The issue is that tent cities in public parks or what have you is not a solution to the homeless problem or the housing problem. And is also politically quite unpopular.
And all the stuff that is a solution is long-term and often against many of the interests of current residents.
By “against many of the interests” I presume that you mean that solutions require money (I.e., tax dollars) and rarely involves running people out of town?
No. I mean the solution to the housing problem is in large part more housing. Often at the expense of the current homeowners.
I mean shit, fundamentally if you are trying to bring down housing prices you are lowering the value of almost every homeowner's most valuable asset. It's tautological.
This is unsurprisingly frequently unpopular for very straightforward and logical reasons.
They clear out local tent encampments here too, not always fast enough though. Had a few catch fire over the summer. Plus you wind up with sharps everywhere. Instead they're renting hotel rooms for folks, since there's laundry and stuff onsite. They typically have to check in with a case worker each day as the participants have addictions/mental health issues that resulted in their homelessness.
They were doing the hotel thing here until a bunch of them evicted all the tenants overnight because "we're booked solid for the rest of the fall."
I used to live near that hotel and I've been in touch with the residents - it's really bad. Neighbors are forming groups to go out to walk dogs to have safety in numbers. I'm not sure what a better alternative is, though...
SUPPORT SERVICES!!!!!
Sorry, but you can't just shove people in housing without them.
There's a nice old building around the corner that a local tech company moved out of. They let some small local social support type agencies move in and after a few weeks the neighbours are saying it's a bicycle chop shop and there are sharps everywhere. Driving by, I can see the site is littered with trash. You absolutely have to keep on top of that shit or it all goes sideways.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Oof, it's getting serious up here. Starting tonight, there's a two week ban on having visitors in your household (A handful of exceptions, including single member households can bubble with one other household).
I have a feeling it's not going to be enforced that hard with thanksgiving weekend coming up, but they've already restricted non-essential businesses and outdoor gatherings.
Meanwhile our southern neighbours are a dumpster fire...
Blocks or neighbourhoods of affordable housing are not a good solution. Obviously they solve the immediate problem (lack of affordable housing) but at the cost of creating pockets of low-income populations. These pockets will in turn devalue the neighbourhoods around them, causing more affluent citizens, businesses and services to move away. The low value will in turn attract more low-income citizens and projects. And before you know it you have a ghetto, with all the social problems and prejudices that entails.
Also, low-income housing is, by definition, a project that brings in a low revenue and low taxes, so good luck getting developers and city council excited for it.
A better solution is mixed-used housing, developments that include low-income units and regular units, which can be simply achieved by requiring developers to include them in all new projects. These mitigate or solve the issues I mentioned. But I'm sure there are other problems I don't know about with that solution, because reality's a bitch.
Blocks or neighbourhoods of affordable housing are not a good solution. Obviously they solve the immediate problem (lack of affordable housing) but at the cost of creating pockets of low-income populations. These pockets will in turn devalue the neighbourhoods around them, causing more affluent citizens, businesses and services to move away. The low value will in turn attract more low-income citizens and projects. And before you know it you have a ghetto, with all the social problems and prejudices that entails.
Also, low-income housing is, by definition, a project that brings in a low revenue and low taxes, so good luck getting developers and city council excited for it.
A better solution is mixed-used housing, developments that include low-income units and regular units, which can be simply achieved by requiring developers to include them in all new projects. These mitigate or solve the issues I mentioned. But I'm sure there are other problems I don't know about with that solution, because reality's a bitch.
Yes, taxes are lower per capita on low income areas, but density and efficiency can have huge benefits.
One of the perverse things about modern North American cities is that low income areas can actually end up subsidizing high income areas. Suburbs are enormously inefficient. The low density nature of suburbs mean that you need significantly more kilometres of roads, pipes, and power lines to support suburban homes. Their kids need to bus further and you need to spend more on emergency services. Suburbs are rarely taxed at a rate to make them sustainable. The shortfall gets made up for in the denser, poorer neighbourhoods; not only do they tend to produce more tax revenue per square kilometre, they have less tax revenue spent on them.
And that’s not even getting into how suburbs are a notable thing driving climate change.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Blocks or neighbourhoods of affordable housing are not a good solution. Obviously they solve the immediate problem (lack of affordable housing) but at the cost of creating pockets of low-income populations. These pockets will in turn devalue the neighbourhoods around them, causing more affluent citizens, businesses and services to move away. The low value will in turn attract more low-income citizens and projects. And before you know it you have a ghetto, with all the social problems and prejudices that entails.
Also, low-income housing is, by definition, a project that brings in a low revenue and low taxes, so good luck getting developers and city council excited for it.
A better solution is mixed-used housing, developments that include low-income units and regular units, which can be simply achieved by requiring developers to include them in all new projects. These mitigate or solve the issues I mentioned. But I'm sure there are other problems I don't know about with that solution, because reality's a bitch.
We have a lot of mix-use housing in Fredericton and it doesn't work because it only addresses one element of the crisis - and you still have those same complaints between neighbours. It's not just about poor Vs affluent. There are immigration considerations, generational considerations, etc etc.
I see this as being a far superior solution to what is out there today. Studies show that secure housing is the #1 successful element in helping those struggling to get back on their feet. This also isn't just a block of low income housing. It's providing employment and education opportunities for the residents with ties into a lot of local businesses that are also partnering with the community to provide job opportunities in areas beyond the most common careers in the service industries and such.
The people here in Fredericton live in a tent city alongside the Saint John river. People die of exposure every year because our shelters are full.
The issue is that tent cities in public parks or what have you is not a solution to the homeless problem or the housing problem. And is also politically quite unpopular.
And all the stuff that is a solution is long-term and often against many of the interests of current residents.
By “against many of the interests” I presume that you mean that solutions require money (I.e., tax dollars) and rarely involves running people out of town?
No. I mean the solution to the housing problem is in large part more housing. Often at the expense of the current homeowners.
I mean shit, fundamentally if you are trying to bring down housing prices you are lowering the value of almost every homeowner's most valuable asset. It's tautological.
This is unsurprisingly frequently unpopular for very straightforward and logical reasons.
Even then with a sufficiently long view you get more housing -> more people who can reasonably work in your city/area -> more economic activity and productivity -> the area becomes more desirable -> greater demand for housing -> prices go up. Also more people -> greater tax base -> lower burden relative to the amount of services the government can provide.
Its slower, less obvious and more of a rising tides argument, but increasing the housing supply doesn't mean intractable loss of value for existing home owners. Its not zero sum.
Blocks or neighbourhoods of affordable housing are not a good solution. Obviously they solve the immediate problem (lack of affordable housing) but at the cost of creating pockets of low-income populations. These pockets will in turn devalue the neighbourhoods around them, causing more affluent citizens, businesses and services to move away. The low value will in turn attract more low-income citizens and projects. And before you know it you have a ghetto, with all the social problems and prejudices that entails.
Also, low-income housing is, by definition, a project that brings in a low revenue and low taxes, so good luck getting developers and city council excited for it.
A better solution is mixed-used housing, developments that include low-income units and regular units, which can be simply achieved by requiring developers to include them in all new projects. These mitigate or solve the issues I mentioned. But I'm sure there are other problems I don't know about with that solution, because reality's a bitch.
There's also the concept of transitional housing. My partner is a social worker who works a lot with these communities and a huge part of the problem involved in getting people off the streets is that a lot of them just don't know how to live in a typical neighbourhood. There are a lot of simple tasks that we pick up over decades of living in homes, taking care of them, improving them, etc. People who live unhoused for long periods of time either don't have, or sometimes have never had, these skills. So there's the perception/expectation that if you take people off the street and plop them in low-income housing, they're just going to not take care of it and this will devalue the rest of the neighbourhood in the manner you just described.
I think most people would say they don't care if their neighbour was previously homeless, provided that person treats the neighbourhood with the same care as their other neighbours. That's freaking hard to do if you've never done it before, or haven't in years.
The idea with transitional housing is that it's heavily serviced by social workers whose main job is just to teach people how to be a good neighbour, and then they move on from there to something more permanent. But it costs money and people hate that for some reason. Everyone likes society but no one wants to pay for it...
Blocks or neighbourhoods of affordable housing are not a good solution. Obviously they solve the immediate problem (lack of affordable housing) but at the cost of creating pockets of low-income populations. These pockets will in turn devalue the neighbourhoods around them, causing more affluent citizens, businesses and services to move away. The low value will in turn attract more low-income citizens and projects. And before you know it you have a ghetto, with all the social problems and prejudices that entails.
Also, low-income housing is, by definition, a project that brings in a low revenue and low taxes, so good luck getting developers and city council excited for it.
A better solution is mixed-used housing, developments that include low-income units and regular units, which can be simply achieved by requiring developers to include them in all new projects. These mitigate or solve the issues I mentioned. But I'm sure there are other problems I don't know about with that solution, because reality's a bitch.
There's also the concept of transitional housing. My partner is a social worker who works a lot with these communities and a huge part of the problem involved in getting people off the streets is that a lot of them just don't know how to live in a typical neighbourhood. There are a lot of simple tasks that we pick up over decades of living in homes, taking care of them, improving them, etc. People who live unhoused for long periods of time either don't have, or sometimes have never had, these skills. So there's the perception/expectation that if you take people off the street and plop them in low-income housing, they're just going to not take care of it and this will devalue the rest of the neighbourhood in the manner you just described.
I think most people would say they don't care if their neighbour was previously homeless, provided that person treats the neighbourhood with the same care as their other neighbours. That's freaking hard to do if you've never done it before, or haven't in years.
The idea with transitional housing is that it's heavily serviced by social workers whose main job is just to teach people how to be a good neighbour, and then they move on from there to something more permanent. But it costs money and people hate that for some reason. Everyone likes society but no one wants to pay for it...
For what it’s worth, having spent the morning number crunching to try and buy a condo for our family that is not the size of a fridge, I’d still be happy to pay an extra couple of percent in tax if it helped people. I think a lot of people do want to pay for it.
Now do enough? Do enough also trust that the money will actually be used for that? Maybe not. Ontario voters seem kind of weird.
So the Prince Albert Raiders had a logo back in 1990-1996 that was a redo of their previous one that they had since 1985... it featured a Persian character holding a Scimitar in one had a hockey stick in the other, while sporting a Keffiyeh and Thawb. For some reason the team decided to bring back that logo for their Alternate jersey for the 2021 season... needless to say it was met with a little.. teeny weeny bit of a backlash. . The design has now been pulled .
Trudeau just unveiled a new policy that all "core public workers" need to be fully vaccinated or take an unpaid leave. This includes the RCMP, which has been vocally against vaccination.
Of course the policy includes exemptions for medical or religious reason, so the "thin blue line" could weasel out of it. But let's be honest - discretely side-stepping a difficult issue is really not the RCMP way. I rather expect they'll be screaming about Bill Gates microchips and other alt-right anti-vaxxer conspiracies. The real question is how far they'll take it, how much water the MSM will carry for them on that issue, and how steadfast Trudeau will hold his position.
It's frustrating that the religious exemptions are in there, because that just means everyone who doesn't want one will say "I don't wanna therefore God doesn't either." I assume that's baked in by existing legislation or regulations though, so blah.
Nova Scotia's playing hardball with it lately when it comes to provincial workers. Don't have one of these six specific medical conditions? Tough, no exemption for you.
And hot atheism takes aside, none of them which aren't way off on the fringes of the fringes have any doctrinal objections to vaccination anyway. People claiming religious exemptions to vaccines are, as a general rule, lying about it, so they shouldn't get the chance to.
Even "genuine" religious exemptions should not be allowed. It doesn't matter if they're lying or not.
Unless a medical professional states that a person should not be vaccinated then that person should be vaccinated.
Liberaty of the individual completely trumps any sort of community of societal responsibility I guess and this is just stage one of fucking around and finding out about that
This isn't like a reason to be wary of compulsion about the state cause like I know multiple mothers who have told their children to sod off cause you know they had breast cancer and unless they get vaccinated they can't have their weekly meals
It's just a complete disregard for the people and community you literally exists in its infuriating
Liberaty of the individual completely trumps any sort of community of societal responsibility I guess and this is just stage one of fucking around and finding out about that
This isn't like a reason to be wary of compulsion about the state cause like I know multiple mothers who have told their children to sod off cause you know they had breast cancer and unless they get vaccinated they can't have their weekly meals
It's just a complete disregard for the people and community you literally exists in its infuriating
I'm talking 60 year old women (I worded this incorrectly) who lived through cancer and their (now adult not the still under 10 grand children) children (offspring???) are afraid of losing their god damn sperm or some shit so their moms said ok you ain't coming over for dinner on Thursday any more you piece of shit
Yeah it's p ridiculous and I wish I wasn't blowing it up to sound good
Yeah, I'm officially at the, "Fuck these selfish assholes, jailtime", part of all this. I'm sick of morons who refuse to act responsibly dragging things out, and then complaining about how it's taking too long to get this under control. If they're too fucking stupid to see the pattern, jail. Fucking jail. I'm fucking done. I didn't get double vaxed to let morons still make me afraid to visit parts of my own fucking province.
Oh that's annoying, they released this Verify Ontario app that scans your vaccine QR code deal, but you can't store your vaccine QR code in it, so you have to just save it as a loose file or email on your phone for establishments to scan. That seems janky, I assumed it would store my certificate securely so I could flash it to restaurants and such.
We had take out with our neighbours from some place a local PPC candidate was harassing because their food is pretty good (fries instead of rice was a poor choice) and well, because fuck that PPC dude.
Here’s what I currently think is dumb: you need a PCR test within 72 hours of a flight to get back into Canada. Note that Canada will accept PCR tests taken within Canada. So, you can get tested in Canada, travel to the US, spend two days, and then travel back to Canada using the PCR test you took while in Canada.
Also, again note: within 72 hours of travel. If I’m getting on a plane, I’d rather be sitting next to someone who had a rapid antigen test two and a half hours ago than sitting next to someone who had a PCR test two and a half days ago.
Plus, PCR tests are expensive, and time consuming compared to rapid antigen tests. I get it, if you’re travelling you can afford them. But shesh.
At least we’re moving towards full vaccination being a set-in-stone requirement.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Oh that's annoying, they released this Verify Ontario app that scans your vaccine QR code deal, but you can't store your vaccine QR code in it, so you have to just save it as a loose file or email on your phone for establishments to scan. That seems janky, I assumed it would store my certificate securely so I could flash it to restaurants and such.
We had take out with our neighbours from some place a local PPC candidate was harassing because their food is pretty good (fries instead of rice was a poor choice) and well, because fuck that PPC dude.
You can, if you feel so inclined, use this utility to store your QR code in your Apple Wallet or as a photo pass, which may help.
I thought that the German Covid app was late with the vaccine certificate implementation this year. But that works EU wide plus a dozen or so countries (mostly European) have also signed up to same recognition system. So canada and the US still don't have something like that?
I thought that the German Covid app was late with the vaccine certificate implementation this year. But that works EU wide plus a dozen or so countries (mostly European) have also signed up to same recognition system. So canada and the US still don't have something like that?
Healthcare being a provincial jurisdiction, every province is implementing their own vaccination certificate app. The Québec one works fine IMO. Ontario seems to be doing a half-assed figurative attempt so they can appease people who demand action without offending their "make ontario great again" red-cap-wearing base. Alberta.... at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented a proof of non-vaccination to reward vaccine hesitancy.
I thought that the German Covid app was late with the vaccine certificate implementation this year. But that works EU wide plus a dozen or so countries (mostly European) have also signed up to same recognition system. So canada and the US still don't have something like that?
Healthcare being a provincial jurisdiction, every province is implementing their own vaccination certificate app. The Québec one works fine IMO. Ontario seems to be doing a half-assed figurative attempt so they can appease people who demand action without offending their "make ontario great again" red-cap-wearing base. Alberta.... at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented a proof of non-vaccination to reward vaccine hesitancy.
I am legitimately baffled that there are people willing to spend mid-three figures and sent their personal info off to some sketchy internet avatar to make them a fake vaccine certificate. Like, the actual vaccine is free, and you’ll be in and out in ten minutes.
Oh that's annoying, they released this Verify Ontario app that scans your vaccine QR code deal, but you can't store your vaccine QR code in it, so you have to just save it as a loose file or email on your phone for establishments to scan. That seems janky, I assumed it would store my certificate securely so I could flash it to restaurants and such.
We had take out with our neighbours from some place a local PPC candidate was harassing because their food is pretty good (fries instead of rice was a poor choice) and well, because fuck that PPC dude.
The app isn't for the general population it's for businesses to verify the code you downloaded. There's very little reason to worry about "secure" storage for this it being as secure as other things on your phone is fine, and it makes no difference if the photo viewer or a dedicated app shows the code
Manitoba's app has been around for a bit and seems to not be a tirefire, so that's good.
It works well enough. The business scans your covid card with the app, the app then displays your name and vaccination status, and then your name has to be verified via a piece of ID. Most places do this correctly, but some just get lazy and look at only whether you have the card or not, which can allow some people to get away with using someone else's card.
I thought that the German Covid app was late with the vaccine certificate implementation this year. But that works EU wide plus a dozen or so countries (mostly European) have also signed up to same recognition system. So canada and the US still don't have something like that?
Healthcare being a provincial jurisdiction, every province is implementing their own vaccination certificate app. The Québec one works fine IMO. Ontario seems to be doing a half-assed figurative attempt so they can appease people who demand action without offending their "make ontario great again" red-cap-wearing base. Alberta.... at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented a proof of non-vaccination to reward vaccine hesitancy.
I am legitimately baffled that there are people willing to spend mid-three figures and sent their personal info off to some sketchy internet avatar to make them a fake vaccine certificate. Like, the actual vaccine is free, and you’ll be in and out in ten minutes.
Why are people.
If you think the vaccine is going to hurt or kill you, this makes total sense. Also, feeling like you're taking a stand against state tyranny by deceiving mechanisms of state intervention is pretty motivating.
Overall, it seems like people tend to be driven to get the vaccine by these passport measures, at least, rather than driven to fakes or wilder measures.
Meanwhile, all Federal office employees have until the end of the month to provide proof of full vaccination.
What's the proof, you ask? They have to log into a web portal and check the "I am fully vaccinated" box. No QR code or proof of vaccination is required, nor is it even possible to provide it voluntarily if you wanted to. But don't worry, administrators are allowed to ask for proof from anyone who says they're vaccinated. You know, if they want to personally take charge of the vaccination validation process, face off against angry conspiracy nuts in person, and face the union's wrath if they take punitive actions against these employees.
A perfect, fool-proof, iron-clad system with no downsides nor possibilities for abuse.
+5
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited October 2021
Hold on, the referenda questions for Alberta not only involve Equalization, but whether or not to re-introduce flouride into the water supply?
It's not already flouridated???
Edit: Okay, this is some Calgary-specific question thing.
Hold on, the referenda questions for Alberta not only involve Equalization, but whether or not to re-introduce flouride into the water supply?
It's not already flouridated???
Edit: Okay, this is some Calgary-specific question thing.
When I was younger it was fluoridated and it was removed in 2011 if I recall.
As for the Equalization thing.. its completely nonbinding and based upon the UPC talking shit about it for the last few years despite Jason Kenney being one of the people who made the current calculations. If it was so unfair why did they make it that way... of course this being Alberta and being full of the common clay of the new west they believed him.
I am glad that both Edmonton and Calgary elected progressive mayors again, and it really makes me happy that Jeromy Fuckus will be out of a job.
Hold on, the referenda questions for Alberta not only involve Equalization, but whether or not to re-introduce flouride into the water supply?
It's not already flouridated???
Edit: Okay, this is some Calgary-specific question thing.
When I was younger it was fluoridated and it was removed in 2011 if I recall.
As for the Equalization thing.. its completely nonbinding and based upon the UPC talking shit about it for the last few years despite Jason Kenney being one of the people who made the current calculations. If it was so unfair why did they make it that way... of course this being Alberta and being full of the common clay of the new west they believed him.
I am glad that both Edmonton and Calgary elected progressive mayors again, and it really makes me happy that Jeromy Fuckus will be out of a job.
Yeah, same.
Unfortunately, it's looking like Chu is getting back in as counselor.
The Alberta referendum is shameful. The question is literally asking Albertans to unilaterally change the Canadian constitution. And when it won't happen - because of course no province has that kind of power - Kenney will be able to rile up people against Trudeau and Canada.
It's an unpopular ineffective scandal-ridden leader creating a common enemy to rally public support. A classic strategy by despots everywhere. And since it's Alberta, it will likely secure Kenney his reelection and probably lead to some form of violence.
The Alberta referendum is shameful. The question is literally asking Albertans to unilaterally change the Canadian constitution. And when it won't happen - because of course no province has that kind of power - Kenney will be able to rile up people against Trudeau and Canada.
It's an unpopular ineffective scandal-ridden leader creating a common enemy to rally public support. A classic strategy by despots everywhere. And since it's Alberta, it will likely secure Kenney his reelection and probably lead to some form of violence.
If only Alberta was the only one to waste money on pointless referendums that only inflame tensions, eh?
Hold on, the referenda questions for Alberta not only involve Equalization, but whether or not to re-introduce flouride into the water supply?
It's not already flouridated???
Edit: Okay, this is some Calgary-specific question thing.
When I was younger it was fluoridated and it was removed in 2011 if I recall.
As for the Equalization thing.. its completely nonbinding and based upon the UPC talking shit about it for the last few years despite Jason Kenney being one of the people who made the current calculations. If it was so unfair why did they make it that way... of course this being Alberta and being full of the common clay of the new west they believed him.
I am glad that both Edmonton and Calgary elected progressive mayors again, and it really makes me happy that Jeromy Fuckus will be out of a job.
Yeah, same.
Unfortunately, it's looking like Chu is getting back in as counselor.
Yea saw that.. i'm in ward 9 and Carra got relected (I did vote for him, but I think the main contender running against him wouldnt have been a bad choice either at least from what I could tell. ) Sadly Chad "Jet Thunders" Saunders didnt win the nonsense senate election spots, he's the former station manager of CJSW when my wife was Program Manager back in the 90s.
Hold on, the referenda questions for Alberta not only involve Equalization, but whether or not to re-introduce flouride into the water supply?
It's not already flouridated???
Edit: Okay, this is some Calgary-specific question thing.
When I was younger it was fluoridated and it was removed in 2011 if I recall.
As for the Equalization thing.. its completely nonbinding and based upon the UPC talking shit about it for the last few years despite Jason Kenney being one of the people who made the current calculations. If it was so unfair why did they make it that way... of course this being Alberta and being full of the common clay of the new west they believed him.
I am glad that both Edmonton and Calgary elected progressive mayors again, and it really makes me happy that Jeromy Fuckus will be out of a job.
Yeah, same.
Unfortunately, it's looking like Chu is getting back in as counselor.
Yea saw that.. i'm in ward 9 and Carra got relected (I did vote for him, but I think the main contender running against him wouldnt have been a bad choice either at least from what I could tell. ) Sadly Chad "Jet Thunders" Saunders didnt win the nonsense senate election spots, he's the former station manager of CJSW when my wife was Program Manager back in the 90s.
I'm in ward 8, and it was not terribly difficult to reject most of the councilors (the one that can't spell "bike lane" and doesn't understand the difference between walking and cycling, the ones that have no actual platform, the one that makes nimby-ism an actual part of their platform, etc).
Somewhat surprisingly, the retired white man that used to be a news anchor actually had a pretty progressive set of ideas, so when it came to him or the other guy that also had a good set of ideas, I went for the younger one that has a picture of himself with a dog on his 'about me' page. It was pretty gratifying to find out that a:most people agreed with me, and b:the other progressive candidate was in a pretty respectable second place, and all the duds were much further behind.
The daylight savings vote was a pain because they didn't have the 'never daylight savings' time option, which I think makes most sense.
Posts
No. I mean the solution to the housing problem is in large part more housing. Often at the expense of the current homeowners.
I mean shit, fundamentally if you are trying to bring down housing prices you are lowering the value of almost every homeowner's most valuable asset. It's tautological.
This is unsurprisingly frequently unpopular for very straightforward and logical reasons.
There's a nice old building around the corner that a local tech company moved out of. They let some small local social support type agencies move in and after a few weeks the neighbours are saying it's a bicycle chop shop and there are sharps everywhere. Driving by, I can see the site is littered with trash. You absolutely have to keep on top of that shit or it all goes sideways.
I have a feeling it's not going to be enforced that hard with thanksgiving weekend coming up, but they've already restricted non-essential businesses and outdoor gatherings.
Meanwhile our southern neighbours are a dumpster fire...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/12-neighbours-marcel-lebrun-tiny-homes-fredericton-affordable-housing-1.6174811
Also, low-income housing is, by definition, a project that brings in a low revenue and low taxes, so good luck getting developers and city council excited for it.
A better solution is mixed-used housing, developments that include low-income units and regular units, which can be simply achieved by requiring developers to include them in all new projects. These mitigate or solve the issues I mentioned. But I'm sure there are other problems I don't know about with that solution, because reality's a bitch.
Yes, taxes are lower per capita on low income areas, but density and efficiency can have huge benefits.
One of the perverse things about modern North American cities is that low income areas can actually end up subsidizing high income areas. Suburbs are enormously inefficient. The low density nature of suburbs mean that you need significantly more kilometres of roads, pipes, and power lines to support suburban homes. Their kids need to bus further and you need to spend more on emergency services. Suburbs are rarely taxed at a rate to make them sustainable. The shortfall gets made up for in the denser, poorer neighbourhoods; not only do they tend to produce more tax revenue per square kilometre, they have less tax revenue spent on them.
And that’s not even getting into how suburbs are a notable thing driving climate change.
We have a lot of mix-use housing in Fredericton and it doesn't work because it only addresses one element of the crisis - and you still have those same complaints between neighbours. It's not just about poor Vs affluent. There are immigration considerations, generational considerations, etc etc.
I see this as being a far superior solution to what is out there today. Studies show that secure housing is the #1 successful element in helping those struggling to get back on their feet. This also isn't just a block of low income housing. It's providing employment and education opportunities for the residents with ties into a lot of local businesses that are also partnering with the community to provide job opportunities in areas beyond the most common careers in the service industries and such.
The people here in Fredericton live in a tent city alongside the Saint John river. People die of exposure every year because our shelters are full.
Even then with a sufficiently long view you get more housing -> more people who can reasonably work in your city/area -> more economic activity and productivity -> the area becomes more desirable -> greater demand for housing -> prices go up. Also more people -> greater tax base -> lower burden relative to the amount of services the government can provide.
Its slower, less obvious and more of a rising tides argument, but increasing the housing supply doesn't mean intractable loss of value for existing home owners. Its not zero sum.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
There's also the concept of transitional housing. My partner is a social worker who works a lot with these communities and a huge part of the problem involved in getting people off the streets is that a lot of them just don't know how to live in a typical neighbourhood. There are a lot of simple tasks that we pick up over decades of living in homes, taking care of them, improving them, etc. People who live unhoused for long periods of time either don't have, or sometimes have never had, these skills. So there's the perception/expectation that if you take people off the street and plop them in low-income housing, they're just going to not take care of it and this will devalue the rest of the neighbourhood in the manner you just described.
I think most people would say they don't care if their neighbour was previously homeless, provided that person treats the neighbourhood with the same care as their other neighbours. That's freaking hard to do if you've never done it before, or haven't in years.
The idea with transitional housing is that it's heavily serviced by social workers whose main job is just to teach people how to be a good neighbour, and then they move on from there to something more permanent. But it costs money and people hate that for some reason. Everyone likes society but no one wants to pay for it...
For what it’s worth, having spent the morning number crunching to try and buy a condo for our family that is not the size of a fridge, I’d still be happy to pay an extra couple of percent in tax if it helped people. I think a lot of people do want to pay for it.
Now do enough? Do enough also trust that the money will actually be used for that? Maybe not. Ontario voters seem kind of weird.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/whl-prince-albert-raiders-offensive-jersey-discontinued-1.6198071
So the Prince Albert Raiders had a logo back in 1990-1996 that was a redo of their previous one that they had since 1985... it featured a Persian character holding a Scimitar in one had a hockey stick in the other, while sporting a Keffiyeh and Thawb. For some reason the team decided to bring back that logo for their Alternate jersey for the 2021 season... needless to say it was met with a little.. teeny weeny bit of a backlash. . The design has now been pulled .
Now here is the kicker.. in 2014 they introduced a similar mascot based on that old logo... it also had a bit of backlash and was pulled immediately as well.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/prince-albert-raiders-reconsider-new-mascot-1.2845795
Stay classy Prince Albert Raiders....
Of course the policy includes exemptions for medical or religious reason, so the "thin blue line" could weasel out of it. But let's be honest - discretely side-stepping a difficult issue is really not the RCMP way. I rather expect they'll be screaming about Bill Gates microchips and other alt-right anti-vaxxer conspiracies. The real question is how far they'll take it, how much water the MSM will carry for them on that issue, and how steadfast Trudeau will hold his position.
Nova Scotia's playing hardball with it lately when it comes to provincial workers. Don't have one of these six specific medical conditions? Tough, no exemption for you.
Unless a medical professional states that a person should not be vaccinated then that person should be vaccinated.
It doesn't even belong in the conversation.
This isn't like a reason to be wary of compulsion about the state cause like I know multiple mothers who have told their children to sod off cause you know they had breast cancer and unless they get vaccinated they can't have their weekly meals
It's just a complete disregard for the people and community you literally exists in its infuriating
Re bolded: what?!
Yeah it's p ridiculous and I wish I wasn't blowing it up to sound good
Yeah, I'm officially at the, "Fuck these selfish assholes, jailtime", part of all this. I'm sick of morons who refuse to act responsibly dragging things out, and then complaining about how it's taking too long to get this under control. If they're too fucking stupid to see the pattern, jail. Fucking jail. I'm fucking done. I didn't get double vaxed to let morons still make me afraid to visit parts of my own fucking province.
We had take out with our neighbours from some place a local PPC candidate was harassing because their food is pretty good (fries instead of rice was a poor choice) and well, because fuck that PPC dude.
Here’s what I currently think is dumb: you need a PCR test within 72 hours of a flight to get back into Canada. Note that Canada will accept PCR tests taken within Canada. So, you can get tested in Canada, travel to the US, spend two days, and then travel back to Canada using the PCR test you took while in Canada.
Also, again note: within 72 hours of travel. If I’m getting on a plane, I’d rather be sitting next to someone who had a rapid antigen test two and a half hours ago than sitting next to someone who had a PCR test two and a half days ago.
Plus, PCR tests are expensive, and time consuming compared to rapid antigen tests. I get it, if you’re travelling you can afford them. But shesh.
At least we’re moving towards full vaccination being a set-in-stone requirement.
You can, if you feel so inclined, use this utility to store your QR code in your Apple Wallet or as a photo pass, which may help.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
Healthcare being a provincial jurisdiction, every province is implementing their own vaccination certificate app. The Québec one works fine IMO. Ontario seems to be doing a half-assed figurative attempt so they can appease people who demand action without offending their "make ontario great again" red-cap-wearing base. Alberta.... at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they implemented a proof of non-vaccination to reward vaccine hesitancy.
I am legitimately baffled that there are people willing to spend mid-three figures and sent their personal info off to some sketchy internet avatar to make them a fake vaccine certificate. Like, the actual vaccine is free, and you’ll be in and out in ten minutes.
Why are people.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
The app isn't for the general population it's for businesses to verify the code you downloaded. There's very little reason to worry about "secure" storage for this it being as secure as other things on your phone is fine, and it makes no difference if the photo viewer or a dedicated app shows the code
It works well enough. The business scans your covid card with the app, the app then displays your name and vaccination status, and then your name has to be verified via a piece of ID. Most places do this correctly, but some just get lazy and look at only whether you have the card or not, which can allow some people to get away with using someone else's card.
If you think the vaccine is going to hurt or kill you, this makes total sense. Also, feeling like you're taking a stand against state tyranny by deceiving mechanisms of state intervention is pretty motivating.
Overall, it seems like people tend to be driven to get the vaccine by these passport measures, at least, rather than driven to fakes or wilder measures.
What's the proof, you ask? They have to log into a web portal and check the "I am fully vaccinated" box. No QR code or proof of vaccination is required, nor is it even possible to provide it voluntarily if you wanted to. But don't worry, administrators are allowed to ask for proof from anyone who says they're vaccinated. You know, if they want to personally take charge of the vaccination validation process, face off against angry conspiracy nuts in person, and face the union's wrath if they take punitive actions against these employees.
A perfect, fool-proof, iron-clad system with no downsides nor possibilities for abuse.
It's not already flouridated???
Edit: Okay, this is some Calgary-specific question thing.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
We removed flouride a while back...
When I was younger it was fluoridated and it was removed in 2011 if I recall.
As for the Equalization thing.. its completely nonbinding and based upon the UPC talking shit about it for the last few years despite Jason Kenney being one of the people who made the current calculations. If it was so unfair why did they make it that way... of course this being Alberta and being full of the common clay of the new west they believed him.
I am glad that both Edmonton and Calgary elected progressive mayors again, and it really makes me happy that Jeromy Fuckus will be out of a job.
Yeah, same.
Unfortunately, it's looking like Chu is getting back in as counselor.
It's an unpopular ineffective scandal-ridden leader creating a common enemy to rally public support. A classic strategy by despots everywhere. And since it's Alberta, it will likely secure Kenney his reelection and probably lead to some form of violence.
If only Alberta was the only one to waste money on pointless referendums that only inflame tensions, eh?
Yea saw that.. i'm in ward 9 and Carra got relected (I did vote for him, but I think the main contender running against him wouldnt have been a bad choice either at least from what I could tell. ) Sadly Chad "Jet Thunders" Saunders didnt win the nonsense senate election spots,
I voted Jett Thunder and Kinney in the sham election
Somewhat surprisingly, the retired white man that used to be a news anchor actually had a pretty progressive set of ideas, so when it came to him or the other guy that also had a good set of ideas, I went for the younger one that has a picture of himself with a dog on his 'about me' page. It was pretty gratifying to find out that a:most people agreed with me, and b:the other progressive candidate was in a pretty respectable second place, and all the duds were much further behind.
The daylight savings vote was a pain because they didn't have the 'never daylight savings' time option, which I think makes most sense.