415 replies to this topic

[martini]

If 10 cops got together and decided to do their jobs, at risk of losing their jobs, they could likely change things. Would you be willing to make that decision?

Now we're entering into Chuck Norris territory. I'm not willing to make that decision.
I'd still have to say it's not just 10 cops, it goes way deeper than that.
We all have to galvanize to see any real change.

[mat]

as mentioned last evening, the rumour mill was correct - Victoria police are to enforce city bylaws, taking over from city bylaw officers

http://www.canada.co...c6-5b00e6cb256f

[Marilyn]

Well that should light a fire under the butts of anyone dragging their heels about putting shelters and affordable housing units in their neighbourhood. I sincerely hope that James Bay, Fairfield and other park-rich "take it to Burnside" neighbourhood associations will suddenly decide that these issues are important enough to make room for in their areas too. And I hope that homeless people who plan to set up a camp for the winter remember that there are 12 other municipalities in Victoria who have successfully managed to keep services for street people out of their areas. Oak Bay and Saanich have some nice parks... and it was Saanich that refused the BC government's offer to build a shelter if they provided some land - which is why the shelter in Burnside is so damn big.

This brings the crisis into sharp focus. Homeless shelters are needed NOW. The tent city solution has got to be temporary. Occupants will be building fires soon to keep warm and likely they will be digging pit toilets as they did on the lawn of the legislature.

Interim police chief says that the police are going to enforce the law in the tent cities, so that means less police service in other areas.

Seattle has an enormous tent city, but it is not right downtown. I wonder how they are managing. < sigh! >

[Marilyn]

in Beacon Hill Park for being 'off leash' and not having a license (yet). By-law officer was protecting the park from little Max. So that's one rule I know about.

What are the rules?

[Marilyn]

does that prevent it from becoming a tent city?

The homeless crisis is country wide (actually global) so this is a major problem that should be financed on the Federal level.

Well said. We need shelters for the homeless and supervised facilities for the mentally ill - and this ruling will do a lot to pressure the Fed govt to act. This has ramifications for every city park in Canada and I don't think Canadians will stand for this for more then a minute or two.

Part of this problem, among others, stems from the gentification of the downtown in most major cities, condos built in what were once poor parts of town with under-code and rooming houses. But there is no discounting that there are people in every society who want to live alternative lifestlyes - who will never choose to fit themselves into the normal stream of life - even if there are a options and agencies who exist to help them. When I moved the Island 20 years ago there was a community of people living (squatting) in make shift cabins/tents etc at Sombrio Beach. It was subsequently closed down for a variety of reasons. They were for all intense and purposes happy to live on the fringes and I often wonder at the wisdom of closing it down. I actully think it should have been allowed to exist - or they could have been given another area of unused land to live as they wished.

ROB: I agree - set up a special area - monitor it - provide washrooms etc and at least put in some controls. But I would far prefer to see all the churches in the CRD open their basements for winter shelter for the homeless. Maybe by spring needed construction will commence. Sue

[martini]

Seattle has an enormous tent city, but it is not right downtown. I wonder how they are managing. < sigh! >

http://seattlepi.nws...tml?source=mypi

I wonder who paid for all the pink tents?

[Marilyn]

Thanks for the link. In Seattle those seeking shelter do not get to choose the location.

Victoria: did the judge give a definition of "temporary"

Note anyone is now allowed to take up shelter in any public park or space. Imagine all the public spaces where loitering, sitting, sleeping were previously not permitted. In front of Market on Yates where the police seem to be called on a daily basis to remove people is one public space that I am thinking of.

[Roger]

Here is an article from the Tyee

Johnston, rubbing his hands together in the morning cold, said the campers will likely build a kitchen today and may soon make a fire pit for warmth. They have a portable toilet, he said, and the city may also provide facilities.

Police won't be around 24 hours a day and once they are out of sight I wonder if his firepit will look like this. After a few days maybe we might see this version.

If you think this is an exaggeration then watch this video of the camp in Cridge Park

Perhaps Mat might be posting his pictures on the forum after he makes his camp visit.

[Marilyn]

The article proves that the group around Johnston is not seeking overnight shelter, they want to establish homesteads, in Victoria's jewel of a park.

Build them alternative shelters right away, they cannot be allowed to do this. This is devolution, going back to the times before we had cities with sewage, property rights, by-laws, you know the rest.

[aastra]

So - let's do it. Set up a regulated camp, in lieu of housing, close to downtown, with facilities - could be in Beacon Hill Park.

Why does it have to be close to downtown? Downtown didn't produce the problems, so why do some people think it makes sense to burden downtown with the problems? Beacon Hill Park didn't produce the problems, so why do some people think it makes sense to burden Beacon Hill Park with the problems?

I feel like we're dancing around something here. There's endless wilderness just a few miles away from downtown. The city of Victoria is a tiny blip on a very large island, in an enormous province, in an absolutely gigantic country. And Victoria isn't a very big city, right? (Lord knows we spend a lot of money, time and effort trying to convince everyone that this is the case.) So it should be easy to camp in the wilderness at night and also partake of the city during the daylight hours, yes?

Obviously, many of these urban campers don't want to camp in the wilderness. They want to camp in city parks. If you choose to camp in the city rather than in the wilderness (where there's a very good chance that nobody would ever find you or hassle you), then that means you've selected the city as your campground. You didn't end up in Beacon Hill Park; you chose it.

Thus, I'm convinced that additional beds in a new shelter would be of no relevance to many of these urban campers. The same thing goes for any special "homeless campgrounds" that we might dream of creating in the woods somewhere. Many of these folks want to camp in the city, plain and simple.

I don't fault them for wanting to do it. The city has much the same value and appeal for them as for anybody else. But I do fault them for thinking they should have special privileges in the parks that the rest of us (the folks who pay for the parks and who enjoy the parks as the recreational areas they were created to be) don't have. Just one time I'd like to see these urban campers show a smidgen of respect for the city to which they're so powerfully drawn. This place is their bread and butter. They want to be here. Some of them have come from a very long way away. Show some respect.

Everybody understands the need to sleep and to be dry and warm. Satisfying basic needs with a pup tent and a tarp that you pack up every morning is one thing; setting up several tents together with a portable toilet and an electric stove is something quite different. When you do the latter, you're rubbing the community's collective face in it. You're confiscating recreational space. And you're also attacking the city's economic engine, which strongly depends on Victoria's image and reputation as a tourism destination. This is ultimately self-destructive, because you depend on the city and its welfare, too. If you didn't, you wouldn't be here. You'd say "to hell with it" and go somewhere else.

If we think setting up a dedicated urban camping area is a good idea, then I strongly suggest that it shouldn't be anywhere near downtown, and that urban camping outside of the dedicated camping area (or areas) should thereafter be prohibited. In other words, put a cap on the sheer amount of urban camping that the community will tolerate, because this thing could turn into a Pandora's Box very easily. Such a cap would not be unreasonable; it's a city, not a campground. Urban camping adds nothing to the vitality of the city, but it imperils much.

This brings me back to the court case. I suspect it will turn out to have been a big mistake for the plaintiffs to aggravate the matter in the way that they did, because they may have set a process in motion which will ultimately burn anyone who chooses to sleep in the parks in a more discrete and respectful manner.

[Marilyn]

I'm worried about the smoke from the fires in an area surrounded by high density buildings.

Silly me, worried about breathing.

[groundlevel]

Acting Mayor Dean Fortin will give a press conference at 2:30 today City Hall antechamber to address Cridge park ruling.

[mat]

Perhaps Mat might be posting his pictures on the forum after he makes his camp visit.

Will do - heading out around 3:30 to Beacon Hill. Will also try to interview some of the campers.

[LJ]

And I also agree with the others who suggest we may need to set up a controlled area in an outlying park or beach.

Why does it have to be a park or a beach?

Set up a tent city in the industrial areas, complete with porta-potties, kitchen facilites etc. Our military goes to foreign disaster sites and sets up all weather tent cities for thousands in a matter of days, why not here.

There are those of course that don't want to be in a "controlled" environment - they want to be on the street or elsewhere. As long as there was adequate housing available for them at the tent site it would be illegal for them to set up camps in the parks. It would also help identify those that were in need mental treatment facilities.

[martini]

Acting Mayor Dean Fortin will give a press conference at 2:30 today City Hall antechamber to address Cridge park ruling.

Thanks for that!

eta:
Wait a minute. Why is Dean acting as Mayor today? Wasn't Lowe just speaking about this yesterday?

[Ms. B. Havin]

Why does it have to be close to downtown? Downtown didn't produce the problems, so why do some people think it makes sense to burden downtown with the problems? Beacon Hill Park didn't produce the problems, so why do some people think it makes sense to burden Beacon Hill Park with the problems?

I feel like we're dancing around something here. There's endless wilderness just a few miles away from downtown. The city of Victoria is a tiny blip on a very large island, in an enormous province, in an absolutely gigantic country. And Victoria isn't a very big city, right? (Lord knows we spend a lot of money, time and effort trying to convince everyone that this is the case.) So it should be easy to camp in the wilderness at night and also partake of the city during the daylight hours, yes?

Obviously, many of these urban campers don't want to camp in the wilderness. They want to camp in city parks. If you choose to camp in the city rather than in the wilderness (where there's a very good chance that nobody would ever find you or hassle you), then that means you've selected the city as your campground. You didn't end up in Beacon Hill Park; you chose it.

Thus, I'm convinced that additional beds in a new shelter would be of no relevance to many of these urban campers. The same thing goes for any special "homeless campgrounds" that we might dream of creating in the woods somewhere. Many of these folks want to camp in the city, plain and simple.

I don't fault them for wanting to do it. The city has much the same value and appeal for them as for anybody else. But I do fault them for thinking they should have special privileges in the parks that the rest of us (the folks who pay for the parks and who enjoy the parks as the recreational areas they were created to be) don't have. Just one time I'd like to see these urban campers show a smidgen of respect for the city to which they're so powerfully drawn. This place is their bread and butter. They want to be here. Some of them have come from a very long way away. Show some respect.

Everybody understands the need to sleep and to be dry and warm. Satisfying basic needs with a pup tent and a tarp that you pack up every morning is one thing; setting up several tents together with a portable toilet and an electric stove is something quite different. When you do the latter, you're rubbing the community's collective face in it. You're confiscating recreational space. And you're also attacking the city's economic engine, which strongly depends on Victoria's image and reputation as a tourism destination. This is ultimately self-destructive, because you depend on the city and its welfare, too. If you didn't, you wouldn't be here. You'd say "to hell with it" and go somewhere else.

If we think setting up a dedicated urban camping area is a good idea, then I strongly suggest that it shouldn't be anywhere near downtown, and that urban camping outside of the dedicated camping area (or areas) should thereafter be prohibited. In other words, put a cap on the sheer amount of urban camping that the community will tolerate, because this thing could turn into a Pandora's Box very easily. Such a cap would not be unreasonable; it's a city, not a campground. Urban camping adds nothing to the vitality of the city, but it imperils much.

This brings me back to the court case. I suspect it will turn out to have been a big mistake for the plaintiffs to aggravate the matter in the way that they did, because they may have set a process in motion which will ultimately burn anyone who chooses to sleep in the parks in a more discrete and respectful manner.

Thank you, aastra. Well said.

[Marilyn]

Yes, thank you aastra.
I am so torn because I believe in social programs and socialism but I also believe in hard work. Both my grandmothers had jobs in their seventies. So when I see an able bodied 35 year old who chooses not to work and then demands a free urban camp ground I need someone 'to talk me down.'

[victorian fan]

Just heard on the news that there's a camp at the children's play area in BHP.

[Rob Randall]

There will be strict rules regarding urban camping (no fires, no tent cities etc.) that will be enforced by police. This will likely draw resources away from other police work. Victoria will appeal the decision but this could take a year. I've been talking with some about the possibility of using a free permit system to control camping.

[Caramia]

Mat and I were just down at the camp in Mayor's Grove for about an hour. Very interesting visit. Mat has many pictures which he'll post soon. We also got a copy of the new bylaw, which he'll scan and post.

The folks down in Mayor's Grove are easy to talk to and not something to be afraid of. I don't recommend approaching any other camps around the city unless you know someone or something, but Mayor's Grove is still a safe place, and you may see children playing among the campers - a reminder of the diversity of the wider street-involved community. I asked them what people who wanted to support them could bring and they said tarps, blankets, more people. They seem to have a lot of food.

The new bylaw from the city has a 7am deadline for taking the tents down - which to me seems reasonable. The bylaw officers delivered it while we were there, although most of the campers didn't accept a copy. It made me proud to live in a civil society when I saw the respectful way the bylaw enforcers conducted themselves. For the campers part, David's parting words to the bylaw officers were "I love you."

Ahh, the sharp edge of class conflict on the west coast.

Apart from the Mayor's Grove camp, I hope campers who just want a quiet nights sleep, and are not creating a political statement, will try to be mindful not to make their gain into a child's loss. Anyone who remembers how fiercely a child loves their outdoor "fort" or "unicorn garden" or "castle" will want to choose their campground carefully.