More social housing is humane, sensible

Re: Is there a limit to social housing, Column, Aug. 20

Pete McMartin claims to be doing the math on homelessness and social housing in his column. He seems to come to the conclusion that governments shouldn’t build social housing for homeless people.

But he left out two crucial facts. First, Megaphone Magazine reports homeless people have about half the life expectancy as other British Columbia residents. Is it humane for our governments to allow this to continue?

Secondly, several government-funded studies show that its cheaper to house homeless people than leave them on the streets, according to the Globe and Mail.

So the very meagre demand for 100 per cent welfare or pension rate social housing at 58 West Hastings is actually both humane and sensible for taxpayers. Jean Swanson, Carnegie Community Action Project It’s not clear to me whether Pete McMartin believes that the poor have had their way with the moneyed interests for too long now, or given their station in life they are just too uppity in their demands for outrageous perks like a place to live, or they are to blame because more successful people have been cast adrift by rapacious profiteers in rental markets, or perhaps all of the above.

Would he have us believe subsidized housing is occupied only by wastrels, addicts, grifters and those connected with evil agencies who conspire to game the system on their behalf? Mostly facilities are seniors’ lodges, family accommodations, care facilities where physically and mental-health-challenged people are housed or are offered beds. They get priority over middle-class people for the same reason we have a graduated income tax system: people with means pay a little more than those with less.

As our populace ages, and as many seniors receive pensions of $12,000 to $15,000 annually, what will become of them if the middle-class elbows them out of housing opportunities as Pete McMartin seems to favour? Yes, the poor will always be among us. So, increasingly, are the resentful with no real answers to housing affordability. Ian MacRae, Vancouver The promise of Mayor Gregor Robertson to eliminate homelessness was a joke on us. He knew that would be impossible. It is like hoping to empty a hole on a beach with waves coming in. You take out a little and the next wave fills it again. I would like someone to ask all these homeless campers how long they have been in Vancouver. Where they are from? Why did they come? Pete McMartin is right. It is a welfare industry. Those 260 organizations do not want to eliminate homeless. They need the homeless to continue to get their share of the $360 million. Richard Gaudreau, North Vancouver Vancouver’s “housing crisis” is part of the Campbell-Clark B.C. Liberal legacy. Around the year 2000, when Gordon Campbell was leader of the Opposition, I remember him repeatedly pledging “to make B.C. attractive for foreign investment.” Before getting into politics, Campbell was with Marathon Realty & Development, which accounts for how the promise was kept, and in a way most people didn’t anticipate.

All levels of government, the financial and banking sector and real estate agents (not much different from used car salesmen) have vested interests. Who wouldn’t rather pocket a percentage of $3 million rather than $300,000? Peter Lipskis, Vancouver