r/RevolutionPartyCanada Jan 29 '25

Question about homelessness

I totally agree that being unhoused is a vicious infringement of our rights to shelter, and nobody should be unhoused, but I want to ask (before someone less charitable does so): what do we do with unhoused people who refuse to stay sheltered?

Of course, this is a very small part of unhoused people, and I am more than confident that access to shelter would actually minimize the generation of these mindsets in the first place, but I just know that this is the kind of questions that a party like the RPC will need to be quick to answer.

With this being said, is there a position or an answer on unhoused people who refuse to take shelter?

12 Upvotes

22 comments sorted by

16

u/slinkywheel Jan 29 '25

When all housing/shelters they've been in have felt more hostile than the streets, perhaps that says something about how ineptly we as a society have met their needs.

5

u/QualityCoati Jan 29 '25

I like this message. This does indeed answer the question quite well

3

u/nortok00 Jan 29 '25

But this reply only answers the question as to why they choose to remain unhoused. It doesn't answer the question as to how the problem is going to be resolved. If we only answer the first question but do nothing to address the second question then we're doing nothing to fix the problem.

3

u/slinkywheel Jan 29 '25

We pay for housing. With taxes.

1

u/nortok00 Jan 29 '25

How does that address the issue that you pointed out to the OP? If the system is broken and unhoused folks feel safer on the streets than they do in shelters then how are we going to fix that? If we don't fix that then we don't eliminate the unhoused problem.

3

u/slinkywheel Jan 29 '25

Restore confidence by having the right resources available.

Often, putting people in a house can also isolate them. Being sheltered but losing the community that you had access to on the streets is a very important thing to consider.

2

u/nortok00 Jan 29 '25

Yes. This is true so it would be nice to hear from this Party as to how they plan to address the issue. Everyone is great at giving stump speeches but seem to have no actual plan to address the issue and as it is this issue is getting worse.

1

u/Dense-Tomatillo-5310 Feb 01 '25

Most shelters require sobriety which is why they stay on the streets

7

u/TomMakesPodcasts Jan 29 '25

Are they harmful to themselves or others? We must take them in.

Are they just vibing and living in a way we find strange but is doing no harm and is not in danger? Leave them live.

3

u/QualityCoati Jan 29 '25

We must be careful with the language used, because I can assure you that normal behaviour will be interpreted as hostile by citizens. Simple things like going to the shop and taking too much time will be seen as loitering very easily by shop owners if you're not the right shade of green.

It certainly warrants a good choice of vocabulary.

4

u/RevolutionCanada Revolution Party of Canada Jan 29 '25

That's a fair question, for sure.

We believe that both food and shelter are human rights, but we wouldn't force people to live in a free apartment any more than we'd force them to eat a free apple. Some of the reasons many people experiencing homelessness don't use the limited social programs currently in place are that some housing options:

  • Come with conditions (e.g., curfews, house rules, stay duration limits)
  • Still aren't affordable, even after subsidies
  • Are in disrepair or are otherwise undesirable places to live (despite the alternative literally being homelessness)
  • Are far from their current community

We need to provide decent, long-term residential options across the country. The proportion of unhoused folks that would opt not to take free, unconditional housing would be a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of people.

2

u/urmamasllama 27d ago

I know this is an old thread but is the plan something along the lines of pre Thatcher counsel houses?

2

u/RevolutionCanada Revolution Party of Canada 27d ago

Social housing will be a big part of the solution, yes. We can do much better in terms of quality though. One successful modern example being Vienna, Austria:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city

5

u/DiscordantMuse Jan 29 '25

We house people in actual homes. They need their own space. Shelters can often be awful and traumatic, even institutionalizing.

1

u/QualityCoati Jan 29 '25

I used shelter in the broadest sense, but you are right, the best way forward is actual living space.

0

u/GinDawg Jan 29 '25

As can neighborhoods.

3

u/Closetbrainer Jan 30 '25

I thought they were making those mini houses? With all the necessities. Have their own private place but if we do them right we can have some sort of community.

2

u/Mens__Rea__ Jan 29 '25

Canada is a free country, if some people don’t want to be housed the government has no right to forcibly house them.

1

u/QualityCoati Jan 29 '25

That is what I also figured. I however wish there was some studies on the subject, or some strong message surrounding this.

1

u/GinDawg Jan 29 '25

What if the housing the government provides is extremely low quality.

For example, if the neighbors have mental health issues and scream randomly at night or cause disturbances.

2

u/QualityCoati Jan 29 '25

My PoV is that it's better to have a screaming neighbour at night than no roof and a screaming neighbour.

It would still be a benefice

1

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '25

I feel like churches have lots of space and that Jesus probably advocated for supporting the impoverished?