408 replies to this topic

[pseudotsuga]

I missed Helps on CFAX and have a few questions:

 

TC article notes that staff identified the site(s) - was the report recently requested by council? By what councillors?  What is the logic driving this?  The article seems to indicate that cost savings and impact reduction in other parks are the goal but I'm interested to know who proposed this solution and why.

 

If the project goes ahead, would camping be re-banned in other parks? That is the only way I can see this as a potential cost saving measure or making any difference in camping use levels in other parks.

[VicHockeyFan]

I missed Helps on CFAX and have a few questions:

 

TC article notes that staff identified the site(s) - was the report recently requested by council? By what councillors?  What is the logic driving this?  The article seems to indicate that cost savings and impact reduction in other parks are the goal but I'm interested to know who proposed this solution and why.

http://www.timescolo...eless-1.1958808

 

Victoria councillors, two of them in tears, agreed Thursday to a plan to help people camping in city parks, approving measures that could cost up to $350,000, including the possibility of creating a community of tiny homes.

 

The governance and priorities committee recommended to council a wide swath of moves that includes:

 

• Start looking to increase the number of overnight shelter spaces from the current year-round number of 260.

 

• Investigate and report by July on the designation of specific spots for tenting within certain city parks, with Topaz, Royal Athletic, Banfield and Stadacona parks listed as likely locations.

 

- See more at: http://www.timescolo...h.xkZPXW2a.dpuf

[VicHockeyFan]

If the project goes ahead, would camping be re-banned in other parks? That is the only way I can see this as a potential cost saving measure or making any difference in camping use levels in other parks.

 

That's the plan.  When asked what this plan would cost, Helps repeatedly said it would be much less expensive than what they pay now for wake-ups in all the parks (as much as $700,000).

 

So when I called in, I said then all the money they will save, they will be able to lay off some police and bylaw staff?  She said no, nobody would be laid off.

 

So whatever this new plan costs, it costs more than we pay now.

[Nparker]

Who is going to enforce the use of this "shelter" and, I would assume, direct all homeless campers to this location? Will camping now be banned in all other CoV parks? Is that legal or even realistic? For those who choose not to camp here, will there be some sort of penalty? The bottom line, why would someone choose this location, with its plethora of rules, over any other park in the city? What really is Victoria city council trying to accomplish?

[Mike K.]

I'm not sure I can find an example of a North American tent city that has close government regulation or oversight.

 

[pseudotsuga]

I wonder how long it would take for campers to get the message that there is no camping in other parks.

Probably pretty quick but I'm sure it would need to be enforced on an ongoing basis.

 

I'd guess there are no layoffs because they wouldn't actually remove any saved $ from the budget, it would just go elsewhere.

[Nparker]

I wonder how long it would take for campers to get the message that there is no camping in other parks...

Can the city legally do this? Where will campers go should the Topaz space be deemed full?

[VicHockeyFan]

Who is going to enforce the use of this "shelter" and, I would assume, direct all homeless campers to this location? Will camping now be banned in all other CoV parks? Is that legal or even realistic? For those who choose not to camp here, will there be some sort of penalty? The bottom line, why would someone choose this location, with its plethora of rules, over any other park in the city? What really is Victoria city council trying to accomplish?

 

The plan is that camping in other parks would not be allowed.

 

The attraction of this camp will be nice bathrooms (porta-potties) and the ability to leave your tent up all day, every day.  Sleep in!

 

Now, staff that monitor the camp, I wonder what type of shelter they get to sit in?  I doubt it'll be a tent with no electricity or power/heat.  I bet they will be in a utility trailer with a nice chair and desk, full-height ceiling, nice space heaters.  Maybe a recliner or couch, TV maybe.

[VicHockeyFan]

Can the city legally do this? 

 

Presumably.  They ruling says they only have to open parks when shelters were full.  The plan for this tent city is to provide the worst possible shelter conditions in all of Canada.  But it counts as a shelter.  I suppose if you show up with no tent, they give you one.

[pseudotsuga]

A quick google of city homeless camps indicates that:

- in BC they are tolerated for a while then usually shut down (Vancouver, Mission, Abbotsford, Campbell River)

- they are shut down immediately in Alberta (Edmonton)

- in Portland there seem to be two that are official or semi official

 

Victoria does tend look to Portland for inspiration!

[Barra]

It's unrealistic to think that the long term Beacon Hill park campers are just going to relocate. Some of them are attached to their spots and routines and will carry on. "Travelers" will continue to camp there, thanks to couch surfing websites and a National Post reporter who put out a video "advertising" the practise. So there will be no cost saving on that end, just the new cost of managing the new one.
What remains unexplained is how the nonprofit agency is going to run it. The city has not said that they are going to fund the operation, so the nonprofit will have to find the funding. So they will have to apply for grants or provincial fuming for this. This funding is not likely to materialize.

[Nparker]

The plan is that camping in other parks would not be allowed....

So, in addition to ensuring the Topaz site runs according to its various rules, resources will still be needed to ensure that no one camps out in any other City parks. As a taxpayer, how does this save me money? Will those in non-compliance be charged with some offense? Will they be personally escorted to Topaz? And again, if Topaz is full where do campers legally go?

[pseudotsuga]

Portland camp sites aren't in city parks though:

http://www.citylab.c...eam-too/383246/

https://en.wikipedia...Dignity_Village

 

Things get shut down upon complaint in Edmonton - didn't they hear about that Supreme Court ruling?

http://www.edmonton....n-parkland.aspx

[VicHockeyFan]

- in Portland there seem to be two that are official or semi official

 

Victoria does tend look to Portland for inspiration!

 

Dignity Village Portland has permanent structures and propane heaters and the community must do work for the village, plus pay a fee to be there.

 

 http://www.tentcityu...ears-later.html

 

In one of the courtyards defined by a pod of houses there was a large pile of miscellaneous wood. One of the villagers has an old truck and they collect it around town, often as a result of city tree trimming or removal. Villagers then split larger pieces into cord wood and smaller pieces are chopped for kindling. The wood is then bundled and sold as firewood with signs on the street advertising their product. All proceeds go toward a collective fund to pay for DV’s insurance and utility costs. Along with $25/month payments from each of the residents, this is how the village covers its operating costs without being dependent on outside donations.

 

[VicHockeyFan]

R2D2 in Portland is also self-supporting:

 

Completely grassroots and peer-run by people who have experienced homelessness themselves, R2D2’s mission is simple: To “try to make the world a better place for our houseless brothers and sisters by allowing them to come in and get up to 12 hours of safe, uninterrupted sleep.” Its funding, approximately $1,500 a month, comes entirely from donations and grants—notable contributors include local nonprofits the Larson Legacy Foundationand the McKenzie River Gathering Foundation. R2D2 uses that money to pay for liability insurance, port-a-potties, dumpsters, electricity, Internet service, and its biggest expense: having sleeping bags washed twice a week at a laundromat. The site itself was donated by local businessman Michael Wright, who rents R2D2 the lot for $1 a year—his motivation mostly being to spite local authorities, who denied him permission to develop the land as a hub for mobile food trucks.

 

http://www.citylab.c...eam-too/383246/

 

 

Our tent-city plan will not pay its own way, will not have residents self-policing themselves or required to work.  It'll just be be a hang-out, like Our Place is, but messier, colder and uglier.

[Nparker]

...Our tent-city plan will not pay its own way, will not have residents self-policing or required to work.  It'll just be be a hang-out, like Our Place is, but messier, colder and uglier.

And presumably, costlier to the taxpayer.

[pseudotsuga]

So, in addition to ensuring the Topaz site runs according to its various rules, resources will still be needed to ensure that no one camps out in any other City parks. As a taxpayer, how does this save me money? Will those in non-compliance be charged with some offense? Will they be personally escorted to Topaz? And again, if Topaz is full where do campers legally go?

 

I think that the bylaw against camping in parks was successfully enforced in the past. I don't know what the bill was was back then but I'm sure it would go back to similar levels after people get the message. It would be interesting to see the numbers.  

 

Any idea how many sites the proposed campground would offer? 

[Nparker]

Any idea how many sites the proposed campground would offer? 

How many tents can one fit on a double tennis court?

Edited by Nparker, 24 July 2015 - 05:18 PM.

[pseudotsuga]

Quite a few I guess. I'm caught up with imagining this as a nice, actual city run campground, charging fees like any other. A pleasant few sites scattered through the trees, disturbed only by the nearby 6 lane highway.

 

Providing free tent shelter in the middle of the tennis court is less appealing and I wonder if the city (or any other as VHF noted) has any experience providing that sort of service. 

[Nparker]

...Providing free tent shelter in the middle of the tennis court is less appealing and I wonder if the city (or any other as VHF noted) has any experience providing that sort of service. 

And how many homeless people will actually want to use it? As VHF has previously stated this plan seems to have none of the appeal of the existing park camp spaces (freedom, trees, unregulated activity) but also none of the benefits of a proper shelter like Our Place (indoors, real beds, heat, proper washrooms, access to meals etc.). I fail to see what this plan realistically hopes to accomplish other than make at least one city park pretty much unusable by many of the general public.