Jump to content

      



























Photo

Victoria homelessness and street-related issues


  • Please log in to reply
25852 replies to this topic

#101 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,177 posts

Posted 23 April 2007 - 11:05 PM

I've called the non-emergency number and have had cars come in five minutes.


One time I called them about a break-in in progress and they showed up an hour later.


As the Oak Bay Police were on garbage duty at the Uplands golf course...

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#102 KublaKhan

KublaKhan
  • Member
  • 283 posts

Posted 03 May 2007 - 04:32 PM

Abusive panhandlers are very rare. I can't help but wonder if this was a two-way dialogue: ("Why don't you get a job?" "Oh yeah? F*** you!")


I was walking down Douglas the other day, and my 3 1/2 year old son was with me, and there we were hand in hand and very obviously determined to side-step any unpleasantness, when some dude asked me point blank if I...I'm with my son, right? 3 and one half years of age...and dude asks me point blank if I wanted to score some cid.

A father walking with his son down a busy city street, is asked by a dealer if he wants to by some LSD.

So then I'm left having to explain to my 3 and one half year old son who that person was and what they wanted and "Daddy...what is cid?"

#103 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 04:39 PM

Guess a lot of people didn't get Iaan Hunter's point...

As I pointed out to one of the Greenpeace "canvassers" who had left her backpack at the foot of a tree on Yates at Broad this afternoon as she approached people to inform them....

"You're living dangerously" I said, pointing out the packs.. She replied... "Yes!

Battle of the backpacks
Police say they're not seizing them willy-nilly but social agencies cry discrimination
Louise Dickson, Times Colonist

Published: Sunday, May 06, 2007

Police say they're not seizing them willy-nilly but social agencies cry discrimination
Louise Dickson, Times Colonist
Published: Sunday, May 06, 2007
Victoria's social service agencies say they are wasting scarce charitable donations helping street people recover backpacks seized by police under the city's chattels bylaw.

"This bylaw is discriminatory and oppressive," said Rev. Al Tysick. "They're taking away all a person owns in life. I feel terrible using donated funds. And the city and police know where the money is coming from."

Police say they don't seize backpacks indiscriminately, and that the 10-year-old practice is the only effective way to deal with people who won't stop camping out on downtown sidewalks.


View Larger Image
Rev. Al Tysick, right, with Ian Heathcote: "This bylaw is discriminatory and oppressive. They're taking away all a person owns in life. I feel terrible using donated funds. And the city and police know where the money is coming from."

But at Our Place street drop-in centre recently, Ian Heathcote, a homeless man with a head injury, held a $100 bylaw ticket he said he had received from a police officer for leaning his backpack against the wall on Douglas Street. He also had a receipt from the City of Victoria for a $28 impoundment fee for his backpack.

Heathcote said he was on Douglas Street talking to a friend in mid-April when two constables rode up on bikes.

"One guy grabs my pack. I asked him what the problem was. I told him I

wasn't panhandling ... and he said, 'I'm confiscating your pack.' I'd only bought it two week ago at Capital Iron, so I

didn't have to be walking around with a green garbage bag looking like a completely homeless person. And then they made me look like a completely homeless person."

The officers allowed Heathcote to pull his sleeping bag from the pack, then called for the city truck and threw the pack in the back. "I must say he did give me one or two warnings when I was panhandling, but this time I was just standing up talking to a friend who was selling the street news," said Heathcote.

Art Farquharson, a part-time constituency assistant to NDP Leader Carole James and an activist with Together Against Poverty, paid the impoundment fee. "It is offensive to us that they indiscriminately seize people's belongings and force them to find resources which they don't have to get them back," said Farquharson.

The city began using its chattels bylaw as a street-clearing device in 1997 when city council tried unsuccessfully to roust panhandlers from the downtown.

Council had introduced an anti- panhandling bylaw to stop solicitation near bus stops, bank machines and liquor stores, as well as prohibiting "sitting, squatting, kneeling or lying down" on a public sidewalk or street. But police were soon encouraged to use the chattel laws to seize backpacks, sleeping bags and other personal effects from street campers.

The larger issue is clear and free passage on city sidewalks, explained Deputy Police Chief Bill Naughton. But in the case of the street population, the impact is unique. "You are seizing belongings from people which may be all they have in the world," he said.

Police are not seizing backpacks willy-nilly, insisted Naughton. Packs and shopping carts filled with possessions are seized when they've been deposited on the sidewalk and left.

"Our practice is always to warn people in advance that they can't abandon their possessions on the street and they can't put so much material or so many packs on the sidewalk that they're obstructing pedestrian traffic. We don't seize a huge volume of material."



Victoria's social service agencies say they are wasting scarce charitable donations helping street people recover backpacks seized by police under the city's chattels bylaw.

"This bylaw is discriminatory and oppressive," said Rev. Al Tysick. "They're taking away all a person owns in life. I feel terrible using donated funds. And the city and police know where the money is coming from."

Police say they don't seize backpacks indiscriminately, and that the 10-year-old practice is the only effective way to deal with people who won't stop camping out on downtown sidewalks.


View Larger Image
Ian Heathcote checks over his belongings outside Victoria police headquarters. Anti-poverty activist Art Farquharson lent a hand.
Debra Brash, Times Colonist

But at Our Place street drop-in centre recently, Ian Heathcote, a homeless man with a head injury, held a $100 bylaw ticket he said he had received from a police officer for leaning his backpack against the wall on Douglas Street. He also had a receipt from the City of Victoria for a $28 impoundment fee for his backpack.

Heathcote said he was on Douglas Street talking to a friend in mid-April when two constables rode up on bikes.

"One guy grabs my pack. I asked him what the problem was. I told him I

wasn't panhandling ... and he said, 'I'm confiscating your pack.' I'd only bought it two week ago at Capital Iron, so I

didn't have to be walking around with a green garbage bag looking like a completely homeless person. And then they made me look like a completely homeless person."

The officers allowed Heathcote to pull his sleeping bag from the pack, then called for the city truck and threw the pack in the back. "I must say he did give me one or two warnings when I was panhandling, but this time I was just standing up talking to a friend who was selling the street news," said Heathcote.

Art Farquharson, a part-time constituency assistant to NDP Leader Carole James and an activist with Together Against Poverty, paid the impoundment fee. "It is offensive to us that they indiscriminately seize people's belongings and force them to find resources which they don't have to get them back," said Farquharson.

The city began using its chattels bylaw as a street-clearing device in 1997 when city council tried unsuccessfully to roust panhandlers from the downtown.

Council had introduced an anti-

panhandling bylaw to stop solicitation near bus stops, bank machines and liquor stores, as well as prohibiting "sitting, squatting, kneeling or lying down" on a public sidewalk or street. But police were soon encouraged to use the chattel laws to seize backpacks, sleeping bags and other personal effects from street campers.

The larger issue is clear and free passage on city sidewalks, explained Deputy Police Chief Bill Naughton. But in the case of the street population, the impact is unique. "You are seizing belongings from people which may be all they have in the world," he said.

Police are not seizing backpacks willy-nilly, insisted Naughton. Packs and shopping carts filled with possessions are seized when they've been deposited on the sidewalk and left.

"Our practice is always to warn people in advance that they can't abandon their possessions on the street and they can't put so much material or so many packs on the sidewalk that they're obstructing pedestrian traffic. We don't seize a huge volume of material."


But seizing backpacks is one way of influencing a population that doesn't have any constraints on its behaviour, said Naughton. "It's an absurdity for us to write a ticket to a person who doesn't have an address."

Tysick said he helps about three people a month get their packs back. And he knows other agencies are doing the same. "It's one of the meanest bylaws and we need someone to fight the law," said the street pastor. "We need one of the councillors to be brave enough to stand up and say 'Let's do something about this. The service providers will write the cheques because we're not going to let their backpacks just be lost, because that's all they own.' "




© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007



#104 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 05:32 PM

Backpack seizures protest planned
Louise Dickson, Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, May 08, 2007
People concerned about Victoria's chattels bylaw, which allows police to seize the backpacks of street people and return them only after they pay an impound fee, will protest against the "new poor tax" Friday at noon.

Writer Linda Rogers has asked friends and fellow citizens to bring their suitcases and backpacks to the intersection of Yates and Douglas streets to show solidarity with Victoria's disadvantaged.

"Bring a load you don't mind losing and meet us on the corner," Rogers said yesterday. "We will all have packs and lean them against the wall. We know the police probably won't do a thing, but we're making a statement."


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****Victoria's social agencies say they are wasting scarce charitable donations helping people recover confiscated backpacks. Rev. Al Tysick, who has paid to recover dozens of packs over the years, calls the bylaw discriminatory, oppressive and mean.

Police, however, say they don't seize backpacks indiscriminately, and that the bylaw is an effective way to deal with people who leave their possessions on city sidewalks.

Money used to pay the impound fees could be used to buy food and clothing, said Rogers.

"It's a disgusting situation when the only possessions they have are taken from them. And it discriminates because they wouldn't do that to you or me."

Tom Hassett, former vice-principal of St. Andrew's High School, was working as a volunteer at St. Vincent de Paul's last month when three men came in and told him they'd been sleeping outside and police had taken all their belongings including their sleeping bags, tarps, packs and identification.

"I was surprised to learn the police are acting under a bylaw. And I think that's appalling," said Hassett. "If that's the law, then as Dickens would say, 'the law is a ass.'"

Coun. Charlayne Thornton-Joe supports the chattels bylaw because she believes there should be consequences for people's actions.

The city tries to seek a balance between the needs of street people and the business community, said Thornton-Joe. It's very difficult to conduct business with panhandlers blocking doorways,

Thornton-Joe was approached for money five times yesterday as she sat outside having lunch at a Government Street restaurant. "We also watched the panhandlers reach over and take gratuities off the table," she said.

"I would like to ask you and the public, what's the better solution. Ultimately, I think the better solution is to provide housing for people. It's one piece of a very complex puzzle we deal with," said Thornton-Joe.




© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007



#105 Ms. B. Havin

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

Posted 08 May 2007 - 08:07 PM

The officers allowed Heathcote to pull his sleeping bag from the pack, then called for the city truck and threw the pack in the back. "I must say he did give me one or two warnings when I was panhandling, but this time I was just standing up talking to a friend who was selling the street news," said Heathcote.
(...)

Police are not seizing backpacks willy-nilly, insisted Naughton. Packs and shopping carts filled with possessions are seized when they've been deposited on the sidewalk and left.

"Our practice is always to warn people in advance that they can't abandon their possessions on the street and they can't put so much material or so many packs on the sidewalk that they're obstructing pedestrian traffic. We don't seize a huge volume of material."


Honestly, that article by Louise Dickson really ticked me off. I don't think that Louise Dickson was practicing journalism; this was basically propaganda. That's fine, but if Louise Dickson is going to do that, I wish Louise Dickson would at least say up front that this is what she's about.

If you read the article, you initially think, "my god, those terrible pigs are bullying those poor defenseless homeless people." But in reality, tucked away in the article are the statements (as per the quotes pulled out, above) that a.) this fellow was known to the police and had been warned repeatedly; and b.) people are warned.

Downtown may well be "for everyone," and "the community's living room," and all, but anyone who has ever -- ever -- in their life lived in a real commune or done that ultimate "bourgeois" thing on the other end of the scale (namely, raised a family) (and yes, I've done both) knows that living together means respecting rules. Most of them are common sense: you don't crap & pee where you want to sit or sleep; you don't trash the place; you leave things exactly as you'd like to find them; and you respect the general "tenor" of the place (i.e., if the commune is by inclination a pigsty, maybe you don't move in there if that's not your thing, but if it's generally tidy and people take turns stocking the fridge and cleaning the toilet, you do your damn part and don't expect a free ride): it means -- horror of counter-cultural horrors! -- you try to fit in, which means that if the place has a chippy chirpy clean air about it, you can't expect to waltz in there and change it into your perfect vision of a pigsty without pissing everyone else off.

Rev. Tysick can say the law is "oppressive," but stealing shopping carts from merchants is still theft, regardless. And if the social service providers are concerned to the point of ransoming impounded chattel goods, why not provide lockers instead?

But no, that would mean that the "free spirits" would have to fit in, remember where they locked up their backpack, and remember to fetch it. Quelle horreur!, it would mean acting more responsibly on their end, too.

Did everyone see the letter to the T-C today by Insp. John Ducker, in response to Louise Dickinson's article: [url=http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=e4d48083-4666-4c79-be56-74151b2bc2d9:6df00]Police: Seizing backpacks a last resort[/url:6df00]. There's a howler of a beginning paragraph, but basically Ducker is saying it can't go on like this:

Police: Seizing backpacks a last resort
Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Re: "Battle of the backpacks," May 6.

Recently at a Victoria Downtown Service Providers meeting I discussed with those in attendance, including Rev. Al Tysick, that in the face of increasing public complaints about shopping carts and personal property being strewn over downtown streets, police officers would soon have a duty to enforce our laws and take action.

The social service providers agreed that there was no other alternative for the police, especially in regard to those persons who have ignored our pleas, cajoling and repeated warnings for the past three years to keep their personal property and garbage out of the path of other users of the downtown.

They also recognized that police are caught in the middle of a community that wants both more enforcement action and no enforcement action against street persons.

I asked for and felt I received support from the group in dealing with the inevitable media criticism that would be forthcoming. I don't understand Tysick's flip-flop on the chattel issue.

Public sidewalks and spaces in a downtown core are for everyone. What city wouldn't have an ordinance regulating the manner in which goods can be kept in public areas?

Every month in downtown Victoria police officers make thousands of contacts with persons -- some good, some bad. The percentage of chattel seizures coming out of those contacts would be so small that it could probably not actually be measured.

We have worked tirelessly with service providers to address and support their issues in the hope that this type of approach reduces some of the negative stigmatization for street persons in dealing with police officers.

Seizure of people's property by downtown police officers occurs judiciously and only after repeated warnings about the potential consequences.

Insp. John Ducker,

officer in charge,

focused enforcement team,

Victoria Police Department.


I have to say, I love <sarcasm> this bit: "...police officers would soon have a duty to enforce our laws and take action," because I naively believed that police officers already (not "soon") have a duty to enforce our laws," but my daughter suggested that maybe they became police officers not for the usual job description (enforcing the law) but "for the smart uniforms" (and maybe to ride around in cruisers). Wasn't it the Gang of Four who had that pop hit, "I love a man in a uniform"?

Meanwhile, Louise Dickson's slanted article brought out additional letters, including [url=http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=61d89d5b-ef50-4220-89a7-12fbbc4ea3e2:6df00]Backpack bylaw mean, discriminatory[/url:6df00] (yes, life is so unfair, isn't it?) and [url=http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=11b39a4f-aad6-4120-9ca4-5e23142b8eaa:6df00]Property rights deserve protection[/url:6df00], which tries to compare seizing backpacks with a case in the UK during the First World War when the government seized the De Keyser's Royal Hotel. The courts decided that the Crown could seize the hotel, but would have to pay for it.

Oh goodie. And who pays for the shopping carts?

The letter that made the most sense was [url=http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=1f7e693c-cf26-4c5a-be79-3958a60af681:6df00]Tough action needed to help homeless[/url:6df00], which basically argued for tough love:

Tough action needed to help homeless
Times Colonist
Published: Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Re: "Battle of the backpacks," May 6.

The intentions of the bylaws, police and non-profit organizations are all good. I find it offensive that some people try to put blame on the police or city's bylaw. There is an obligation for each individual person in this world to be responsible for his or her own behaviour.

If individuals cannot abide by the local bylaws, they should go elsewhere.

Crime and drug use in Victoria are on the rise. A large portion of this due to the reputation that Victoria has in assisting those less fortunate and homeless.

However, the good intentions in assisting the street population are backfiring because we continue to provide for them, but not to deal with the underlying concerns related to their homelessness. I believe it will only get worse because our weather is mild most of the year.

I believe that a system must be set in place mandating that the police round up the street population each week and take them to a registration centre, where individuals are assessed: Where they are from, mental-illness history, their goal in being here, addictions, interest in improving their lives, how would they like to be helped.

Then the non-profit organizations and churches would help with support while jobs are being obtained or rehabilitation centres funded.

It's a no-tolerance policy, but with compassion.

Bonita McCulloch,

Central Saanich.


Maybe Louise Dickson could interview Bonita McCulloch.
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#106 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 09:32 PM

Carbon copy of a story from four years ago:

Court ruling could affect street camper seizures
Jody Paterson. Times - Colonist. Victoria, B.C.
Dec 21, 2003.

People too poor to pay a fine can't simply be put in jail as an alternative, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last week in the case of an impoverished Ontario man caught with contraband cigarettes.

Makes you wonder how the good justices would view the City of Victoria's practice of confiscating the worldly possessions of "street campers" and charging for the return of the goods. The court makes the point in its Thursday ruling that fines don't work when people are incapable of paying them -- as dozens of frustrated Victoria street people know all too well after having their possessions impounded as punishment for loitering downtown.

On the surface, the Supreme Court case and the city's 11-year- old "chattels on city property" bylaw don't have much in common.

The Ontario case involves the sentencing of Yu Wu to 75 days of house arrest by a judge who didn't know what else to do with him, as it didn't seem likely Wu was ever going to be in a position to pay the $9,600 fine on his disability pension. The Victoria issue involves chasing off street people who get on the nerves of merchants, shoppers or police.

But at the heart of both cases is the disproportionately high price that poor people pay for breaking the law.

A seizure of jewelry or crafts sold on a downtown sidewalk without a licence -- the original purpose of Victoria's chattels bylaw -- might be no big deal to a middle-class artisan able to afford the $70 impoundment fee. Similarly, most of us could afford to lose a backpack to the police without suffering anything more than a bad case of indignation.

The seizure of everything someone owns, however -- not to mention the levying of a fine that someone on the streets can't possibly afford -- is severe punishment indeed.

"I have paid for more kids' backpacks, probably 40 of them this summer," Rev. Al Tysick of the Open Door complained in October. "They've got their whole life in those packs."

The city began putting its chattels bylaw to use as a street- clearing device around 1997, when then-mayor Bob Cross was unsuccessfully trying to roust panhandlers from the downtown.

Council had already introduced an anti-panhandling bylaw to stop solicitation near bus stops, bank machines and liquor stores, as well as a ban prohibiting "sitting, squatting, kneeling or lying down" on a public sidewalk or street. But neither was doing the trick, and police were soon being encouraged to use chattel laws to seize backpacks, sleeping bags, and other personal effects from "street campers."

Victoria put its bylaws on a back burner for a few years after poverty activists launched court cases in the late 1990s to test the constitutionality of similar begging bylaws elsewhere in the country. In the absence of any other means of chasing away undesirables, seizure quickly came to be relied upon as the primary weapon against anyone who overstayed their welcome downtown.

The fines vary under the bylaw: a $25 removal fee and $5 daily storage for goods weighing up to 65 kilograms; a $40 removal fee and $7 a day for storage for heavier seizures. However, the anecdotal evidence is that people typically end up being charged a flat $70.

The seizures are most common in spring and summer, when an influx of nomadic young people hits Victoria. But the homegrown homeless end up targeted as well, and several lost tents, clothing, blankets and ID to seizures this year.

"But it's a last resort," stresses Victoria Police Const. Rick Anthony, the department's downtown resource officer. "We're not going to spend a lot of time jacking up guys and taking their stuff. When these people are carrying their lives on their back, you have to have respect for that."

Is it legal? Probably not, says the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre. But people who can't even afford a place to live likely won't be able to afford a legal challenge either, notes civil liberties spokesman Kirk Tousaw.

"It strikes me that this is absolutely inappropriate," says Tousaw. "If there's no indication that backpacks are being used for illegal activity or are stolen, then there's no justification for it in my mind. To be doing this to people with no resources seems unconscionable."

And one of these days, someone is going to test that in court. Right after they find that $70 to spring their backpack.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#107 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 08 May 2007 - 09:50 PM

Nothing new under the sun...

Wild nights, scary people not new

Jim Hume
Times - Colonist
Victoria, B.C.
Oct 25, 1998.

I think it's only fair to let Victoria Mayor Bob Cross know he's not the first Chief Magistrate to tangle with dogs, dope and people who appear attracted to the city hall precinct to do their thing(s).

Not that long ago, Mayor Alf Toone wrestled with the problem as did his immediate successor Mayor Hugh Stephen. That was back in the mid-'60s when the young longhairs of the day were known as hippies and marijuana and LSD were the drugs of choice.

In August of 1967 Robert Baird, holding in those days the now politically incorrect title of alderman on Victoria city council, offered a simple solution to the hippie problem.

Give 'em a taste of the whip.

Ald. Baird, to the dismay of statesman-like "let's reason together" Mayor Stephen, was serious. Charge the hippies with loitering or whatever, and bring back the lash to convince them that their behaviour in Centennial Square was no longer acceptable. And to help things along, bring in the fire department and their high- powered hoses to flush away what he regarded as human flotsam.

The hippies of the '60s, like their imitators in the '90s, had dogs. Ald.Baird didn't object to the dogs, or what the dogs did in the square, as long as they were on a leash. It was the hippies and their tendency to sleep late, and sometimes copulate, on the Centennial Square lawns that city council found disturbing, and Ald.Baird outrageous enough to deserve the whip.

At the University of Victoria, students cheekily asked if tolerance would be greater if hippies in the square were also on the leash. In August 1968, one year after the "whip the hippies" outburst, those same irreverent students helped organize the first, and I believe only, Robert Baird Memorial Whip Festival.

They needed a permit from city hall to convene such a gathering. They asked for it; they got it and it was held without incident. Times changed. The flower children grew older and up. They kept their dogs in the backyard or complained about their neighbour's pets. And worried that their children might grow to be like them in their teens. Many of them did, and do, and will.

The 1960s battles between city fathers and street people -- teenagers, young adults, hookers and just plain out-of-work citizens -- were not the first in Victoria.

That title probably goes to the city council of 1898 when, at about this time of the year, Mayor Charles Redfern received a formal report from what was called The Committee of Fifty.

Mayor Redfern had struck the special committee of 50 businessmen to study ways and means of "improving" the burgeoning city -- especially its treasury. With the population of the city around the 20,000 mark and growing rapidly, council was finding it difficult to keep up with demands for services, but reluctant to increase taxes.

Among many recommendations for improvement, The Committee of Fifty suggested two quick-fix revenue solutions to council. At the top of the list was a proposal to "tax each employer of Chinamen $20 a head for each Mongolian employee."

Editorially the Victoria Times lamented the proposal was "too drastic, too sudden, and probably ultra vires" but, remembering where its own revenues came from, piously informed the 50 businessmen it was not against "any reasonable restrictions upon the spread of Mongolians into our factories, workshops and domestic services."

Across town the Trades and Labour Council of the day decided by formal resolution to ask all its members to refuse to do business with any firms "in the habit, directly or indirectly, of dealing with the Chinese." The second big revenue generator recommended by the Committee of Fifty was a special tax to be imposed on the women plying the oldest profession in the very shadows of city hall.

The tax, said the committee, would generate at least $15,000 a year. But, complained the Times, to take money "from the 300 women who carry on the nefarious business in the city of Victoria is flatly immoral. To exact this sum is to compound with them in their sins."

The editors never did explain how they got their 300-prostitutes number. Personal research, maybe, because they certainly seemed to know a lot about the seamy side of life in the city -- and those terrible young people who made life so miserable for everybody, especially the policeman on foot patrol.

And if Mayor Cross thinks the environs of city hall are bad now, here's the way they were in 1898, according to the Times:

"There are whole streets in Victoria infested by those social vermin and the sound of their swinish orgies makes night hideous in more quarters of the city than one. Dens of infamy have more entrances than a rabbit warren ... young boys can slip in and out by any one of them at any hour of the night or day, unobserved, unheeded, even by the police."

No mention of dogs, but I'm sure there would be a few around. And I'm sure many of those "young boys" who were slipping in and out of the dens of infamy "unobserved and unheeded" (by all except the editor of the Times!) grew up to become -- with all their sins behind them -- most virtuous editors or mayors.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#108 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 09 May 2007 - 08:33 AM

Haha Brilliant!!!
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

#109 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 09 May 2007 - 03:20 PM

You can be certain that if a derilect has a backpack impounded that there are dozens of warnings given before any action is taken. The sidewalk is a city right-of-way and property abandoned or obstructively placed there can be removed. You can prove criminal intent by establishing that indeed warnings were given and the owner had notice of the conduct proscribed. There are no capricious or arbitrary confiscations by the police in spite of these claims and the beliefs of the various letter writers.

If someone parked their car on your front lawn, you'd have the right to have it removed at the car owner's expense. If they dumped their shopping cart or backpack on your lawn you could take it and turn it in to the police.

If an ordinary citizen wanted to pick up a homeless person's shopping cart and deposit it directly into the dumpster, they could probably do that without consequence too. Is the derelict going to show up in court to testify? How could a citizen disposing of homeless people's garbage be punished in any practical way?

There's just no accountability for anyone. How many cases have we seen on TV in the past few months where serious criminals were caught and convicted in court but got literally no communsurate punishment at all? Since the lack of accountability encourages anyone to do what the heck they want, how long before the regular citizens decide they are not going to take it anymore?

Sorry for the rant. I know we're all compassionate here and love and tenderness and caring for all of God's children is paramount regardless of whether some of these children piss in your face or defecate on the hood of your car. We must forgive and give them money and education and access to needles and a free home and food. We are, after all, the good Canadians.

#110 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 09 May 2007 - 06:25 PM

Yeah, cuz I'm always dodging long streams of steamy pee as I'm walking down the street, and wasting all my windshield fluid on all that **** on my windshield.

#111 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 10 May 2007 - 12:01 PM

It's just a metaphor. Didn't you realize that? We've been sympathetic enough. Has it ever worked or made any difference? We're just going to have to get tough.

Maybe the homeless can start blockading the ferries? If the First Nations protesters didn't get arrested, why should we arrest the homeless? I think regular middle-class folks should blockade the ferries to protest high fares. It's been established that you can't get arrested for doing that.

Just off on a tangent now. Never mind.

#112 josephelopod

josephelopod
  • Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 10 May 2007 - 06:24 PM

Quote:
Shopkeepers don't like stepping over bodies when they open their shops in the morning or close them at night.


I mean, come on. Would Mr. Hunter like stepping over bodies to get in and out of his home?


that was one thing about my student commute through Pioneer square near gastown that was hard to come to terms with, literally walking over bodies on the sidewalk in the mornings. for the most part I could see signs of life but just as often not I didn't, and also didn't do anything about it. no phoning authorities, gentle prodding. I was at a loss of what to do about it and can't imagine if it was my place of business.

#113 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 07:04 AM

I'm quite annoyed that the issue is being framed as an issue of rights for the homeless. A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort.

The right to life means that a man has a right to support his life by his own work. It does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it -- it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The right to free speech means that a man has a right to express his ideas without danger of supression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.

I don't believe we owe the derilicts a thing and I don't think they should be exempt from the laws our elected representatives put in place for everyone.

#114 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 07:46 AM

The right to life means that a man has a right to support his life by his own work. It does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.


You are not wrong about your other points but the right to life does mean we do not let others die despite themselves. That is we treat lung cancer despite the fact that people smoke. We treat heart disease despite what people eat.

This is what it is to live in a society.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#115 m0nkyman

m0nkyman
  • Member
  • 729 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 08:46 AM

Those aren't rights. Those are privileges that we as a society have decided to give all of our citizens.

#116 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 08:57 AM

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#117 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 09:09 AM

I have no issue with people deciding VOLUNTARILY to help anyone for any reason. I do have an issue with forcing me to do so which happens when tax money is spent on the derelicts.

This mornings article in the Times Colonist about homelessness (Day 1) seems to suggest that the "medical costs" are less than the cost of providing housing. This is a classic logical fallacy.

Providing a free home at government expense will add that expense to the medical costs, not replace them. As I've said in other threads, the cause of homelessness is not the lack of a home. So why does the writer of the article believe providing a home at taxpayer expense is a cure?

The authors supposed reasons for homelessness (as provided by questioning the homeless) is completely worthless. None of the "respondents" stated they were mentally ill. Yes, there were "medical" and "emotional" problems listed there as #2 and #3. Adding up reasons 1-3 you have 103% Number one was "substance abuse".

It's all total baloney. Symptoms are not the cause of the problem. The article was completely circular reasoning. What else will the next five articles come up with?

#118 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 09:10 AM

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


I repeat: The right to life means that a man has a right to support his life by his own work. It does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

#119 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 09:34 AM

^What about those that are unable to provide for themselves? A lot of these people are clearly irretrevably damaged, sad to say.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#120 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 09:35 AM

^exactly or those with physical difficulties that cannot provide for themselves.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


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.
 



5 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Mike P.