Frances Bula header image 2
← →

The struggle to house our homeless and mentally ill is straining the system

October 16th, 2011 · 70 Comments

The Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addiction opened three years ago with the promise that it would be the place that would take on the hardest cases of people who were mentally ill, drug-addicted, sick and homeless, give them treatment and help them transition to a stable place to live.

It’s struggling, as I outline in a story I wrote based on an evaluation of the centre, partly because of the way it was hurried into existence. As a result, it ended up not admitting the most severe cases all the time, not monitoring how they were doing very well, and not having much success with transitions to other kinds of housing. Some of that can be fixed. But some is an ongoing struggle, because the centre’s staff are having a hard time figuring out where the people it treats can live after their time at the centre.

Not surprisingly, I see that Vancouver city staff are in the middle of a struggle to allocate their precious social-housing units that are starting to come on board, as the province’s new buildings are opened one after the other. The city wants to see the 1,500 units in those buildings go to people who are homeless, as detailed in a report released late Friday. But they’re facing enormous pressure from other agencies looking for places for their people — including, I can well imagine, the Burnaby Centre.

The reality is that, in spite of the enormous acquisition and building effort from the province in the last four years, there isn’t enough to go around in a system that keeps manufacturing homelessness.

For those who are interested in the full report on the Burnaby Centre, I’ve attached a link below:

Severed release version BCMHA Final Report

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • mezzanine

    @Otis, I think you are mixing arguments. What any government does with its funds, and if you agree with the spending priorities, is a separate issue.

    What happens if another administration decides to increase funding for housing and low-income supports? That funding still has to be raised somehow.

    ……

    And the demographic challenge still remains – canada is getting older starting now, and will remain so for the next~20 yrs even accounting for immigration. Again, if more people qualify for the home owner’s grant due to overall ageing, there will be less revenue for services, with presumably more demand for services like health care.

    The dependency ratio – the ratio of the non-working-age population to the working-age population – is currently at the lowest it will be during the 140-year period between 1921 and 2061. Even the most optimistic scenarios show a sharp rise during the next twenty years.

    http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2011/05/population-aging-has-begun-in-earnest.html

  • mezzanine

    I’ll grant that you have a right to question whether a low-interest loan – I’ll say it again, guaranteed – is the best use of your tax dollars; that’s a political question.

    I think you are thinking about the property tax deferment program.

    http://www.rev.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/brochures/PropertyTaxDeferment.pdf

    As opposed to the Low-Income Grant supplement (link @23), which seems to me a grant, not a loan. Correct me if i am wrong, though

  • Otis Krayola

    @mezzanine

    No, I’m not confused. And, yes, I’ve been talking about the loan program that allows those who qualify to allow the equity they have to cover yearly taxes. I’ve never (here) addressed concerns about a homeowner’s grant.

    What brilliant said above is clear and worthy of challenge, “Add in the policies that allow seniors to defer their property taxes. Why do we make it easy for seniors to cling to houses they can’t afford…”

    Rather than tackle complex issues, it’s always easier to vilify and dismiss a whole class of people, whether they ride bikes or favour their left hand or eat with chopsticks. Or happen to have been born earlier. Those People – if we could just get rid of them, all of our troubles would be over. Bigots will always find ready examples that prop up their prejudices.

    It’s facile, divisive, and ultimately destructive without getting at structural problems.

  • mezzanine

    @Otis,

    I’m sorry if you find my comments lacking tact. Certainly that wasn’t my intention.

    When I make an argument, I try to put up info and letting ppl decide, coloured by my own view of course.

    On that note, this is a timely artcile posted today at CBC:

    A new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia says governments should be putting more money toward helping new families and less to seniors.
    ….
    He said recent elections across the country have focused on helping seniors, when they should have keyed in on families.

    Baby-boomers, now in their pre-retirement years, are benefitting from comparatively high wages and skyrocketing real estate prices, he said.

    “If we really want to make sure the family remains at the heart of Canadian values, then we have to start talking about serious policy innovation and substantial reallocation of resources,” [researchers] said.

    IMO, obviously is is good to help everyone, but changing demographics suggests a change in priorities.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/10/18/bc-study-young-families-squeezed.html

  • Frank Ducote

    Michael@48 – thanks for the link to Cameron Gray’s letter. Very informative and compelling.

  • rf

    The system lacks resources for the needs of the disabled and the WANTS of seniors.

    The next time I hear a senior complain for entitlements because “they contributed their whole lives”, I’ll be sure to point out that they contributed enough to cover about half of what the government is now spending on them.

    No more government discounts for wealthy seniors!
    Stop wasting money on those who don’t need it or simply want it.
    Dedicate resources to those truly in need, not to seniors living mortgage free in $1million (east side) homes who didn’t save enough money for full bus fares.

  • brilliant

    @Otis Krayola 53 Stop throwing around terms like Bigot on an economic issue. Why do seniors get to take advantage of government largesse to pay their taxes,while a 30something family man who works for himself and has 3 kids to feed not get the same break if he gets a catastrophic illness?

    And using terms like “social upheaval” is ridiculous. Downsizing isn’t social upheaval. And if you can’t afford to pay your taxes how can you afford to maintain a home? We’ve all been to thise Open Houses where granny’s deferred maintenance has ensured her house us now a teardown or a very, very expensive reno.

  • Otis Krayola

    @mezzanine #54

    I don’t find your comments lacking tact; I’m sorry if you inferred that. In fact, I agree with you that reasoned arguments, supported by facts are far more persuasive than opinions, supported merely by anecdotes.

    Thank you for the quotes and the links.

    @brilliant #57, I’ve already granted that the tax deferral program is a political question, so it might be helpful to the 30-something family man with the catastrophic illness (or you, for that matter) to take it up with your MLA, or put pressure on the Christy Liberals to change the law. It’s not particularly helpful to blame those who are, under present statute, allowed to defer their property taxes by signing a promissory document that guarantees payment with interest.

    As well, I have nothing against downsizing. I know people who have done it. Voluntarily, too. You’re not saying it shouldn’t be voluntary, are you?

    “We’ve all been to thise (sic) Open Houses where granny’s deferred maintenance has ensured her house us (sic) now a teardown or a very, very expensive reno.”

    Have we? All of us? And not a single senior can be trusted to maintain a home. It may be a brain thing that atrophies after six decades or so.

    Natural rhythm. They’re all lazy. They can’t swim, because they’re not naturally buoyant. They breed like mink/rabbits. They’re all drunks.

  • Bobbie Bees

    I get the feeling that rf and brilliant would both like to see our society turn into a combination of ‘Children of the Corn’ meets ‘Soylent Green’

  • brilliant

    Well Bobbie, since you like to be greener than thou, explain how an elderly widow rattling atound a 5 bedroom house in Kerrisdale advances the green density agenda.

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought of The Evening

    “Несколько дней из жизни Обломова… Neskolko dney eez jeeznee Oblomova… Several days in The Life of Oblomov”

    Brilliant #60,
    This is on of my favorite movies of all time, forget the Russian language, the apathy, the camera movement… concentrate on the characters…
    There was a time after the Red Revolution in Russia when a small mansion was transformed overnight, from a two pathetic aristocratic bums plus an elderly butler dwelling, into a vibrant 10 families with kids – from good working backgrounds – all on the way to build the new Russian family…
    Maybe that’s the way to go. Sharing, for perks and discounts!
    And they were green man, they were green…
    Anyhoo…
    Enjoy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULYyNiQfuVs

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Otis Krayola

    @brilliant #60

    Oh, it’s about Green? Sorry.

    I thought all your talk about ‘seniors’ and ‘grannys’ and ‘elderly widows’ meant that you resented Old People for living in homes that you could find a better use for (in spite of the fact that you don’t own them).

    Since it’s not about white hair, I have a number of slackers who could probably move to smaller digs or make room for scads of people without actually having to vacate.

    Sarah McLachlan’s got two young daughters, but I hear she lives (or, as you’d say, ‘rattles around’) in sumptuous west-side splendour. Lord knows how many you and the other Green Police will be able to accommodate there.

    And, our very own Michael Geller has a gated castle on a semi-private island in the Fraser. How about imposing a little green density on him and his?

  • brilliant

    @Otis Krayola Its not just about being green, that’s just one more resson subsidizing affluent members of society at the expense of the poor is a bad idea. There’s no such thing as “house rich but cash poor” for a tax subsidized senior sitting in a mortgage free housr. You’re asking everyone else to subsidize your unwillingness to unlock the value in your home. It’s as stupid as someone with a bag of diamonds under their mattress but no cash on hand crying poor.

    And yiu csn bet Maclachlan is paying her own property taxes,I can’t soeak fir Michael Geller.

  • Bobby Gillespie

    Sorry, gotta ask, but isn’t building more social housing and being more responsive a magnet for attracting more homeless to the city?

  • Frances Bula

    @Bobby. Okay, at the risk of sounding like a broken record on this topic, Vancouver is not the only city building social housing. So is Surrey, Nanaimo, Kelowna, Calgary, Toronto and hundreds of others. I don’t understand why people in Vancouver frequently think that this is the only city with homelessness. Very far from it.

  • Otis Krayola

    @brilliant #63, let’s take this in stages (and then leave it, OK? It’s a stale thread, and we’re way off topic):

    – “…subsidizing affluent members of society at the expense of the poor is a bad idea” It may come as a shock, but I couldn’t agree more.

    – “There’s no such thing as “house rich but cash poor” for a tax subsidized senior sitting in a mortgage free housr (sic).” I’m not sure whether you meant to imply that all seniors are tax-subsidized more than are other age groups. Nor am I sure if you’re assuming that all seniors are mortgage-free. Both statements are patently false.

    But for the sake of argument, let’s take your imaginary granny-type and let’s say she has paid off her home. You don’t know what she might use her available cash for. She might have a learning-disabled adult child that’s just been turfed out of his assisted-living arrangement. She might have extraordinary medical expenses that are not covered by any plan. My local neighbourhood house daily feeds scores of young children, so that they don’t go into the classroom hungry. Maybe our elder woman gives to this or some other worthy charity. Or, maybe she blows it on cigarettes and bingo. I can’t say. But neither can you. Assumptions that fit your stereotypes don’t count.

    Regardless, her taxes do not go unpaid. I can’t put it any clearer – the municipality receives the property tax when it is due; it is not really ‘deferred’, even for a minute. There is no default. More importantly, we (you and me, other ratepayers) never share her unpaid tax burden, because there is none.

    No. Tax. Unpaid.

    She has done what you have suggested – not by using a bag of diamonds, but with the equity in her house. She has ‘unlock(ed) the value’ in her home by guaranteeing that, as soon as her house is sold, the cost of the tax burden, plus the interest charged, will be repaid in full. Before any others see a nickel. She doesn’t ‘cry poor’, she borrows against her equity. It’s her choice to do so, and she does it to support 1) her Down syndrome son, or 2) the kids in her community, or 3) her gambling and nicotine jones. Any way you cut it, the piper will be paid.

    – “You’re asking everyone else to subsidize your unwillingness to unlock the value in your home.” In looking back, maybe I made a mistake in arguing in the First Person with the ’55 Chevy analogy, so let me make this clear:
    This never was about me.
    You don’t know anything about me.
    I could be a 23-year-old renter, paying the property tax as a portion of my monthly rent.
    I’m not. The tax on my property is always paid by the due date, in full.
    Beyond that, None of Your Business. Age, Sex, Hair Colour, State of Indebtedness, or Job.

    – “And yiu (sic) csn (sic) bet Maclaclan (sic) is paying her own property taxes,” Really? Although I have no way (nor, truth to tell, any desire) to know, how the hell are you able to make such a statement? It’s either BS, or you’re an insider and you’re revealing information that can get you fired or prosecuted (or both). Which is true?

    – “I can’t soeak (sic) fir (sic) Michael Geller.” In considering your ‘green density’ comment, I was looking for people who were not ‘seniors’ and who, presumably, were overhoused. In Sarah McLachlan’s case, I don’t know for certain that her living arrangements could be called sumptuous. In the case of Michael Geller, who knows? His place is enormous, but his family (and other residents) might make for close quarters there, too.

    In any event, I have to wonder, is it someone’s age, or is it living in a situation that’s larger than what you think is sufficient?

  • mezzanine

    Regardless, her taxes do not go unpaid. I can’t put it any clearer – the municipality receives the property tax when it is due; it is not really ‘deferred’, even for a minute. There is no default. More importantly, we (you and me, other ratepayers) never share her unpaid tax burden, because there is none.

    I’m not sure that i understand your arguement. Are you saying the tax bill is paid, net of the deferrals and grants?

    The two points remain –

    1) reducing the deferrals and grants may increase housing turnover and lower prices.

    2) we will have increased unfunded liabilities due to the deferral/grant program due to changing demographics.

  • Otis Krayola

    http://www.rev.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/brochures/PropertyTaxDeferment.pdf

  • mezzanine

    It reading thru the link, the deferral is eventually paid when the house is sold, but it also looks like they charge an interest rate of 2% below prime.

    correct me if i’m wrong but there does seem to be a straight subsidy for the deferral program.

    not that this is a wrong thing, but we as a society have to ask ourselves if this is a priority.

    from the guardian via pricetags:

    The rise in longevity, which has been particularly impressive among men born in the 1920-1940 period, is something we should celebrate. It’s not just that people are living longer, they are living healthier for longer, too. In parts of the south-east life expectancy has risen to 83.6 years for males.

    But the unintended consequence of longer lives is that older people now have a stranglehold on the family home market. These houses used to be released back on to the market when their occupants passed away in their 70s, and sold to families in their 20s and early 30s. Now, thankfully, many of our parents are living into their 90s, and we do as much as possible to keep people in their own homes rather than putting them into care. But it is having a devastating impact on the release of family homes into the hands of people who really need them.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2011/oct/19/older-people-stranglehold-family-homes

    this is of course ingoring the cost of the grant program.

  • Otis Krayola

    @ mezzanine #69

    You’re right, the interest charged to qualified recipients is indeed prime minus 2%.

    I don’t have the numbers re total cost to the treasury per annum, but you are correct in asking rhetorically if this is a ‘priority’.

    The question needs to be asked about each and every entitlement and subsidy our governments parcels out on our behalf. Repeatedly.

    Not because all such programs are bad (they’re not) but to determine which are the most costly, and which are the most frivolous.

    That being said, I submit that the actual cost to the province for municipal tax ‘deferral’ is minuscule (when compared to numerous expenditures that are of questionable value), and will remain so, in spite of a growing demographic.

    Although extremely late, it should be pointed out that municipal tax relief is not limited to those 55 and older, but is extended to qualifying persons who meet disability guidelines as well.

    Finally, you’re right, none of this has to do with the issue or the cost of the homeowner’s grant.

    That’ll be another argument.

←  Older Comments
 →