Posted 24 July 2015 - 12:14 PM
The Extreme Weather Protocol (EWP) brings in 105 new places each night, and they are located where there is HEAT, and showers and washroom facilities. The tent city will not have any of this in adequate measures, and will no doubt be quite dreadful October through April. Why not use the EWP spaces full-time? > > http://victoriahomel...2014-update.pdf
That only requires an incremental staffing increase.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 12:22 PM
The Extreme Weather Protocol (EWP) brings in 105 new places each night, and they are located where there is HEAT, and showers and washroom facilities. The tent city will not have any of this in adequate measures, and will no doubt be quite dreadful October through April. Why not use the EWP spaces full-time? > > http://victoriahomel...2014-update.pdf
That only requires an incremental staffing increase.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 12:26 PM
You are right but it is not visible. I am thinking that part of the reason Topaz was chosen is that the commuters and tourists will see the tent city every time they drive to and from downtown Victoria.
Then let's put it on the grassy boulevard adjacent to Our Place, and one block up. Where most homeless like to be during the day, and where all the services are.
And the free food!
Our Place has:
free breakfast 7-8am M-F
free coffee and snacks 7-5pm M-F
free lunch 12-1 daily
free dinner 5-6pm daily
...and other places downtown have the other meal times covered.
http://victoriahomel..._May_2015-2.pdf
Posted 24 July 2015 - 12:39 PM
This is exactly my point. Costs once paid for by the entire province or even the country, have now, through changes in social policy, been off-loaded onto a very select group of taxpayers. In BC that's mostly the CoV and City of Vancouver.
Absolutely. With the crosshatch of municipalities here and in the lower mainland, the unlucky winners are being left holding the torch while all the suburbs shrug and handwave.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 12:49 PM
It seems to me like the specifics of the court ruling have been forgotten. I believe the court determined that the bylaw could not be enforced if all shelter beds were full. But I don't think they are typically all full. And if they are, then why not address the issue by fixing that. Allowing camping seems to me to be an ill-advised enabling of a behaviour that is in no party's best interest.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 01:01 PM
The problem is that many people do not use shelters (for all but the most bitter weather) because they do not like the close proximity with others, or they prefer the calm of "their place" they have found in a park or elsewhere, or they have drug/noise/behaviour/alcohol problems that are not tolerated in a shelter. And many also like to be closer to services, or friends. Many shelters also do not allow pets.
This tent City will not address people with any of these issues. And it does not give the homeless choice, which is the least we could allow them.
And I can not help but think the City allowing, organizing and regulating people sleeping in tents, but with no heat source, is almost condoning or encouraging unhealthy living. That sounds like a liability for the City.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 01:21 PM
And I can not help but think the City allowing, organizing and regulating people sleeping in tents, but with no heat source, is almost condoning or encouraging unhealthy living. That sounds like a liability for the City.
I'm not sure I can find an example of a North American tent city that has close government regulation or oversight. Helps' suggestion that it can be considered an "outdoor shelter" in my mind does not stand up. Nobody installs - or stands by and regulates while citizens install - an unsafe, cold, damp housing arrangement made up of shelters that are designed for fair-weather use.
If we force the current park campers to use this new tent city, most of them against their will presumably, what are we solving? We are adding City costs with no gain.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 01:38 PM
And I can not help but think the City allowing, organizing and regulating people sleeping in tents, but with no heat source, is almost condoning or encouraging unhealthy living. That sounds like a liability for the City.
It also sounds like a liability for the service contractor too. I wonder if their insurer will tell them to stay away. A couple people die of exposure, while in a government sanctioned and funded camp is not going to be good.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 02:07 PM
Lisa Helps on CFAX now for an hour.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 02:23 PM
October 2014 in Vancouver
B.C. Supreme Court hears tent city residents disobeyed fire ban order
The City of Vancouver is seeking an injunction to dismantle the encampment at Oppenheimer Park, citing deteriorating health and safety conditions. The tent city sprang up in mid-July, when a couple of dozen people moved in to highlight a lack of affordable housing, and comprised more than 200 tents at its peak.
Last week, Justice Duncan granted a one-week adjournment to allow lawyers with the Pivot Legal Society – which represents the campers – more time to prepare arguments. The same day, she issued an interim order that on-site fires be extinguished and tarps connecting tents be taken down for safety reasons.
But on Monday, the first day of the injunction hearing, the court heard that a ceremonial fire that was extinguished on Sept. 25 was lit again five days later – the day the interim order was posted and handed out to campers. In the following days, the fire burned largely unattended, propane tanks were brought in and a wooden structure was being assembled in a makeshift kitchen area, according to a new affidavit by Joe Foster, assistant fire chief with Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services.
During an inspection last Thursday, fire personnel identified 103 separate infractions of the court order, such as open flames and smoking materials in and around tents, Mr. Foster stated in his affidavit.
In a separate affidavit, Vancouver Police Inspector Howard Chow said there were 364 calls to police regarding the park between July 17 and Sept. 18, resulting in 170 documented police incidents.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 02:37 PM
October 2014 in Vancouver - B.C. Supreme Court hears tent city residents disobeyed fire ban order
The shape of things to come... 
Posted 24 July 2015 - 02:48 PM
Of course they are going to light fires, have you ever camped in November or January? It's cruel to house people in tents then give them no heat source. You can not keep anything dry even with the best tents and tarps.
Helps says they plan to use the tennis court area at Topaz. My back-of-napkin measurement says that's 16,000 sq. ft. at best. I say use a parkade level, or negotiate a lease of St. Andrews school building and/or property, or the Speedy Auto-glass warehouse opposite Our Place.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 03:21 PM
...or negotiate a lease of St. Andrews school building and/or property...
Nope, now I get to play NIMBY. St. Andrew's is off limits.
Resident Housekeeper
Posted 24 July 2015 - 03:22 PM
Nope, now I get to play NIMBY. St. Andrew's is off limits.
If it helps to advance the proposal faster 
Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network
Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams
Posted 24 July 2015 - 03:24 PM
If it helps to advance the proposal faster
Something tells me Bosa/Bluesky won't be up for this use of the property. Hard to say what the Catholic Diocese might do if the sale of the property is not yet finalized.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 03:35 PM
I'm upset that people move next to a park, and suddenly it's fast-tracked into a full-time homeless shelter. Nobody signed up for that. Let's see a private developer get his plans approved in 60 days.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 03:38 PM
Citizen rally at 9am tomorrow.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 03:56 PM
finally a place to relocate the deer to ... and if the homeless get hungry.. ... ....
Posted 24 July 2015 - 04:07 PM
Needs to be held on the Mayor's front lawn so that she can experience what the neighbours of Topaz will.
Posted 24 July 2015 - 04:11 PM
Hi, City of Victoria, I hear you've got a great solution to the homeless problem, some type of area that you can house them all, inexpensively?
Yes, we do, it's a tent city in a park.
Oh, that does not sound very warm or dry.
No, it's neither. No electricity or heating is allowed.
Well, I'm sure the residents can go into the communal building and warm up, get a hot meal or coffee.
No, there won't be one.
Well, I guess they can go to the showers and warm up.
No, there won't be any. After all, it cost us $35,000 to install a urinal nobody uses, imagine what warm showers would cost.
Oh, well, I guess they can just stand in their tent and stretch a bit.
No, it's their own tents, most of them are too short for anyone to stand in.
So they can crawl in their tents, and go to the bathroom, that's all they get?
Ya.
Well, most of them will just sit and drink the time away I guess.
No, it's a sober and drug-free zone.
Why did you bother? It sounds like the worst shelter ever devised by a government or services agency, sounds more like the ad-hoc villages that spring up illegally.
I dunno why we did this. It sounded good at first.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board 3.4.6
Licensed to: Citified Media Inc. All materials © Copyright Citified Media Inc. All rights reserved.
STAY CONNECTED TO VIBRANTVICTORIA
WHAT'S HAPPENING ON CITIFIED VICTORIA
