You'll be glad to hear that we can end homelessness in Edmonton. We just have to buy homes for all those homeless people. It'll cost a billion dollars.
There, wasn't that easy?
« Stand back, he's going contrarian | Main | In tomorrow's Globe, a follow-up from Robert Wagner »
You'll be glad to hear that we can end homelessness in Edmonton. We just have to buy homes for all those homeless people. It'll cost a billion dollars.
There, wasn't that easy?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.colbycosh.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/396
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 30, 2009 9:22 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Stand back, he's going contrarian.
The next post in this blog is In tomorrow's Globe, a follow-up from Robert Wagner.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (11)
Thanks - I was short on twaddle.
Posted by dcardno | January 30, 2009 10:05 PM
Posted on January 30, 2009 22:05
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Posted by Andy Grabia | January 30, 2009 11:32 PM
Posted on January 30, 2009 23:32
My old home town has never been short on these well-intentioned and totally unworkable "committees" (all comin' at ya from the "social justice" oeuvre).
And their solutions all seem to cost at least a quarter of a bil. Must be the vast sums spent in the oilpatch that they keep hearing on the news that causes them to become totally numb to the sound of that much money being pronounced aloud.
Like the U.S. lawmaker said: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking serious money." Until we get to that stratosphere, surely we can afford to spend this kind of money on our most vulnerable, can't we?
Garth
Posted by Garth Wood | January 31, 2009 4:16 PM
Posted on January 31, 2009 16:16
"Build it and they will come"
Posted by Imethisguy | January 31, 2009 4:17 PM
Posted on January 31, 2009 16:17
The argument is that we will save more by keeping core homeless out of the ER and the shelters than it will cost to house them. As far as it goes, this might be true (though name me one social-housing enterprise in human history that has come in under budget). The real problem is the one Imethisguy points out: if you empty the ecological niche occupied by the 2,000 core homeless, or however many it is, their replacements will arrive within a matter of seconds.
Posted by Colby Cosh | January 31, 2009 4:28 PM
Posted on January 31, 2009 16:28
I mean sheesh, right? For a mere three times that figure, the Canadian government could temporarily delay the collapse of the Detroit auto industry.
Posted by Geoff | January 31, 2009 8:18 PM
Posted on January 31, 2009 20:18
Speaking of the homeless...
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=r0oksz8hPRA
Posted by Candide | February 1, 2009 6:55 PM
Posted on February 1, 2009 18:55
I'm not so sure the problem is that you'll empty the "ecological niche" of homelessness so much as you'll be trying to house people who, in the chronic cases, have rejected normal housing.
Posted by Ryan Cousineau | February 2, 2009 9:57 AM
Posted on February 2, 2009 09:57
And then there's the regulatory approach - just ban all homeless people from Edmonton. Hey - the same people advocating housing the homeless seem to think that the blanket ban will eliminate gun crime...
Posted by George Skinner | February 2, 2009 12:52 PM
Posted on February 2, 2009 12:52
How much does it cost to grind homeless people up and recycle them into Purina Dog Chow?
Posted by Sean | February 2, 2009 7:13 PM
Posted on February 2, 2009 19:13
Grind up homeless people? That's just sick.
If you diced them and dehydrated them, they'd be nice and crunchy AND they'd help clean Rover's teeth.
Posted by Mambo Bananapatch | February 5, 2009 2:17 PM
Posted on February 5, 2009 14:17