415 replies to this topic

[Roger]

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.

Caramia - Perhaps you better watch CHEK news. A number of the campers are convicted felons with a history of theft and drug use. The same gang that was in Cridge park have set up shop here. I trust the police when they say they are worried about criminal activities in these camps.

I can only hope that the bylaw officers and police will rigorously enforce this new bylaw and not pander to folks camping out in our public parks. We have to accept this court ruling but not give one more inch.... Drugs, alcohol, fires, violence and having structures up outside the permitted hours should not be tolerated.

If people want to support the homeless and the working poor they should give their money directly to Our Place, food banks, Salvation Army and other support agencies. This assists their activities and ensures that more support is available to those in need. Be as generous as you can but do not give handouts to the campers unless you feel that you support this judicial ruling.

[Caramia]

I watched the news. But I always find it is better to get your information first hand then depend on the media not to fan the flames.


If you re-read my post, I said Mayor's Grove is safe. I specifically DO NOT suggest that anyone approach a random group of campers unless they know someone. Also, as more people arrive in Mayor's Grove the friendly atmosphere there may change. Now is a good time to go see what is going on with your own eyes.

The City's response is exactly right - they are strengthening bylaws so that the right to construct a shelter doesn't allow people to defile the area that they are camping in. The right to shelter yourself shouldn't include the right to make a big mess.

Keep in mind that the new ruling only takes effect when there aren't enough shelter beds. Rob Reid is right in saying that the energy should be spent making sure that those shelter beds are created. If you are interested in de-activating this ruling, that is the shortest and most practical route. The City isn't entirely caught with it's pants down here. Thanks to Charlayne Thornton-Joe and others, we do have an emergency weather protocol for shelters that can be activated if they need to create more beds. We may have to use a similar level of resourcefulness to create more beds - but at least we have a road map.

[davek]

The cause and effect that lies behind my previous comment is not related to any era, but rather a timeless principle; if you keep paying for something, you will get more of it. Those who call for the provision of toilets and other amenities to urban campers should keep this in mind. Charity, when it comes from those who are not intimately acquainted with the recipient, frequently has devastating effects. Government doesn't need to do more, it needs to do less.

In a different vein, this ruling, should it stick, will go a long way in encouraging the already robust growth in the popularity of private neighbourhoods. If it were possible, I bet many existing communities would welcome the opportunity to purchase their local park and place it under a strata title, perhaps with a covenant that it must remain green space. The newly privatized parks would then be exempt from constitutional requirements to permit homeless camping.

[victorian fan]

Thank-you Caramia for a reassuring post.

[Caramia]

Thank you Victoria Fan
If any regular VV poster wants to approach the people at Mayor's Grove but feels (understandably) a little intimidated, please feel free to message me and I will be happy to come down with you and make introductions. It might feel easier to deal with having your park invaded when you know a face or two, or feel like you have someone there you can turn to if you see something that worries you.

To Davek - yes, but the public parks would become host to even more intensified concentrations.

[mat]

Thanks Cara for coming down with me today to Beacon Hill Park - it was an educational experience. There are 9 tents set up, with a covered awning area the campers are using as a meeting and food area.

We arrived just as CBC and CHEK were setting up to film, and spent over an hour talking to the campers, and a few community activists. At around 4pm City Bylaw officers arrived and handed out the revised bylaw notice (which I will link in a later post). It was rather funny, and a bit surreal, to watch (and photograph) bylaw officers stating the new rules, while being chased by A Channel and CHEK film crews.

Full album of pics is here -

[mat]

A pdf of the new camping/temporary shelter bylaw is here.

Not certain why the pics did not show up in the previous post - but interested users can see the album using the link.

[jklymak]

If it were possible, I bet many existing communities would welcome the opportunity to purchase their local park and place it under a strata title,

I believe it is possible: existing communities are free to purchase land and build their own parks.

[jklymak]

A pdf of the new camping/temporary shelter bylaw is here.

Homeless Persons who erect or use Temporary Overhead Protection in a location other than a Public Space will be requested to move to a Public Space where such activities are permitted by this policy"

Is the city getting in trouble because they are singling out "Homeless Persons" as in the above? Why make this policy only apply to "Homeless Persons"? It should apply to everyone.

[Caramia]

The ruling only applies to homeless people assuming a lack of shelter beds. So the rest of us are already forbidden due to our housed state.

[Roger]

The City's response is exactly right - they are strengthening bylaws so that the right to construct a shelter doesn't allow people to defile the area that they are camping in. The right to shelter yourself shouldn't include the right to make a big mess.

Keep in mind that the new ruling only takes effect when there aren't enough shelter beds. Rob Reid is right in saying that the energy should be spent making sure that those shelter beds are created. If you are interested in de-activating this ruling, that is the shortest and most practical route.

The ruling only applies to homeless people assuming a lack of shelter beds. So the rest of us are already forbidden due to our housed state.

I agree that the city has taken steps in the right direction. It remains to be seen what happens in the days ahead. The interview with Johnston tonight revealed that he does not intend to respect the Supreme court ruling or the new bylaw policy. They are not dismantling tomorrow and I suppose we will have the same injunction drama that we had in Cridge park.

Carimia. Unfortunately you are mistaken in your interpretation of the judges ruling. If you read the Supreme Court ruling you will see that the fact that there are not enough shelter beds was a consideration in making the ruling but the issue of available shelter beds does not form part of the ruling. Here is the disposition:

VIII DISPOSITION

[239] Accordingly, this Court declares that:

(a) Sections 13(1) and (2),14(1) and (2), and 16(1) of the Parks Regulation Bylaw No. 07-059 and ss. 73(1) and 74(1) of the Streets and Traffic Bylaw No. 92-84 violate s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that they deprive homeless people of life, liberty and security of the person in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.

(b) Sections 13(1) and (2),14(1) and (2), and 16(1) of the Parks Regulation Bylaw No. 07-059 and ss. 73(1) and 74(1) of the Streets and Traffic Bylaw No. 92-84 are of no force and effect insofar and only insofar as they apply to prevent homeless people from erecting temporary shelter.

[240] In light of the conclusion that I have reached with respect to s.7, I have not addressed s. 12 of the Charter.

[241] The parties are at liberty to make further submissions with respect to the issue of costs.

So you can have lots of empty beds on a given night but the homeless can still set up their temporary shelter. Even if you have thousands of beds in Victoria the ruling is still in effect. Until this ruling is overturned folks will be free to camp in our public parks overnight. There is also no definition of homeless so basically anyone can congregate and camp overnight.

The judge made the following references as to what is considered temporary shelter:

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.

This was a very sweeping ruling that was one judge setting social policy.
The Vancouver Sun had this article today: Camping-in-parks ruling saps public confidence in courts

[Roger]

In a different vein, this ruling, should it stick, will go a long way in encouraging the already robust growth in the popularity of private neighbourhoods. If it were possible, I bet many existing communities would welcome the opportunity to purchase their local park and place it under a strata title, perhaps with a covenant that it must remain green space. The newly privatized parks would then be exempt from constitutional requirements to permit homeless camping.

This was quite common in Europe for many years before sweeping social reforms provided for the poor and disadvantaged. The US has a high number of these "gated communities". Gated communities lead to a sterile environment but residents are secure knowing who is within the confines of their community. There are a number of these north of the Malahat. Arbutus Ridge is one of the largest and even has a golf course within its confines. Given today's ruling I imagine these developments will become more popular in BC over time. This will be a real shame because it develops insular neighbourhoods and a them/us mentality.

[Caramia]

It is possible you are right - I'm not an expert in interpreting the law. That was my take on it from my first read-through though, and it seems to be a common interpretation.

[aastra]

...the rest of us are already forbidden due to our housed state.

We may be housed right now, but some of us may well be homeless five minutes from now.

[Caramia]

piss off your wife?

[mat]

My impression of the camp - organized, clean (for now), calm and small. If the numbers of total homeless in Victoria of around 1500 is correct, then 9 tents represents a very small percentage.

With the new bylaw in effect the camps must be dismantled every morning at 7am, to be remade after 9pm. What I see happening is bylaw officers visiting the larger group(s) each day to enforce the law, but leaving alone the individual camps that are well hidden - simply due to time constraints. (that was happening before the court ruling anyway)

I did talk to 3 locals walking dogs near the camp - the reaction was interesting (and of course not indicative of the whole community), all thought a designated area should be set for homeless camping, with facilities, and they all asked if any of the campers needed tents, bedding or food. If it is in your face on your daily walk, I guess you care more...none of those thought security was an issue, for now. Most of the campers thought a designated area was a good idea.

The campers were a mixed bunch, some not willing to be photographed but very willing to talk, others enjoying the moment. There is a general distrust of media, mostly against Canwest (TC) - all were generally warm to me and my camera, until I asked if the group would gather for a pic under the Canadian flag set up by one of the campers (the irony would be delicious) - there was general, and eloquent, refusal.

[gumgum]

That's when you take your pic and run!

[mat]

That's when you take your pic and run!

LOL - homeless paparazzi! That was more CHEK, CBC and A Channel who simply bombarded the camp to get the pics and story when the bylaw officers arrived. At least we asked, and respected their wishes.

Not sure how Cara felt about this but knowing the pics, and story, would go up on VV means to a certain extent we were acting as journalists...and concerned citizens, and simply to see for ourselves. When asked, I did say the pics would go up on VV (?) - community discussion board, and the words came and the pics were welcome. There is empowerment in that - people will speak their mind.

[davek]

To Davek - yes, but the public parks would become host to even more intensified concentrations.

Since when are you opposed to density?

[davek]

This was quite common in Europe for many years before sweeping social reforms provided for the poor and disadvantaged. The US has a high number of these "gated communities". Gated communities lead to a sterile environment...develops insular neighbourhoods and a them/us mentality.

Prior to the destruction of civil society by sweeping social reforms, the poor and disadvantaged were well served by family, church, community, and mutual aid societies.

I look forward to the day I can mention private neighbourhoods without someone breaking out the pejorative "gated communities". I also await evidence that claims of sterility, insularity, and class warfare amount to something other than personal prejudices.