11779 replies to this topic

[Nparker]

A report was published today from the City identifying Isitt, Potts, Dubow and Loveday as voting for maintaining 24/7 camping in parks by voting against injunctions against those who refuse to vacate the parks....I’m trying to understand why they’d vote to keep the project going despite its many failures and the danger it presents to inhabitants and society...

Because the TV crowd allows their ideology to trump common sense. Voting to support city bylaw enforcement would amount to admitting their ideology is flawed.

[Victoria Watcher]

I think we are just spilling hares a bit with the “offered housing” thing.

I think it’ll be fine.

[Rob Randall]

[On the Level]

I’m trying to understand why they’d vote to keep the project going despite its many failures and the danger it presents to inhabitants and society.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A Girl is No one]

A report was published today from the City identifying Isitt, Potts, Dubow and Loveday as voting for maintaining 24/7 camping in parks by voting against injunctions against those who refuse to vacate the parks.

Isitt we know is running a business with significant dollars from various governments, so his support for maintaining the current situation is not a surprise. But the other three I’m trying to understand why they’d vote to keep the project going despite its many failures and the danger it presents to inhabitants and society.

So essentially what is happening is bylaw officers will allow people who have accepted housing to remain 24-7 while they await their housing. All others will be limited to 7-7. Council voted 5-4, with Andrew being the deciding vote.

Doesn’t the city have an agreement with the province to enforce bylaws in exchange for the millions of $ in homeless housing?

[Stephen Andrew]

A report was published today from the City identifying Isitt, Potts, Dubow and Loveday as voting for maintaining 24/7 camping in parks by voting against injunctions against those who refuse to vacate the parks.

Isitt we know is running a business with significant dollars from various governments, so his support for maintaining the current situation is not a surprise. But the other three I’m trying to understand why they’d vote to keep the project going despite its many failures and the danger it presents to inhabitants and society.

So essentially what is happening is bylaw officers will allow people who have accepted housing to remain 24-7 while they await their housing. All others will be limited to 7-7. Council voted 5-4, with Andrew being the deciding vote.

I have to challenge the notion that I was the “deciding vote”. I was happy to be in the majority and each vote in that split is responsible for us moving forward.

Here is my public statement on this:

I receive many questions on if and how the City of Victoria will enforce the no 24/7 camping in city parks as of May 1st.

I appreciate that my fellow councillors supported my motion to release a report from a closed meeting to the public along with how each councillor voted on the plan.

Our staff put together a very reasonable and compassionate report that I believe will ensure the camping bylaw in parks will be enforced.

Please read the report and find out for yourself what we plan to do. There will be no surprises and those who are camping now will have ample notice and support to encourage them to comply.

However, in a 5-4 vote, Council gave authority to our City Manager to go to court and seek an injunction IF there are individuals who fail to comply.

We took this position so that we can assure the community we can and will move to seek court orders for those who openly defy the bylaw. It is NOT our preferred option, but we wanted to send a clear message.

We are moving people into appropriate shelter and housing. It is time the parks are available for everyone.

This document settles the misinformation that is being distributed to the unhoused community - we have housing and shelter and everyday more spaces come available.

Thank you for reading. I welcome your comments.

Here is the plan https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=66625

Here is the vote from councillors

https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=66626

[Victoria Watcher]

ffs you do not need court orders.

[sebberry]

What were the reasons for this being discussed in-camera?

[A Girl is No one]

Stephen, can you tell me what the plan is for the soon the be influx in the city for free housing? Will we lose the use of our park again?

[Nparker]

....what the plan is for the soon the be influx in the city for free housing...

It has been a while since Chrissy Brett demonstrated her particular brand of activism to a CoV audience.

[Jackerbie]

It has been a while since Chrissy Brett demonstrated her particular brand of activism to a CoV audience.

She's busy in Vancouver, where the situation makes BHP look very rosy

[Stephen Andrew]

ffs you do not need court orders.

Actually you do. Bylaws are predicated on compliance. Bylaw cannot arrest for non compliance. So the arrest comes basically on a contempt charge after an injunction.

[Stephen Andrew]

What were the reasons for this being discussed in-camera?

We went into closed for the reason of legal.

At the time I was not convinced. Now that I see the redacted section, I understand this should not be public.

We asked staff to disentangle reports in future and that should make it easier to have the discussion in public and then only go into closed when there is specific information that is inappropriate to have public.

I hope to see more closed reports and votes opened up for transparency.

Thanks for asking

[Nparker]

She's busy in Vancouver, where the situation makes BHP look very rosy

Oh I am sure she can make time for us, if we ask nicely.

[Stephen Andrew]

Stephen, can you tell me what the plan is for the soon the be influx in the city for free housing? Will we lose the use of our park again?

Not if I have any say we won’t.

I can’t say that there will be an influx. We are attuned to the issue and should the tome come we have to publicly have that discussion we will be all over it.

Let’s focus on what is first. We are gaining ground here. 😃

[sebberry]

We went into closed for the reason of legal.

At the time I was not convinced. Now that I see the redacted section, I understand this should not be public.

We asked staff to disentangle reports in future and that should make it easier to have the discussion in public and then only go into closed when there is specific information that is inappropriate to have public.

I hope to see more closed reports and votes opened up for transparency.

Thanks for asking

 

Thank you!

[A Girl is No one]

Not if I have any say we won’t.

I can’t say that there will be an influx. We are attuned to the issue and should the tome come we have to publicly have that discussion we will be all over it.

Let’s focus on what is first. We are gaining ground here. 😃

Thanks for your response and your optimism! I hope you are right although I can’t see why the flow that has been taking place for several years already will stop if we just continue to offer yet more free housing and services.

I think we are very close or may have already reached the tipping point in Victoria proper. I don’t know that we can absorb much more, if any.

[Nparker]

...I think we are very close or may have already reached the tipping point in Victoria proper. I don’t know that we can absorb much more, if any.

As long as there are 3^rd tier hotels that aren't being used by tourists, and as long as there are city owned lots on which tin can housing can be "temporarily" erected, I am sure the CoV will be able and more than willing to accept all comers.

[Mike K.]

From Big Texas?

[Barrrister]

If we can provide shelter why are we allowing any camping whatsoever in the parks. The court order was that overnight camping was to be allowed only if there is no shelter spaces.