The other thing is that 10 years is longer than the average political lifetime. So, if you’re the politician who comes up with the 10-year plan, you can claim to have laid a solid foundation and blame your successor for failing to make a success of it. On the other hand, if you inherit the 10-year plan, you can claim that your predecessor did nothing while they were in office, leaving you with all the work and not enough time.
So in this case, the only victims will be the homeless.
The municipal elected leaders claim that they are focusing on the long-term housing for all so to help that long-term plan succeed, they will not fund any new temporary shelter beds, build no public washrooms, no new warming centres and no tiny homes as all those are temporary and will devert our funds and attention from the one true solution.
So for a few more years, we will have people living in tents and sleeping on pieces of cardboard as they wait for their new housing that may never come.
If all else fails in the political world, have the staff develop a “10-year plan”. Ten years sounds like it’s long enough for things to get done, while being short enough that it doesn’t look like you’re saying it will never happen. It also allows for “slippage”, in the sense that you’ve got a bit of wiggle room to say you are still in the “planning” stages, when people notice, a couple of years in, that you haven’t done anything concrete.
If not a 10-year plan, then go for something like a 50% reduction by a year ending in 0 or 5. It all has to do with the seeming magic of the base-10 number system that we use. While the best or most realistic outcome might actually be a 37% reduction in something by June, 2028, nobody ever sets a goal like that. It’s always round numbers (multiples of 10). Of course, nobody hits their target anyway, but the round numbers give more wiggle room.
Another trick is to put up 1/3 of the money and say that you expect the other two levels of government to come up with the other 2/3. That way, you look like you are serious AND you have someone to blame when nothing happens.
Leaving all that aside, you are correct. Nobody in the world has solved homelessness. Sudbury will be a world leader if they solve it. I’ve heard of one country in Europe where Housing First allegedly works, but I’m not sure that’s even true.
It is a problem of untreated mental illness and addictions, although these days it’s often framed up as the result of unaffordable housing and low vacancy rates. However, people with low incomes do not inevitably end up on the street when they have social capital (friends and family, jobs, etc.). Lots of people on social assistance have stable housing.
However, if your addictions and/or mental illness are uncontrolled, you will be unhousable, and you’ll not be welcomed by your former friends and family.
The other thing is that 10 years is longer than the average political lifetime. So, if you’re the politician who comes up with the 10-year plan, you can claim to have laid a solid foundation and blame your successor for failing to make a success of it. On the other hand, if you inherit the 10-year plan, you can claim that your predecessor did nothing while they were in office, leaving you with all the work and not enough time.
So in this case, the only victims will be the homeless.
The municipal elected leaders claim that they are focusing on the long-term housing for all so to help that long-term plan succeed, they will not fund any new temporary shelter beds, build no public washrooms, no new warming centres and no tiny homes as all those are temporary and will devert our funds and attention from the one true solution.
So for a few more years, we will have people living in tents and sleeping on pieces of cardboard as they wait for their new housing that may never come.
If all else fails in the political world, have the staff develop a “10-year plan”. Ten years sounds like it’s long enough for things to get done, while being short enough that it doesn’t look like you’re saying it will never happen. It also allows for “slippage”, in the sense that you’ve got a bit of wiggle room to say you are still in the “planning” stages, when people notice, a couple of years in, that you haven’t done anything concrete.
If not a 10-year plan, then go for something like a 50% reduction by a year ending in 0 or 5. It all has to do with the seeming magic of the base-10 number system that we use. While the best or most realistic outcome might actually be a 37% reduction in something by June, 2028, nobody ever sets a goal like that. It’s always round numbers (multiples of 10). Of course, nobody hits their target anyway, but the round numbers give more wiggle room.
Another trick is to put up 1/3 of the money and say that you expect the other two levels of government to come up with the other 2/3. That way, you look like you are serious AND you have someone to blame when nothing happens.
Leaving all that aside, you are correct. Nobody in the world has solved homelessness. Sudbury will be a world leader if they solve it. I’ve heard of one country in Europe where Housing First allegedly works, but I’m not sure that’s even true.
It is a problem of untreated mental illness and addictions, although these days it’s often framed up as the result of unaffordable housing and low vacancy rates. However, people with low incomes do not inevitably end up on the street when they have social capital (friends and family, jobs, etc.). Lots of people on social assistance have stable housing.
However, if your addictions and/or mental illness are uncontrolled, you will be unhousable, and you’ll not be welcomed by your former friends and family.