Talk:Homelessness in Vancouver

Wow is this article bad. It claims Vancouver had no homeless people before 1980 which is false. Vancouver has had homeless people since it was incorporated in 1886. It reads like a fanatic anti-poverty screed more than a real article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.162.234.26 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The article clearly claims that it was not an issue until the 1980's, it doesn't say that it was non-existent. Poverty and homelessness are directly related and there are no good things about them, making any academic discussion of either subject seem to take on what you claim is a 'fanatic anti-poverty' position, when really it is just putting out facts. Either fix it yourself or try reading the entire thing, that helps too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.57.62 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Vagrancy
I am surprised this article does not talk about vagrancy. It makes it seem as if homeless people appeared out of nowhere. The homeless population in any city usually does not originate from the city's locale. Many of the homeless people are discharged psychiatric patients or come from nearby Native Reserves. But many of them also come from all over Canada since Vancouver is more "homeless-friendly" than other Canadian cities, especially its mild, year-round climate. Some of those people are just simply vagrants, and Vancouver holds a huge appeal to them. Tenkaji (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Homelessness is not necessarily a economic issue?
Just wondering how many editors agree with this statement? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me According to Homelessness_in_Canada "the annual cost of homelessness in Canada in 2008 was approximately $5.5 to $7 billion in emergency services, organizations, and non-profits"? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * It is not really an economic issue. How do you estimate the costs? Loss of productivity? Cost to government to care for the homeless? Combination? Simple numbers don't really answer the question, but I'm not sure it's not an economic issue either. We cannot remove the cat stating that the discussion is ongoing when no one is engaged in the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to encourage Ottawahitech to discuss things rather than edit war, which is what he is doing here. Another editor has reverted Ottawahitech's addition per WP:BRD. There is no consensus to add the category, as you have demonstrated yourself. If other opinions are needed, Ottawahitech is a veteran editor and should be familiar with how to get them. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are trying to encourage Ottawahitech to discuss? Odd. He was the one who open the discussion. Your comments do not seem grounded in fact. If you were actually trying to encourage Ottawahitech to discuss, wouldn't you have been the one opening the discussion? BRD was followed. No one discussed. Editor restored. Consensus of silence is the weakest form, but it is consensus.
 * So would you like actually discuss or are you just planning on shifting blame?
 * I see both sides of the discussion. For the record, you reverted my restoration of the category. If you want to make a case for exclusion, make it, but don't edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Walter, please look at the history of the article (and Ottawahitech's talk page). Ottawahitech added the category. Another editor removed it. Following WP:BRD, Ottawahitech should have started a discussion and waited for the outcome of that discussion. Instead he added the category again (although he did at least start this discussion). Personally, I think that homelessness is one of many things that may play a part in the overall economy of Vancouver but I would not say that it is appropriate to add "Category:Economy of Vancouver" to this article. So far the only person arguing for inclusion has not presented any argument except a general one about Canada as a whole and not about the city of Vancouver. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiousity, I checked Category:Economy of Portland, Oregon to see if homelessness was included. It was not. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * World's Lamest Critic. I saw the edit history, the protracted edit war there, and lack of discussion after Ottawahitech started here. Ottawahitech's talk page is not the correct place to discuss this and all I see there is a reminder to follow BRD, yet you didn't.
 * Other stuff exists. If Portland's homelessness issue isn't related to their economy, that's no reason to not include it here. I don't know enough about Portland, their lack of state sales taxes and otherwise to know if they're related. However I don know that Portland and Vancouver are two different cities and if RSes can be shown that homelessness is an economic issue in Vancouver, then we should consider it. Do you have a reason other than OSE and BRD to not include it here? I'm in favour of including it until it can be shown that no RSes support the joining of the two concepts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Walter, you are saying that we should include the category until someone shows that "no RSes support the joining of the two concepts". That seems like a fairly impossible task. Would it similarly be ok to add Category:Principalities of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until someone can show that "no RSes support the joining of the two concepts"? It's nice that you are supporting Ottawahitech, but I think you may have lost track of what we're doing here. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I'm sorry, that's not what I was suggesting. There's a reference in the article: "Shelter-Homelessness in a growth economy". That It's used more than a dozen times as of now. It seems to imply that sheltering the homeless has become part of the economy. It seems to make sense to include the cat based on that. I thought I had seen that when I glanced at the article, but when I looked earlier today, it was clear. Since there are no sources to support Vancouver's involvement in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which ended in 1795, nearly a century before the founding of Vancouver!) I'm not looking for sources that suggest the opposite. Based on that ref, I'm thinking that I withdraw any opposition that I may have had, unless someone can convince me otherwise. And that's what I mean by RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether there's a connection between homelessness and the economy of Vancouver or not, it is not a strong enough one to warrant adding the category here in my opinion. Air.light (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, "http://www.chumir.ca/assets/Uploads/SHELTER.pdf" seems to support the link. It's quote more often than any other source. I would say that's a fairly strong link in my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I skimmed that document but was unable to find anything that made a connection between the economy of the city of Vancouver and the impact of homelessness on that economy. Maybe you can quote the passage you find most convincing? Regardless of that single document, would you agree that homelessness needs to be a significant factor in the econmy of Vancouver for the category to be appropriate? World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes you think you need to ping me every time you have a comment? I have the article on my watchlist.
 * The issue is greater than just Vancouver. The paper talks about all of the economic factors in Canada, and Vancouver is one of the cities in Canada, so it all applies.
 * British Columbia Electric Railway is in that cat. Does it need to be a significant factor in the economy of Vancouver to be included? The same goes for Medi Script. Sure WP:OSE, but significant is never a requirement for inclusion in a category. Simple association is. Homelessness is a factor in Vancouver's economy. That is enough to have the category here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * a recent public survey by reliable pollster says it being a factor in province's economy is one the public's top concerns. See: Business in Vancouver mag article about 'housing & homelessness displacing economy' So maybe check out more reliable sources before deciding for or against the category. Canuckle (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have misinterpreted that survey. It starts by saying "British Columbians now rank housing, poverty and homelessness higher than the economy on their list of concerns". Rather than showing a connection between homelessness and the economy of Vancouver, it actually states that they are separate concerns. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are primarily motivated by emotion, so might be biased. I saw and considered the charts in the BIV article that you just mentioned, but read the headline which states 'homelessness displaces economy' so there may be additional info from the survey participants that Insights West should have added into the BIV article to make it clear. That is why I recommended editors referring to more reliable sources and making decision based on evidence, rather than what seems to be emotion so far in the discussion.Canuckle (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there is nothing emotional about my arguments. You misstated the reporting of the survey. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the discussion seems stuck on if being in the Category means it is a contribution/factor to the state of the economy (example gov't costs stated at top of this section). While some believe it, there has also been several sources saying economy is a factor in causing people to become homeless so could the Category also include not just Contributors to economy but also articles with subjects Affected by the economy ? Canuckle (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I obviously think that it could. I would like to hear 's reasons for placing the category on the page though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My rationale is simple: I assume everyone agrees that this article belong in Category:Homelessness in Canada(cat-hic)? If so then it belongs in Category:Economy of Canada which is the grandparent of cat-hic. If one does not agree with this category scheme one should correct it before removing Category:Economy of Vancouver from this article.  I apologize for not participating in this lengthy discussion, but due to lack of time, my priority at the moment is content. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
 * "Homelessness in Vancouver" belongs in the category "Homelessness in Canada" which belongs in the category "Housing in Canada". The fact that "Housing in Canada" is in the category "Economy of Canada" does not mean that this article therefore belongs in "Economy of Vancouver" or that the category structure is wrong. Housing (specifically the construction of housing) is a well-recognized driver of economies. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Homelessness in Vancouver does belong in the Homelessness in Canada category, if such exists, however creating housing is not the only economic issue at play here. While creating homes does benefit the economy, creating social housing, which is what that report addresses in part, is a drain on public funds and is part of the economy. Services to the homeless are in a similar category. Narrowly focusing on money-making as the only criteria for inclusion in the economy category, which I alluded to earlier, is not a requirement. Not adequately providing for the psychological needs of people quite often results in people becoming homeless. In other words, cutting costs (which is part of the economy) has a direct result in creating the homeless. You can't imagine how many homeless are simply former patients of Woodlands or Riverview.
 * It also appears that you've changed your reason for exclusion. At first it was that homelessness was not significant. Now it appears that you think that category should be reserved for sectors that contribute to the GDP. Correct me if I'm wrong. Neither is a reasonable argument though. As pointed out earlier, there are businesses in the cat that are not significant contributors to the economy and being a drain on the economy should be considered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think another way to think about this is that, really, almost anything we can think of is related to the economy in some indirect way or another. Where do we draw the line of inclusion with this category? I think we should draw it on the side of examples that are clear and don't require a lot of thinking to see their relation to the economy. Just the fact that this conversation is taking place shows that this subject's relation to it isn't strong enough. Air.light (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Walter, I'm sorry if I haven't been clear. As I stated very early in this discussion, "I think that homelessness is one of many things that may play a part in the overall economy of Vancouver". Like most of those things, it does not have a significant effect on the economy and, like most of those things, it should not be included in the category.
 * The economic categories in Wikipedia are generally used and understood as being for things that are drivers of the economy. That doesn't mean it is a rule that can't be broken, but it would make this article an oddity.
 * Homelessness in Seattle is not in Category:Economy of Seattle. Homelessness in Canada is not in Category: Economy of Canada. Many more examples are available.
 * None of this refects my personal feelings about homelessness. It is simply a discussion about including an article in a category, but it seems to be more than that for some participants, so I think I'm done here. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First to respond to ait.light. I don't think almost anything we can think of is related to the economy in some indirect way or another. And further, homelessness directly relates, but yes, many things are. But homelessness is not indirectly related, it's directly related. It doesn't create the economy by any sense of the word. Those who have fallen through the cracks of our economy, or have been pushed aside for the sake of our economy, are generally the ones who are often homeless. They are therefore directly related to the economy, whereas city parks are not directly related in that same way. They are there to serve everyone in the community. While it could be argued that parks could be used to improve the economy and their maintenance is a drain on the economy (or fees for use contribute to the economy) they are present when the economy is good or bad. The fortunes of the homeless tend to vary with the economy (and based on political will).
 * Thanks, World's Lamest Critic, for clarifying your position. I understand it better now. While I agree that the econ cats reflect those that contribute to the economy, there's nothing on the cat pages that states this is a requirement. And as stated before, just because other stuff exists (and is in a different state) does not mean that this article must follow suit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point a little better now Walter but I think there's more to it too. For instance you mention political will at the end of your comment. I think political will is much more of an important factor in homelessness than the economy is. Mental and physical illness, disabilities and addiction contribute to a lot more homelessness than just a simple lack of jobs. Yes the economy plays an important role in this sense because a bad or bottomed-out economy can have a great impact on homelessness, but most of the homelessness we see in Canada is from people who are not able to take available jobs in the first place. We can be in boom times and have governments not put a penny towards helping people with their barriers to working and being housed and we can have governments that put money towards this in times that are not great economically speaking. Perhaps our differing views on the main causes of homelessness are what is having us see the connection between homelessness and the economy in this conversation here. Air.light (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Medical problems of homeless people
Thanks to User: World's Lamest Critic I read the article about Homelessness in Seattle which has a section titled Medical problems which has some information that surprised me, such as the high number of homeless suffering  Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, physical disability, HIV/AIDS, and  developmental disability. Just wondering if Vancouver’s homeless also deal with these medical conditions to the same degree, or does our public health system deal with those problems successfully? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
 * It is a problem in Vancouver as well, and I have alluded to developmental disabilities in the previous discussion. If RSes can be found we should add content here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homelessness in Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/homelessness/Homlessness%20Docs/PlanSummary2003.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702110648/http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/homelessness/ResourcesPage/PathwaysOutofHomelessness110503.pdf to http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/homelessness/ResourcesPage/PathwaysOutofHomelessness110503.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

mental illness and deinstitutionalization
I have heard some discussion that the turning-out of mental institutions can be pointed to as one of the reasons for the homeless crisis. It might be worth adding that perspective. Some interesting discussion on the following page: https://www.sunshinecoasthealthcentre.ca/2013/02/deinstitutionalization/ --Nanite (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Update for Homeless Count 2017
There are still references to the 2011 Homeless Count, can we update all the references to the 2017 one? http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/homelessness/resources/Pages/default.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missmatsuko (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Added Article Image
I've added a header image to the article. Tyrone Madera (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)