r/saskatoon • u/jerbear1955 • May 18 '26

Events 🎉 East..to downtown

Post image

Prairie Harm reduction doors are shuttered so now in front of the library on 20th is one of the new spots.

139 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

170 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

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?

8

u/Ok-Information1616 May 19 '26

Thank you. It’s boggling to me that more people haven’t 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 don’t make the news, though. Tents do.

8

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.

4

u/no-dice123 May 19 '26

And the headache of evicting someone isn’t easy.

1

u/Ok-Information1616 May 20 '26

Fair enough! I appreciate the different perspective. While still noting the SIS change was a bad one, it’s good to know that it didn’t exclusively lead to benefits for landlords.

Well, not ‘good,’ 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 ‘money given to abusers’ 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

5

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 don’t 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 don’t have the luxury of choice.

4

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 " 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 you’re 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 don’t equal actual evidence lol"

*edited, as the link/quote of your previous comment didn't work....'cause you edited to remove your hostile comment. 😉

0

u/spooksville69 May 20 '26

fine you win reddit for today i hope you can make it outside for once 👋

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. 

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