Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« New Political Drinking Game | Main | Tories withhold Afghan mission cost citing national security concerns »

Monday, September 14, 2009

Screw The Homeless

...which is what the City of Winnipeg is trying to do.
Charlie Warman owns (or so he thought) a home in the St. Boniface area of Winnipeg, on which sits 2 sheds that he rents out to two homeless people for $100 a month each.
One of the tenants, Debbie Peachy said;
if it were not for Warman, she would be forced to live in a tent under a bridge.
She said the shed is warm and comfortable. She said she has access to running water and a bathroom.
"I don't want pity. I don't want none of that," Peachy said about her situation. She said social assistance payments are not enough to cover rent in a regular apartment.
She has been living in the shed for two years and prefers it to a homeless shelter, which she said she has experienced in the past.
  
The City of Winnipeg government certainly didn't like this. They ordered Mr. Warman several months ago to stop the practice, due to health and safety concerns.
Today Mr. Warman was fined $247 by inspectors who came to the property and told him that the insulated sheds were too small.
"It's Buckingham Palace compared to what I used to have. I have serenity here," said Louis Kryminski, 56, who has been living in the other shed for about a month.
"I have a radio I listen to music. You know, I got my space where I can lay down and feel better about my life."
Kryminski said he worked for 40 years but was recently diagnosed with a mental illness. Coupled with a physical disability, his ailments have left him down and out.
On the streets, where he has been before, Kryminski has been robbed and beaten.
This was a consensual transaction between all parties; the tenants got what they wanted and Mr. Warman was able to help some people out, and then the City comes and steps in between them and says "No! You can't let those people stay on your property! We said so! If you still do it you will pay!" And what if Mr. Warman refuses to pay? He will go to jail... for giving the homeless a place to stay.
Lessons learned from this story;
  1. The Government doesn't give a damn about helping people, just about forcing people to follow their rules
  2. Don't let Government people onto your property
  3. Don't pay the fines, refuse to co-operate

-----------

freedommanitoba.blogspot.com

twitter.com/freedommanitoba

I welcome feedback and I ask for civility in the exchange of comments. Vulgarity is discouraged. Please express yourself creatively with other language. We discuss ideas here, attacks on a person are discouraged.

Posted by Freedom Manitoba on September 14, 2009 in Municipal Politics | Permalink

Comments

Winnipeg's action is disgusting. Those responsible should be fired. Having a secure, warm, comfortable and affordable place to call home is a natural desire. The city's actions are fascistic, similar to those one would expect in a police state

Posted by: dewp | 2009-09-15 12:01:50 AM


Alternate lessons:
1) Social assistance is inadequate ("She said social assistance payments are not enough to cover rent in a regular apartment.")
2) Sometimes competing public policy interests conflict with one another (the need to ensure that housing is built up to reasonable health and safety codes vs. the need to ensure that low income people have housing)
3) Government is better equipped to meet the needs of the community when public policy organs coordinate their efforts

Posted by: Devin Johnston | 2009-09-15 12:42:14 AM


Alternate Alternate lessons

1. The government mis-manage nearly everything they touch, social assistance being one of them
2. Government will try to tell you want you can do with your private property even when involved in consensual actions
3. The needs of community is not one single things, individual needs vary

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-15 12:55:09 AM


Does Winnipeg not allow the construction of tiny apartments, SRO's? (Single Resident Occupancy)

Allowing some of them to be built, even if very small, would be much better than letting them live in the streets.

Posted by: GeronL | 2009-09-15 1:51:33 AM


"Social assistance is inadequate"

Precisely. So cut taxes and people will have more money to give to charities which can more effectively help the poor.

"Sometimes competing public policy interests conflict with one another (the need to ensure that housing is built up to reasonable health and safety codes vs. the need to ensure that low income people have housing)"

Reasonable health and safety codes when dictated arbitrarily by the gov't are expensive (too expensive for individuals with low incomes).

"Government is better equipped to meet the needs of the community when public policy organs coordinate their efforts"

Charities, individuals, and local governments (municipal) are always more efficient as opposed to centralized bureaucracies in taking care of empoverished individuals.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-15 5:43:53 AM


""Social assistance is inadequate." Precisely. So cut taxes and people will have more money to give to charities which can more effectively help the poor.

Assuming they're so inclined.

Reasonable health and safety codes when dictated arbitrarily by the gov't are expensive (too expensive for individuals with low incomes).

If the codes are reasonable, how are they arbitrary? The government has advisers, you know; they don't pull these things out of a hat. Or would you prefer a return to the days when buildings were not inspected and, as a result, many burned down or simply collapsed every year?

Charities, individuals, and local governments (municipal) are always more efficient as opposed to centralized bureaucracies in taking care of empoverished individuals.

"Impoverished." And while what you say is true, it's also true that such organizations are typically underfunded. America may be the most generous nation in the world, philanthropically speaking, but Canada is not. In fact it's not even close.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 6:34:01 AM


In spite of my post above, I don't see what cause for complaint the city has, provided the situation does not get out of hand. Soldiers routinely volunteer to live in worse conditions for extended periods, often the very conditions Debbie Peachy says Warman's generosity keeps her out of. And it's pretty hard to argue that you're fighting for health and safety standards when the enforcement of those standards will actually make things worse in this case. The end result should count for at least as much as the "proper" methodology.

That said, there is an old but effective solution to the common complaint that welfare won't pay for a private apartment: room with someone else. And this woman isn't down on her luck; she's down on her sense. Gambling is dumb--often fun, but dumb. Betting the farm on it is dumber. Arguing that you had no choice in the matter and expecting sympathy is dumbest of all. Every addiction starts with a willing participant.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 6:40:44 AM


Everyone I know donates time or money or both to charitable organizations. The only thing stopping them from doing more...is government and its rapacious taxation regime.
Its the people who want to control you that tell you we are all bad and would do nothing to help others if it wasn't for the "benevolent government". What a bunch of absolute horseshit!

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-09-15 7:04:07 AM


Everyone I know donates time or money or both to charitable organizations.

You mean they donate their old, unwanted but still serviceable goods to goodwill or the Salvation Army instead of hucking it, or tithe at Church. While that's a start, it hardly counts as philanthropy. And do you mean "everyone you know" or "everyone you know that you're willing to acknowledge"? How do you know EVERYONE you knows donates? Are you having them followed?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 8:57:12 AM


"Assuming they're so inclined."

I am so inclined.

"I don't see what cause for complaint the city has"

The complaint is that some busy body neighbor complained, so the City got involved, and Mr. Warman didn't obey their dictates; government demands obidience.

"The only thing stopping them from doing more...is government and its rapacious taxation regime."

Yep, true in my case, and many of the friends I have that donate to a particular church, I KNOW they would donate more if the government didn't take half of their money.

"or tithe at Church."

Tithing at church is a charitable cause, especially when that church uses the tithe for good works.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-15 9:14:57 AM


Let there be no doubt: What the government is doing here is pure evil. There is no excuse for it. But I do have to say, the story reminded me of something of a might lighter note. So as a tribute to Charlie "two sheds" Warman, I give you Arthur "two sheds" Jackson.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-09-15 9:18:55 AM


"I am so inclined."

So am I, but that's not the point. A quick google search easily comes up with studies that show direct correlation between increased income and wealth and increased charity (as a % of income). The best correlation is with increased wealth. My original point was that tax cuts increase wealth, and wealthier people give more to charity on an absolute and relative basis.

Actually, ask anyone who manages private wealth. Many wealthy entrepreneurs pull a Buffet/Gates after they retire.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-15 9:38:17 AM


I am so inclined.

But you are not the world—a concept you've yet to learn apparently.

The complaint is that some busy body neighbor complained, so the City got involved, and Mr. Warman didn't obey their dictates; government demands obidience.

Actually, government demands "obedience." Any authority demands obedience. And any competent and legitimate authority has the right to expect obedience, within reason. Your problem is you acknowledge no authority.

Yep, true in my case, and many of the friends I have that donate to a particular church, I KNOW they would donate more if the government didn't take half of their money.

You KNOW? Have a crystal ball, do you?

Tithing at church is a charitable cause, especially when that church uses the tithe for good works.

Tithing at Church will not re-open Riverview or give us much-needed detox beds. Especially considering how Godless our society has become.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 11:18:04 AM


Let there be no doubt: What the government is doing here is pure evil.

Save it, Fact Check. Indifference is not malevolence. You should know better than that. Not like you to resort to emoting, except when you're crapping on me of course.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 11:19:09 AM


It stands to reason that philanthropy increases as disposable income increases, Charles. However, there are only so many Gateses and Rockefellers to go around. Even if the total amount of tax was slashed by half, the situation wouldn't improve dramatically. In fact, hundreds of thousands of government workers with few or no marketable skills would swell the welfare rolls, swamping any increase in philanthropy.

Government spending drives nearly half the economy in this country. Fixing our economic woes will thus take more than just cutting taxes, at least in the near term. I don't know why you keep insisting that private ownership of everything is the answer to all society's ills, when you know full well it will never happen. You may as well wish for the elimination of greed from the human psyche.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 11:24:14 AM


"My original point was that tax cuts increase wealth, and wealthier people give more to charity on an absolute and relative basis."

But rich people are greedy and evil :)

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-15 11:51:21 AM


"Your problem is you acknowledge no authority."

As I've said before, I acknowledge authority that I grant to people; my wife, my manager, my boss, my parents, etc. People that assume to have authority over me can take off.

"You KNOW? Have a crystal ball, do you?"

I KNOW becasue they pay tithing, so if they had larger cheques then they would pay more in tithing (being 10% of their income), which is partially used for charitable causes in their church.

"Especially considering how Godless our society has become."

Godless people give as much to charity as anyone else.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-15 11:55:09 AM


"Even if the total amount of tax was slashed by half, the situation wouldn't improve dramatically"

Speculation.

"In fact, hundreds of thousands of government workers with few or no marketable skills would swell the welfare rolls"

Get rid of government welfare, problem solved.

"Government spending drives nearly half the economy in this country."

Yep, government is very pursavie in this country.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-15 11:56:46 AM


But rich people are greedy and evil :)

And poor people are more greedy and more evil, if their contribution to crime statistics is any indication.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 12:03:09 PM


"But rich people are greedy and evil :)"

Indeed. But poor people are even worse meaning only virtuous, god-fearing, middle-class consevatives can be considered "good".

Posted by: Charles | 2009-09-15 1:12:27 PM


How do you know EVERYONE you knows donates? Are you having them followed?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 8:57:12 AM


Everyone I "associate with" does in fact donate time to fund raisers etc. and actual cash to charitable causes.
NO ONE I associate with pawns their garbage off on others.

So its apparently quite a bit different than where you live.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-09-15 2:24:43 PM


...just raise the rent. Simple. ;-)

Posted by: tomax7 | 2009-09-15 4:03:02 PM


JC, when someone asks you how you know something, simply reiterating your belief that you do know it doesn’t constitute an answer; it constitutes evasion. Your deliberate putting of “associates with” in quotes further suggests that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

So you’re saying that, when one of the people you “associate with” has no more use for an otherwise serviceable item, they simply heave it into the trash to bulk up a landfill somewhere rather than let someone else have it? You’re right; it’s different where I live. We don’t throw serviceable and/or recyclable goods in the trash. In fact, it’s illegal to.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-15 11:51:29 PM


I KNOW becasue they pay tithing, so if they had larger cheques then they would pay more in tithing (being 10% of their income), which is partially used for charitable causes in their church.

No, you BELIEVE. BELIEVING is not KNOWING. You do not KNOW the future. NO ONE knows the future. There are not many people who tithe 10% of their income and somehow I doubt your circle of friends is an exception.

Godless people give as much to charity as anyone else.

Can you prove this? America, a God-fearing nation, is far more philanthropic than Canada, which increasingly isn't. Alms-giving is very important in the Islamic world as well.

Get rid of government welfare, problem solved.

So instead of having hundreds of thousands of poor people, we'll have hundreds of thousands of starving, desperate people. This you call a solution? To what, your wet dream of watching the entire government disintegrate so you won't have to pay your stupid traffic tickets?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-16 12:03:02 AM


Shane, I would suggest altering your style of response and refrain from personal attacks, believe it or not I don't enjoy wasting time editing comments.

As for my "circle of friends", they belong to a particular religious sect that strongly emphasis tithing, and many of them do. I know this because I was responsible for counting and keeping records of the tithes.

">Godless people give as much to charity as anyone else.

Can you prove this?"

Since you made the assertion that there would be less charity because our society is becoming Godless (the first an assumption, the second not true, most Canadians are Christians) it is on you to prove it.

"So instead of having hundreds of thousands of poor people, we'll have hundreds of thousands of starving, desperate people. "

Speculation. Also, I didn't say get rid of welfare, I said get rid of government welfare. Welfare will still exist without the government, and in our wealthy nation people give generously and will continue to do so on a voluntary basis, as they currently do in many private welfare/charity systems.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-16 5:53:36 AM


So Shane, how do you feel about the government fining this homeowner for providing a place for the homeless to stay? I haven't seen you address that.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-16 5:54:54 AM


Shane, I would suggest altering your style of response and refrain from personal attacks, believe it or not I don't enjoy wasting time editing comments.

And I would suggest you follow my previous suggestion. Pointing out flaws everyone can see--and upon which many people will form part of their opinion of you--is not a personal attack. You will come off better if you spend more time editing your own posts and less time editing others.

As for my "circle of friends", they belong to a particular religious sect that strongly emphasis tithing, and many of them do. I know this because I was responsible for counting and keeping records of the tithes.

That does not answer the question of a) whether they tithe ten percent, and b) whether they would tithe more if they had more money. I expect many probably would, but for you to present it as a foregone conclusion--a fact even--calls for rebuttal.

Since you made the assertion that there would be less charity because our society is becoming Godless (the first an assumption, the second not true, most Canadians are Christians) it is on you to prove it.

Actually, no. It is on me to prove only my own statements, not yours. And Godless liberals are indeed generous; unfortunately it's usually with other people's money.

Speculation.

Is it? Do you see an alternative scenario if government revenues fall permanently by half? Mind sharing it with us?

Also, I didn't say get rid of welfare, I said get rid of government welfare. Welfare will still exist without the government, and in our wealthy nation people give generously and will continue to do so on a voluntary basis, as they currently do in many private welfare/charity systems.

Again with the crystal ball. If private relief was adequate, why did the government, which initially resisted the whole idea, feel compelled to institute welfare efforts during the Great Depression? Go to any food bank and take one look at the long lineups starting at 6 a.m., then take one look at the empty shelves, and tell me private welfare is "adequate."

I don't like welfare either; frankly, I prefer workfare. Most people on welfare are able-bodied. Those unable to work qualify for disability pensions. But again, these are government programs. In the days of zero income tax--a scenario under which you predict adequate private charity--such people were usually reduced to begging in the streets.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-16 7:08:09 AM


Actually, F.M., I already said I don't see what cause for complaint the city has. How I FEEL about it does not matter; feelings are unimportant from a policy perspective.

That said, if you're one of those who likes to go against the grain, you can expect to come up splinters, can't you?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-16 7:14:39 AM


"How I FEEL about it does not matter"

Sure it does.

"feelings are unimportant from a policy perspective."

Policy makers have feelings, so they will be influenced by them.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-16 7:57:49 AM


Sure it does.

No it doesn't.

Policy makers have feelings, so they will be influenced by them.

And in so doing produce bad policy. The best policies derive from the ethical application of planning based on fact. Passion never governs wisely.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-09-16 9:56:40 AM


"And in so doing produce bad policy"

It's government, what do you expect.

"The best policies derive from the ethical application of planning based on fact."

Ethics are subjective and can be influenced by emotion.

Posted by: Freedom Manitoba | 2009-09-16 12:23:32 PM


"And in so doing produce bad policy. The best policies derive from the ethical application of planning based on fact. Passion never governs wisely."
Posted by: Shane Matthews

The sentiment that passion and reason are fundamentally different spheres easily lends itself to either Machiavellian rationalism or impulsive moralism. Neither is truly reasonable or morally lucid. Particularly when dealing with human needs and desires, such a Weber-esque approach sheds no light.

That said, you are right that health regulations are not pulled out of a hat. The prospect of India's low cost ghettoes does not seem to be a direction many in Canada would savour.

I do wonder, however, whether the health and safety concerns of living in a lice-infested group home with a bunch of drug addicts are indeed lesser.

"Since you made the assertion that there would be less charity because our society is becoming Godless (the first an assumption, the second not true, most Canadians are Christians) it is on you to prove it."
Posted by: Freedom Manitoba

If you are indeed the rationalist you seem to want to be, you should know very well how easy it is to generate a negative formulation to shift the burden of proof. If you are too lazy to find the research on the issue, say so. Don't rest so luxuriantly on skeptical orthodoxy. (No contradiction in terms, ironically.)

Posted by: Timothy | 2009-09-17 6:51:00 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.