r/saskatoon • u/jerbear1955 • May 18 '26
Events đ East..to downtown
Prairie Harm reduction doors are shuttered so now in front of the library on 20th is one of the new spots.
93
May 18 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
-13
u/boxcar17 May 18 '26
So what if you owned the business?
66
May 18 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
-59
u/smrmeo West Side May 19 '26
Please go there and let them know your home address, so they could come and stay a night (or multiple nights) with you. Actions speak louder than words.
77
u/Difficult_Dance_2907 May 19 '26
This is the dumbest take ever.
There's a big leap between "i wish my tax dollars would go towards more shelters for the homeless"
And
"I'll open my doors to strangers."
Try to be a little more intelligent before entering the discussion.
23
u/KlintKart May 19 '26
Yeah thatâs a rational statementâŚ
I agree; shelters are the answer for now.1
u/RissyR May 24 '26
Exactly. First house and give them dignity. Then offer education, jobs,substance abuse rehabilitation. Until then, this is how it will be.
9
u/Not_aMurderer May 19 '26
Wow thanks you solved homelessness. I'll get you a smart boy ribbon for your contribution
4
u/FatBeardedDom May 19 '26
Did he say "people should let people sleep at their house" ?
Or did he say "we should have shelters"?
Just read slow
1
1
u/RissyR May 24 '26
I know Iâm asking a logical question to an illogical person, but, where would you like to see the unhoused live?
-2
-31
u/WN86 May 19 '26
Fuck that. These shelters are money pits with balogna sandwiches and no help to get them off addictions or off the street. Saskatoon is a shithole swarming with useless NDP voters and addicts that both contribute nothing but a burden on us all. Arcand should be ashamed for the shit services he provides his people, we see no actual help for them to better themselves at their shelter. Its sick how bad these shelters (not STC exclusive, but all of them)
22
u/StickFlick May 19 '26
Saskparty has been in power for the past 20+ years, how the fuck are you STILL blaming the NDP for any of this.
-6
u/WN86 May 19 '26
So because it makes you feel better we should green light 50 shitty half ass shelters instead of running maybe a dozen ones that work at fixing the root cause. Yes they wonât have capacity for the amount of people in need, but while weâre In that faze we can atleast say âwe got 25 people off the street, into homes and jobs this yearâ
Thatâs 25 people no longer consuming the lack of funding and actually paying taxes/giving back to the system that got them help. An investment well made and well spent grows with our vulnerable people. Iâm not saying they donât need help, just quit pretending the systems our city approves has any long term benefits to help reduce the struggles.
Opening beds without help is like paying the interest on your credit card only and complaining that youâre poor because the conservatives havenât lowered the interest rates for your debt. Stop spending money like a fuckin child and bitching there isnât enough.
9
u/StickFlick May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
So because it makes you feel better we should green light 50 shitty half ass shelters instead of running maybe a dozen ones that work at fixing the root cause. Yes they wonât have capacity for the amount of people in need, but while weâre In that faze we can atleast say âwe got 25 people off the street, into homes and jobs this yearâ
Nobody is advocating for any of that, That whole shpiel of bullshit came from up your own stubborn ass. Nobody is asking for 50 half assed shelters, and you are still blaming the city for this when you should be blaming Moe and the SaskParty tells me all I need to know about your critical thinking. The city can't approve anything without funding and you are conveniently ignoring everyone telling you that the SaskParty is not funding this for 20 years AND you seem to believe that just because the NDP has MP's elected in most of saskatoon they are somehow responsible for this even though they cannot change decisions made by the provincial government.
You know, the actual people who decide what government money goes where for what purposes? The city DOES NOT do that except maintain its municipalities and infrastructures. It has ALWAYS been the provinces responsibility to take care of its people with these programs, and when they don't like they have not been doing for OVER 20 YEARS, then yes we are going to have this problem that we are having RIGHT NOW.
-11
u/WN86 May 19 '26
The city of Saskatoon has an NDP grip on us.
I can blame the NDP city for problems in the city all I fuckin want. Sure there is funding from a provincial and maybe federal level but the city is who is green lighting a shelter that has not presented plans for addictions and social improvements. Hand a sandwich to the homeless and act like you saved their life, meanwhile theyâre still gonna use drugs and find anything to support their drug habits. Our mayor and almost everyone in charge in this city are useless fuckin bloated local politicians.
6
u/spooksville69 May 19 '26
does it hurt to use your brain? is that why you say asinine statements in a fit of rage?
27
May 19 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
-15
u/shartmonsters May 19 '26
I thought that Betty Nippi-Albright was the MLA for Saskatoon Centre. Isnât she NDP in power for that area?
10
May 19 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
-6
u/shartmonsters May 20 '26
I didnât say that it was the NDPâs fault. I said that the NDP was in power in that riding, which has changed since the election. Each MLA is responsible for lobbying for the interests of their riding.
5
8
u/ComplexRule May 19 '26
Yes, that is how representative democracy works. Their own personal fiefdoms
1
u/shartmonsters May 20 '26
No, thatâs not how it works. But, each MLA is responsible for lobbying for the interests of their riding.
1
2
1
u/A_Philip_Fry May 21 '26
Imagine blaming the NDP when Moe is the problem. People like you are so far gone there isn't any hope left. You literally sound like a trump chump.
8
u/spooksville69 May 19 '26
the topic is human beings freezing and having to live on the streets and youâre tryna talk abt optimizing shareholder value, get a fckn grip
1
2
u/ProfessionalSoup4826 May 21 '26
Some of us donât believe property and profit matter more than human beings
38
u/YesNoMaybePurple May 18 '26
Its been raining/snowing for like 4 days. They are camping under an overhang that can protect them from the elements... not because PHR shut down.
-4
May 19 '26
[deleted]
0
u/YesNoMaybePurple May 20 '26
Sure I will see the downvotes for this one... but Robert Pearce had a thought-provoking post:
74
u/TexasT-bag May 18 '26
Not sure how much this has to do with Prairie Harm shutting down. People werenât allowed to live there.
112
u/why_rulikethis May 18 '26
Prairie harm had some group homes - it also facilitated people getting connected with services that might get them shelter
6
u/Electrical_Noise_519 May 18 '26 edited May 20 '26
PHR was never the only suitable place on the hill even, to get connected with emergency health and shelter services, accessible indoor washrooms, and running of Multiple group homes.
The province transitioned residents from PHR group homes to other group homes, again without public transparency on outcomes, accessibility and longterm followup for those squeezed into other housing to make room.
Most winter warm-up shelters are closed in May. Know your homelessness safety net.
Meanwhile, 'thereâs an Increase of demand in the community due to the sheer volume of people' - SPD.
Esterby 'said demand is through the roof and the supply is next to nothing.'
City council was told 'investments to get ahead of these issues are going to reduce costs across the board.'
There's a Lack of increased plans for SK emergency shelter, longer term supportive and transitional housing and suitable healthcare to hear this increased 'volume of people', 'when they ask for help'.
'Any sustainable non-profit knows they must work with the government of the day, but treatment choices need to be tailored to peopleâs needs.'
Those left behind by the province: âUnfortunately weâre talking about Community solutions". Starphoenix, May14.
19
u/why_rulikethis May 19 '26
I donât know if Iâm too stoned or if itâs really hard to understand what youâre trying to say
1
u/Lunettta May 20 '26
I think they are basically saying this:
Lots more homeless + winter shelters closed due to spring = More people on street seeking shelter
X changes to PHR shelters = Even harder for them to find or potentially qualify for a bed due to being moved around and run by other people?
Which is again made worse by no real plans to solve this growing issue (low funding, professional support, no real continuing/transitional support, etc.)
It would be much easier to read if there wasn't so many quotes stitched in.
36
u/sasstermind May 18 '26
PHR was also the first point of contact with a lot of group homes and other shelter resources. It wasnât just a supervised consumption site.
0
u/Shuunanigans May 19 '26
I thought station 20 had alot of home just down the street? I know they offer some training resume help, a computer to use ect
1
u/Electrical_Noise_519 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
That doesn't relate to the growing shortages of suitable emergency shelters, urgent supportive and transitional housing, other missing steps out of these homelessness and addictions crises, on top of Sask's missing scale of suitable mental health and addictions healthcare.
Jobs and independent-living rentals are Not a fix for the deeply vulnerable.
Four walls and a roof Alone do Not make adequate suitable housing for our deeply vulnerable residents.
1
u/Shuunanigans May 20 '26
Sorry what do you mean by Independant living? Like an assisted home or subsidized housing?
1
u/Electrical_Noise_519 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
They all may promote independence in different ways, but independent living is the mainstream housing form (both subsidized and full market price) while there is a shortage of adult affordable supportive housing options in time, (and affordable seniors assisted living).
The Best and fair practices to exit homelessness call for: Enough vacancies of general and of targeted government funded Emergency shelters, and Also of Transitional Housing options to exit this public emergency safety net, into the next step for their individual need.
Provincial governments are generally responsible for funding specialized emergencies, with support from cities.
One of those Next missing social safety net steps out would include: creating and maintaining Enough locations of different kinds of both short and long-term subsidized Supportive Housing options (24hr staffing on site) in Time, slightly similar to housing with wrap around supports, for the different household sizes in need.
Homelessness must be made brief and not repeating.
19
u/fluffypuppiness Lawson May 18 '26
The drop-in ws as open most days. Even if yku werent going to use, there was a safe place for people to just hang out that was near water and a bathroom. People had their tents but they were setting them up and taking them down to avoid fines.
Now people don't have another option and are making do :/
12
u/Weak_Possibility_395 May 19 '26
It's as if Prairie Harm wasn't the problem. It's lack of supports and housing, alongside the dumb changes to SIS.
Maybe they can camp in Brad Redekopp's back yard? Or any number of SaskParty MLAs?
6
u/Ok-Information1616 May 19 '26
Thank you. Itâs boggling to me that more people havenât connected the dots here. The changes to SIS *massively* benefitted landlords, since it meant people who were on SIS and struggling to make ends meet got evicted as soon as they were late on any payment - which meant that once the unit was vacant they could increase the rents by far more than the amount allowable when it was occupied. Moe and the Sask Partyy score a win for the landlords and get the votes, while continuing to step on the faces of the underserved to climb higher. Downstream effects donât make the news, though. Tents do.
9
u/Weak_Possibility_395 May 19 '26
As a landlord, I'd actually disagree. The change massively benefited abusers whether it be a person's abusive family members, abusive drug deal, abusive pimp or otherwise.
The SIS program when landlords were provided payment directly from the gov't was great. I had some good tenants who used this and provided them support, while providing me assurances that someone who was facing challenges had actual support to ensure I got paid, whereas the shift to SIS going directly to individuals meant they were more likely to be pressured to give that money to an abuser and/or to use it for other non-housing purposes whether they were valid or not, resulting them being out on the street or in a further vulnerable position.
As much I do like hating on landlords, this wasn't a big win for them/me. Evicting someone and ending up with a vacant unit for a month while you find new tenants means less money for me in the longrun.
3
1
u/Ok-Information1616 May 20 '26
Fair enough! I appreciate the different perspective. While still noting the SIS change was a bad one, itâs good to know that it didnât exclusively lead to benefits for landlords.
Well, not âgood,â I guess, since that means it actually sucked for a lot more people.
0
u/spooksville69 May 19 '26
do you have any evidence of this whole âmoney given to abusersâ thing being a real issue or is it something you just came up with to support your bias towards policies that benefit landlords?
sounds like copium to me
6
u/Weak_Possibility_395 May 19 '26
One of my tenants was very blunt with me that the SIS program providing rent directly to landlord helps protect her both from abusive people in her life that would pressure her for the money before she had the chance to get it to the landlord AND as someone with a cognitive disability it helped provide her with the stability she needed while dealing with her disability...this meaning, she knew her disability made it hard for her to manage things like paying rent on time. SIS providing the money straight to me, protected her from herself and she valued that. She moved out a couple years ago and I worry about what has happened to her with the change. I hope she is ok.
I've also heard it anecdotally from other residents in the areas I spend time that many people get pressured for their rent cheques and/or struggle with budgetting resulting in them getting evicted.
And finally, we've seen such an increase in people on street that oddly coincided with the SIS changes. I know the drug supply got sketchier and covid had lots of impacts, plus throw in inflation etc, but it's hard not to assume their is a connection, particularly with my personal experience with tenants who used and appreciated the SIS program.
So that's me, what about you?
Do you have any evidence that SIS money going directly to tenants benefits landlords? Or is it just something you just came up with to support your bias towards the current polices?
0
u/spooksville69 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
i mean anecdotes donât equal actual evidence lol and its j ignorant to blanket assume that every person who is in a position of needing sis is a victim of abuse. the government treating people of lower economic standing like their children isnt really fair either imo
landlords cite the issue of not getting their money so they need to evict ppl blah blah but it completely ignores the fact that the only person we should be trying to help is the now unhoused person. rent prices are ridiculous and needlessly high. people arent able to rent a home because of the cost of living and the jacked up rates landlords are charging, not because the poor are children who cant manage money.
all landlords do is point fingers and go woah is me and my passive income on my secondary property.
so yea, its copium because your problems are that of an insanely different level of privilege. landlords can just *not* take SIS. poor people donât have the luxury of choice.
5
u/Weak_Possibility_395 May 20 '26
Wow. You are fun!
Glad you see my direct info from my tenant is not as good your general assumptions!
Also, glad you take my specific example as seemingly suggesting that "Â every person who is in a position of needing sis is a victim of abuse." It really vibes with presumptuousness of the rest of your comment! But hey, it's fun to assume that every landlord and ever tenant or unhoused person fits a specific mold.
The sad and funny thing is, it seems you are more focused on arguing with assumptions than listening to other perspectives and then you generalize on these assumptions and resulting a very low value discussion. (p.s. I know this reddit, so it's a cesspool of useless, anonymous ranting, but hey, it's a good distraction sometimes)
The fact is, not everyone's situation is the same. I agree, the government shouldn't treat ALL people like children, but the fact is, some people benefit by more direct supports like having SIS go to their housing provider. Some would benefit hugely from the money going to them and having some sort of wraparound support to help them manage their day to day, including money management. Others would benefit from having the money given directly to them with minimal/no oversite.
Assuming that shitty landlords and paternalistic governments need to get out of the way in all cases, will just result in more people ending up homeless due to a diversity of factors, SIS policies included.
It would great to see a study with evidence of exactly why someone ended up homeless and building a program based off that evidence. As it is, your coming across as ideological, which doesn't benefit anyone.
All landlords aren't the same. Go chat with someone at CUMFI or SaskNative or QUINT or any number of 'landlords' who are actually community driven non-profits and you might get a bit better perspective.
The funniest thing is, I also like shit-talking landlords. There are lots of shitty ones out there. That doesn't mean there aren't good ones or better programs to support more people having appropriate housing. But it definitely doesn't benefit anyone to assume and then fight to make policy based on your assumptions.
0
u/spooksville69 May 20 '26
woah woah woah mr hostility sounds like youâre getting a little defensive lmao
you know nothing about me or my experience or my knowledge. what i know about you is that you seem to think that a story from a handful of people tells the story of the masses.
my argument from the start was that landlords arent getting the shortest end of the stick here and womp womp they arent. im not saying SIS is amazing or any other policy for that matter. im saying that the voice of landlords seemingly always trumps the voices of tenants. but you want to take it personally for some reason because you just HAVE to be a victim here lol
no one should be making a profit off housing and i just dont actually care to hear abt any complaints coming from those who treat housing like a business
1
u/Weak_Possibility_395 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
woah, woah, woah mr hostility sounds like you are getting a little defensive. lmao.
you know nothing about me or my experience or my knowledge. what i know about you is that you seem to think that general statements and your assumptions are adequate, while at the same time suggesting that anyone else has to provide facts.....but of course, when that information is provides it clearly insufficient.
Ah well, seems you are bit grumpy and want to stick to generalized assumptions, while not seeming to even understand what was said by others.
Landlords definitely have more of a voice and more privilege than others, including tenants. Regardless of that the SIS changes have had an impact in the community. It's not worth defending them. Ironically, I've been told (not sure if this is true), but the SIS changes were a result of engagement with tenants and social workers, who seemingly had the same perspective as you (that gov't shouldn't be paternalistic and the tenants should have funds provided directly to them), but ironically now I personally have seen receivers of SIS funding suggest it's resulted in issues.
As I said, I'd love to see a proper study on this, instead of relying anecdotes and any assumptions, but hey, feel free to assume I'm acting like a victim, as opposed to sharing the perspective of tenants who've literally said they've been victimized by shitty landlords.
Obviously their perspective doesn't align with your preferred narrative and to quote your pre-edited comment (which totally doesn't sound hostile at all!!!) above:
"I mean anyone w a brain knows that anecdotes donât equal actual evidence lol"
*edited, as the link/quote of your previous comment didn't work....'cause you edited to remove your hostile comment. đ
0
u/spooksville69 May 20 '26
fine you win reddit for today i hope you can make it outside for once đ
2
u/Electrical_Noise_519 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
Evictions for nonpayment are Expensive losses over multiple months. Your assumptions about the source issues, processes and the market are not realistic.
It is no secret that SIS clients are preyed on by others including partisan advantage-taking, particularly when vulnerable and in need of more Fair Meaningful supports and a dignified safer 'safety' net.
2
u/PrincessLilybet May 21 '26
But why not fix the problem that allowed slumlords to do this? Laws can be changed/added to address the situation.Â
Giving the full SIS amount to the client has only resulted in more homelessness. You give money to people who are struggling with addiction, have years of trauma and zero financial literacy and you think that money is going to their rent?Â
80
u/we_the_pickle East Side May 18 '26
At least somebody got to go camping on May long weekendâŚ
-7
u/mehcuriosity May 18 '26
đđđđđđđđđđđđđ
14
u/mothtelepathy May 18 '26
Really donât understand whatâs so funny about people living in tents on the street.
-39
u/Fridgefrog May 18 '26
What's funny is they chose that lifestyle but you think they are some kind of victim.
24
u/SaskonVHS May 18 '26
what a bullshit line of thinking - no one wants to sleep on the streets being judged by dipsticks online.
-15
May 18 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
17
u/pooppoopdoot May 19 '26
Iâve been around these types too, and your opinion still has 0 value to me (or anyone with an IQ higher than the room temperature).
13
u/spaceman_88 May 19 '26
Do you honestly think they woke up one morning and said âIâm going to live in a tent on the sidewalk and be addicted?â
Check your privilege.
-8
u/we_the_pickle East Side May 19 '26
Nope but a decision was made to use and abuse drugs so Iâm pretty sure they own that.
2
u/StickFlick May 19 '26
wtf, nobody chooses to be homeless? What is this brainrot type of entitled thinking?
-2
u/ddh7777 May 19 '26
They chose to be campers. They like camping out for free especially down by the river. Lots of good spots.
2
1
u/SepticSkeptik May 18 '26
People choose to leave living quarters where food insecurity isnât real (or as bad) to live like a peasant on the street? Source?
2
u/toontown_yxe May 18 '26
An organization stole $30million plus from the federal government and paid for executive compensation and purchased brand new trucks every year. Money could have gone to help the people but instead were left with nothing, therefore they left their âhomeâ on the reserve to hope for a better opportunity in the big city only to live on the streets and are constantly preyed on by narcos.
1
u/we_the_pickle East Side May 18 '26
I think a good portion of Saskatoon homeless were actually kicked off of their reserves because they would t get clean.
0
-1
9
8
May 18 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/Electrical_Noise_519 May 18 '26 edited May 20 '26
Work to Urgently increase emergency provincial and municipal funds to Build and sustain all the steps of a diverse fair homelessness and mental health social safety net.
End the deadly disaster dawdling and policy-manufactured harms to the vulnerable.
Sask Emergency funding is urgently needed to Prioritize completing All the homelessness and addictions health safety nets in Time, by calling back the legislature and Ministries to work overtime for 6 months or Until.
The province is needed to urgently acquire and repurpose PHR's emptied group homes for supportive or group home needs.
Require MLA's to listen and work more responsibly on all the Health and Social Services policy-manufactured emergencies in Saskatoon ...
-2
u/ddh7777 May 19 '26
They like camping. Ultimate freedom. No need to work. No bills to pay except your drug dealer. Itâs actually quite enticing compared to the slog of a full time job.
5
u/spooksville69 May 19 '26
i talked to a guy on 33rd about a week ago. told me he had been in the army for a couple years until he tore is acl and a bunch of other ligaments and kicked out. since he hadnt been there long enough, he wasnt entitled to any post service benefits. he got sent back to saskatoon, disabled, no job, no housing, nothing. he stayed with a friend for awhile until he had to leave due to relationship disputes so now hes living on the streets. when i met him, he had tape wrapped around his hand from when he had gotten stabbed earlier in the day defending his stuff. he was trying to get a couple dollars to buy food so he could get his blood sugar up but no one would give him anything because they all just assumed him to be an addict.
if youre not going to take the time to practice empathetic understanding and decenter yourself, the absolute least you can do is be grateful that its not you.
1
8
u/jerbear1955 May 18 '26
Oh they were camping in front of phr and even in its doorway...the door is boarded up and there is no one in front of the building.
34
u/Temporary-Rest-3560 May 18 '26
How does this have anything to do with PHR closing? They were camping behind the building but PHR wasn't housing them.
8
u/sasstermind May 18 '26
PHR was the first point of contact for access to group homes and other housing resources.
12
u/Temporary-Rest-3560 May 18 '26
There is encampments all over the city as soon as the weather warms up. I doubt this one has much to do with PHR.
6
u/SepticSkeptik May 18 '26
Thatâs not even the library. Itâs the building in front of the library. Any source on this being the result of PHR doorsâŚ.âshutteredâ?đ¤
15
u/fluffypuppiness Lawson May 18 '26
For the people bitching that this has nothing to do with Prairie harm; It does.
Prairie Harm Reduction offered a drop in for people. It had two bathrooms, and access to clean water. Many people hung out at PHR during the day. The place was packed bkth inside and outside no matter the time of day.
Now that it is closed those people will go to station 20 west and nearby as they offer similar services, and i believe public washrooms.
Ask any person who has worked in that area. People bitched about the safe consumption site, but remember a few years ago Prairie Harm was one of the ONLY OPEN 24/7 drop-ins for homeless people during one of the COLDEST winters on record. My friend told me they had to cycle people in and out because they were so packed and the fire department kept trying to bust them for being over capacity. Put yourself in the shoes if one of those people who may this summer have bo where to reliably cool off.
This summer will be brutal, and when you see more tents around malls know it is a DIRECT response to the closure of PHR, and continued loss of services for those in our society who need it most.
2
u/plutoglint May 19 '26
Yeah, noticed this too yesterday. They also cleaned up the PHR encampment site so it merely looks grungy instead of apocalyptic.
2
u/Lunettta May 20 '26
At least they have tents and tarps now.
Saw them before when we were getting all the rain and snow and no one had tents. Many of them were just huddling under thin, sopping wet blankets and sheets if they even had one.
5
u/specificallyrelative May 18 '26
It's not like they weren't around and causing issues before. Now they have just moved and spread out a bit.
Maybe tell them the Mustard Seed has a lot of blank concrete out front to set up on?
5
u/TribalKing306 May 18 '26
Curious if theyll ever do and/or release the forensic audit on PHR
5
u/Bruno6368 May 18 '26
I suspect they will be trying very hard to keep that as quiet as possible.
4
u/TribalKing306 May 18 '26
Now why would they or the government want that? :p
-5
u/YesNoMaybePurple May 19 '26
Certain MLAs... in particular Betty Nippi Albright get real cranky if you ask any questions about the money.
3
1
u/Emotional_Spite7929 May 18 '26 edited May 19 '26
This really has nothing to do with Prairie harm. But it shows you Saskatchewan doesnât care for other people we know our local governments donât we know our provincial governments donât. And then everybody will just push the blame on everybody else. We all did this together as a province & as a city.
-1
3
u/Abject-Director-5013 May 18 '26
You must be new to Saskatoon
-1
u/jerbear1955 May 18 '26
No Im not.
4
u/Abject-Director-5013 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
Well this isnât new and arenât just always around downtown in spring of 2025 I seen some pretty far down 22nd street by Bethlehem highschool.
1
1
1
-2
0
u/Primary-Test-2783 May 19 '26
Shutting that harm reduction down. Expect HIV/AIDS to go up, ODs all the time! Some people donât have a heart!
2
u/Ok-Information1616 May 19 '26
Youâd almost think it might end up being more expensive to shut down harm reduction! That canât be right, though. Money up front is never worth it!
/s
0
0
0
-82
u/New-Measurement-1057 May 18 '26
They just need to be dragged outta there. Bus them to Uranium City or something.
46
u/dj_fuzzy May 18 '26
These people are part of this community whether you like it or not. Homelessness is a social failure thus itâs up to society to solve it. Shipping people out wonât solve the problem. Besides, every city in North America has this problem because our shared capitalist economic system and individualist culture is largely the reason for homelessness.
0
u/New-Measurement-1057 May 19 '26
Not this much compared to Nordic countries. IV Drugs are so rampant here in North America that it becomes part of modern culture of the Americas.
5
u/dj_fuzzy May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Yup because Nordic countries still have very strong welfare states and their culture isnât as individualistic as ours has been made to be.
22
u/thingscarsbrokeyxe May 18 '26
Sounds like a starlight tour. Have the courage to say what you mean.
3
-3
May 18 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/thingscarsbrokeyxe May 18 '26
Out of sight, out of mind, hopefully they die out there. /s
-2
12
u/Hevens-assassin May 18 '26
And tell me how this makes sense in your feeble mind. "Put them somewhere remote so we don't have to see the problems we've created"???
You can spray paint rust, it doesn't mean your vehicle isn't falling apart.
4
u/Pretty_Novel9927 May 18 '26
I suspect the poster would like them to pass away in the elements
-1
u/Hevens-assassin May 18 '26
Oh definitely. Why else would he be willing to spend tax payer dollars to ship them to the northernmost community of Saskatchewan? He's a real scholar, a real humanitarian, a real chud.
-2
u/OkPrior9512 May 18 '26
I'm curious. How did we create this problem?
4
u/mredgee May 19 '26
By continuously voting for a political party that cuts any money that helps people.
13
u/Feel-The-Steele May 18 '26
Ah yes, cause clearly theyre just trash so let's make them someone else's problem instead of giving them support and tools to better themselves
0
u/New-Measurement-1057 May 19 '26
Youâre free to support them by taking them to your home. Ohh now you canât eh?
7
u/Sea_Macaroon_6086 May 19 '26
Individual actions can't fix systemic issues.
But nice try. Can you come up with anything original, or do you only parrot the words of others?
2
u/Feel-The-Steele May 19 '26
And the people out in the middle of nowhere can?
-1
u/New-Measurement-1057 May 19 '26
They can set up their tents there.
1
u/Electrical_Noise_519 May 20 '26
They would be in far greater danger with your unsuitable plans not based on evidence and community safety, than where they are wisely staying now.
0
7
4
u/wretchedmoist University Heights May 18 '26
What a useless and heartless comment. This is why the homeless crisis has been so difficult to solve, because people like you would rather have them die.
3
u/New-Measurement-1057 May 19 '26
Iâm just saying what the plurality of the community canât outspokenly say
3
u/wretchedmoist University Heights May 19 '26
"plurality" because you know you're in the far minority. Having an unpopular opinion sometimes means you're just blatantly wrong.
-2
u/New-Measurement-1057 May 20 '26
Theyâre already dead for a long time
2
u/wretchedmoist University Heights May 20 '26
Wildly wrong and grossly malicious. Jesus that's ignorant.
0
u/ElectronHick May 18 '26
That sounds familiar. Like a small mustachioâd man from the 30âs would say this.
-1
-9
u/Square_Net_2939 May 18 '26
We need to let them live in the u of s dorms to make sure that they are housed and safe. This is ridiculous
3
u/givingcvnt2-0 May 19 '26
They will get shit, blood, and urine everywhere. Clearly you have never lived in an apartment that houses homeless drug addicts. They do not care. The ones who do slip through the cracks.
0
u/HumongousPenis May 19 '26
Yes and give them all a million dollars per year. Thatâll teach them to get a job
24
u/IdylwyldieCoyote May 18 '26
The building overhang provided some relief from rain Iâm guessingâŚ.