415 replies to this topic

[Roger]

We are fully aware that this arguement exists, but is not valid as far as I'm concerned, as a reason to give up one's principles and convictions. This assumption (which has been brought up several times) needs to be seriously challenged. Some people are always going to have a problem with another person's actions. The shelters have done their best to distance themselves from Kristen and David, and so I feel that if someone chooses to stop helping the homeless because of the actions of a handful of homeless people, they are not making a proper decision.
What you suggest has been taken into consideration as one of the reasons to back off, but in the end, it was decided that the harm done by these actions is minimal if at all to the larger homeless population, especially if the bylaw is clarified in the way that we would wish to see it clarified. There is also the arguement that the attention that has been brought to the issue as a result of these arrests has forced the province to put up more money for emergency mats, and has spotlighted the need for action, whether it be volunteering or donating money or challenging the system.
However, this theory is just as untested as hat we are causing harm.

Chris,

Where does the money come from to support the poor, homeless and other unfortunate members of our society:

1. From city, provincial and federal government programs. Collection of taxes and redistribution of wealth are core principles in Canada. It is essential that a rich country like Canada provide a safety net and support for those in need. Citizens can vote for elected representatives but have no choice as to the funding levels and disbursement of the money.

2. Fund raising drives by charitable organizations. United Way, Our Place, Salvation Army Kettle , etc. provide another important mechanism for funding social programs. Charitable donations are voluntary and rely on the goodwill of citizens.

3. Private donations and charitable gifts. These are self-driven donations and range from donating items to the good will store or food bank, giving money to panhandlers, estate gifts upon death and volunteering time to charity.

The first source of funds is not voluntary but the last two are voluntary charitable donations. You can "challenge" peoples motivations to give or not all you want but they are based on how they feel about their community and their perception of need. If people choose not to financially support the homeless with their own money that is their prerogative and you are wrong when you say "they are not making a proper decision." Perhaps they will choose to make their charitable donation to the Cancer Society, Heart Foundation or some other worthy cause because they feel better about where their gift is going.

In the last 50 years there has been a dramatic shift from church and citizen charity to state and organizational funding of social programs. This means that those receiving benefits, in most cases, do not see the faces of the givers. This anonymity tends to obscure the simple fact that fellow citizens are also directly supporting those in need. Their kindness should be met with some semblance of respect and as I mentioned in my first post camping under the city hall Christmas tree is an affront to those supporting them. Perhaps a little less talk about rights and a bit more about personal responsibility.

Chris your post has indicated that you have been able to rationalize the activists agenda and feel that I am wrong. I just ask that you think about human nature for a few minutes and consider what motivates people to share their hard earned money with those less fortunate.

[concorde]

Fire Hose $300

Fire hydrant permit $100

Hosing the welfare %^&* that don't want to get a job....Priceless

So glad I live in Oak Bay

[martini]

Ms. Woods you are right. This is totally not about making assumptions about poverty. Some people can work themselves out of extraordinary positions. Some cannot. The question her is how far, as a society should our compassion extend? Is this purely about survival of the fittest, or are we willing to accept that some people are not able to simply get a job, suck it up, and work through things without intervention on behalf of the community?
The assertion that people SHOULD be able to accept a minimum wage job does not jive with what people are ABLE to do. We also face the bizarre contradiction that minimum wage jobs are often more difficult than higher paying jobs. We can't over-simplify this with a 'get a job' attitude. This is crucial to what I am trying to say.

It is a good question how far compassion can extend. I agree some cannot get themselves out from under especially without support. Many on the streets are mentally ill, and/or are so entrenched it's extremely hard to break out. I too grow tired of hearing the 'get a job' pat response. It really isn't that simple for many.
But I do hope you agree that there are a percentage that are nomads by choice.

[Caramia]

Someone told me recently that Victoria's employed rate is exceeding our employability rate - which trickles up through the economy to put people in jobs that they can't handle.

[Ms. B. Havin]

We think we've got problems, but Los Angeles has well over 70,000 people who are homeless, and just a fraction of that number of beds available each night.

Here's a movie about E.D.A.R. (Everybody Deserves A Roof), a portable, fold-able tent contraption, meant for use in homeless shelters as well as for general distribution to the 30-40% of those 70K-plus who are "shelter resistant" and will continue to live out of doors, regardless.

PS: the accompanying article (2 pages) explains in more details.

[Caramia]

I moved the privacy discussion over to its own thread here as we were way off topic.
http://vibrantvictor...read.php?t=3462

[mat]

There is an ongoing thread here for any issues with the VV website - as for the problem you are experiencing we have it figured, or at least the problem has been identified. There will hopefully be a solution forthcoming.

Edit - Admins have solved the problem that members experienced with page numbering.

[martini]

Just a random comment...I stumbled across David's Facebook page.

There's a rally at the courthouse Dec 31st 9:30 am
over the Chamber of Commerce wanting the 7am to 7pm enforced.

[mat]

Just a random comment...I stumbled across David's Facebook page.

There's a rally at the courthouse Dec 31st 9:30 am
over the Chamber of Commerce wanting the 7am to 7pm enforced.

can you post a link?

[martini]

can you post a link?

This is the event:
http://www.new.faceb...04974886&ref=nf
This is David's page:
http://www.new.faceb...hp?id=587635902

[mat]

I am sure he sees the irony - facebook is a fantastic source for community action by generating links between like minded people. (In SEO terms a link farm - and if you wish details on what that is ask http) - yet there are corporate advertising graphic and text links around all facebook pages, something David J should rail against, and refuse.

Thanks for posting the links Martini - it will be interesting to see if the facebook groups actually get people out. (I doubt it)

[mat]

We think we've got problems, but Los Angeles has well over 70,000 people who are homeless, and just a fraction of that number of beds available each night.

Here's a movie about E.D.A.R. (Everybody Deserves A Roof), a portable, fold-able tent contraption, meant for use in homeless shelters as well as for general distribution to the 30-40% of those 70K-plus who are "shelter resistant" and will continue to live out of doors, regardless.

PS: the accompanying article (2 pages) explains in more details.

Have you, or anyone you know, passed this onto the City?

[Ms. B. Havin]

Have you, or anyone you know, passed this onto the City?

No.

Didn't someone (locally) do something similar (re. constructing a prototype of some kind of rig)?

[mat]

No.

Didn't someone (locally) do something similar (re. constructing a prototype of some kind of rig)?

just hit youtube - this one is bizarre.

Fully functional emergency shelter kits for individuals and families (tents, safe heating, bedding, lights, etc.) have been around for decades. Obviously for really temporary shelter - there was a Vancouver group retrofitting shopping carts for homeless with pull out tarps, and lock downs for security - google has failed me to provide a link.

[Ginger Snap]

From www.homelessnation.org

I Am NOT A 'Homeless Activist' (D. A. Johnston - Victoria, BC)

-

Let me make myself perfectly clear. The giant 'right to sleep' campaign did not originate over some altruistic desire to help the 'homeless'. The biggest inspiration came when, one night in late 2003, I put my bedroll down at one of my sleeping spots in Beacon Hill park, laid down then noticed an unusual smell. Upon inspection I found the ground covered in fertilizer (ground up fish) and subsequently my blanket was filthy. It was obviously placed there on purpose and from then on the fertilizer came to be known as 'bum-away'. To hold those responsible accountable the 'right to sleep' campaign began in earnest January 16th, 2004.

Up until that point I had been on the job as a preacher of fate, primarily meditating down at the lower Causeway and conversing with the multitudes of people strolling by. Since the campaign began the role switched from meditating everyday to playing this political character that, almost perpetually, has to defend itself from malicious defamation.

I have learned much. The thing has evolved from fighting for the right to sleep with a blanket under a tree, to sleeping in a tent, to, now, sleeping during the day. The city (which I'll now refer to as the Chamber of Commerce) has been fighting every step of the way attempting to protect its shallow little tourism industry from the visual effects of poverty. Part of my education has included becoming aware of the massively devilish take-over-the-world plan that, for instance, has the government giving out 30,000 needles (minimum) a month and a media that has blame placed on the 'homeless' for needles being found everywhere... a good plan in raising the 'need' to hire more cops. 'They' say permanent tent encampments are horribly dark magnets for crime, the truth is that there is a large population of people on the verge of nervous breakdowns (because they have to work 40 hours a week to pay for sleep) who might relieve themselves of some stress by 'choosing' to be homeless and taking advantage of their right to camp.

ON DECEMBER 31ST AT 9:30 AM IN COURTROOM #203, the Chamber of Commerce is hoping to convince a Provincial Court Judge, even after the Supreme Court of BC ruled that it is illegal to have an 'across the board' prohibition on sleeping, that an 'across the board' prohibition from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM is acceptable. I've seen how the Provincial Court works and will not be surprised if their judge finds that it is O.K. to force people not to sleep during the day. If that is going to be the case I will be immediately making an issue right in the courtroom, as the judge will be acting illegally, contravening the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling.

So, even if I used money and had the biggest house in the world it would still morally behoove me to risk it all to find justice, as it would any and all. Not for some obscure notion of 'homeless' people, but for sanity, itself, lest it lack the peace justice provides. Patience be with us all.

David Arthur Johnston

Victoria, BC, Canada

Hatrackman@Gmail.com

Home page- http://www.angelfire...apes/hatrackman

[martini]

I found this letter quite interesting:

Focus on those who live and die on our streets

Robert Darnell's letter, " Leave tent camper off the front page " (Letters, Jan. 7 ) is bang on.

The facts of the case do not support the honour bestowed on Mr. Johnston. Catherine Boies Parker and Irene Faulkner, the lawyers for the homeless, spoke at length about the case at a public meeting in October. They said that David Arthur Johnston was not one of the original defendants involved in the Charter challenge. He only came on board at the very end because he was invited, not of his own volition.

According to homelss advocate Rose Henry, there were 71 homeless people behind that challenge and Johnston was the last to sign. He is stealing the thunder of all of those courageous individuals who really deserve the accolades. The subtitle to the "Newsmaker of the Year" headline (Dec. 31) is simply wrong. Johnston has not "won" anything – it was not his victory.

His antics are demonizing the homeless and making them look like a bunch of headstrong radicals. Media coverage of Johnston has to stop because he is turning public opinion against our most vulnerable citizens. The vast majority of homeless people are not there by choice, but because through government neglect. Their stories need to be on the front pages of our local papers, so our politicians will be forced to act.

2009 is a time to honour those people who live and die on our streets. And to relish that momentous legal victory for the homeless that has put Victoria on the global map.

Doreen Marion Gee

http://www.bclocalne...s/37846859.html

[Rob Randall]

I just got a call from the Times Colonist saying the City's bylaw restricting camping has been struck down in Supreme Court.

[Caramia]

Judge throws out Victoria city rules for transient campers


BY LOUISE DICKSON, TIMES COLONISTJANUARY 28, 2009 11:06 AM


STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )



Homeless people are camped out under the decorated Sequioa tree in Centennial Square right next to city hall in this Nov.26 2008 file photo.
Photograph by: Debra Brash, Times Colonist
A provincial court judge has struck down the City of Victoria’s enforcement policy limiting homeless people to erecting tents between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.

In doing so, Judge Brian MacKenzie found David Johnston, Kristen Woodruff and Tavis Dodds not guilty of continuing to violate the city’s anti-camping bylaw.

On Oct. 14, Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross ruled it was unconstitutional for the City of Victoria to prevent homeless people from erecting shelters to protect themselves from the elements in the absence of sufficient shelter beds. The declaration, known as the Adams Decision, said sections of the city's parks regulation bylaw violated Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by depriving homeless people of life, liberty and security of the person.

Two days after Ross's declaration, city council met behind closed doors and passed a resolution creating a new enforcement policy that limited campers to erecting tents between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. On Nov. 6, the hours were changed to 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.

The Supreme Court ruling is now being appealed.

MacKenzie said the Adam’s decision is clear. The bylaw has no force and effect as it applies to homeless people and their shelter is temporary.

MacKenzie concluded that all three accused were in fact homeless and their tents were temporary shelters. He did not agree with the city’s argument that a shelter is a home.

“That argument defies common sense,” said the judge. “Shelters are erected for homeless people. They have to leave during the day.”

MacKenzie said in his opinion, if the city enacted the provisions of the enforcement policy into a bylaw, it would probably pass constitutional muster.

Johnston and Dodds were arrested in November and charged with the civil offence of continuing to breach a bylaw. Woodruff, a former Victoria mayoral candidate, was arrested Dec. 9 after refusing to move from the tent she set up in Centennial Square. She was charged with five counts of continuing to violate the city's parks enforcement bylaw.

Outside court, lawyer Irene Faulkner, who acted on behalf of the homeless campers in their Supreme Court challenge, was happy the judge had accepted her argument that the city had imposed an enforcement policy on a bylaw that no longer exists.

“If the city does want to go back and amend the bylaw they have to do that through the proper enforcement process which requires public hearings and readings, we very much hope that they’; consider the needs of the homeless people.”

Faulkner said she hopes the city won’t make any rash decisions without taking needs of homeless into consideration.

ldickson@tc.canwest.com

© Copyright © The Victoria Times Colonist

[Jacques Cadé]

“If the city does want to go back and amend the bylaw they have to do that through the proper enforcement process which requires public hearings and readings, we very much hope that they consider the needs of the homeless people.”

Ah yes, that last-minute, pre-election, in-camera meeting to pass the enforcement order comes back to haunt the council ....

[Roger]

Caramia,

Thanks for posting the article.

It would appear that this latest judicial ruling seems to leave us with no rules or regulations as to where just about anyone can camp in Victoria and for how long. Camping on the beach, in the parks, at city hall or on the sidewalks all seem OK now. All you need to do is be considered homeless. Young folks crossing the country on a holiday would meet the criteria. So would tourists if they told the police they had no home. There is no way of determining that you are indeed homeless and no requirement to produce ID of any sort without reasonable justification by the police.

I have tried to remain calm in this post. Where do we go from here? What will our city look like in a few months?

Caramia - From your posts I have seen that you are a compassionate and sensible person. I hope you can talk me down from the ceiling!!