The @CityofToronto is flatly lying, as it has for at least a decade, about shelter space being available for people who are homeless. Today, a naive and unjust judge not only let Toronto get away with those lies, but crapped all over some of Toronto's most vulnerable citizens. 1/
So, here's a little story that shows what those who are homeless and those who advocate for them go through trying to get Shelter beds.

"I had extended the stay at the rooming house near Spadina and Dundas for the woman who had reported a sexual assault on June 19, 2/
as I was concerned that there was no available bed for her in the shelter system. In the afternoon of June 25, I visited that woman at the rooming house near Spadina/Dundas. While I was there, I noticed a young homeless man (Z.R.) hanging around the outside of the building." 3/
"This was the second time I had encountered him, and this time he asked me for help. Z.R. told me that he had last bee in the shelter system two months prior." 4/
"He said that he had left the shelter system to use some of his monthly cheque to stay at the rooming house for a few days, but was now out of money. He asked if I would call Central Intake to get him a bed." 5/
"On June 25 at 2:23 p.m., while with Z.R., I called Central Intake and was told there was no availability for single men. The operator asked that we call back in an hour. Z.R. gave the operator permission to not on his file that I was able to ask for a bed for him." 6/
"I called back to Central Intake at 3:23, 4:23, 5:24, 7:44, and 8:25 p.m., and was told each time that there was not a bed for Z.R. When I called again at 9:23 p.m., I could not remember Z. R.'s first name, and a new operator told me that I could only ask for a bed if ... 7/
" ... I knew his first and last names. I obtained Z.R.'s first name by texting the rooming house manager, and called Central Intake back at 9:36 p.m. I was put on hold for 14 minutes ant then told that no space was available and to call back in an hour." 8/
"I called again at 10:41 p.m., and was told again that there was no space available for Z.R. At 11:35 p.m., I made another call and was placed on hold before the call dropped after 4 minutes. I called back and waited on hold for 21 minutes before being told ... " 9/
"... that nothing was available and that I should try again in 2 hours. I set my alarm and slept for two hours before calling again at 2:15 a.m. Again, I was told that nothing was available." 10/
"I recording this portion of the conversation.

During my call at 2:15 a.m., the operator asked me to call back again in an hour. I responded with the suggestion that maybe I should wait for SMIS to reset at 4 a.m." 11/
"The operator agreed that his was a good idea. I set my alarm and called back at 4:56 a.m. This time, I was told there was a spot for Z.R. at 5800 Yonge. The operator told me that the spot would be held for only 2 hours, meaning I would have to find Z.R. and ... " 12/
"... get him to 5800 Yonge within that time. I asked the operator to hold the space for an additional hour, explaining I would have to find Z.R. at the abandoned building I had left him at the previous afternoon and then get him to 5800 Yonge." 13/
"The operator said 2.5 hours was the maximum they could hold the space. I recorded this portion of the conversation.

After hanging up with Central Intake at 5:03 a.m., I got dressed and drove to the area where I had last seen Z.R. 14/
"I attempted unsuccessfully for over an hour to find Z.R. In the two locations I knew him to hang out in and in the intervening sidewalk space.

On Friday June 26, while I was attempting to visit the woman in the boarding house at Spadina and Dundas, I again encountered Z.R. 15/
... who asked that I try calling Central Intake on his behalf again. I called again at 12:55 p.m., and was advised that 545 Lakeshore had a spot. Z.R. accepted it." 16/
"I drove him to the location with a backpack full of toiletries and clothes that I had collected for him from Sanctuary early that morning.

All told, it took 15 calls over the course of 22+ hours to secure a spot for Z.R." 17/Fin

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Doug Johnson Hatlem

Doug Johnson Hatlem Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @djjohnso

19 Oct
Is 2020 still competitive (RCP) or not really (538)?

2016
Actual Ntnl: Clinton +2.1
RCP Final: Clinton +3.2 (D+1.1)
538 Final: Clinton +3.9 (D+1.8)

2018
Actual House Ntnl: D+8.6%
RCP Final: D+7.3 (R+1.3)
538 Final (polls only): D+10.2 (D+1.6)

Avg Bias
RCP R+0.1%
538 D+1.7% Image
Look, let's be honest:

If Biden is up

4% in Arizona and Florida
6.5% in Pennsylvania
8%, on average, in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan

And within a whisker of Texas

Then 538 is actually being generous when it gives Trump a 12% chance of winning. Image
If, on the other hand:

Biden is up only:

1.5% in Florida
3% in Arizona
3.8% in Pennsylvania
5.2% in Nevada

And an average of 6.5% in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin

While:

Trump leads Texas by 4.4%

Uncertainty remains reasonably large: Image
Read 4 tweets
17 Feb
1/ Analyses of precinct data in NH suggest risk that fractional counting by machine may have moved results by 3-5% of gap between Sanders and Buttigieg. @jvgraz recently discussed 2016 suspicions per Stanford study (see also my work in CP + w/EJUSA and @LuluFriesdat led study).
2/ We cannot draw a conclusion of suspicion about movement from precincts of 349 or less to 350-1999 for Sanders v. Buttigieg. Comparing hand v. scanner counts? Sanders just did better in smallest townships. (Klobuchar diff. *is* suspicious per multivariate regression analysis.)
3/ I worked with an Ivy League trained prof. who uses quantitative and qualitative data in his research. We controlled for several factors like wealth.

Our data frame: easyupload.io/kwg3v4

Wealth, importantly, only explains about 10% of the variance by precinct size:
Read 5 tweets
21 Jan
#10at10 No. 48
2020 Dem Primary Rankings
Full Delegate Proj.➡️Super Tues:
wp.me/P7gBVo-yC

-Warren up 15 delgs., Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg down 7, 7, and 1 respectively
-Sanders now within 0.4% of Biden in polling v. Trump avg., closest in my tracking over a year Image
#10at10 No. 49
2020 Dem Primary Rankings
Full Delegate Proj.➡️Super Tues:
wp.me/P7gBVo-yC

-At 1.1 pt deficit, closest Sanders has been to Biden (also -1.1 Apr 1)
-Bloomberg steadily rising
-Deleg count hidden, updates tonight (IA NH NV SC), throughout week (Super Tues) Image
#10at10 No. 50
2020 Dem Primary Rankings
Full Delegate Proj.➡️Super Tues:
(Updating tonight)
wp.me/P7gBVo-yC

-Sanders takes the lead in polling, delegates, and overall rank for first time going back to Jan. 2019
-Full Delg. Projection later tonight (could move a few) Image
Read 28 tweets
19 Feb 19
Nate Silver remains the most sophisticated of the 8% of Democrats who have a very unfavorable dislike/hatred of Sanders. Watch what he is doing here. He's conceding lots to appear rational, but then he goes with a flat out falsehood. Bernie has don *a ton* to build coalitions.
Not only has he done a ton to build coalitions, but it shows in his numbers. He's 1st or 2nd in polling w/People of Color of a wide variety & overall (Biden #1 w/African Americans & overall, Sanders #2 for those & #1 w/ Latin Americans, tied for #1 w/ "other" per Morning Consult.
And this isn't a cherry-picked poll. It's based on five weeks of data in January and February, including more than 2000 POC respondents. Sanders coalition building goes well beyond improvements with POC, however ...
Read 7 tweets
30 Jan 19
1/4 Morning Consult polled 2284 people of color regarding the 2020 Democratic Primary in January

RESULTS ALL POC
Biden 21.0%
Sanders 15.7
Harris 5.3
O'Rourke 5.0
Warren 3.4
Booker 2.8
Other* 18.0
Don't Know/No Opinion 28.8

*No other candidate except HRC 2.5% or greater
2/4 Morning Consult polled 1011 African Americans regarding the 2020 Democratic Primary in January

RESULTS BLACK RESPONDENTS
Biden 29.1%
Sanders 13.0
Harris 6.7
O'Rourke 4.0
Booker 3.9
Warren 3.0
Other 16.4
Don't Know/No Opinion 24.0
3/4 Morning Consult polled 767 Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Latinx Americans regarding the 2020 Democratic Primary in January

RESULTS LATIN RESPONDENTS
Sanders 18.8%
Biden 15.0
O'Rourke 7.0
Harris 3.8
Warren 3.7
Booker 2.2
Bloomberg 2.0
Castro 1.6
Other 16.3
Don't Know/No Opinion 29.7
Read 4 tweets
24 Jan 19
1/4 Morning Consult has polled 1711 people of color regarding the 2020 Democratic Primary so far in January

RESULTS ALL POC
Biden 20.4%
Sanders 15.5%
O'Rourke 5.1%
Harris 4.6%
Warren 3.9%
Booker 2.5%
Other* 19.4%
Don't Know/No Opinion 28.6%

*No other candidate 2.5% or greater
2/4 Morning Consult has polled 758 black people regarding the 2020 Democratic Primary so far in January

RESULTS AFRICAN AMERICAN RESPONDENTS
Biden 27.8%
Sanders 13.2%
Harris 5.3%
O'Rourke 4.5%
Warren 3.8%
Booker 3.2%
Other* 18.3%
DK/No Opinion 23.9%
3/4 Morning Consult has polled 575 Hispanic people regarding the 2020 Democratic Primary so far in January

RESULTS LATINX/LATINA/LATINO RESPONDENTS
Sanders 18.1%
Biden 15.1%
O'Rourke 7.0%
Harris 3.8%
Warren 3.7%
Booker 2.3%
Other* 21.4%
DK/No Opinion 28.7%
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!