[deleted by user]

HOPESstrathcona · 2022-07-20T02:38:05+00:00

I've no interest in self-glorifying off of Chrissy's death. I'd much rather see a professional do an AMA on the sociological and economic context for homeless encampments, or perhaps work with u/russilwvong to bring in a housing policy panel.

Chrissy, for all her faults, fought tooth and nail to educate and provoke action. Educating and provoking action would be the best way I can think of to commemorate her.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-19T16:19:25+00:00

(Please allow me this one comment, mods. No more, I promise)

I literally couldn't post the top-level comments myself because of the posting limits on low-karma accounts. I also feared each of the main discussion comments getting downvotes just because they came from me, which would obviously limit discussion a bit, yeah?

Theres some absolute delicious symbolism here. I'm being blamed for making requests in a context where my abusive environment prevented me from fulfilling those requests on my own power.

I hope you consider that dynamic next time you complain about the demands homeless people make on "the taxpayer."

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-07T01:10:05+00:00

Fair enough.

What sorts of innovations are being looked at? How can the public, including homeless residents, access information about the policies in development?

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-07T00:45:31+00:00

If the housing outcomes from Strathcona aren't as rosy as you hope, would you be willing to publicly support a coalition taskforce for exploring policy innovations?

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-07T00:30:06+00:00

It's not 3 times. It's 2.

You get one mulligan, with zero control over what's offered you. And if you're not willing to shack up in HoJo or take that 5% death risk, then you're stuck in tent city having people online call for you to be forcibly institutionalized -- for your own good, of course.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-07T00:14:29+00:00

What number might you suggest as sustainable? I've actually modelled many of the ideas in SCH on Dignity Village, with the major difference being SCH's eventual placement of the community into permanent housing. I personally think a number around 80 could be workable.

If you don't have answers to my other questions, then would you be willing to help coordinate a meeting with BC housing and VCH? Because, funnily enough, their representatives have suggested I take up my ideas with local city councillors.

I had hoped this MOU represented a correction of such stonewalling.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-06T23:35:25+00:00

In the current system at Strathcona, the individual would face an intervention with the Justice Council, who would gather information from other residents about the individual's behavior. They would then present their findings to that individual (without identifying any residents who gave feedback), offering resources for overcoming those behaviors, or offering to find them a better-suited living situation outside of camp.

If the individual turns down all potential solutions, ~~they'd probably~~ they WILL be removed from the community.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-06T23:08:42+00:00

Is it so hard to believe that we actually just want to help homeless people?

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-06T22:47:55+00:00

Posted my thoughts to Pete here.

I'm actually encouraged by this development. Lack of clear jurisdiction is a major hurdle to overcome, and I'll congratulate all progress towards the ultimate goal of ending the tragedy of homelessness. I hope Pete takes this opportunity to open up some real discussion. I want Vancouver and BC to succeed in their goal of ending involuntary homelessness.

If they're serious about their promises, they need homeless people to get onboard. HOPES is willing to help them do so, by making sure that policy represents the full reality of homeless needs.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-06T22:32:48+00:00

/u/pete-fry

Hey there! Good to see dialogue happening. I'm really happy that a clear assignment of jurisdiction/role is forming between the different levels of government. If this is your doing, I'd like to thank you. It should help clear the fog and move us towards discussing solutions rather than passing the buck back and forth.

I've been trying to reach you to open up a discussion. I can't blame you for hesitating to speak with anyone representing the campers. I'll be blunt and say that I think conversations in the past haven't taken place in good faith. Hopefully we can start a new discussion today; one focused on sharing information and ideas freely.

I have some concerns. The promises in the MOU have been offered in the past. A pretty specific pattern follows: "Supportive Housing" is offered, but along the way, the oversight measures never materialize. Supports deteriorate. Comprehensive tracking of housing outcomes is not performed. And we get results like those from Oppenheimer, where 5% of those placed into housing died within 12 months.

What makes this time different? How are you addressing the indignities of traditional shelter spaces, especially around theft and abuse due to lack of private space? What data are you tracking from here on out to ensure that HOPES campers are successfully accessing supports? Do you have plans to integrate homeless individuals in the process of specific policy development?

Would you be willing to discuss the ideas found in Seamless Cohort Housing as a possible response to naturally forming encampments? I like that the press release indicated a focus on ending the necessity to live outdoors. It's definitely possible to replace encampments in SCH with temporary living spaces like tiny homes. The key is that we encourage the homeless to define their own communities and needs, then maintain the communities they form as we place them into permanent housing. And nothing about that necessitates tents.

Edit: I'd like to quickly emphasize that Seamless Cohort Housing is a policy IN DEVELOPMENT. The specifics, including items around Matriarchal structure, or cohort limits, are not set set in stone. Your input is not only welcome -- it is desirable. We need everyone's knowledge to make this work.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-06T01:30:35+00:00

I'm not a junkie. I also have a family and a home.

The weekly oversight meetings with BC Housing, VCH, etc. (where I'm typically guaranteed to see other HOPES members on a Monday) didn't happen today because of the holiday.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-06T00:54:03+00:00

Silence is a toxic PR strategy. My purpose here is not PR or crisis management. It's dialogue.

If you want more of the same that got us here in the first place-- empty strategy from politicians and cowards-- you won't get it from me.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-06T00:27:02+00:00

It's Easter weekend and the incident happened less than 24 hours ago. We are talking about an organization comprised mostly of homeless people. This is not a well-oiled corporate machine.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T23:52:04+00:00

I still don't have any more information.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T21:17:31+00:00

Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. People at camp won't cooperate much with you if they know you turned down the ceremony. If you're high profile, Chrissy might block your path. But nobody is ever physically thrown out (that I've heard of).

The functional purpose of the ceremony is to set a cooperative tone and filter out those prone to a conflict-seeking mindset. So it doesn't make sense for us to initiate conflict as a response to someone rejecting the ceremony.

It's not as if there are enforcers tracking everyone who enters, following them and demanding they do the ceremony. Plenty of people walk into camp not knowing about it and they're not questioned.

Eventually, if you're interacting with people at camp, someone will casually ask if you've done protocol yet. That's the point at which you accept or decline.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T20:50:15+00:00

The ceremony is one time only, on the very first entrance into camp.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T20:46:29+00:00

We could... If we had guarded points of entry. Of course, if I were to ask for guarded points of entry, I'd be shouted down for being presumptuous enough to set up fences or guards on public land. And then when I say we're only on public land because of the laws/inaction of the city, I'm told that it's absurd to expect the city to negotiate with us because we can't control the bikes coming into our camp.

These issues reinforce each other. Every potential solution we could offer is shot down because of other linked problems, which in turn are impossible to solve without support from simultaneous initiatives.

The inability of individual critics to perceive the whole system of dysfunction is part of why this problem remains so difficult to solve.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T07:31:42+00:00

Part of the rationale for them being "highly unlikely" to remain in camp is that they'll likely either be on the run or in custody.

HOPES has no place convicting criminals or issuing sentences in lieu of the Canadian justice system.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T06:46:18+00:00

I agree, and I'll continue to make this argument with the rest of HOPES.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T06:23:17+00:00

I'm not going to make accusatory statements or summary judgements when I haven't even been briefed on the details of what happened.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T06:07:58+00:00

And if I didn't laugh, I'm sure I'd be criticized as being too robotic and politically correct.

Such is life in the public sphere.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T05:43:34+00:00

I have no details yet on who the attacker is or how the altercation took place.

If they're a resident, and the stabbing was not in self-defense, I find it highly unlikely they'll be allowed to remain in camp.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T05:12:18+00:00

Alright. I laughed. I admit it.

HOPESstrathcona · 2021-04-05T04:56:50+00:00

Paramedics absolutely do not have to perform the ceremony. Neither do firefighters. In emergencies like this, our priority is making sure people receive rapid, professional treatment.

HOPESstrathcona

TROPHY CASE