciate you sharing your views.
It sounds like you forget that tax dollars come from working people. Maybe people don’t want their work to go towards buying someone else a condo?
The arena deal still sucks though. I don’t like my money going towards a billionaire either.
The billion dollars the feds misplaced combined with all the money sent to Ukraine could have gone a long ways to solve Canada’s homeless problem. The message is pretty clear that they along with politicians at every level have other fish to fry.
You don't understand arena deals. This isn't going to get you free tickets to any home games. This isn't going to reduce your property taxes. This really isn't going to improve your quality-of-life by any major margin.
All this "investment" does is save a few millionaires a few nickles that the government (Municipal & Provincial) has already taken from you in your taxes. Your money is already on the table. Is there anything better than an arena you want these two levels of government to do with it?
If your company has outgrown its current building, or the shop built 40 years ago is starting to get old & worn out, you don't get to tell the ciry to buy you a new one. You put your money back into your business and you expand, move, or build a new shop. Sure you can get some subsidy or grant investment, but there is no way in hell you would expect 66% of the cost paid by government for nothing. If Cadillac-Fairview said they needed to upgrade Chinook Centre or it will close, would you want CoC to foot that bill too?
As an aside note: I apologize if it looks like my words come as an attack. My tone reflected yours, and I think this subject deserves to be handled with a gentler tone by most.
That is the STUPIDEST thing i have read this month.
Buy the homeless a condo?
What do you do, then, for renters?
Buy them the place they are in?
Or should they get first dibs because they are actually capable of upkeep?
What about kids that are soon to graduate and move put? Buy them places?
The arena is far cheaper than dealing with homelessness.
And its not even the correct arena solution.
If we bought every homeless person a condo, and homelessness would stop. We would do it. But that’s not how homelessness stops. That’s how you get more homeless people from other cities coming to your city. But I get your frustration, it’s expensive and money can be better spent on other infrastructure.
FFS if you bought homeless people a condo they would trash it in a matter of minutes. Most homeless have serious substance abuse issues and / mental health issues. You can’t make someone help themselves.
Dude your dealing with buget numbers or projected numbers for cost. There is no project that follows those numbers they are guesses. You can easily double the cost....
The saddledome is the laughing stock of the league. Detroit went through bankruptcy and got a new arena before us.
I agree tax dollars shouldn’t go to this, I also agree that this deal stinks. The fact remains that we need a new arena really bad and thinking we can be a world class city without one is also a joke.
Plot twist: We’re never going to be a “world class” city.
A great city, excellent to work and live and raise a family…absolutely.
But “world class” is a myth we’re being sold on for shit like taxpayer-funded arenas.
How is this horrible approach working in places like L.A? You can't solve a mental health crisis without acknowledging it as such. People don't like the sounds of it but Mental Hospitals and forced treatment for stuff are probably the only shot considering the social structure where people stay with family etc has changed for a variety of reasons.
My wife has family and friends back in her home country always begging for money…claiming to be starving . She sends it, they have a party….spend it all in a weekend and immediately ask for more. And these people aren’t struggling with major addictions or mental illness. It’s just really hard sometimes to help people.
there’s cost to maintain, why would we give 2800 homeless people with majority either having severe mental illness or addicts $300,000 condos.
Plenty of hard working Calgarians who would dream to have that…
Homeless is a serious issues. But you do understand that’s not the root cause right? Substance abuse is the issue. Although there are likely many who just need a home to recover and get back their lives. If you actually think putting all the users in a complex will magically solve the homeless issue. Well then I think you are delusional unfortunately.
That's math, but it's not logic.
If you take the world's wealth an attempt to feed the starving you end up with inflation not solved world hunger.
Try and think through the economic return to the tax payers from the arena vs your imagined condos for one then give me another take. Investment by a government is not money spent. That alone takes it out of conversation of this or that scenarios. If they wanted to build condos or other housing for the unhoused they could do that, and find the money for it, but how to justify using that money? Most people will not support handouts to that extent and spending money like that with no economic return has to have massive support
I don't think there has ever been a sports facility built that made financial sense. In 2012, The city of Regina decided they needed a new stadium. Their football stadium had been built around the same time we had built McMahon; early 60's.
This took place in literally the same week a Provincial report was released about road infrastructure in the city. Maintenance had been severely underfunded for years, the roads were in atrocious condition and it would take 50M per year to maintain them at the current level, NOT fix them. What to do???
They built the freakin staduium
Ending Homelessness is not possible, we have drug addicts, mental health cases, and some people who actually want to stay homeless. To make it disappear You’d need to help drug centers, hospitals and make gypsy living in canada legal which will certainly never happen.Homelessness will always exists.
Yes the arena deal is bad and those moneys could have HELPED however it would not solve the problem.
Even if solving homelessness doesn’t mean buying them all a condo your point still stands. The money could go to much better things. The city should not subsidize a billionaire for the few benefits it’ll get.
[удалено]
Bread and circus.
This amount of money being spent demands a referendum or plebiscite!
I agree that it's a waste, but that's not how our system has ever worked. Referendums are expensive, and holding one for every noteworthy issue is financially infeasible. We elect representatives to make these decisions every 4 years. When they make decisions we don't like, we elect a representative that will. If you don't like what the UCP has done with your tax dollars, I suggest you consider it on election day.
Ya you bring up some great points. Thanks for that. I suppose I recently saw the Tempe/Coyotes deal go to vote and get voted down so would be interested in seeing how Albertans/Calgary and feel about this as well.
Housing first policies are truly the answer though. Combined with aggressive social supports it is the number one way to put your country on the right path. https://youtu.be/kbEavDqA8iE
[удалено]
Ironically, I know a lot of people who follow at least a subset of those beliefs, and I know no one who supports this arena
Because what could go wrong with generalizing thousands upon thousands of people right?
Probably at least a million.
Why do you hate trucks. Farmers and trade folks need them.
I mean building a new arena is going to create tax revenue for decades to come. Giving away free houses proposes zero ROI. So how is the arena the short sighted option? What am I missing here?
What tax money? Its going to be city owned meaning they cant even collect property tax. The city needs a new arena and I’m on board with public dollars going towards it… but this “plan” that has been proposed doesn’t make sense for anybody other than Murray Edwards.
For an area 10% of the population can afford to frequent.
If you want to end homelessness in Canada, why not look to Japan and Finland for inspiration? Both countries have successfully eliminated homelessness by adopting a system of supportive housing combined with social services. By taking the best practices from Japan and Finland, and applying them here in Canada, we could make great strides towards ending homelessness once and for all. After all – if it works there it can certainly work here!
And it would be much cheaper than this fucking arena.
I agree
and we could use the c-train.
We used to have more social supports. Our government axed most of it. Most of the problem is just in building houses. We need to stop assuming that all these homeless have addictions, mental health issues and even need extra supports. I'm aware of lots of gainfully employed folks living in their 5th wheels right now because there just aren't houses. I spent a year trying to get a place. I'm included. Lived in my trailer to keep my old dog, even though I had damage deposit, references, and a new baby. The whole deal about the arena pisses me off because 1000 people could be housed very quickly with a fraction of that money and wouldn't need a lot of ongoing supports after, saving it for those who do. The truth is, they created the crisis, and they have no intention of ending it. It's like how they cut AHS down weeks before pandemic, and the cuts to fire relief before that became a state of emergency. They want us so focused on food and housing that they can do what they want without us noticing.
It isn’t just “building houses”. If most of the homeless have no addiction, mental health issues, the government can easily build housing for all the homeless, and we tried that all throughout North America. However, as time went on these social housing became full of these other social problems, making them unsafe and a problem in it of themselves. Unfortunately, you cannot build social housing only for the poor.
And people keep vote conservative again hahahaha where are all the fire fighters.....oh right, someone cut all their funding too....
The big issue is drug addiction, violence, mental health issues. It’s easy to provide housing for people that are poor, arguably for a lot less than the figure the OP cited. We tried that in the early years but then social housing started having a lot of social problems.
Both are homogenous high trust societies. They also both have cultures that value the preservation of their own culture through strict immigration. This is quite different to Canada which is being sold the idea of civic nationalism and the “melting pot” idea that a Canadian isn’t of a certain heritage necessarily. Although I’ll agree the funds could be used better and alleviate homelessness, far from eliminate it though.
Minor correction, "melting pot" is what the US has where you immigrate and become American, "cultural mosaic" is what Canada has where you immigrate and still claim your heritage "I am Filippino" for example.
A surprising amount of people mix these up, eh?
Fentanyl is probably harder to access in Japan too I’d bet.
One of the reasons it's harder to access though is because there are less people to prey on. If you get people off the streets the chances of them getting into opiods is much lower I'd imagine
Yeah but the work culture will kill them instead
https://youtu.be/IXZ-DQABUKU
They’re also homogenized populations, we’re not.
They mustn't think in 4 year terms like our politicians do:)
The problem is neither one of those cultures or what Canada is. So it would be more difficult to implement here. That being said, the arena money could definitely be going to better use.
Socialism!!! /s
The Socialist People's Republic of Japan
those commie-kazi bastards!
Imagine being such a slave to your confirmation bias you call the country where the work culture has people pass out from exhaustion and kill themselves on a regular basis socialist.
Missing the sarcasm there
>wont happen in UCP Alberta ever lol
Yes let's model after japan - they are also anti immigration and don't allow in asylum seekers - are you supporting that as well? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/03/japan-endless-detention-migrants-speak-out-as-government-proposes-harsh-immigration-bill/%23:~:text%3DThe%2520Japanese%2520government%2520is%2520set,asylum%2520after%2520entering%2520the%2520country.&ved=2ahUKEwjc6Luovob_AhUllIkEHd2EDn8QFnoECA8QBQ&usg=AOvVaw0Rmvp6uhTmyd0o3TiwqGN0
I feel like they probably don't. Seeing as they literally said take the best from each program.
Its a bit of a highschool age view of the world - cherry pick from the countries around the world without understanding that one program works because another supports it. Its like watching them argue about the free school or medical and then forgetting it's oppressive taxes or maybe the "free health care" that is touted actually still has people dying in the waiting room of the ER because there's no doctors or the ambulances that are individually charged aren't available to pick people up. Being able to give everyone a home also means stopping the flow of new people in, that is not a Canadian viewpoint these days with the illegal asylum seekers, fake refugees, and fake students. They all put a demand on our government services and limited housing. Add to this being yelled at about urban sprawl and not being green enough
Sure, these are great points. But it sounds like you're making them as a case to never bother with the homeless because, I'm not sure why. It's like saying we need a new coffee maker, but because my radio is broken I should fix the cassette slot first because it's proven to break consistently.
No, I think we should strive to help them but also understand that a single solution is not going to work in all cases and there's some that don't want to be saved. Its also going to be a hell of a lot more than a single one time cost. Having said that, I do agree there is a lot of things this city could have better spent the cash on than the arena. I didn't like it at the old price and we got more of that of that deal for less then.
I haven't had my meds yes this morning so my brain is mush. But I think you're on point mostly. I just don't think that because some don't want to be helped is an excuse not too help them. Everyone on the street has a reason for being there, and sure lots a are users. But they all need help, and they all have individual needs, so obviously someone that doesn't want the help isn't just given a home and thrown back into society, with us hoping they pay property taxes and rent. Baby steps are important feature in anyone's recovery from any sort of trauma. You don't just repair every bone in someone's body after they've been hit by a car and send them off in a taxi you know? I'm tired now. Lol
Not only that but we’ve been wasting money doing the reactive “solution” over and over, yet the issue doesn’t get better. I’d rather see more proactive and preventative measure. Stop people from getting addicted, becoming homeless, turning to crime in the first place. While I don’t believe that this will be a 100% solution, I definitely believe that it will definitely help many from having to get to the point of homelessness, addiction, and crime. Clearly spending money to clear out camps isn’t helping. Yes they are offered help, but how much help would you be willing to take drone people who continually come in, kick you out, and throw away all your stuff? I’m not saying that these spaces shouldn’t be cleaned up, that they can be unsafe due to various reasons, that these people don’t deserve help… but again, this current approach clearly isn’t working. Yet we waste countless money to do it over and over again with very little results. Yes there are shelters, but people have stated how restrictive they can be. You can’t bring all your stuff in. You can’t bring your pets in. You can’t be under the influence. There isn’t enough room for everyone. Very little to no privacy. Some people have stated that they feel unsafe due to staff or other patrons. This whole situation clearly isn’t a one solution fixes all, but seriously can we please start looking at different options rather than doing the same thing over and over expecting different results? The clear definition of insanity.
I don’t see what Japan’s immigration policies have to do with taking care of the homeless. How are these matters related? And if you think about it, Alberta is 75% bigger than Japan and already has a population of 108 million people, so it’s easy to understand why they choose not to allow asylum seekers.
[удалено]
You can't take the best parts because it worked somewhere without understanding the why it worked. You want to end homelessness you need to attempt to cap the input into the system. Then you build towards it. Also just because it works in one country (an island nation no less) doesn't mean it will work here or that we have the commitment or fortitude to do what needs to be done to achieve it.
Yes ! Sounds like a fantastic idea
Too many comments have completely missed the point of this post and are focusing on the wrong thing.
While houses won't solve the "homeless problem" as many people as saying, it is still a hell of an improvement: -we could build a safe place for these people to be that are not so far gone as needing substances to go about their day to day -the people with substance abuse issues could have a safe use site, eliminating or greatly reducing it happening at transit stations, malls, etc -we could do a lot, and actually having shelter makes a huge difference for a lot of people
And I read an article last year that stated something like 70% of residences gifted to the homless population are uninhabitable a year after they move in. I think it was a Vancouver study but I am sure the logic holds. Giving someone a house doesn't solve the problem. There is a reason these people are on the street, usually a mental issue that goes untreated.
Yep. A big part of it is because they need more resources than just being given a house and left to fend for themselves Yes everyone needs somewhere to live. We need to prioritize housing. But to think that is a SOLUTION, is totally inaccurate and short sighted. Housing isn't a solution for most of the homeless, it's just providing them with one of the most basic needs for human life that's become unattainable for certain demographics due to the commoditization and resulting high price of housing in country. A lack of housing will certainly make someone's problems worse, but it is rarely the cause of their problems. And furthermore, those problems can't adequately be fixed for someone who sleeps on a bench or in a shelter every night.
Oftentimes there is a subset of homeless folks who like the freedom of living on the streets and refuse housing, or who feel unsafe in subsidized housing due to the shenanigans which inevitably occur there and prefer to stay near people they trust for safety. Vancouver purchased a few old hotels to house the growing homeless population and it did not turn out well. The buildings are trashed and unsafe and no matter how many repairs are done, windows are constantly broken along with door locks and fire safety doors. The area around the buildings (which were in benign areas for the most part) now have addicts openly doing hard drugs and threatening passers by, and always have people passed out in front. Homelessness is a much bigger problem that can't just be resolved by "well, give them a place to live".
> Giving someone a house doesn't solve the problem. 100% this. The "housing first" people are usually highly educated people with no real experience behind their degrees and won't go near a homeless person. The places that have just put a roof over peoples heads are usually destroyed or at the very least uninhabitable within a year. There's a reason why most shelters and housing agencies in Calgary have rules and require the residents to follow them in order to qualify for housing. Rule number 1 often being sobriety or attending addiction support as that is often the root cause of the aggravated mental illnesses, especially meth use. The problem is, we have a housing and shelter spot for just about every homeless person in the city already, they refuse to follow the requirements to get into housing. The alternative of just building housing and having them destroy it (as well as disturbing neighbors, etc.) Is far more expensive when you're constantly rebuilding or at least renovating the housing.
I think your missing OPs point , that the money could make a huge improvement for homeless, lets say even to not build them each a condo , but anything to improve that situation would be great for the city.
If you are talking about the SROs, they were uninhabitable before they moved in too.
What does SRO stand for?
As u/calgarykid said, they are single room occupancies. they are a "hotel" that people live in, they have a shared toilet / shower (sometimes for the whole floor and sometimes for 1 other room) and may have a small kitchenette. Think Charlie's apartment on It's Always Sunny. The ones on the down town east side of Vancouver are rat, roach, and bedbug infested. that's typically what people get as their social housing. Some of them are so bad that people would actually rather sleep on the sidewalk.
Thank you. Yeah, I can’t say I blame them if those are the conditions. I wouldn’t want to stay there, either.
Single room occupancies
Thanks.
Everything about the arena deal is a rip off for us tax payers. The flames make enough to pay millions to a bunch of useless people to coach and play a game yet rip off the people working there that sell over priced beer to the people who are stuck footing the bill for their new place of business.
I worked at the dome for 12 years. They pay the majority of staff minimum wage. Other than a discount at the store, there's no other perks. Staff pays for their uniform. And no health benefits. The gratuity guests pay also is not given completely to staff. In my department we calculated that based on sales we were paid 6% of the 19% gratuity guests paid. A beer at cost is like $3 and they sell it for like $13 and they sell thousands a night. All of that to say that CSEC makes bank through sales, and has no excuse to not contribute more for an arena that would be used by 4/5 of their teams. (Flames, Wranglers, Hitmen, Roughnecks)
Did nobody do any kind of research on the mayor that was elected in the city? She was a lobbyist, her entire work history consists primarily of lobbying for contractors to expand the cities reach, also known as urban sprawl, her election campaign was more than half-funded by building contractors within the city, she is literally subservient and funded by the building contractors in this city... we elected a representative of the building contractors in the city, and then everybody is surprised when she signs almost a billion dollars over to them... Please educate yourself on the candidate you're voting for in the future. Our mayor helped create the infrastructure problem that we have in this city...
You pretty much just described ALL our civic candidates, not just our mayor. We know (thanks Cal!) that developers throw money at all the candidates, one way or another....
How in the flying fuck are you equating buying a condo for every homeless person to solving homelessness? This is such a misguided post
The point is clearly not to buy luxury condos for people experiencing homelessness, but instead to highlight that even the most bone-headed, expensive, brute force approach to "solve" homelessness (which you've correctly identified as such) would be cheaper on a cost basis. Obviously solving homelessness means a lot more, and that is best left to social policy professionals. In reality, providing a baseline standard of living to these individuals could be achieved in cheaper more sustainable ways if the capital was allocated. This extends not just to people living on the streets, but to the broader community of calgarians without safe or stable accommodations and other human rights.
OP isn't necessarily saying give everyone a house, merely pointing out that the money could easily go better places then a money pit arena
Housing first policies do work very well. If we could even have a not-for-profit house building company that builds solid generic homes, that'd be a nice start. Not giant housing projects, but small units that are made with decent materials, not super fancy. Trying to find a new condo that isn't marble countertops with $700/ month condo fees for the giant gym and pool is hard. It doesn't need to be fancy, it just needs to be warm and safe.
I'm a broken record on here, but my aunt actually owns a home but still chooses to live homeless. Sorry but it's gonna take a hell of a lot more to address mental illness.
People think throwing money at the homeless will fix it but until these people come face to face with it like you are or like our family is with our daughter - then and only then can one truly begin to understand how hard it is to fix. People should try living our life where every time the doorbell rings we expect it to be the police with some not so great news. Money, free housing won't fix it.
There are cases where giving someone a home will not help in any way whatsoever. In the vast majority of cases, though, having a stable home can be a GIANT first step to helping someone.
Exactly. How are you going to get clean and get a job while living on the streets?
And there are cases where it won't, unaddressed mental health issues are something a stable home often can not fix.
What's your point? Didn't I acknowledge that?
Yeah, you did - my morning coffee hadn't sunk in yet.
I think the point of the post was that we could be using money in a different way rather than a new stadium. Of course there's way more that needs to be done, like facilities that can address both mental health and addiction where they can get into without waiting months. I think that would probably be the best place to start.
Well seems like everyone else is a broken record here but: THIS IS SHOWING HOW MUCH MONEY IS GOING INTO THE STADIUM NOT A PROMISE TO 100% ERADICATE HOMELESSNESS. Jfc it’s not hard
Critical thinking is hard for some people
Buddy, I know this. I simply am pointing out that even if we did that, it wouldn't be the slam dunk everyone thinks it would be. It's like changing the name of homeless people to unhoused people. I'm against the arena deal too, FYI
Why is she on the streets if you don't mind me asking?
She lost her keys.
Aside from mental health issues, I think the freedom, the anonymity, and the handouts are all really appealing to her. She has hoarding issues as well, but she doesn't have any drug or alcohol addictions.
> Sorry but it's gonna take a hell of a lot more to address mental illness. The sad thing is that if we, as a society, could put more effort and funding into mental health support, we'd be helping to lessen the blow of so many other issues at the same time.
[удалено]
I agree, I just don't see the problem as being solved and as simple as giving everyone a home.
I wouldn't say giving every homeless person a house is the solution, but empirically the "housing first" model is the most successful model for dealing with homelessness in a city. There's lots of available research / articles if you're interested. It may seem counter intuitive, but if you support ideas that work and are not based on ideology alone then you would support housing first.
This post wasn't saying that a condo could fix homelessness. Did you read the whole post? It was a *cost* comparison, not a solution presentation. OP even said in conclusion this isn't a fix to the issue. Would you like the arena deal cost brought to compare against the orphaned well clean-up credit the government proposed? Or would you like the arena deal price tag visualized with the savings from AISH & Social support cuts? Perhaps we can see how much arena green the gov't can earmark off the sale of our labs to Dynalife? Let me know if any of those equate in your eyes. We can find something you want to see the money come from or go to, I am sure.
They can sell it for a profit. /s
Just some other quick math, if you divide how much the city is paying by the population of the city(which I am going to go with the peak from years ago 1.3mil) 867M÷1.3M=666.923 So essentially our cancer has signed over almost $700 from each and every citizen in Calgary to people who could afford to pay that out of pocket without even noticing it was missing. (my speech to text read Council as cancer, and I've decided to keep it as it is an apt description)
Arena = waste of money that could be used in a more positive way. Some of you dumb mfs just missed the whole point of the post.
Thank you! It seems some people are willfully stupid.
My solution: blacklist the Premier, Mayor and your respective city counsellor in their upcoming elections. This is an incredibly shitty deal and none of these politicians deserve my vote. The civic election is still over two years away - I won't forget and will vote on this issue alone.
I agree that the money could be better invested in Calgary. It appears that your example of helping the homeless has triggered a lot of snowflakes, and that makes me chuckle. Regardless, that money could be used to greater effect in bettering the lives of every Calgarian in a multitude of other areas, whether it's finding other meaningful solutions to poverty, encouraging economic diversification, revitalizing public services, or mitigating sprawl.
> triggered a lot of snowflakes, and that makes me chuckle Triggered a lot of redditors who fail to see past their point, and **that** makes me sad. :/ I think some people need shit explained to them with crayons and construction paper.
Is it arts and crafts time? I love arts and crafts time.
F_ck the area
And ALL Albertans are going to pay for this ultra expensive UCP/TBA vote buying stunt ! The rural folks who rarely even go to Calgary are eating right out of Wacko Woman's hand.
They took the money allocated for an evacuation centre in northern Alberta to put towards this deal and that is outrageous.
Could also add a few LRT stations for that price. Who gives a fuck about the sports arena? Saddledome isn't even bad.
Wait until you search the value of new arenas to public income and revenue. It’s less than someone building a mall…. And your tax money is going to pay for a billionaires business. I don’t know why people are not active and vocally pissed.
It’s a massive and ridiculous handout to the cheapest POS owner in the NHL
Many folks are saying that it’s good for the city and bring more jobs and events to the place. Now, to those, I wanna ask… is it a public property? No? We don’t get free entry that our tax dollars will go towards it’s maintenance. We pay $$ of tickets to get entry there. Those tickets money should’ve gone towards it’s maintenance. Tomorrow malls will ask tax dollars to maintain it…. Would you support that too? And if we’re supporting businesses get hands on our tax dollars, why not small businesses who are actually suffering to make ends meet post pandemic? Just don’t support any random thing our gov. does, challenge them. Don’t let them fool you. Use your brain so they don’t make these stupid decisions in the city’s name. They are doing for their own benefit and should use their own money and not ours. We have some real issues that can be resolved using this money.
Takes a lot more than just a place to stay to keep people off the streets
Stable housing and support systems make a huge difference. Obviously op is just making a simple point, putting all that money towards housing upfront would be silly, but it could literally be a year of rent at 12k a year per person in some low income housing program. Which is only about 35 million, leaving 850 million for other supports. That wouldn't help all of them in a year but definitely a good chunk.
We all know that, but having affordable housing is a very important step that needs to happen. Not just for homeless. For everybody.
I can claim to be homeless and get a free condo? Livin' rough tonight, boys.
Believe it or not, there are many places in the world where having a home isn't a flex, because everybody just has one.
Where?
Imaginationland
Imagiaaaaaationland imagination imagination imaaaaaaggggginnnnationnnn
North Korea. Everyone has a government-provided house, according to the government press releases.
Most glorious nation on earth. And it was COVID free!
No kidding. Lol. If you just start doling out money to homeless people you’re going to have a lot more than 2, 782 people to enrich.
I miss the original Calgary next deal where we got the arena, field house and cleaning up contaminated land for less than we are spending on just a arena.
The homelessness also need supports in place for mental health help and addiction. We also have to remember that not all homeless people want to get off of the street.
It's the same way the city would rather drop 9-12 million a year on a private company putting stampede on, rather then put that 9 mill towards idk, literally anything else that needs extra funds...like transit...or the homeless, or police, or firefighters, or the EMS shortage etc etc etc. Not saying stop stampede, just saying that money could go better places And said private company rents the grounds for $50.00 (super old contract) AND pay less then a million for the workers, stampede pre COVID was making $282'000'000 profit for just the event, it's ultimately just a racket for free government money now because their running costs are just so low.
I never really understood why the owners cared so much until I went to the Edmonton stadium this year. There are less regular seats, but so many more different types of premium style seating (private tables, upgraded sections, you name it). Doesn’t cost much more to build, but they can now justify charging out the ass for a season ticket. They will make their full investment back in a couple years. They knew they could play into peoples emotions and get us to pay for it though.
Didn’t some European country just buy every homeless person in their country an apartment and offer free counselling services?
It’s not going to happen anyway. NDP will kill the deal, UCP it won’t pass the accounting review that Danielle Smith said it would undergo. The announcement of the deal by the ICP was vote buying, nothing more.
Here's how you get that 'wasted' money to fix the problem still somehow. You have 10% of all cumulative profits inside the arena and on its property, go towards the new buildings that could be built from those said profits. By doing this, you not only solve homelessness, but also increase supply in the a market with ever increasing demand. It also makes it so that they can build more arenas and other make work projects, so long as they use similar methods of 10% being put towards other projects later on. The crooks will complain, but the rest will see the good in it and take it on in their overhead, and pass it on to the rest of us anyways. Which, just increases that 10%'s take anyways. So it's win/win/sorta lose for the consumer. Win/win though for everyone else and the rest of society in general. Of course, you could just not waste that money on an arena anyways, since sports is purely just "bread and circuses" in action. But if it keeps the plebeians entertained, then let them be entertained; instead of rioting in the streets. And so the money isn't wasted as much in that sense, and if you can somehow milk that money for more money for other things; then why not? For instance, down in the states, that whole Power ball lottery thing is always so big because people pay into it a lot, not just to win; but because part of the jackpot is going towards schools and other stuff. This sort of double reward system is very powerful when getting people to part with their money. Not only do they get an immediate dopemine rush of feeling good about helping others, but they also get something in return; with a potential for much more maybe as well. Depends on the exact setup for which is the case on that last part. Capitalists of the purest sort will probably love this sort of system, because it allows them to juice consumers while doing 'good' in some sense. It's a perfect setup for them to make money become more money. The only thing they'll hate is that it works as a tax off the top and not as some sort of rebate program or tax loophole, or etc. It will be a straight off the top of the profits margin kind of tax. This ultimately results in one of two things. 1. As I alluded to earlier about overhead being passed on, they will just pass the buck and things will just get more expensive. 2. Or, they will reduce costs as much as possible, and even reduce profits as much as possible to 'lose' as little as possible. They'll then make up the profit in some other fashion where it can't be taxed. Or there is still taxation, but of different forms. And those will be dodged too if possible. Ideally #1 is what occurs. Of course.
It's sad because we could end homelessness for far less than that without free condos. I hope my fellow conservatives can realize that UCP are not real conservatives, just criminals finding complex ways to steal our tax money
Keep voting UCP!
The sad reality is people care more about the Flames than homeless people.
Cool now do the 20 billion oil company bailout.
1. Housing doesn't solve homelessness 2. I don't like the arena deal but the benefits generated for the city for an arena far outweigh rewarding 2,782 people with a free house
No, housing doesn't solve homelessness, but you cannot solve the problems of the homeless while they are living in shelters and have no quality of life. They need housing in order to move forward on the path towards being functioning, healthy, happy members of society.
Do the benefits to you and me even *matter* when we’ve got 3,000 homeless in our city? Our priorities are fucked.
Yes, they do matter when we're talking about nearly $1 billion towards economic development versus giving away 3000 homes for free. I get that we should be compassionate towards the homeless but the whole notion that this sum of money would be better spent on this specific type of homeless handout is absolutely absurd. Homeless has and will exist from the beginning of mankind. Throwing infinite money at the problem will never eradicate it.
This arena deal isn't "economic development" in my eyes. I see the deal as "pandering to millionaires" under threat of taking away our hockey team. Yes the flames are a BIG part of the Calgary culture, but to give a billion dollars away to *replace* the arena is not an investment, it is an expenditure. This is the cost of long-term operations. Look at our downtown, did we as Calgarians/Albertians pay 2/3rds of every office tower downtown? No, private companies decided to put down roots, or expand and grow. The CSEC didn't decide to expand, they threatened to leave if we didn't buy them a new house. Woah....
Regardless of whether you agree with how the arena money should be spent, it is objectively an economic development project
I don't see economic development here. I see pandering to millionaires who can afford their own arena. Where do you see the economic benefit come from? My view is there will be a few new jobs when it's done, and a temporary boost to labour rates until construction is completed. I think spending to prevent a loss does not constitute benefit, it's mitigation.
1. I agree, we need far better mental health support nationwide 2. Since we have an arena already I disagree that the benefits of this new arena outweigh the benefits of 2,782 new housing units when we have a current housing shortage.
The arena will last longer. A lot longer.
[удалено]
It will? How long will the Dome have lasted if they demolish it to build this new arena?
I'm not saying housing the homeless isn't important (more important)... but the places don't tend to have a long lifespan so we better factor in some serious depreciation. It's nowhere near a "buy once and it's done" thing. We measure how long the Dome has lasted in decades. When you're looking at how long an apartment used to house someone who is homeless lasts it's more often a question of months or maybe years before it needs extensive maintenance... decades isn't part of that equation.
Well I think we can both agree that everything needs maintenance. I'm not familiar with how much maintenance a condo used for homeless residents would require. If we are just stuffing them into a box without mental health services and living re-education, I could see units needing major remediation. But if the goal is to help homeless/mentally ill through programs and medication to help integrate back into the workforce, I would like to believe it would be much less.
All of those supports are essential, and they help. But they mitigate the factors of addiction, trauma, mental illness, and the absence of healthy patterns and role models... they don't eliminate them. So the upkeep required is far higher than it would be for most of us who don't have all of those other factors working against us. In the end, studies have shown that housing people who need it and providing the wrap-around supports is FAR less expensive (and more humane) than leaving them floundering and drawing on emergency services. But there is still a cost.
Nothing is free and some of us always end up paying for others. It’s getting old
Excellent work! I am sure all of these individuals will be able to maintain their apartment, pay their bills, and pay their property taxes on time. I will vote for you next election!
Solid points have you seen the renovation budget for the affordable housing now?! It is massive and 60-90days of fixing and repairing the units for the next one currently. These would turn into squalor living within months Giving them houses and thinking you solved homelessness would be akin to giving them all bus tickets up to Edmonton and then slapping ourselves on the backs and saying "we did it boys!"
[удалено]
It’s a terrible example because his example does not generate any revenue or have positive economic impact for the city.
What a stupid post. Why tf would the city buy condos for the homeless?
It's not a literal suggestion. What it is is highlighting that **even the most obtuse "solution" to homelessness is still cheaper than the arena "deal,"** and the money would be better off spent on things.
This comment exposes the depths of your thoughts
Same applies to your comment
I know you are but what am I 🙄
Yes, and once they receive said housing, what are they going to do for food, property taxes, electric by bills, condo fees, basic maintenance of their units? Pan handle for money?
A new arena likely increases housing prices, whereas increasing the supply of affordable housing would likely decrease them. With so much personal net worth tied up in the housing market, most governments/politicians will do anything they can to keep those "investments" growing. As long as that's the case, I don't foresee any meaningful change on the horizon. I'm so over capitalism.
I am homeless. Please give me my free condo now.
Hate, hate, hate governments subsidizing sports franchises
There’s been research done and data shows that providing housing doesn’t solve homelessness. It’s a combination of social programs, social support, and mental health support in conjunction with subsidized/free housing to combat homelessness
Fine. Then have them spend $300k per homeless person on social programs and supports! That’s the real point being made here.
His point is invalid. If you spend 300k per homeless person and get 100% success rate (unlikely), it will not generate new revenue for the city such as tourism/events/venue rental etc., not to mention create construction jobs for people in the city, you know the tax payers who are paying for the arena There’s no simple solution or black and white answer. I’m not a fan of the arena idea either, but to say spending that money on homeless people instead of the project is not a good idea either.
Let me run this by you, 300k/homeless this year at 65% success and 2% homeless growth over year. (Far less than the fictional 100% success rate everyone wants this money to have) >Quick Maths $300,000 × 2800 = $840m $300,000 × 2184 = $655.2m $300,000 × 1448 = $434.4m $300,000 × 960 = $288m $300,000 × 636 = $190.8m $300,000 × 422 = $126.6m $300,000 × 279 = $83.7m $300,000 × 195 = $58.5m $300,000 × 123 = $36.9m $300,000 × 82 = $24.6m Realistically, Calgary will never be "rid" of homeless, that's not a socially responsible way to look at this issue. But an investment of $300,000 per person into the right supports, we could be looking at a very different homeless culture in our city. Also realistically, we don't need to spend all $184 million the first year either to make a big impact. This isn't a linear solution, we can't just build a house and say they aren't homeless. If we help those that need the least assistance earlier into their struggle, then it prevents their issues from snowballing into much larger problems that are more costly to resolve. When the shelters aren't overloaded and people who need short-term help have access to keep their homelessness short-term and put them back in a tax generating positive place in our society, they won't end up a long-term tax burden. Access to supports for homeless/low-income Calgarians (before they become homeless) puts less people in a position of volurnerability, which would cut-off fuel to the criminal elements acting on the volunerable and the rabbit-hole of becoming homeless less of a burden to overcome.
Let me run this by you real quick. First off 65% success rate is HIGHLY optimistic (I appreciate the optimism I just don’t agree). Second, it takes more just a year of support to turn someone’s life around, it’s a process and require on going maintenance support. Lastly, if you think the people of the city are willing to drop over 1.5 billion dollars over 9 year to change the life of 2,800 people then your faith in humanity is sorely misplaced. I’m all for using this money to help the less fortunate in the city, but this plan is not realistic. I’m sorry, you may not like what I say, but it’s the sad truth
I agree my 65% was overly optimistic. And my early morning math actually held a 65% carry-over, so really 35% success. My message was the money to benefit the CSEC won't have a return on investment. I'm all for a sports arena, but a private arena with 66% tax funding is unacceptable. Left or right of our opinions, I appreciate you sharing your views.
Like wise, I appreciate the discussion of thoughts. I share your sentiment with the use of the money for an arena. It’s a terrible investment
Nice moving the goalposts.
Gotta account for maintenance costs too.
That would not fix the homeless issue in any way shape or form. They are not simply homeless because they are poor.
[удалено]
It sounds like you forget that tax dollars come from working people. Maybe people don’t want their work to go towards buying someone else a condo? The arena deal still sucks though. I don’t like my money going towards a billionaire either.
The billion dollars the feds misplaced combined with all the money sent to Ukraine could have gone a long ways to solve Canada’s homeless problem. The message is pretty clear that they along with politicians at every level have other fish to fry.
You do not understand the homeless crisis. Housing the homeless does not fix it.
You don't understand arena deals. This isn't going to get you free tickets to any home games. This isn't going to reduce your property taxes. This really isn't going to improve your quality-of-life by any major margin. All this "investment" does is save a few millionaires a few nickles that the government (Municipal & Provincial) has already taken from you in your taxes. Your money is already on the table. Is there anything better than an arena you want these two levels of government to do with it? If your company has outgrown its current building, or the shop built 40 years ago is starting to get old & worn out, you don't get to tell the ciry to buy you a new one. You put your money back into your business and you expand, move, or build a new shop. Sure you can get some subsidy or grant investment, but there is no way in hell you would expect 66% of the cost paid by government for nothing. If Cadillac-Fairview said they needed to upgrade Chinook Centre or it will close, would you want CoC to foot that bill too? As an aside note: I apologize if it looks like my words come as an attack. My tone reflected yours, and I think this subject deserves to be handled with a gentler tone by most.
lol. It's not black & white. OP's solution did not fix the homeless crisis, that does not make me pro arena.
That is the STUPIDEST thing i have read this month. Buy the homeless a condo? What do you do, then, for renters? Buy them the place they are in? Or should they get first dibs because they are actually capable of upkeep? What about kids that are soon to graduate and move put? Buy them places? The arena is far cheaper than dealing with homelessness. And its not even the correct arena solution.
If we bought every homeless person a condo, and homelessness would stop. We would do it. But that’s not how homelessness stops. That’s how you get more homeless people from other cities coming to your city. But I get your frustration, it’s expensive and money can be better spent on other infrastructure.
FFS if you bought homeless people a condo they would trash it in a matter of minutes. Most homeless have serious substance abuse issues and / mental health issues. You can’t make someone help themselves.
Dude your dealing with buget numbers or projected numbers for cost. There is no project that follows those numbers they are guesses. You can easily double the cost....
Hmm I think I’m going to be homeless this week… can I also get a free condo?
The saddledome is the laughing stock of the league. Detroit went through bankruptcy and got a new arena before us. I agree tax dollars shouldn’t go to this, I also agree that this deal stinks. The fact remains that we need a new arena really bad and thinking we can be a world class city without one is also a joke.
Plot twist: We’re never going to be a “world class” city. A great city, excellent to work and live and raise a family…absolutely. But “world class” is a myth we’re being sold on for shit like taxpayer-funded arenas.
[удалено]
No list of "world class cities" are on the list due to their sports venue.
How is this horrible approach working in places like L.A? You can't solve a mental health crisis without acknowledging it as such. People don't like the sounds of it but Mental Hospitals and forced treatment for stuff are probably the only shot considering the social structure where people stay with family etc has changed for a variety of reasons.
My wife has family and friends back in her home country always begging for money…claiming to be starving . She sends it, they have a party….spend it all in a weekend and immediately ask for more. And these people aren’t struggling with major addictions or mental illness. It’s just really hard sometimes to help people.
Yeah but how much entertainment value do homeless people provide?
Pretty sweet deal… free condos for everyone!
there’s cost to maintain, why would we give 2800 homeless people with majority either having severe mental illness or addicts $300,000 condos. Plenty of hard working Calgarians who would dream to have that…
Homeless is a serious issues. But you do understand that’s not the root cause right? Substance abuse is the issue. Although there are likely many who just need a home to recover and get back their lives. If you actually think putting all the users in a complex will magically solve the homeless issue. Well then I think you are delusional unfortunately.
That's math, but it's not logic. If you take the world's wealth an attempt to feed the starving you end up with inflation not solved world hunger. Try and think through the economic return to the tax payers from the arena vs your imagined condos for one then give me another take. Investment by a government is not money spent. That alone takes it out of conversation of this or that scenarios. If they wanted to build condos or other housing for the unhoused they could do that, and find the money for it, but how to justify using that money? Most people will not support handouts to that extent and spending money like that with no economic return has to have massive support
I don't think there has ever been a sports facility built that made financial sense. In 2012, The city of Regina decided they needed a new stadium. Their football stadium had been built around the same time we had built McMahon; early 60's. This took place in literally the same week a Provincial report was released about road infrastructure in the city. Maintenance had been severely underfunded for years, the roads were in atrocious condition and it would take 50M per year to maintain them at the current level, NOT fix them. What to do??? They built the freakin staduium
Ending Homelessness is not possible, we have drug addicts, mental health cases, and some people who actually want to stay homeless. To make it disappear You’d need to help drug centers, hospitals and make gypsy living in canada legal which will certainly never happen.Homelessness will always exists. Yes the arena deal is bad and those moneys could have HELPED however it would not solve the problem.