415 replies to this topic

[Chris J]

Chris, I have no problem, with your thoughts above. You want to unplug from the grid, I have no issue with that whatsoever. Heck, there are days when that doesn't seem like the worst idea to me.

But you (not you specifically, the generalized 'you') can't have it both ways. You can't reject government, then try to tent in front of City Hall, which is maintained, cleaned, and policed by the government. You can't espouse a 'monk-like' lifestyle and not wonder why people scoff at you when you have a Starbucks cup in your hand for every media opportunity. You can't claim to despise our monetary system and then take every advantage of the services of all three levels of government and the economic sucesses of the region.

If you want that communal lifestyle, I say go for it. But you can't have it on the backs of all those working Joe's who choose to go to a job they hate every day, in order to live within our society. Even the Manson family didn't set up their commune in the middle of downtown LA.

Well I again can't speak for anyone but myself, but why is it that if you don't like the idea of being ruled by a 'Crown' on land that was (disputably) stolen from the natives, that you have no right to challenge the government? The point is that our governments are guilty of a wide variety of humans right abuses, and they need to be challenged.
Again, it's not because David loves living in city parks here that he fights this battle here. It's because this is where it is beginning. David can't be everywhere at once. If people feel that other municipalities need to be challenged, they need to do it.

And again, this is not about the homeless living off Joe Workingman. Joe pays taxes that our governments waste, when more can be done for less. Tent cities are part of that way to save people tax money.

So he still drinks coffee. Sit with him under that tree for a few hours and someone will bring a few coffees to drink.
He's not Jesus, here. He lives more simply than anyone else I know, still doesn't use money (although yes, people buy things for him) but otherwise this fight is his life and he lives for nothing else.

This publicly prominent spots were chosen because we have had camps all over this city that you probably never knew about. And in terms of how to we bring this issue to public attention, the media has been less than helpful, and so these are the places and actions that get you and me talking about this.

It all comes down to some of us feel that we can ease some of the suffering on the street if we can increase the amount of temporary shelter available. Since people die at the rate of at least two a week here, we feel it is a crisis that needs to be dealt with quicker than the three levels of government propose. We see tents as a quick, albeit temporary solution. Not in Beacon Hill, not in Centennial Square, but somewhere we cam come to a workable agreement on where they should be.

So it comes down to, do you agree that the level of urgency needs to be significantly raised on this issue, and immediate action taken? If yes, do you think that we can convince the governments to fasttrack their plans to get more people housed much more quickly?

Many of us feel that after all these years of planning, if the governments were capable of a faster response, they would be implementing it. Unless you feel that the government is purposely keeping people homeless as a method of social control, (but we won't get into that). We know that we as a community, can deal with this crisis, and we're ready.

That's part of it. The other part is that the BC Supreme Court made a ruling that is being violated. They would just like you not to know they continue to arrest people, at least until they get their appeal. But now you know that the city is acting unlawfully. And if under the damn tree at city hall is where you used to walk your dog every day, then sorry, right? But people have to know.

[Chris J]

Sorry if I have to monologue as opposed to just feeding you soundbites and witty quips. It's not that kind of issue. It takes a while to try to figure out how to counter the propaganda you've been fed.

[hoi polloi]

Many who overcome adversity know that help exists for those willing to help themselves. I myself was a homeless teenager but managed to carve out a life for myself without blaming the government - without being arrested - and without seeking national news coverage. I note that the homeless advocates have cell phones, which are not cheap, and computers with internet access to quickly to notify the press about, as recently as tonight, David Shebib getting a ticket for urinating in public. This - to prove that Victoria residents and politicians and police step over dead bodies on our streets? There would be no drama about this alleged breech of Shebib's "human rights" if he accepted an available shelter bed and washroom - and as an advocate (for the mentally ill, or drunk/high on the streets who cannot advocate for themselves) encourage them to follow him there. Then, for a change of pace/story he could volunteer at the open door. That would look more like humanity - and less like prime time.

Points missed entirely. I find the notion that the homeless should shuffle off to the shelters -which are maxed out and do not have room for the entire homeless population, whether homeless by choice or circumstances beyond their control-profoundly out of touch. Encourage the "mentally ill, drunk/high on the streets..to follow him there". Are you for real? That is the epitome of naive.

Actually, cell phones can be quite cheap, and with the loss of pay phones, have become more necessary. Internet access is not difficult to come by.

[Sue Woods]

Points missed entirely. I find the notion that the homeless should shuffle off to the shelters -which are maxed out and do not have room for the entire homeless population, whether homeless by choice or circumstances beyond their control-profoundly out of touch. Encourage the "mentally ill, drunk/high on the streets..to follow him there". Are you for real? That is the epitome of naive.

Actually, cell phones can be quite cheap, and with the loss of pay phones, have become more necessary. Internet access is not difficult to come by.

On Friday there were 40 empty shelter beds available - according to the police. But you know what - this whole subject is really starting to cross over into an ugly kind of anger - and now being asked if I am "for real" for suggesting some 'positive' (opps, excuse my language) options really offends me. I am done posting on this thread.

[hoi polloi]

Regardless of the number filled on any given night, be they actual beds or the band aid mats on the floor, there are still not enough to go around. The idea is, there is no drug or alcohol use in the shelters. Of course, it goes on in the vicinity. The Streetlink staff is overwhelmed. There will always be some who are too ill to be in the chaos of the shelter. Too ill or too high or simply find the overcrowded environment to have it's own set of risks.

It appears the protesters, the homeless activists, have an entirely different agenda than being pied pipers for the existing shelters. Expecting that they do what you think is a positive misses their point and their reality entirely, and isn't a realistic solution in any form. I apologize if you find this "ugly", but what has been put forth in your posts appears to me offensive. There is a distinction to be made between those homeless-they are not some homogenized commodity.

[Sue Woods]

I guess I am naive because I never realized I was offending.

Sorry to all - as I leave this dialogue to greater, more realistic, minds then mine.

[Caramia]

There is a distinction to be made between those homeless-they are not some homogenized commodity.

That's sort of been my point for awhile. It is why I use the word "activist" or "protesters" to refer to the group among the street community that are going for the media attention right now. Not the word homeless. I find that coverage is often spun in such a way that suggests they speak for "the homeless," and represent their interests. I think it is important in activist ethics to avoid appropriating the voice of those who are so often voiceless.

I do get why shelters aren't always the best choice. No reflection on the wonderful people who run them, but often they become the "domain" of a certain sub section of the street community, and then they become really unsafe feeling. I'd personally rather sleep outside most nights too, especially if I could pitch a tent.

I'd love to see the activists continue, but with greater care and attention to the effect of their choice of when and where they are making their stands. Making a stand to protect people who have to sleep outside from the elements is noble and good. Making a stand to force the public to give up precious park space so you and your friends can sleep in until noon is hard to see as anything but selfish.

If their goal is to create a tent-city like Dignity Village in Portland, then, they have two hurdles to bridge... first to prove that the law was intended to allow it (which from my reading it really doesn't look like it was) ...and second to show the community that they are capable of doing it in such a way that it becomes a good thing. These guys are projecting the opposite message.

I do hope their activism reaches federal and provincial ears eventually, especially as infrastructure spending is rolled out over the next months. Maybe they can shake lose some desperately needed housing relief. But I also hope that by then they will have found a way to show more respect for their fellow citizens, whose communal couch, they are, after all, demanding to perpetually surf.

[davek]

...as D.O.A. said, talk minus action equals zero.

I don't know who D.O.A. is, but I don't think he/she/they are mathmeticians:

If A - X = 0, then A = X. Therefore, if Talk - Action = 0, then Talk = Action.

This concludes today's math pedantics.

[m0nkyman]

..

[G-Man]

I don't know who D.O.A. is, but I don't think he/she/they are mathmeticians:

If A - X = 0, then A = X. Therefore, if Talk - Action = 0, then Talk = Action.

This concludes today's math pedantics.

Awesome. Perhaps DOA will have to step down from the mathematics chair at MIT.

[jklymak]

Is Dignity Village in a public park? I know Nickelsville is in church parking lots.

I'd be pretty surprised if the courts don't allow cities to regulate the use of public parks and make if permissible to remove permanent tent cities in them. The parks are owned by everyone, and the city has the responsibility to ensure they are for everyone's use. If a group sets up a quasi-permanent home there, it will no longer be public. Not arresting folks temporarily camped out on a rainy night is one thing, setting up permanent residence is another.

Note that the right of the city to regulate the use of parks doesn't mean the city couldn't decide to allow a tent city, even in a park. But its at the city's discretion, not a constitutional right.

[Ginger Snap]

Sorry if I have to monologue as opposed to just feeding you soundbites and witty quips. It's not that kind of issue. It takes a while to try to figure out how to counter the propaganda you've been fed.

Was this comment directed at me? If so, you just totally negated a thoughtfully written post in order to cast false aspersions about me 'being fed propaganda.' Seriously, do you read something you have written, and then think, hmmmm, that was too rational, I better spice it up with some random insult?

[ted - 3 - dots]

I don't know who D.O.A. is, but I don't think he/she/they are mathmeticians:

If A - X = 0, then A = X. Therefore, if Talk - Action = 0, then Talk = Action.

This concludes today's math pedantics.

---- I like it ----

can you do my income-tax for me ...?

ted...

[Chris J]

Was this comment directed at me? If so, you just totally negated a thoughtfully written post in order to cast false aspersions about me 'being fed propaganda.' Seriously, do you read something you have written, and then think, hmmmm, that was too rational, I better spice it up with some random insult?

I don't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry that it came out that way. But I do think that many people here are forming their opinions of who the protesters are, what they stand for and what they do, based on what they read in the media, which is propaganda.
What I mean to say was in response to what seemed vaguely insulting to me, which was calling my part of the discussion a monologue. But I apologize for my response to that because I realize that yes, I do drone on.
And then I was attempting to explain that none of the short answers I've given have managed to counter the misconceptions that many people hold, so I use a lot of words hoping that a point people can accept comes out...

[Chris J]

I'd love to see the activists continue, but with greater care and attention to the effect of their choice of when and where they are making their stands. Making a stand to protect people who have to sleep outside from the elements is noble and good. Making a stand to force the public to give up precious park space so you and your friends can sleep in until noon is hard to see as anything but selfish.

If their goal is to create a tent-city like Dignity Village in Portland, then, they have two hurdles to bridge... first to prove that the law was intended to allow it (which from my reading it really doesn't look like it was) ...and second to show the community that they are capable of doing it in such a way that it becomes a good thing. These guys are projecting the opposite message.

I do hope their activism reaches federal and provincial ears eventually, especially as infrastructure spending is rolled out over the next months. Maybe they can shake lose some desperately needed housing relief. But I also hope that by then they will have found a way to show more respect for their fellow citizens, whose communal couch, they are, after all, demanding to perpetually surf.

I think maybe part of the confusion is the idea that an during an action such as this the people involved are 'speaking for the homeless', which is no more possible than Red Cross volunteers speaking for disaster victims. It can't happen obviously, none of us can speak for such a diverse group.
However, what these protesters are trying to do is get the city to stop enforcing a law that has been found unconstitutional. This bylaw effects many homeless people, and it in this way that the protesters are 'representing' homeless people.

Now, in terms of giving up park space. The idea here is that the only way the city can keep people off the prominently public spaces, such as parks, is to create an area zoned for disaster relief or whatever you want to call it. It has to create (or at least allow the creation of through zoning) space where those who cannot use shelters have another option. This is what I meant earlier by 'the right thing.' Because it seems to be all the city has left to do without being in contempt of court.

You are right that the law does not intend to create tent cities, but the effect is it has no right to stop them. I myself do not want to see unregulated random tent encampments all over the city parks. I want to see places that homeless people who can't go to shelters can't go. So unless the city wants to either keep enforcing the bylaw and risk the consequences of the civil courts finding it unconstitutional, or let the tents spring up everywhere, they'll pony up some unused space. Not park space, but some fenced off city owned lot.
Then, their bylaw will once again be in force and effect in the parks, and it costs them a lot less than even one police operation.

Occupation of Beacon Hill and Centennial Square is purely political in my mind, and every effort is made to ensure that the people's enjoyment of the park is not hindered. You're forgetting maybe that they did not disrupt the tree ceremony, though I imagine that event will get mentioned in the media a couple more times. I think the tree is a good spot because it is not well used by the public, it is contained in a small space and the only disruption is that people have to see it, and good. Take a good look, go talk to them, learn about it.
These things are meant to be temporary, and if they drag on it's because the city knows what it has to do, but resents being forced to do it. It's more childish than what the protesters are doing.

[Ginger Snap]

I don't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry that it came out that way. But I do think that many people here are forming their opinions of who the protesters are, what they stand for and what they do, based on what they read in the media, which is propaganda.
What I mean to say was in response to what seemed vaguely insulting to me, which was calling my part of the discussion a monologue. But I apologize for my response to that because I realize that yes, I do drone on.
And then I was attempting to explain that none of the short answers I've given have managed to counter the misconceptions that many people hold, so I use a lot of words hoping that a point people can accept comes out...

Fair enough. But to assume that I am basing my opinions solely on what I read is the papers is a little insulting to me. I know you don't know me from Adam, but I take my information from a very wide range sources, I process it, and make my own decisions and opinions. I suspect most people here do the same.

[jklymak]

Now, in terms of giving up park space. The idea here is that the only way the city can keep people off the prominently public spaces, such as parks, is to create an area zoned for disaster relief or whatever you want to call it. It has to create (or at least allow the creation of through zoning) space where those who cannot use shelters have another option. This is what I meant earlier by 'the right thing.' Because it seems to be all the city has left to do without being in contempt of court.

Thanks for clarifying. So, in otherwords, the protestors want a tent city.

I see from the web that various tent cities have strict rules and bylaws, presumably meant to keep neighbours and the rest of the city happier about having such an establishment in their midst. What are the planned rules and bylaws of a Victorian tent city and how will they be enforced?

Do the protestors have some reasonable sites in mind?

Some positive info about how this is envisioned to work would be very helpful. Saying how the city is in contempt, etc etc, are fighting words, and I doubt it is a fight the protesters will win.

[Chris J]

Thanks for clarifying. So, in otherwords, the protestors want a tent city.

I see from the web that various tent cities have strict rules and bylaws, presumably meant to keep neighbours and the rest of the city happier about having such an establishment in their midst. What are the planned rules and bylaws of a Victorian tent city and how will they be enforced?

Do the protestors have some reasonable sites in mind?

Some positive info about how this is envisioned to work would be very helpful. Saying how the city is in contempt, etc etc, are fighting words, and I doubt it is a fight the protesters will win.

As I mentioned earlier, a group of citizens, both housed and unhoused, have been working to gather information on other tent cities and create a plan that we can bring to the city and the public in order to show that such an idea is not just a lark and has precedents we can and will learn from. We are also gauging public opinion towards the idea and seeing what objections people have. Though I have been talking a lot and spewing my opinions and working to convince people that we can overcome the obstacles to this idea, I am also listening and learning and allowing discussions such as this to help us with our plan. Admittedly we are behind schedule and are currently debating a lot of things, but I feel that soon we will have something put together. If anyone is interested in helping this process, they can attend the Committee to End Homelessness meeting, meet some of the folks involved, and after the meeting we'll have a date set for the next tent city meeting.

The city seems to a lot of people to be in contempt of court. Fighting words are used because many acknowledge that there seems to be a war on the poor happening in this society that needs to be fought back against. I believe a more consilitory approach to the city is what the city wants in order to avoid properly dealing with the situation. In effect, people feel backed into this space where they must act confrontationally. We're aware that this turns a lot of people off, but for some it is a well thought out strategy that will bring more results than trying to negotiate with a body that has no interest in bringing about a fair resolution.
That is just my analysis, and I at times feel uncomfortable with the tactics my friends use and their potential to alienate possible supporters, but am willing to accept that right now, this is what they feel they need to do.

The larger committee that is forming to craft a code of conduct and other regulations for a temporary relief structure zone or whatever it'll be called (tent city is too loaded of a word for many involved) do not all agree with the approach of David, Kristen and the other campers. The campers are addressing a point of law that requires proper resolution, and it is a struggle allied with our efforts to provide immediate relief from those suffering from life on the street.

Not everyone working to create this form of relief wishes to be confrontational, and we realize that we will need to have a well thought out plan, build not just from our meetings, but from community forums in the affected neighbourhoods and meetings with city officials.

Where we stand in stark contrast with the city's approach to this crisis is that we wish to see the issue treated with far more urgency, the same way we would deal with a flood or earthquake. If a natural disaster happened we would not be confronted with the same beuracracy and denial. We would band together as a community and deal with it.

There are many fronts in this struggle to provide relief, from the city sanctioned coaltiton to end homelessness, to the charity organizations, to the activists fighting points of law, to citizens wishing to create something cooperative, innovative, inclusive and collaborative with the people affected. Though I myself have serious issue with the route that the current projects are taking, I do not wish to be in confrontation with them. We wish to enhance these efforts with a new level of relief, and are working to overcome the existing barriers to that.

[Caramia]

If anyone is interested in helping this process, they can attend the Committee to End Homelessness meeting, meet some of the folks involved, and after the meeting we'll have a date set for the next tent city meeting.

When and where is this meeting? And is it open to anyone?

[Caramia]

Chris two points here...

First, the idea that the City has fenced off unused land is something that I find very unlikely. Again, the campers have chosen to focus on Victoria Municipality - not one of the land-rich, or resource-rich municipalities who have so far refused to be part of the solution. Can you offer an example of this unused fenced off land belonging to the City? I can't think of a single case, myself.

Second, Here is the part of the court ruling that suggests to me that the City is not acting in defiance of the ruling. In fact it suggests to me that the campers won the ruling on false claims. What I find disturbing about this, is that I do support the ruling. But if it goes back to court, I can see a scenario where the ruling is overthrown due to irrefutable evidence that the campers are in fact demanding that public park space be permanently turned over to a small group of private individuals for their personal use.

It seems to me that the campers are trying to get back into court to see if they can push the right to construct a shelter overnight and make it into the right to construct a tent city on public park land. It also seems to me that the City is also eager to go back to court and get this clarified, since there is no way that the campers will back down on this issue otherwise. Thus the arrests will continue until the issue does go back to court.

Here is the section I am talking about:

(d) Is this Claim About Property Rights?

[126] The AGBC and the City contend that the Defendants claim the right to camp on public property and that this makes the claim in essence about property rights. They submit further that property rights do not fall within the scope of s. 7, citing Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba v. Winnipeg (City), [1988] 6 W.W.R. 440, 59 Man. R. (2d) 83 (Q.B.), rev’d on other grounds (1990), 69 D.L.R. (4th) 697, 65 Man. R. (2d) 81 (C.A.); Marshall Estate (Re), 2008 NSSC 93, 263 N.S.R. (2d) 347; and IBM Canada Ltd. v. Canada, 2001 FCT 1175, 212 F.T.R. 70, aff’d 2002 FCA 420, 298 N.R. 399. In their submission, the Defendants’ claim is tantamount to an appropriation of public property for private use.

[127] In my view, this objection rests upon a mischaracterization of the matters at issue in this summary trial. The litigation had its origins in the Tent City erected in Cridge Park. It is also the case that many of the Defendants deposed that they wanted to be able to set up and maintain a camp in a park and that for a variety of reasons they preferred the camp in Cridge Park to accommodation in shelters. However, in this summary trial application, the relief sought by the Defendants is not what the AGBC and the City contend is the right to camp on public property. In other words, the issue of the right to camp in public spaces in the sense of a right to set up a semi- permanent camp, like the one established in Cridge Park, is not before the Court.

[128] Rather, the issue is the prohibition on erecting even a temporary shelter taken down each morning in the form of a tent, tarp or cardboard box that is manifested in the current Bylaws and operational policy of the City. In my view, the issue before the Court on this summary trial application is not an assertion by the Defendants of a right to property as contended by the AGBC and the City.

[129] In that regard, I agree with the submission of counsel for the Defendants that the AGBC and the City cannot and do not take issue with the proposition that homeless people must sleep, and, given the current situation in Victoria, that some of them must sleep on public property. The use of some public property by the homeless is unavoidable. Whether or not they are allowed to keep themselves dry with a simple tent or a cardboard box, as opposed to lying with a tarp on top of their faces, does not change the nature of that utilization of public space.

[130] Related to this is the nature of the use of the property at issue. Unlike the distribution of public funds, the use of park space by an individual does not necessarily involve a deprivation of another person’s ability to utilize the same “resource”. If monies are spent to provide social assistance or the funding of a specific drug, they cannot be used elsewhere. If, on the other hand, a piece of park property is used for someone to sleep at night with shelter, this does not mean that it cannot be used by others for other recreational uses during the day. There is simply no evidence that there is any competition for the public “resource” which the homeless seek to utilize, or that the resource will not remain available to others if the homeless can utilize it.

[131] The nature of the government interest in public property has most often been discussed in the context of freedom of expression. In that context, the Supreme Court of Canada has definitively rejected the idea that the government can determine the use of its property in the same manner as a private owner. Public properties are held for the benefit of the public, which includes the homeless. The government cannot prohibit certain activities on public property based on its ownership of that property if doing so involves a deprivation of the fundamental human right not to be deprived of the ability to protect one’s own bodily integrity: see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; Jeremy Waldron, “Homelessness and Community” (2000) 50 U.T.L.J. 371.

[132] I conclude that the Defendants are not asserting a property right. They do not claim that the homeless can exclude anyone from any City property, or determine the use of any City property. They do not seek to have public property allocated to their exclusive use. What they are seeking does not amount to an appropriation of public property. They are simply saying that the City cannot manage its own property in a manner that interferes with their ability to keep themselves safe and warm.