Another thing. My previous landlord was switching to doing short-term Airbnb type because there is more money to made. Even my current one was thinking about doing the same. I think that is also fucking over renter in some cities.


Airbnb is a huge problem for housing affordability (and community cohesion).


If there’s any consolation, Airbnb is losing customers really fast. Back then it was subsidized to have a cheaper rate than hotels. Nowadays it’s more expensive than hotel with many restrictions. Even though they had a great year in 2021, their net income is still -350 million USD.


The community cohesion absolutely. I don't know exactly how Airbnb influences the market. I can't imagine it's good. At the end I absolutely hated my former landlord for that reason. She would say that we need to do something about the housing problem but she was part of the problem not solution.


No, it isn't good. It increases housing instability and decreases housing affordability. It's crazy to think how many more long-term rental options could be available without Airbnb (and VRBO). I think I would feel resentment for my landlord, too, if she said that but didn't care that she was contributing to the problem. We need more stringent regulation of short-term rentals.


Yes we do. Housing market aside I don't understand how people can trust Airbnb. I'm fairly confident when bnbs were business there was something in place for safety sake on both sides. Most of the Bnb I've been to and heard of were just elderly looking to make some extra money. Now it's every one who wants money and has a spare bedroom.


There definitely are more safeguards in place for traditional B & Bs, just like there are for hotels. There are so many nightmare Airbnb stories out there! I just don't trust it, and think it's an overall negative in the world.


Read this…[example from the UK.](https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/10/i-wanted-my-children-to-grow-up-here-how-airbnb-is-ruining-local-communities-in-north-wales)


>She would say that we need to do something about the housing problem but she was part of the problem not solution We could all push our politicians to raise our government bond interest rates to 12%. Housing affordability solved. Your former landlord would sell her place, and park those savings in a 12% interest earning Canadian bond instead, at break neck speed. What do you think? You down?


Airbnb needs to be regulated like hotels or eliminated.


Heavily taxed for the damage it does.


And not only in Van...it is a global phenomenon/problem. Here's a recent victory over Air B&B in Paris, where the problem is well recognized but where they are actually doing something about it: https://www.courthousenews.com/paris-wins-court-challenge-to-restrictions-on-airbnb-rentals/


I saw that! I'm happy Paris did something. I hope other places take notice and act.


Me too. The inaction of all levels of gov't to address this problem, the collapse of the medical system and homelessness/addiction/mental health situation is nothing short of criminal, IMO. Talk about 'fiddling while Rome burns'. The politicos are just too busy patting themselves on the back, virtual signalling and finger pointing to actually effect any positive change. SMH.


No kidding. Everything is getting worse, and no level of government seems to care at all about how bad things are and how bad things are going to get if they don't *actually do something*.


Ironically this is the crux of liberalism people don't consider. When everything revolves around the self and not the collective, you get people not giving a shit cause they are in it for themselves and fuck the rest.


Very true, that's a tension in liberalism that's usually not considered, even though it's a longtime criticism of the philosophy.


Actually 'doing something' seems to be their biggest challenge.. And don't expect any new gov't to operate any differently. In the words of The Who from "Won't Get Fooled Again' (which should be an anthem for our times): "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss".


People switch to Airbnb because it offers more protection to the landlord than the landlord tenancy branch does.


I don't think that's the primary reason most people switch, but I see your point. I know landlords can get a raw deal with the RTB in cases where the tenant is the one in the wrong.


Granted, several landlords I’ve met think the tenant is in the wrong because they don’t want their rent increased….


For sure, that's the other side of the coin. There are tenants who are in the wrong (causing destruction, etc.), and then there are the tenants who just want their landlord to treat them fairly.


Yep. I Experienced firsthand how little protection the RTB offers landlords. As a small scale landlord with only a secondary suite, the risk is absolutely not worth it and I would never do it again. I would consider short term rental though. They need to sort out the RTA.


We used to Airbnb half our house (split level with a separate entrance, able to lock off the main entrance when we had guests), and had people cause damage a few times. Had no trouble at all getting money for the damage from Airbnb. On the other hand, my dad owned the house I lived in during my last 2 years of university, and had me manage it as a rental (didn't want to pay the penalties getting out of the mortgage) when I'd graduated and moved out... Getting money from those kids for damage and getting people out of there on time was a nightmare.


There is no community cohesion.


i had a land lord do that, he told me that my 1000 a month rent was nothing to the 3000 he can make doing air bnb


A real problem here is that Airbnb is the manifestation of a black/grey market, a manifestation enabled by technology. What the demand is really telling us is that there is not enough competition/reasonably priced hotels in an area. More hotels means less air bnb demand which means fewer rental to air bnb conversions. When you think about it the Airbnb model is very wasteful and inefficient. No economies of scale, unit is way larger than the people need. Hotels could have 20 rooms in the place some of these houses take up. Hotels are set up to deal with the liability and damage from bad bookings. They can maintain full time and efficient cleaning staff. But do cities like Vancouver make a big push for the major win win of many new hotels that will improve the cities tourism and reduce air bnb price down enough to reduce it's effect? Fat chance of that!


They aren't totally competing with each other as they hold only partially overlapping roles. Airbnb is efficient for ensuring a room doesn't go to waste at any point. If I suddenly go out of town, boom, my place can be available the next day for whoever wants to pay for it. I'm in Mexico half the year, there's an available unit for rent for half the year until I want it back. Hotels compete for space with apartment units and are often only partially full. The issue with Airbnb is that people should not be allowed to purchase properties they do not live in at any time and Airbnb them out. Should be some minimum amount of the year you have to stay there. Hard to enforce though.


https://youtu.be/rXWuz4wjdZA. Talks about gig economy and its issues.


AirBnB is the worst! $75 per night $300 cleaning fee


Jesus. Hotel doesn't seem to bad now.


Funny you say that. I travel alot for work. Air bnb was AMAZING for me early on. It was cheap and typically I had a house to myself. It was wild. Now they're as much as hotels and half the ones I go to are fucking gross. And I find like every 2nd or third air bnb I'm fighting with the owner over something. Not a chance would a motel fight me over a toilet not working or a shower being busted. Or not listing there's no wifi FUCK you frank


Funnily enough I also had an Airbnb with no wifi that was not listed as not having wifi and the owner's name was also Frank. Fuckin Frank man, what a dick.


Yup it wasnt always like this though. I think the owners just got hip to it in the last couple of years as a way to make more money and use peoples fear of covid to justify the high charge. I bet most of them dont even clean other than change sheets and towels, plus take out trash. All could be done in less than 20 mins by the owners themselves.


It is garbage. I always use hotels and never had issues. I have used AirBnB once and it was super crappy. Dirty and stinky, no amenities, expensive. Never again.


Yeah we were going to go for a quick stay for literally 2 nights. Found a place and it was a killer price, I presume someone cancelled who knows, and was ready to hit the book button. Until I saw the $150 cleaning fee. Fuck that nonsense. That's just nuts. Listen I get cleaning an apartment can be a lot but $150 is batshit crazy. It's weird how air bnb is just pushing people back to traditional options.


The cleaning is done by a service and getting someone in at the right time is expensive.


A lot of people are renting on Airbnb in neighbourhoods and buildings that are not zoned for it and can't legally rent for a period of less than 28 days. Municipal governments need to crack down on that.


100% Airbnb's have destroyed rental supply and they sit empty for at least 9 months out of the year. We really shouldn't allow them to exist anymore. Obviously that wouldn't solve the house crisis overnight but it would certainly help


its REALLY bad on van isle. lived there for two years and a lot of the limited rental housing is either airbnbs or rental housing for seniors


I haven't used Airbnbs for several years now. Once I realized how much it was fucking over housing and the rental market, I've stuck with hostels/motels instead.


I can't speak for down there but I can imagine it's true. In the interior usually Airbnbs are revolving door with the camp workers. I imagine with the lower mainland being more touristy it would be more of any issue.


In the lower mainland they’re almost always full. I paid for my mom to stay in an Airbnb before the pandemic and the the guy that owned the place lived elsewhere and had like seven people each staying in one room of this giant ass house. He’s making $700 per DAY at least.


There is no nice way to say this. But does not also reflect on Internationals owning homes in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland but not actually living in them? I remember there being a story about that in the news a long time ago. I thought the Lower Mainland would be more about tourist times. Then again you guys don't have winter LOL.


Yeah there is a lot of shady real estate shit going on, from gangs laundering money to Chinese businessmen using shell corporations to hide their money from the CCP in Canadian land, and other things I haven’t even seen stats or articles about. It’s definitely a contributing factor to ALL of BC’s problems, not just homelessness


Homelessness in Vancouver was rampant long before airbnb existed though.


point of the conversation - air bnb made it way worse


True, Airbnb isn't the sole issue, it's a contributing factor


As a former landlord in Canada I can honestly say I would rather have an empty property than rent to some of the scumbags I and my friends have had to deal with recently - and since COVID it seems much worse. There are lots of lovely renters out there, I'm sure, but until they're in a property you don't know what you're getting. Poor framing of laws to protect good tenants against bad landlords has enabled terrible tenants to abuse good landlords. So, I'm out (apart from one fantastic tenant in a condo who is *never* getting a rental increase... too good to lose). Pretty much everyone I know with vacant properties would rather have intermittent tourist rentals than risk a bad tenant they can't get rid of. You can cover your costs through AirBNB without risking being driven into bankruptcy through an eviction nightmare. So, some of this is the fallout of shitty legislation protecting belligerent squatters and unfortunately good tenants are suffering as a consequence. Sadly, I think this is also promoting corporate ownership of rental properties. Companies with fleets of unfinanced properties, their own legal teams and contacts on municipal councils don't worry nearly as much about a non-payers as private landlords with mortgages payments looming.


I can understand where you're coming from. My old neighbor who owned the house couldn't evict a drug addict who wasn't paying the rent and destroying her house. I did feel bad for her. Covid fucked a lot of things up. Not even from housing point of view to work point of view and even how people interact with one another. I can't say about corporate ownership because I refuse to rent an apartment or deal with rental companies. I want to meet my landlord when I see the house. As for having vacant properties I will try to stay with respect that I think that is part of the problem. Covid cause people to not want to risk anymore and it's not the building owners that are suffering it's the people. Myself included. Just airing my opinion not trying to put you down by any means


> This intent of my original tweet is to point out that homelessness is NOT due to a housing crisis. The infrastructure exists to house everyone homeless person in metro van but we don't. Instead, we prioritize housing for other things like (mentioned above) air bnbs, secondary vacation homes and elite investment strategies! This is something the author of the tweet wrote on a reddit comment above. This is something that you wrote: >As a former landlord in Canada I can honestly say I would rather have an empty property than rent to some of the scumbags I and my friends have had to deal with recently I understand where you're coming from but skyrocketing prices are caused by people with your attitude. People with homes that sit empty rather than selling them to be used by someone else. The way the market is right now no one should own investment/rental properties or second homes in the lower mainland.


>This intent of my original tweet is to point out that homelessness is NOT due to a housing crisis. The infrastructure exists to house everyone homeless person in metro van but we don't. Instead, we prioritize housing for other things like (mentioned above) air bnbs, secondary vacation homes and elite investment strategies! The problem with this argument is it shows they don't understand the "homeless" issue whatsoever. Anyone who has worked with the homeless population in this province knows that thee vast majority of these people in tent cities and in the DTES and such aren't just down on their luck in need of a place to live. They are homeless because of unchecked addiction and mental health issues. You can't solve that by just handing them a house (not to mention, there is no mechanisms to do so obviously unless the government starts seizing people's homes and handing them to the homeless, but I digress). The "homeless" problem in BC, and this country in general is not because of housing shortage, it's because what these people needs is soooo much more than affordable housing.


When I said I was out, that's what I meant. I sold in March, thankfully. I was expressing a sentiment that led to that decision. The general mood on Reddit tends to be pretty anti-landlord and I thin k it tends to be forgotten that for many landlords, that rental is their pension, their nest-egg and their livelihood. Individual landlords who are clinging on at the moment may be becoming trapped by falling prices and collapsing market. I have a friend in a popular (rural) tourist area who literally *cannot* sell his house (zero offers in two weeks and counting; not even low-ball). Until the housing market regains some kind of stability he has to choose between $4000 per month for 12 months (and no chance to sell) or $4000 per week for 16 weeks with the ability to sell any time... What would any of us do in that position? Not saying you're wrong about structural issues but until current vacant property holders are facing a financing crunch (and possible bankruptcy) the market is just too crazy to risk. Seems that both buyers and sellers are in a holding pattern and that is having very unfortunate consequences for renters.


If you think we don’t pay already, you are mistaken. Homelessness has a COST associated with it, not simply lost revenue, although that is an additional issue. The question is not should we spend our money on the homeless but how we do it in the most cost effective means.


[The most cost-effective way to help the homeless is to give them homes](https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/5/30/5764096/homeless-shelter-housing-help-solutions) [Housing homeless cheaper, more effective than status quo: study](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/news/national/housing-homeless-cheaper-more-effective-than-status-quo-study/article4563718/) [Providing housing for homeless is cheaper and better for society](https://phys.org/news/2017-03-housing-homeless-cheaper-society.amp)


Giving them homes is great, but without mental health care and addiction care it’s not going to work for many.


We desperately need both.


I worked with literally some of the most ill folks in BC (mostly schizophrenic) with a couple exceptions the ones we were able to find SAFE and supported housing for were able to access MH support easier


Utah literally just gave [homeless people homes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/). While the program has not been perfect, it reduced costs (see previous link), and today [95 percent of its previous homeless population now lives in a home](https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/11/16/utahs-housing-first-model/).


They didn't though. >Robert Marbut, the federal government’s top official on homelessness, said in a recent Q&A session with members of the Pioneer Park Coalition that claims about the state of homelessness in Utah may have been related to federal definitions around how people experiencing homelessness are counted. > >“You ended homelessness, remember?" he joked. "Three years ago you had no homeless people? \[That’s because\] your condition of homelessness didn’t exist in Salt Lake.” [https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/05/11/utah-was-once-lauded/](https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/05/11/utah-was-once-lauded/) It did great, but you are not a politician, so be careful not to repeat their lies since it could disillusion some from the home first idea. A 71% drop is within 10 years is still great. Although, they still have issues with homeless camp and the situation is deteriorating: [https://www.deseret.com/22361016/are-utahs-new-homeless-centers-actually-working-housing-poor-low-income-camping-salt-lake-city](https://www.deseret.com/22361016/are-utahs-new-homeless-centers-actually-working-housing-poor-low-income-camping-salt-lake-city)


If you're struggling with mental health issues having a home to call your own as opposed to sleeping rough every night would be life changing.


One of the biggest problems with trying to provide social work for the homeless is that you never really know where they are. Appointments and follow-ups get missed. One of the unsung benefits to providing homes for the homeless is that it stabilizes mental health and addiction care availability when those services can be provided at the new home. It would be a mistake to see the lack of care as a stumbling block, when it’s largely a symptom of the problem at hand.


Yeah that is why those are needed too.


Why pretend to have an argument about one vs the other when both are severely underfunded? This isn’t a contest, we should just help people.


Housing first policy is better than dicking around arguing about mental health care and addiction support. It's going to be a massive improvement **immediately.**


Thanks for the resources!


cost effectiveness was never an issue for Vancouver. Born and raised Vancouverites knows that the city spends stupid amounts of money on tons of things that arent emergencies or priorities like homeless


If not a direct solution. It just illustrates how broken the system is.


Until we have housing for working people, we won't have housing for poor people


There is social housing available, the problem is as not as simple as just finding a roof. These people need addiction and mental health services.


It's definitely a multifaceted issue. There is not enough housing or mental health support for BC in general.


Not enough mental health support anywhere ya go. Just sleep inhibitors


If the numbers in this Twitter post are accurate, there is, in fact, enough housing. Addictions and mental health (I'd argue it's more mental health, addictions are often people without access to adequate mental health self-medicating) is surely lacking.


Yeah this is definitely a huge barrier


Not enough *social housing. “Housing First” has been an effective policy in a lot of places, but it can’t be “Housing Only.” To transition off the streets, people need support - often mental health and addiction related, but also help with more basic things like therapy, health care, accessing services, simple stuff like basic furnishings, help finding work (or getting to the point where they’d be able to start looking), etc. So a couple thousand housing spaces aren’t going to do the job alone. Though that may be all some folks actually need, so the issue of vacant homes shouldn’t be totally ignored.


Where? Are you referring to BC Housing? The wait list is upwards of 10 years, so I wouldn't really say there's any housing available.


They need all three.


Their point also overlooks that the 59000 vacant homes that would _still_ be left over could change the lives of tens of thousands of people and change the rental/housing market for everyone. It’s not just the homeless being harmed.


There's also not enough social housing offered and rules governing access to social housing is draconian at best. They essentially feel people need to demonstrate they have their shit together before giving them a place to get their shit together, add in racism and discrimination and there's even less access.


Much of this so-called "social housing" is actually supportive housing where the occupant is monitored by healthcare workers all day. We don't really have social housing in BC anymore. It's too bad we also let the operating agreements on most co-ops expire over a decade ago. Considering these properties are mostly paid off, the government could have used that equity to finance more co-op builds but that isn't as profitable and doesn't bring in as much tax revenue as allowing for development of condos for the wealthy.


Where is the available social housing? Everywhere I've heard of has waitlists that are years long.


What evidence do you have to support your claim that there are currently over 2000 social housing units not being utilized at this time?


What do you mean I can’t just snap my fingers and problem gone?!


You need the gems 💎


It’s being accepted that addressing those issues is much easier when there is a home first. Having a permanent address and place to fall back to is a big help. Easier said than done. But it a method hospitals and organizations in Europe and the states are adopting.


social housing is available ? lol people need to do some research before talking, BC housings wait list is up to 5 years right now. the fastest any one is getting in to ANY building is 6 months to a year the worst SROs even have wait lists


cant help someone that doesnt want help most of them have worn out their welcome with family and friends




i agree with that assertion.


Exactly. They can't just be in homes. There needs to be ready mental health and addictions services nearby. Treatment centres, therapy, etc.


I agree and I think this is the most reasonable response. Glib tweets like this do a good job of highlighting problems but the tone insinuates that they are presenting a reasonable solution which I don’t think is the case


If you want the reality of the unhoused problem in Vancouver you have to first understand that the homeless aren't from Vancouver. They travel there. It's one of the only places in Canada you don't die outside in the winter


Yes, we want to solve our homeless problem and at the same time not attract more homeless people.


People don't become homeless because it's so very appealing... But homelessness shouldn't be a city issue but a national issue. Else some cities will just do nothing in hopes that the homeless go to another city.


People also have to understand that just throwing housing at them won't solve the problem when they more often than not need extensive, round the clock mental health and addictions care, in addition to housing. And that takes new, specialized, government run housing/treatment centres, not just randomly throwing them into homes that are privately owned (and often not truly "vacant. just in between tenants).


Some homeless do. But not everyone is homeless because of an addiction or mental health issue. So many people lose their home after losing employment, divorce or a financial setback. And being homeless is expensive, making it hard to get out of the financial hole they are in.


I imagine the “down on their luck” homeless people you describe represent a very small portion of the homeless population. It would make way more sense to seize, sell and then build/buy gov low income/crisis housing. It would not only help the homeless that just need a roof, it would help another 100k people on the brink.


The province could do that and save money. Right now, it costs around $55,000 a year in social and health services per person who is homeless. There was a project done called The New Leaf Project which gave 50 people $7,500 and helped them get into stable housing faster. It was done in Vancouver in 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-project-results-1.5752714


I like that idea. find the people who actually want out and really give them the opportunity to restart rather than 500$ a week.


The folks who were chosen for that study were carefully chosen to not have serious addictions or mental health issues. While programs like that would help certain segments, it's not a panacea for the entire problem, but it is one part of the solution. Edit: removed a word that made no sense


Yup, it's not going to be a simple solution. But maybe it helped some people who would have fallen into substance abuse, had they been homeless for longer.


I'm not nay-saying it. I think it's great and could do a lot of good for the right people. But it has to be part of a multi-faceted system of interventions ranging from involuntary commitment to giving folks cash to get them on their feet, and a lot of steps in between from every level of government.


Also about $100k per year per incarcerated individual.


Stop letting people who don’t live here buy homes ffs


The number of people in Vancouver (3.5 million people) that were homeless is the same as all of Japan (120 million people). It’s not apples to apples, Japan has its problem, but that’s besides the point. We have decided collectively to do nothing about this.


Agree. Worked with homeless for several years. Canadians on a whole simply do not care about homeless... they are treated as rodent pests... it's not that we couldn't do something, it's that we don't want to... Canadians with homes and wealth hold onto their privilege with a death grip. Complete different social ideology than a collectivist country like Japan where honor and caring for others is considered valuable and respected


Anyone have sources for this data?


A good part of the homeless population also seems to struggle with living in traditional housing. I know people who have tried to provide homes for various homeless people and it never panned out because they couldn't bear being in the homes they were given for more than a couple months.


TL;DR: problem is no longer drug users just homeless. You have hard working people falling and if you wouldn’t want to sleep next to a mentally unbalanced user, or think a single mother should raise a baby next to them, realize what I am saying. We need systems in place to help those that are trying to survive but want to sleep feeling safe. You cannot combine them all under one roof. But we need to help them all. There’s a lot of back and forth and a growing issue of those unable to afford a place on their own while working full time. I think we can all agree an immediate fix they need to do is have safe, nice and affordable rent available for people who earn $40,000/year or less on a single income. Ability to have a place to themselves and afford to live and save. Then a place/building for single mothers. Then a place for those not working but trying to / volunteering and staying clean. There are solutions we could aim for that while it won’t fix everything, it would help to ease depression, despair, and work on finding additional solutions downwards until you are just left with those that need way more support and help than just a cheap roof and safe place to sleep. And then you tackle the hardest problem of all. The people who may not want to be helped.


>Then a place/building for single mothers Ya! Fuck them single dads.


Lol. Yea I talked to a person like that. She suggested that all condo buildings should give up an apartment for a homeless person on each floor. I suggested that each suburban neighbourhood should give up a house too to which she said no because there are children living in those areas 🤣🤣


Typical NIMBY


Like there aren’t children in condos. She sounds like a real bird.


Was thinking something along those lines when watching Global News showing the tents/items being packed up and moved away...from an empty hotel. So why are those people on the streets when there is an empty building right the eff there??


Just because there are empty buildings doesnt mean there is a way to maintain, facilitate or house any of these people. It's a much larger problem than putting these people in an empty building


I completely agree. These problems exist because it's not profitable to solve them, and under capitalism that's the only thing that matters. Socialised housing would guarantee housing at a reasonable price for all.


Everybody in here is talking about whether or not the "proposed solution" is good or not, but nobody is talking about why those homes are vacant to begin with. In my opinion, the profitability of landlording and real estate hoarding should have been slashed a long time ago.


Tie rent caps to monthly costs on the property. There is absolutely no reason people should be allowed to charge more for HOUSING just because the person across the street raised their prices. If your costs havent gone up, rent shouldnt go up.


Im all for helping the homeless but lets be real Who's gonna pay and clean all that smear shit on the walls, broken windows, picking up needles, broken appliances and etc etc. What we need is mental institutions.


Yea I'll pay the empty half me tax before housing homeless. Ppl some times forget that many of these homeless are criminals deadbeats and dangerous. Mandatory rehabilitation pls.


There are 1,104,000 dwellings in greater Vancouver. Where are we getting the number that there are 61,213 empty dwellings? That would imply a 5.5% vacancy rate. The actual vacancy rate is below 1%, and has been for decades. And those 2095 junkies will destroy the housing they are placed in.


Vacant homes that belong to people or the government? In every city of the world, when somebody buys a house, it is unfortunately not to house the homeless. Let’s stick to realistic approaches and hold the government accountable. Since they are already collecting tax on the vacant homes, maybe put that money in use and create shelters?


Lmao Twitter is just full of naive people


Yeah it’s a dumb tweet, that uses numbers torn out of context to make it seem like there’s lots of „free housing“ and we’re making people live on the street for no reason other than hating the homeless. The important factor the tweet omits is that there’s always some level of vacancy because sometimes people are in the process of changing tenants or selling the house, leading to temporary vacancy. That doesn’t mean these houses are up for grabs. On the rare occasion there are also long-term vacant homes, but as an owner would you want people living in there, with a high rate of mental or drug problems and the very likely risk of getting your house trashed? Usually the issue isn’t really housing availability for the homeless anyway, but rather the homeless themselves who either refuse to be housed or refuse to abide by the rules of said housing. It’s not in private landlords power nor responsibility to help these people, they need psychological help and many of the will not accept it.


There are several problems that work together -but people get pushed into homelessness by high rents. In other cities, with more affordable options, these folks end up in not great but still existing housing. You see them in tents here because it's hard for *anyone* to get a place to rent. Once you're out on the street, it's really hard to get back into regular housing.


100% if the government bought back some of these properties it would increase supply and drive down prices for everyone. While they're at it they should eliminate business-owned rental properties which are often vacant to reduce supply and increase demand. By renting them out directly, the government could set fair rent prices and increase supply.


Problem is also a lot of these people have no idea to manage their finances, I remember reading a studying a couple years back where they gave a bunch of homeless people some decent money and they squandered it pretty quickly (not even for just drugs, just poor purchasing decisions that would not help them get on their feet) Here is the study, if you read the graphs and understand data you'll see that giving homeless people money did essentially nothing over the medium-long term https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f07a92f21d34b403c788e05/t/624f36ebfd37700ce13c006b/1649358579199/2021\_FSC\_Statement\_of\_Impact\_w\_Expansion+%28Public%29.pdf


“To date, our impact data indicates that, on average, cash recipients: ● Move into stable housing faster ● Spend fewer days homeless ● Retain over $1,000 in savings through 12 months ● Increase spending on food, clothing, and rent ● Achieve greater food security ● Made wise financial choices with a 39% reduction in spending on alcohol, cigarettes and drugs ● Reduce reliance on the shelter system of care, resulting in cost savings to society” Squandered? Am I misunderstanding the study you linked?


It's kind of funny, because some people actually consider the homeless spending more money on necessities (because they now have more money) as them wasting it. Not trying to put words in op's mouth, just something I've noticed from people who do not think the homeless should receive help


I did not say those should not receive help, but throwing money at them is not helping, as per the data. They need money-management help.


Yes you are misunderstanding, those quotes are so the researchers can save face. If you look at the charts, all the cash-recipients go back to 0, because they have money management problems, not money problems. Also, all the error bars for the different groups overlap, anyone who has taken statistics 101 knows that these results are not statistically significant so they can't draw any *real* conclusions anyhow.


And isolating them into areas where they and their children are ONLY influenced by other people like them while the rest of us live in priviledge is a way to ensure we have a generational problem that never gets fixed.


I think it's fucked up that we as a society rely on private home owners to provide something as basic as housing. I've been both a tenant and a landowner and when you go into massive amounts of debt to "buy" a home and someone can just stop paying rent and you have no recourse to collect for months, or they cause massive amounts of damage....why would you take the risk? I certainly won't again. No fucking way. ​ When I put a cabin on my property up for short-term rentals (would have been illegal as a long term rental anyway due to lack of running water), almost everybody treated it very respectfully. Any problems, Airbnb helped me with it, including financial compensation when appropriate. My place got cleaned regularly and I made more money. It saved my butt when I got laid off work unexpectedly. ​ If we are really going to rely on landlords to provide housing, it has to be worth it for them, while still protecting tenants from slimeballs.


Surely there are way more than 2,095 people without housing?


they cancelled the metro van census for 2 years in a row... so yea number has definitely gone up since 2020, but this was the most recent number on it.


3,634 in Metro Vancouver; 2,095 is City of Vancouver only. [source](https://bcnpha.ca/news-release-full-report-on-the-2020-homeless-count-in-metro-vancouver-provides-new-details-on-homelessness-prior-to-the-pandemic/)


This Is a meth and crack crisis


Assuming we giv every homeless person a house and left it at that. How many could pay to maintain the property in livable conditions and pay utilities? If this aspect is not properly addressed you'll have a fair percentage of those houses where conditions deteriorate until they're unlivable and then you gotta give em a other house i guess.


The absurd naivety of this clown to think this is a linear argument. Let’s seize private property and willfully let it be destroyed. What happens when a hobo inevitably destroys their free house? Do they get another one? Is the only problem with homelessness literally the number of available residences, which are apparently up to the government to allocate? Or perhaps is it a complicated issue of addiction, mental health, income stability, job training, rehabilitation, criminality, public safety, healthcare management. Nope, screw all that, let’s just give free property to people who can’t manage basic hygiene. “This is the reality of homelessness”. There’s less reality here than in a Marvel movie.


Plenty of jobs out there, it’s a good way to start! Way more than vacant homes, 100,000’s jobs why not try that and then maybe find a place to live. Instead of thinking it’s ok to take something from someone that works their ass off to provide for themselves and their family. Or why not let them move in with you and your family?


Many of the unhoused are banned from every single shelter. They have very antisocial personalities and have tendencies to cause fires or floods. Those 2,000 people would burn through all 60k houses in a year. Housing these people is not a simple process as they need a lot of support and constraints. Frankly better instutitionalized.


Ill point out that my city started a program when i was young to house people for free. They even were smart about it and required the homes to be a certain distance from another one. So we had them in even the rich neighborhoods so that no ghetto would form. Brilliant idea. 10 years later almost all of the homes had to be condemned. So, you have to then screen people for mental illness and try to only put genuine people on hard times in the home. Then you run into claims of bias or racism. And what do you do with the people deemed to ill? Force them into a facility? The program collapsed because of these issues. It was a wonderful idea, and the people in charge had genuine intentions. It just didnt work.


The first step is addressing mental illness. Because who would pay for the damages? Edit: I should add that having a place to live go hand-in-hand with mental illness. They're both equally important.


You cant have good mental health without a home. Try doing your healthcare routine while living in a tent. Everything takes like triple the normal spoons if youre familiar with the spoon thing.


I agree. Everyone needs a home. A place they need to feel safe while getting the proper mental care treatment. I should add that to my initial comment.


Makes me think of the new concept of the Rolling homeless. People who are living in RVs and vans because they can't afford to rent. I would argue that some of the homes are vacant because no one can afford to rent them. It's unfortunate that there's no legal limit on prices you can charge for a rental. Almost like a flat rate.


This is why we need socialised housing. As it stands right now, business and landlords can charge whatever they want because supply is artificially kept very low by vacant properties which are privately owned. Low supply means high prices. It's more profitable to keep some properties empty so that they can charge more for the ones that are filled. If the government rented properties directly they could increase supply, set a fair price and use the revenue for further mental health services and more housing. Everywhere it's been tried, it's been profoundly successful, the gov just needs to act.


I don't know how I feel about socialized housing. Seems like a great idea. We are seeing an increase of building low income housing but I'm told the waiting lists are insane. Also the fact our government is incredibly slow for anything. It takes years and multiple fatalities to put in stop lights or change traffic patterns. Which in some cases is fairly cheap versus building an apartment block. I think one of our biggest problems is that we are so close to the states. A lot of our culture is taken from the US. As the US is the capitalist capital of the world the idea of Socialism or government doesn't sit well with the populace.


30 years of watching the DTES get worse.


Putting homeless people in houses doesn't fix the problem. Look at many social homes and how fucked up they are. There is a good portion of homeless people that cannot be given a home without assistance as they will just ruin it. We need homes with staffing and care to really deal with it... Otherwise we are just hiding in the problem and we might as well just build a large concrete bunker for them.


There's no "the" problem. Several problems crashing into each other are multiplying the negative outcome. You're right that we need care, and in some cases I'd say involuntary mental health interventions, but we still also need to stop homelessness and policies to reduce the number of empty homes will help that


Mental illness is a big issue that needs to be addressed.


100% we need facilities again. I know they got a bad rap back in the day due to some abuse... But leaving these people to fend for themselves in the street is way worse abuse for the many. Brother is a scitzo and has been in the care of the province since 16 and luckily has always been in facilities... Otherwise he'd probably get himself killed or hurt in the streets.


We definitely need more tertiary care facilities in all parts of the province. So many people would be on the streets or worse without the kind of support your brother has. I'm really glad he is in good care.


Yah, hes lucky. He's done a full circuit, Eric Martin (back in the day they when they were a mental health facility), Seven Oaks, Riverview, and now hes at Colony Farms. He will never be a functioning member of society and needs care for the rest of his life.


Awww, I'm so glad your brother is in good care ❤️


Yeah. They basically trash and burn down anything they’re given. No homes is not the problem. It’s drug addiction and mental health. Treat the problems, in a safe housing situation and we can start to solve things.


Living near some of the housing on the island (multiple buildings within a block) for the most part those who are incompatible with social have been self filtered, and its almost back to normal, there is the occasional late night meltdown.. but they occurred prior to the social housing too.


The key is to keep them moving. If they stay in one place too long then they become comfortable and entrenched. Letting them camp for a month or two then clearing them out seems to keep the problem away from public eye as much as possible. Cities in California allow the homeless to nest in public areas which only causes them to grow and become lawless enclaves. Keep them moving every few months and a lot of problem solves itself.




Compared to the cost of incarceration for example, housing the homeless is more cost effective


If the homeless trash bus shelters just think about what they would do to a house


I’ll take one of those houses please! 🙋🏻‍♂️


No, YOU have to earn it. Unless your homeless.


'No war, but the class war!'


Cool cool. So if I shoot up heroin I get a free house?


This screams "give up your homes for the greater good". Good luck with that.


Houses being used as money containers in yet another bubble game. Take their toys away.


Someone owns those homes, they aren't just magically available because they're vacant. This doesn't even make sense.


People owning vacant homes is a problem in and of itself. Homes should be for people to live in, not investment vehicles people hold like mutual funds.


Okay Charlotte. Sounds like you’ve solved the problem. Leave someone mentally ill on drugs into a empty million dollar condo/home. What could go wrong?


I'm surprised the homeless population is that low actually


Those numbers definitely aren’t accurate.


Let some fent shooting junkies house sit your life investment while your out of the country or looking for a buyer ‘ why didn’t I think of this ,, wcgw


Where are these 61000 vacant homes? Lmao. C'mon.


Yeah to me this isn't a housing issue. Also it's very one dimensional to dismiss it plainly as a mental health issue. It's not like they get a dedicated psychiatrist or medication and their problems are solved. Even if every individual had a paid retreat, 5 specialists dedicated to bettering their mental wellbeing, which is logistically impossible, we'd still have a massive failure rate because of the draw to the acceptance that comes from gatherings of deprived people who don't judge your situation. I'm willing to pay high taxes or donate what little money I have personally if there was a solution that could be paid for. I think non-profits like to exist, and there aren't a lot of organizations looking at the whole picture. Nobody likes to ask this but what if people just fucked up, keep fucking up, don't like rules, and Vancouver is a haven of acceptance for that lifestyle? Beyond great weather that's why everyone in Canada flocks here. If it was a housing issue why would homeless people from areas with cheaper housing come here? Being on the streets in a few provinces in my late teens, the word was around- Make your way out west, the police don't bother you, you can find any and every drug, free food, nice weather. You can steal someone's bike and sell it for cash for drugs in front of a cop and still get free food. I'm up for casting a wide net of social services to not let good people slip through the cracks, but the resources are already there for those people. I'm pretty cold hearted in this department but I've faced my own share of homelessness and adversity. We pour a million dollars a day into the VPD to relentlessly slap people on the wrist. We already dump ridiculous funds into initiatives for the lower east side that will continue to guilt the public into more support without any results. We're paying for hard drugs for addicts... It goes firmly against the Reddit and BC narrative but all I want is true Law and Order, accountability where the line is drawn at your actions regardless of your circumstances. I agree with decriminalizing all drug consumption so people can seek help without persecution, but handing them out? Jesus. I would be dead if this was an option when I was younger. I want the drug dealers in prison. Number of homeless people would be drastically lower if they were actually incarcerated for their petty crimes. Real punishment is a deterrent. I want to take pity like everyone else but it does more harm than good to everyone involved. This culture of acceptance grows a morally apprehensive underworld, and attracts more people to get into drugs in the first place. The call of the void grows stronger the larger the gaping hole. Arrest. Scatter. Unemotional, cold hard justice. Why are we letting criminals run free and proud and giving them free housing. I even believe in a UBI, I think we all have a responsibility to each other, but from a government involvement standpoint, I just want them to abide by the law and incarcerate criminals. I live close to 3 new paid housing complexes and VPD HQ, where I struggle to live legitimately and pay rent... There is trash everywhere, they have poorly trained dogs off leash shitting everywhere, stealing bikes 20ft away from the station and chopping them 100ft away, threatening and screaming at people day and night high af. Zero fear of reprimanding, the harder they fall the harder they must have had it, right? So I get to grow up in homes, face traumatic shit, take responsibility for my life, work my ass off, never steal, live with integrity and pay rent money and tax to be threatened by people who do the complete opposite with impunity? Returning to my first paragraphs point, the solution we don't want to acknowledge is we as individuals need to connect more with our community, accept people who are different. Vancouver is cold as fuck, get a soulless job with fake friends who judge you for your situation, or not work, live free of the law, and share time with peers who accept you. We need to provide emotional warmth. The village makes the villain and the government can't solve that problem. Warmth from the people, cold hard justice for hurting the people from the government.


I choose do with my property whatever I want


Most bc thread ever. Post about class issues and homelessness and a bunch of fuckin Donnie’s in the thread complaining about air bnb




In most places over 50%of new condo sales are non owner occupied. Since when is 500,000 considered affordable housing? Total bs. I can't imagine spending that much money on a house or condo that's too small for a family.


Do we give the homeless these homes for free? Could I also have one?


It’s still mental health. The issues that plague our homeless will not go away with provided shelter. It’s not a reason to leave them be but any solution must include complete access to mental health services.


I doubt these numbers are accurate


I don’t think this person understands how living in a house works….


Assuming we give every homeless person a house and left it at that. How many could pay to maintain the property in livable conditions and pay utilities? If this aspect is not properly addressed you'll have a fair percentage of those houses where conditions deteriorate until they're unlivable and then you gotta give em a other house i guess.


Detroit alone could house half of the homeless in the USA /s


Just 2k?


There are only 2000 unhoused people in Vancouver?


free shit will help less than 50% of that population in the short term. while half of those houses will be ruined in the long term. this isn't a solution. and we ain't got any.


This is pretty illogical. Homeless people arent the ones buying houses lol...


Another big issues with housing is BC housing. There are so many people in BC housing that are over housed, and lots of families that can’t be housed as they can’t put more than 2 of the same sex kids in a room


Helping the homeless: 👍 Giving people a free ride for life: 👎


Worked hard all your life to pay for a house for you and your family? Still paying it off as a lifelong mortgage? You'll be pleased to know we've now started giving them away, but not to you, only those without homes Why work at all? Embrace socialism for what it is, an enabler of laziness and non productivity. If that were not the case, the so called socialists, in their millions, could easily afford to buy those homes for the homeless, the only thing stopping them is their complete lack of action. Their speeches and ideals, their preaching and moaning has seemingly not housed a single homeless person.


Not Canadian, but just giving people homes is not a great solution (besides the obvious who pays and gives up property). I’m going to guess that most people living on the street would not be able to properly maintain the house/apartment or afford the many expenses that come with owning a property.


Don't get me started on how much money is wasted yearly on things that don't matter or benefit humanity in any way,shape or form.