415 replies to this topic

[groundlevel]

Thank you Caramia for refreshing my memory as regards Madam Justice Ross's decision.

I had become increasingly bewildered by the belief of protesters and activists that it somehow allowed anyone to camp on public land as a constitutional right.

It is instead a concise and careful ruling that if there are no other options available to them, people have the right to erect shelter in public areas at night to protect the health and security of their person.

No Other Option Available. At Night.

IMO, protesters and activists are going to be in for a shock when the city passes a new bylaw with those provisions. And when/if the city seeks clarity through the courts -- it won't be to the activists' advantage.

Why aren't homeless activists occupying empty and neglected buildings -- I'd be more than happy to point out exactly where absentee landlords have boarded up once fine buildings. (Yates, Cook).

With a crowbar, rudimentary skills and determination, one could set up a very nice commune. It has been done -- and after a tough fight, the squatters became the legal owners.

[Chris J]

You name a building in this town that you think we should squat and I'll tell you when what happened the last time that was tried. There are so few empty buildings, and they are all patrolled. By police.
Remember the Janion squat? The legal squat owners thing is a British thing. Here we have a new police cheif who presided over the Woodward's squat. We'll never be able to keep a squat open for over a day.

I've heard there are empty city owned lots, but no, I can't provide specifics. I do believe myself that it should be in Saanich and other municipalities, but so much has been put into challenging the bylaw here. I wish myself there was a way to tie what is happening with DAJ into other municipalities, but he doesn't have as strong a case against the other municipalities.

If I had my way we would plan tent cities independent of what is happening with DAJ and the Vic city bylaw stuff. I think the case for us planning something that we all agree we need in some place that we all agree is the best place is stronger than fighting the bylaw enforcement policy, and I am more adamant about that then what is happening with DAJ, though he is a personal friend and so I support him. (And am involved in a media capacity.)
The planning meetings are open. We'll know after the committee to end homelessness meeting on Wednesday (also open, at Silver Threads on Douglas at 7pm) when to meet. And we'll meet likely every second week after that. So if someone interested has a day they can't make, let me know.

And to clarify, my assertion is not that people should be allowed to camp wherever they please on city property, just that people be allowed more options than the shelter system. Others involved may feel differently, and I defend their positions out of solidarity, because my hope is that if they win, that much suffering can be eased, but yes, it seems unlikely some times...

[ted - 3 - dots]

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

( snip clip ) by ted..


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.

------- # 1 ... ----------

the "protester's" didn't just fall out of the sky yesterday...!

The spot behind the Jan ion was used once before ...!
The owner , the Fed's , are willing to allow a Tent-City (provided) the City accepts the liability ...!!!!!!! ( they'll give the land to the City , but NOT the tent-city residents )

I told Dean - Criss - Charlene , and the rest of City-Council about it ....! YEARS-AGO
( they've done nothing ) I let them borrow a CD about building a tent-city AND how important it is for the CITY to take the lead-roll in setting one up ...!!!!!!!!!!!!

and , how important it is , to include a role for "all member's" of society in "all aspect's" of it's environmental foot-print ...!

ie: Business's have already expressed an interest in supplying service's that would be needed...!!!!! simply , all they need is the paper-work from the city to give to the Tax-man

---- dispite ------- in all that has been written , I haven't seen many solutions ----

can we put our head's together people ....!!!!!!!!

We are taking about "tent's" & not luxury condo's.


ted... ( sleeping on a mat , on a floor , beside 40 other-people is not a solution )

it never was , and it will never be a solution ...!

40-farts , vs the one I let go inside my own tent ...?????????????

;{-

.
.
.

trust me , I eat cabbage-rolls & egg-salid sandwiches

just pull my finger , and we'll see what happens ...!!!!!

[Chris J]

oh, btw, I logged in to tell you there is new video of the Xmas tree camp at http://electionsvictoria.ca. Part one. I will post part two later this evening, but I have to go out now.

disclaimer: the film still insists that the bylaw enforcement policy is unconstitutional. Overlook that if you disagree. Otherwise it's fairly objective I think.

[Holden West]

I'd just like to see some of these camps on the lawns of the Oak Bay and Saanich municipal halls for a change.

As for squats, if it weren't for the fact that every squat here is eventually trashed and/or burnt down I'd say go for it.

[jklymak]

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 agree that the ruling can be used as a tool. But as the final goal? Demanding apologies from the civic government? What is the point of that? You don't want apologies, you want a tent city. You don't want to charge the city with contempt, you want a tent city.

[Chris J]

Collectively, we want both. Some want the apology, some want tent cities, some are happy the way it is, some want both.

[martini]

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...

It was me who used the term monologue, as it was the best way for me to describe a long utterance by one person.
I was not hurling a flaming insult, but I honestly cannot keep my train of thought; I literally glaze over so you've inadvertently lost me as a reader.

On the other hand I do not expect this topic to be reduced to sound bites and quips. Surely there's a middle ground.

[Caramia]

Just a little aside about squats...

Squats in both Vic and Van were operational for sometimes years at a time during the late 80s and early 90s. There were two reasons this worked.

The first, was that the squatters maintained a very strict code of conduct and policed ourselves. In fact, a drunken party at a squat, or loud behaviour, or bugging the neighbours, or drawing heat in any way, shape or form was absolutely not OK. And the people enforcing it were not bound by any law. Basically, if you screwed up and got a squat busted, the police were the least of your problems. Of course the police knew that the squats were there, and in some cases would clear them out at 6am every morning. But as long as the neighbours didn't mind, they often never bothered to shut them down.

The second, was that the economic times were much worse. A good portion of the city was derelict, and your neighbours were likely to be artists, or abandoned industrial sites. So due to the harsh economic times there were more empty buildings, and also more people who couldn't keep a roof over their heads but were otherwise quite functional. Those who could, cared for those who couldn't.

I remember at one big squat in Van - a burned out furniture warehouse, there was an old age home overlooking it. The squatters made a point of being "Unscary" to the old folks - bringing them presents at Christmas, volunteering, and basically showing themselves to be good neighbours. This is something we did quite purposefully, in order to prevent them from complaining about us. It was a pretty harmonious situation until someone fell off the roof and the ensuing heat shut it down.

In Amsterdam, that same principle was at work. During a squat action in a residential street, some people were given a soccer ball and assigned the task of playing with the kids on the street. Girls were given flowers and asked to distribute them to the neighbours. Of course, there were also riots, and baricades and other such measures during evictions - squatters rights are always hard won. But the amount of care taken not to piss off police, the City or the neighbours was impressive - and effective.

The Janion squat may not have lasted long - but as an action, I'd say it was a success for the squatter movement. They chose a building where the owner's treatment of the building had pissed everyone off - from the business community as well. While the police cracked down to enforce the law, public sympathy, even among landowners was pretty high. I was at a meeting of business owners shortly afterwards, and there were quite a few business and property owners who felt that police resources were too valuable to be wasted defending property that the owner has so thoroughly abandoned. Several people felt that the threat of squat action was a good "disincentive" for property owners who neglect their buildings over a long period of time.

[groundlevel]

Let's remember that the Janion squat was a public relation exercise -- it was never meant as a genuine attempt to squat but as a way to bring attention to the severity of the homelessness problem.

The most effective squats have been by artists -- quiet, effective, done before anyone notices and then lots of public support once officials get involved. It takes guts and hard work but its loads of fun.

[Chris J]

The latest news from the courts is that David and Tavis were supposed to appear today to face civil charges over accumulated unpaid tickets, but the case was adjourned so that the city could ask Judge Ross to clarify her ruling. In a teleconference call made today, the city asked that the sentence at the end (saying that the sections of the bylaw were of no force and effect insofar as the prohibit homeless people from erecting temporary shelter) be amended with the words 'at night'.
Judge Ross said no.
So....
What do you think that means?
Does this mean we are right and the city is wrong? Or does it mean that the ruling is open to interpretation, or does it mean the city is right, but the judge did not want to amend her ruling for other reasons?
David and Tavis go before the civil court sometime before the end of December, and they and their lawyer, Irene Faulkner, believe that this case will also get thrown out...

[Linear Thinker]

This morning, Centennial Square has 1 tent under the sequoia.

[mat]

This morning, Centennial Square has 1 tent under the sequoia.

Will the police move in? What I read in the TC is that it is Kristen Woodruff in the tent.

[ted - 3 - dots]

The latest news from the courts is that David and Tavis were supposed to appear today to face civil charges over accumulated unpaid tickets, but the case was adjourned so that the city could ask Judge Ross to clarify her ruling. In a teleconference call made today, the city asked that the sentence at the end (saying that the sections of the bylaw were of no force and effect insofar as the prohibit homeless people from erecting temporary shelter) be amended with the words 'at night'.
Judge Ross said no.
So....
What do you think that means?
Does this mean we are right and the city is wrong? Or does it mean that the ruling is open to interpretation, or does it mean the city is right, but the judge did not want to amend her ruling for other reasons?
David and Tavis go before the civil court sometime before the end of December, and they and their lawyer, Irene Faulkner, believe that this case will also get thrown out...

---- What it mean's ...? -------

it means the same thing as it always does ...! ( nothing )

nothing is being built , no new plans @ city-hall to build something ...????????????

What do you think it means ....! ------ Same As It Always Is -------


----- Kistine ...?

let's see , building a tent-city next to the only 24/7 bathroom in the City ...?


uhmmmm,

ted...

[Chris J]

posted at you know which site that I can't mention here...
by Fiach Johnson
A lone tent stands under the sequoia tree behind Victoria City Hall tonight, having been erected by homeless activist Kristen Woodruff on Saturday night.
This is the third time in 6 weeks that tents have been set up in Centennial Square in an attempt to challenge the City of Victoria’s anti-camping bylaw enforcement policy.
Woodruff and others involved in the ongoing protest insist that the BC Supreme Court Ruling of October 12 renders the bylaws in question unconstitutional, whereas the city insists that the ruling allows homeless people to erect tents between the hours of 7pm and 7am.
The city’s lawyers, as well as the lawyers representing the homeless campers, spoke with Madam Justice Ross on Friday, asking her to clarify her ruling.
The judge refused, leading many to believe that the bylaws may in fact be of no force and effect at all times, as opposed to just at night, as the city insists.
Woodruff has since received two more tickets in the last two days, and has refused to take down her tent and move along. She claims that the city is enforcing a bylaw that is of no force and effect, and is itself breaking the law, violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and depriving homeless people of life, liberty and security of person.
“All I ask of the city is that they hold an open, publicized consultation with representatives from the large group of Victorians who are sleeping outside, in which we determine, together, how to interpret Justice Ross’s ruling in a way that serves the highest good of all parties involved.” said Woodruff in an email to the media, mayor, council and her supporters. “I am not here to take over the parks or to cause a public disturbance. I am here because this country’s ever-growing homeless population are our very own refugees and we deserve what refugees in even the most impoverished war torn countries get—the right to erect simple, temporary shelters. The B.C. Supreme Court agrees, but the City of Victoria doesn’t.”
Woodruff is emboldened by the fact that in the last three attempts to enforce this bylaw against herself and others, the Crown has dismissed charges from one arrest and stayed charges in the second, claiming that these charges may not stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
For the third arrest, David Johnston and Tavis Dodds face civil charges resulting in multiple unpaid bylaw infraction tickets. Woodruff was informed today by bylaw enforcement officers that she could expect the same charges that Johnston and Dodds are receiving.
Since these tickets were issued to enforce sections of a bylaw that Woodruff and others believe to be of no force and effect, the results of their December 31st hearing may very well settle the constitutional legality of the city’s new bylaw enforcement policy, thereby possibly affirming the right of homeless people to erect temporary shelter at any time of day.
In the meantime, Woodruff continues to maintain her camp under the tree, stating “It feels so good to not have to haul my belongings around with me all day. If the city wants to take down my tent that’s fine, but I will not be taking it down and moving along.”

[LJ]

[quote=Chris J;92300“It feels so good to not have to haul my belongings around with me all day. ”[/quote]

When she is on her way to work in the morning?

Maybe she could like, you know - rent a place to store all her stuff, like an apartment or a suite.

[VicHockeyFan]

Why not just water the lawn every night on these places, that'll get them gone.

[Chris J]

Yeah, thanks for missing the point. Very witty. Good job.

[Chris J]

Kristen was arrested at 10am this morning. That should make some of you happy. Perhaps you could call the minister of justice and see if they want to re institute chain gangs and the bread and water diet.

[victorian fan]

Kristen was arrested at 10am this morning. That should make some of you happy. Perhaps you could call the minister of justice and see if they want to re institute chain gangs and the bread and water diet.

Oh for heaven's sake. Grow up. Comments like that do your case no good at all.