Jump to content

      



























Photo

Homeless win right to camp in city parks


  • Please log in to reply
415 replies to this topic

#61 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:08 AM

It is fair - and there are some groups within the homeless population who will help. Ironically, David Johnson and his friends are one of those groups. I met them when they were using my yard at night in an attempt to compost food that a grocery store threw out. After having a meeting about how they could respect our yard, we managed to work things out so that our yard (and compost) was improved by their nocturnal presence. I didn't have a problem with them in 2 1/2 years. Sadly, some of the people who are on the streets don't have that kind of respect or ability to clean up their own nest (probably part of why they are on the streets).

Speaking of David, and of history - did anyone watch the video of Sombrio I linked... there was one guy on it who sure looks a lot like a younger version of David... which would explain a lot!

In some ways I agree with Davek - but there is another historical change that cannot be forgotten when factoring in the rise of social services - which is the decline of liberty to make a shelter for one's self. In the era that you guys are talking about, it was perfectly acceptable to head out to an unused beach and make a village if you couldn't buy land. It was fine to grab a chunk of river and stake a claim. Hobos slept on farm land, and traded labour, they traveled in box cars. Someone doesn't have a home? It was fine and natural for them to cut down some trees and put up a shack on family land. Now we have building codes, zoning, and rules against squatting in provincial parks.. or not.
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#62 ted - 3 - dots

ted - 3 - dots

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 187 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:08 AM

Ted,

There have been homeless camping in the parks illegally for some time and they have never respected the parks hours of operation. These camps were not temporary and have been removed at great expense by city workers.

Now that the BC Supreme court has issued this ruling are you seriously saying that all campers will respect the hours of operation, keep things tidy and obey all laws concerning drugs, alcohol, pets, violence etc.???




---- ya your right ---- if not righteous ------


Yes , they are all as bad as you suggest...
too bad there are no death camps so we can get rid of the problem altogether !!!!!!

even the 36% who fall outside your wide paint brush ...


Perhaps we can be like Paul Pott (Cambodia )
let's just re-educate this human refuse ...!!!!!! (would that be ok with you ...? )


- Certainly ---- smiling like Ikman or Mengula helps ...!


-------- Please re-read what you wrote ,
and then make it apply to yourself
( we'll see if you still support that effort )

oh, I see ,,,,, what you are you saying ,,, you are NOT LIKE THAT ...?
(you are not like them )...?

It won't matter who you are ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(because your personal actions & efforts ,
will get buried under the actions of one or two other people... ) crack-heads.

ted... ( convinced by you , that tossing the Baby's out , with the dirty bath-water,
is what we responsible people do ...! ) sink or float

so screw the baby's , it's not my fault they wound up in the dirty-bath-water ,
(and they deserve to get flushed down the drain )

I mean , they are dirty now (why would we want them )

;{- grrrrrrrrrrr

#63 Zimquats

Zimquats
  • Member
  • 299 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:20 AM

Ted,

Being rather fluent in headupmyassese myself, are you suggesting that people who think that homeless should respect the same park rules as everyone else, are baby killers?

I can't believe I didn't come up with that one myself. It's so obvious....

#64 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:32 AM

You're so right, Ted.
In fact, to make up for my ignorant ways I will do best to redeem myself by offering up my services.
You send me your address and I will be happy to put together a flyer that I will paste on every telephone pole, tree and bulletin board in the city.

Homeless
.
.
.
com e and move into my living room.
.
.
.
I have cookies, the internet and fresh packet of toilet paper.
.
.
.
You are ALLLLLL welcome...(I will sleep in the bath, Ted.)
(Can you cook, Ted?)

Yes I will make a pie.

Address:
___________
___________
___________

...ted... dot dot dot.

PS:
.
.
.
Tell your dogs to wipe their feet before they come in....



#65 Newlywednotnearlydead

Newlywednotnearlydead
  • Member
  • 187 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:35 AM

too bad there are no death camps so we can get rid of the problem altogether !!!!!!

even the 36% who fall outside your wide paint brush ...

Perhaps we can be like Paul Pott (Cambodia )


So, anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi? Way to Godwin this thread... :rolleyes:

And you're quite right, I bet if we played Paul Potts loudly in the parks at night, we would probably drive away the campers.



#66 ted - 3 - dots

ted - 3 - dots

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 187 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 10:47 AM

So, anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi? Way to Godwin this thread... :rolleyes:

And you're quite right, I bet if we played Paul Potts loudly in the parks at night, we would probably drive away the campers.




------ ahhhh yes music ---------

just what somebody who is trying to sleep needs...!

how nice ...

#67 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 11:45 AM

In some ways I agree with Davek - but there is another historical change that cannot be forgotten when factoring in the rise of social services - which is the decline of liberty to make a shelter for one's self. In the era that you guys are talking about, it was perfectly acceptable to head out to an unused beach and make a village if you couldn't buy land. It was fine to grab a chunk of river and stake a claim. Hobos slept on farm land, and traded labour, they traveled in box cars. Someone doesn't have a home? It was fine and natural for them to cut down some trees and put up a shack on family land. Now we have building codes, zoning, and rules against squatting in provincial parks.. or not.


Excellent point Caramia. I could not agree with you more. Maybe a parcel of crown land could be resettled as an option.

For a personal prespective, in my late teens I lived in the Colorado mountains for a year (alternative hippie commuity.) Grew our own food, no electricity (used coal lamps), lived off small jobs in the close by towns and rode horses instead of cars. But there was an order to things and an idealism that I don't see in the alternative street community of modern times. I just wish there was more philosophy at play, instead of decay and what appears as entitled in-your-face laziness.

I could go on about what that experience taught me about self sufficiency and working together as a positive hopefilled community but maybe another time.

Cheers, Sue

#68 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 11:53 AM

There are segments of Victoria's street community that do show that kind of initiative. For instance Spiral Island, shut down through the City pressuring the Landlord because it didn't have enough bathrooms, was a group of about 30 street youth who pooled their money to lease a warehouse in Rock Bay. Part of our issue is that the community builders and self sufficiency types within the street community are not empowered, and for these people shelters are not a good solution, since they represent a learned passivity that people who do have a desire to do for themselves, really struggle against.
Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891

#69 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 12:10 PM

Part of our issue is that the community builders and self sufficiency types within the street community are not empowered, and for these people shelters are not a good solution, since they represent a learned passivity that people who do have a desire to do for themselves, really struggle against.


Learned helplessness.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#70 Sue Woods

Sue Woods
  • Member
  • 621 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 12:14 PM

There are segments of Victoria's street community that do show that kind of initiative.


Its good to be reminded of that. Important to remember that there are a myriad of causes and a myriad of solutions. Sue

#71 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 12:17 PM

Part of our issue is that the community builders and self sufficiency types within the street community are not empowered, and for these people shelters are not a good solution, since they represent a learned passivity that people who do have a desire to do for themselves, really struggle against.


I agree. If we house the homeless, would it cure the addicted, the mentally ill, instill a work ethic?

#72 Jacques Cadé

Jacques Cadé
  • Member
  • 934 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 12:46 PM

The court decision is now online:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/08/13/2008BCSC1363.htm


#73 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 04:23 PM

I'm now seeing facebook groups for people who plan to have overnight camping parties in the park now. Awesome?
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#74 Roger

Roger
  • Member
  • 284 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 04:24 PM

The court decision is now online:

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/08/13/2008BCSC1363.htm


This is one section of the ruling that reveals the perspective of the judge in this case:

[192] There is simply no evidence that people would flock to sleep in the parks once they were allowed to cover themselves at night with cardboard boxes or tarps. Moreover, that is not an inference that I am prepared to draw. It seems to me to be unlikely in the extreme and contrary to the evidence of the complex causes of homelessness to suggest that such a change would result in an increase in the number of persons sleeping in public places.

I suggest that readers turn on their TV and watch CHEK news tonight. You can see Johnston and his group laughing at the mayor and the other taxpayers in Mayor's grove. Nice video of the new residents setting up shop by the children's playground.

This is not good folks!! Even some of us that support building of shelters, treatment centres, affordable housing, food banks and meal programs are feeling a bit sad for what is happening to our city. I imagine there will be fewer families, women and elderly in Beacon Hill park from now on given the new safety and health issues.

#75 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 04:48 PM

I'm setting up a "homeless campsite" near the bottom of Yates, so I can serve pizza-by-the-slice to club-goers. Hours: 2am-4am.

#76 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 04:51 PM

An article in this morning's Globe and Mail quotes Victoria's police rep as saying that the department is preparing for an increase in crime, prostitution and other illegal activities as these tent cities begin to take shape.


That'll be a cheap lay, I would think.

#77 mat

mat
  • Member
  • 2,070 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 05:01 PM

Friends of Beacon Hill Park have weighed in - CFAX story

#78 groundlevel

groundlevel
  • Member
  • 76 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 05:15 PM

Thank you, Monsieur Cade for posting the court decision.

Will the City of Victoria please sue the federal government and the provincial government because state action has resulted in depriving citizens of the right of security of the person as outlined by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I notice that 33 percent of homeless youths are aboriginal and 56 percent of youth "aging out of foster care" are aboriginal. Sue the band councils and the federal bureau administrating funding.

I think a strong case can be made.

It's time the City of Victoria stopped begging the province and the feds for assistance in dealing with the effects of deinstitutionalization; insufficient funding for community services; changes to federal Employment Insurance that restrict access to payments for the unemployed; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation withdrawal from social housing sector; transfer payment changes that no longer require provinces to supply social services; extreme barriers to collecting welfare and etc.

If citizens are homeless because of government actions -- sue the governments not the homeless.

#79 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,731 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 05:42 PM

FRIENDS OF BEACON HILL PARK SPOKESPERSON ROY FLETCHER SAYS THEY WEREN'T SURPRISED BY THE BC SUPREME COURT RULING THAT QUASHED A CITY BYLAW PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM SLEEPING IN CITY PARKS.


I'm confused. This ruling wasn't about sleeping in city parks. It was about "the prohibition on taking a temporary abode" in the city's parks or on city streets, yes? The specific issue wasn't sleeping but rather sleeping beneath a temporary shelter of some sort.

I'm having a tough time reconciling these two bits:

There is simply no evidence that people would flock to sleep in the parks once they were allowed to cover themselves at night with cardboard boxes or tarps. Moreover, that is not an inference that I am prepared to draw. It seems to me to be unlikely in the extreme and contrary to the evidence of the complex causes of homelessness to suggest that such a change would result in an increase in the number of persons sleeping in public places.


The next difficulty is that the AGBC and the City focus their submissions on the problems they allege to be associated with tent cities. However, it is conceded that the Bylaws are not limited to a prohibition of tent cities; they go much farther and prohibit any form of erected shelter, even a cardboard box that is removed in the morning. Therefore, to the extent to which the purpose of the Bylaws is to prohibit tent cities, they are clearly overbroad.


...with this one:

In October 2005, a tent city was established at Cridge Park (the “Tent City”) by a number of homeless people, including the named Defendants. A group of up to 70 people occupied the park, setting up more than 20 tents. Two large kitchen areas were constructed using tables and electrical cords that ran from the cooking area to an outdoor electrical outlet in the church building located adjacent to the north side of the park.


The city's point below seems very sensible to me:

The City submits that tents or strung-up tarps are structures that provide for a degree of permanency that the Bylaws seek to avoid. These structures provide an increased possibility or opportunity for an extended stay in one spot. Such structures also expand the size of the “footprint” of such a stay. The City submits that Bylaws are focused narrowly on reducing these outcomes. Reducing these outcomes has the corresponding effect of limiting the possibility of lingering and congregation by campers from night to day that both concentrates and expands the impact of the deleterious effects of urban camping. The Bylaws, in the City’s submission, therefore foster an opportunity for the natural park environment to recover from the presence of persons sleeping there. The City submits that the Bylaws also allow a better opportunity for sharing of the public space by all members of the community. Finally, the City submits that the Bylaws seek to strike a balance between competing interests of its citizens and while they may not perfectly achieve this goal, they are within the realm of reasonable alternatives.



#80 ted - 3 - dots

ted - 3 - dots

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 187 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 05:44 PM

Thank you, Monsieur Cade for posting the court decision.

Will the City of Victoria please sue the federal government and the provincial government because state action has resulted in depriving citizens of the right of security of the person as outlined by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I notice that 33 percent of homeless youths are aboriginal and 56 percent of youth "aging out of foster care" are aboriginal. Sue the band councils and the federal bureau administrating funding.

I think a strong case can be made.

It's time the City of Victoria stopped begging the province and the feds for assistance in dealing with the effects of deinstitutionalization; insufficient funding for community services; changes to federal Employment Insurance that restrict access to payments for the unemployed; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation withdrawal from social housing sector; transfer payment changes that no longer require provinces to supply social services; extreme barriers to collecting welfare and etc.

If citizens are homeless because of government actions -- sue the governments not the homeless.




--- good stuff ----- and about time

thanks for your very thoughtful thinking ...!!!!!!

;{-

I'll mention it to Ireane & Catheren
(perhaps a few of my pals on city-council)

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users