Rutland has done its share....Castanet article

[TJSmith]

Criticize away folks, but come from a place of education. Learn about municipal, provincial, and federal politics. Who is responsible for what. But, and while you are all entitled to them, opinions are just that, opinions, and it's all most of you have. Not facts, not data, not research. Opinions.

When not based on any facts, research, or the slightest amount of true understanding, you get folks that come up with all sorts of ideas. None of which are remotely feasible, nor going to happen.

Rutland has a problem with homelessness....period. They are in the Chichester wetlands, they are over on Fitzpatrick, they are on the rail trail, they are at Ben Lee. And hate to say it, they've been there for awhile. And I can tell you that they're not there because of Supportive Housing, nor are they sitting and waiting and coming to the area for a building that won't open for 18 months. When you talk to people in Rutland, talk about Hein Rd and other nearby areas, and the answer is always the same. There's been a problem here for years. Remember the murders and tortures on Hein years ago. Well it isn't any better. Drive by 501 and 507 any day and see what is going on. Hate to tell you. The problem has been here for far longer. Blame it on wet housing if you must, but you are absolutely wrong.

Rutland, you are not alone. Downtown has a problem. Go North....Vernon has a problem. Go South....Penticton has a problem. You aren't unique, you aren't special. You are a part of this community and this community has a major problem. And it's in your neighborhood. And it isn't magically going away. All the rhetoric on Rutland getting dumped on. Supportive Housing has been put downtown for years, it's by Capri, it's in the Lower Mission, it's in a lot of locations. So now, it's your turn.

Let's not build anything and watch you complain for years about the problems in Rutland with 'those' people. Cause that isn't going to make them go away. They're already there. So put a roof over their head. It really isn't that hard to figure out.

Rutland has certainly done it's share alright. It's share of what is the question.

'We have to fight to protect our children'....do some research. Kids that end up using drugs get their start in one of two places: 1). At school and sadly, many get started at 2). home. Not outside of a wet facility. At least not one supported by taxpayers dollars. People won't believe that. But the facts are the facts. Time to consider the facts.

You owe Rutland an apology and need to show some respect. There are no wet facilities in mission, Upper mission, glenmore etc.

Supportive housing is a term that applies to a number of different social issues and various populations. The day a wet facility is built in the mission will happen.......................never

[the truth]

*removed*

[Piecemaker]

jlk makes some good points.

Although it is probably less expensive to build one building, I wonder about the sense of having 50 units on one site full of individuals with similar struggles. Many of the homeless in addition to either mental health or addiction challenges, also lack the social skills and the tolerance to get along with others. A building like is proposed would be better used for those struggling to maintain a home and at risk of becoming homeless. The working poor and those on limited incomes like seniors and those with disability (CPP or PWD) funds or those on income assistance.
The truly homeless that need housing would be better served perhaps in smaller homes housing 8 or less individuals with a house manager. Like a boarding house concept. Each resident would be vetted to be a fit and connected to right services for them (such as medical, addiction, mental health, employment).
There is a difference between those who are homeless because they have no where to live and those homeless with untreated mental health or long-term addiction or criminal involvement.
Regardless of what housing is available, there will always be those who do not want to live with others and "choose" to be homeless. There are some who will not even stay in a shelter except maybe when it is extremely cold.

[DarbyD]

jlk makes some good points.

Although it is probably less expensive to build one building, I wonder about the sense of having 50 units on one site full of individuals with similar struggles. Many of the homeless in addition to either mental health or addiction challenges, also lack the social skills and the tolerance to get along with others. A building like is proposed would be better used for those struggling to maintain a home and at risk of becoming homeless. The working poor and those on limited incomes like seniors and those with disability (CPP or PWD) funds or those on income assistance.
The truly homeless that need housing would be better served perhaps in smaller homes housing 8 or less individuals with a house manager. Like a boarding house concept. Each resident would be vetted to be a fit and connected to right services for them (such as medical, addiction, mental health, employment).
There is a difference between those who are homeless because they have no where to live and those homeless with untreated mental health or long-term addiction or criminal involvement.
Regardless of what housing is available, there will always be those who do not want to live with others and "choose" to be homeless. There are some who will not even stay in a shelter except maybe when it is extremely cold.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... eon-Avenue

the Gospel Mission does have rules, and they continue to have openings for people to go and use their shelter...

"They would rather take their chances on the street."

They want to live some place that has no rules, so that is exactly what they are being given with wet facilities, to lure them out of the downtown. Problem is they take that attitude into the neighbourhoods they are being dropped into. They don't want to follow any of societies rules or laws. You know those things that make it possible for all of us to live safely and happily together in a community?

[W105]

and that is exactly what some homeless people have already said publicly in the media...they want shelter BUT they don't want to have too many rules attached to it...

and most of us are gob smacked by that answer and can't understand where the entitlement comes from..

last winter when we hit -20C (or whatever) they interviewed a young man on the streets who said he refused to go to a shelter unless his GF could go with him, he would rather freeze sleeping on the streets and whine about how tough it is (and I'm quite sure it is) than not to be allowed to sleep with his GF overnight..shelters do not allow couples..

and we have to remember that almost ALL these services are FREE, but some do come with rules..

[pieinthei]

well Rutland, i sure hope you get a little tickle or a smile (or at least a breath mint) after getting skrewwed so hard..

[RVThereYet]

*removed*

[two_shoes1mit]

Building new facilities for the junkies, flop houses really. But for some reason they have to be new, go figure. Relax Rutland, I predict that within a year or sooner each one will go up in flames due to the mentality of the occupants.
Did I understand correctly that John Howard will be running the facilities? How is their track record?

[smaeh]

Do you think anyone at BC Housing or on Kelowna Council will ever seek or listen to the counsel of someone who knows of what they speak???

https://c2cjournal.ca/2019/07/the-addic ... I-BRobiES4

Sure would be nice...

I envision a time within 10 years when they are looking back at what they have done to Kelowna and other Cities in BC and are trying to figure out how to dismantle it all...

[voice of reason]

john howard is rolling in his grave at what his society has become.

[vinnied]

Criticize away folks, but come from a place of education. Learn about municipal, provincial, and federal politics. Who is responsible for what. But, and while you are all entitled to them, opinions are just that, opinions, and it's all most of you have. Not facts, not data, not research. Opinions.

When not based on any facts, research, or the slightest amount of true understanding, you get folks that come up with all sorts of ideas. None of which are remotely feasible, nor going to happen.

Rutland has a problem with homelessness....period. They are in the Chichester wetlands, they are over on Fitzpatrick, they are on the rail trail, they are at Ben Lee. And hate to say it, they've been there for awhile. And I can tell you that they're not there because of Supportive Housing, nor are they sitting and waiting and coming to the area for a building that won't open for 18 months. When you talk to people in Rutland, talk about Hein Rd and other nearby areas, and the answer is always the same. There's been a problem here for years. Remember the murders and tortures on Hein years ago. Well it isn't any better. Drive by 501 and 507 any day and see what is going on. Hate to tell you. The problem has been here for far longer. Blame it on wet housing if you must, but you are absolutely wrong.

Rutland, you are not alone. Downtown has a problem. Go North....Vernon has a problem. Go South....Penticton has a problem. You aren't unique, you aren't special. You are a part of this community and this community has a major problem. And it's in your neighborhood. And it isn't magically going away. All the rhetoric on Rutland getting dumped on. Supportive Housing has been put downtown for years, it's by Capri, it's in the Lower Mission, it's in a lot of locations. So now, it's your turn.

Let's not build anything and watch you complain for years about the problems in Rutland with 'those' people. Cause that isn't going to make them go away. They're already there. So put a roof over their head. It really isn't that hard to figure out.

Rutland has certainly done it's share alright. It's share of what is the question.

'We have to fight to protect our children'....do some research. Kids that end up using drugs get their start in one of two places: 1). At school and sadly, many get started at 2). home. Not outside of a wet facility. At least not one supported by taxpayers dollars. People won't believe that. But the facts are the facts. Time to consider the facts.

Wow. give your head a shake.
Your pretty oblivious as to what goes on in Rutland if you think there's such a serious problem with homeless drug addicts there, that they need 5 wet facilities to house them all. sure there's going to be a few, but to suggest we need 200+ wet facility beds for all the homeless junkies in Rutland is just asinine. like I said, there's always been a few, but not like what we are seeing now. Your seeing a spike in numbers now, because of the wet facilities that have been built already. its were there junkie friends are. They tend to congregate together.
This isnt just Rutlands problem, so stop making it out as though Rutlands to blame for this mess. The city, and BC Housing is just making it out to be, and people removed are licking it up.
How about we all look after are own?. Rutland will take in those homeless that actually came from Rutland, and the rest of the city can do the same.

[the truth]

Building new facilities for the junkies, flop houses really. But for some reason they have to be new, go figure. Relax Rutland, I predict that within a year or sooner each one will go up in flames due to the mentality of the occupants.
Did I understand correctly that John Howard will be running the facilities? How is their track record?

jhs record, look how they run cornerstone and heartstone plus they turned newgate into a wet facility without telling anyone lets not forget they got run out of vernon also https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... le1140089/

[the truth]

john howard is rolling in his grave at what his society has become.

its a disgrace what they are doing to a once great society

[dirtybiker]

*removed*

[the truth]

*removed*