Jump to content

      



























Photo

Could the Expropriation Act Solve the Homeless Problem


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 29 May 2007 - 02:28 PM

I'm wondering if the Expropriation Act could be used to address the homeless problems downtown. I'm sure many of you have been pissed off by my strident views concerning the homeless in the Urban Issues area, but I thought of another way the City could address the issue. What might occur if the City of Victoria used the [url=http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/96125_01.htm:7ab54]Expropriation Act[/url:7ab54] to force the sale of the Salvation Army Thrift Store (Soup Kitchen) at Johnson and Store, the Streetlink Emergency Shelter on Store Street, and perhaps the Janion Hotel on Store Street?

I'm thinking that private economic development of these buildings or sites would greatly benefit the public interest and have the secondary effect of relocating the homeless out of the downtown core since the main attractions that put them there are gone. Urban revitalization is a legitimate public use. Promoting economic development and clearing out slum areas are a long accepted area of government function. So I propose the government get title to the buildings and sell them back to someone who will develop them into a more vital use that will enhance the community instead of being a burden and an eyesore.

Just an idea. I think it could work. But is there a leader in Victoria with the cahones? I guess the idea is dead on arrival in this town of milk toast "leadership."

#2 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 29 May 2007 - 03:01 PM

Too slippery of a slope. If the government were allowed to move in and do that, they could also expropriate properties that cause too much "litter," i.e. the food establishments serving late night clubbers, or whatever the problem of the day is for our friends at City Hall.

I would agree that the middle of downtown was a poor choice for homeless shelters especially now that they're sitting on prime downtown lots. But we had a lot of backwards thinking planning back in the day, didn't we?

As for the Janion, there is talk about a developer working out a deal to purchase the property and redevelop it. And next to Streetlink (where that club used to be) a furniture store is moving in soon so things may be on the mend in that immediate vicinity. Although I suppose all that the redevelopment will do is put more pressure on the visible homeless problem since Streetlink can't simply absorb excess homeless into its premises. Makes me wonder how the changing nature of that part of downtown will play out with big dollar tenants and the homeless butting heads.

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


#3 Icebergalley

Icebergalley
  • Member
  • 596 posts

Posted 29 May 2007 - 03:35 PM

Your "solution" has nothing to do with the homeless other than to displace them to another location.. force the existing service providers to focus on things other than their objective of dealing with current problems...

chaos theory at work?

#4 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 29 May 2007 - 04:01 PM

I've given up trying to solve their problem, i.e., mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. I'm focusing on solving our problem - the problem the average citizen has with all the homeless downtown. If they were displaced the problem is solved as far as I'm concerned. Any of them can get medical attention for their source problems anytime they choose. We're all too sensible to force a cure upon them.

It's not a slippery slope as far as I'm concerned. Expropriation for a good reason to serve a public purpose is good. What bigger dilemma is our city facing? What's the difference between closing a pizza parlor because drunks fight in front of it after hours as they are doing and forcing the sale of buildings whose existing use is causing a bigger problem? Maybe even the threat of expropriation would motivate the building owners to clean up their act.

#5 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 30 May 2007 - 07:42 AM

Both closing the pizza parlour and expropriating the shelters are the same line of thinking. I am curious as to why you think it would be better to have homeless people in neighbourhoods instead of Downtown? Downtown is uniquely set up to absorb people of all kinds, where as neighbourhoods are relatively fragile urban ecosystems. I was living in North Park when Bob Cross cracked down on street people (btw you are talking about street people, not homeless here I assume, since many homeless never go downtown but live in motels or on friend's couches, while many street people have homes). What it meant for us was our neighbourhood being flooded with hookers and junkies. The kids sleeping at St John the Divine's were fine, and we brought them blankets. But the dealers hung out waiting for teenagers and other vulnerable family members to try to get an "in" to a place they could deal from. It worked and much of the sorrow in my life was authored there. Downtown is diverse and it is seedy, and that is part of its role in society. It was the tourist district that expanded into North Downtown, when Streetlink was built that was unwanted land, and that area has been a red light district since Victoria was founded. Not everyone has the same feelings of revulsion for the more jagged side of life. Let those who can handle it come downtown while those who can't stay in the neighbourhoods and enjoy their safety there.
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

#6 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 30 May 2007 - 09:35 AM

There would be more motivation to change the approach to homelessness if they were in every neighborhood. The fact that downtown can absorb them and they are concentrated there is the problem. The general apathy of most people in their safe neighborhoods would change. It's all part of rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour to encourage good behaviour. As it is, we reward bad behaviour.

#7 Rorschach

Rorschach

    Truth is my bitch!

  • Member
  • 758 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 08:45 AM

I'm posting a big "never mind" at this point. With the exception of the Janion Building, the government is already the landlord on the properties I proposed they expropriate. If our elected leaders wanted to change the use of the Streetlink or the Salvation Army Thrift Store they could do so anytime already. Sigh!

#8 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 05:02 PM

Oooooh! I have an idea!!!
Homelessness could solve the derelict buildings problem.
We could move towards squatters rights like they have in Holland and the UK. If a building is left abandoned for say - 5 years, it becomes legally squattable. Once squatted, the squatters must call the police and provide the landlord's name, an inventory of any items in the building for the Landlord to pick up, and evidence that the building was abandoned for 5 years. The police and squatters must do a walkthrough together, and the squatters must provide the police with their lawyers number so that the landlord can contact them to get items and for any other purposes. The squatters must then make sure that the building is up to code to live in or use, and depending on the degree of dereliction they will have a reasonable set amount of time to do so.
In order to evict the Landlord must provide City Hall or a Court of Law with plans for the rehabilitation and use of the building. They must prove that they are ready and financially able to put the building into productive use. Then the eviction can take place. Beware though, if the squatters can make a case that their use of the building is a more socially useful one than what the landlord plans (ie: Free Daycare and an art gallery with artists studios and free housing for battered mothers above) VS luxury condo time shares, then the landlord may be forced to sell it to the City or Squatters Collective as punishment for their terrible crime of leaving a building languishing, and derelict, an open sore weeping its pus into our urban fabric.
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

#9 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,702 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 07:32 PM

There was an article on the news the other night about a couple from Canada who have gone to Africa and basically started a village.

This one is different by virtue of the fact that they are not there giving welfare to the residents, they are teaching the residents to be self sufficient - which is a laudable goal.

They do this through a system of local currency, you do work for the community you get some of the "bucks" which you can then trade for services in the village.

They gave a few examples - one fellow was helping to build accommodation and he traded the "bucks" he earned for food and shelter, in another case a girl was babysitting and traded her "bucks" for English lessons, another traded hers for medical service.

The villagers loved the system, it instilled a sense of worth and pride in them and made the village a better place for all.

A similar concept could be undertaken with "unsheltered" on our streets. Perhaps something as simple as the merchants getting together and offering the street people vouchers (good for food or merchandise) in exchange for the street people cleaning up and maintaining the block that they are on. Pick up trash, hose down sidewalks etc. Depending on the success of the operation it could be expanded with more vouchers for more involved work.

LJ
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#10 Caramia

Caramia
  • Member
  • 3,835 posts

Posted 04 June 2007 - 07:18 AM

Any kind of mutual arrangement between businesses and the street community is a huge step forward. For the time I was at Swans a group of Streetlink clients picked up needles around the neighbourhood, and Swans sent sandwiches to Streetlink on Fridays for them. I know there are merchants downtown who trade food or cash for cleaning in front of their store. The guys who sit outside the Swans Beer and Wine store watch for and catch shoplifters. I also know that many smaller stores have "mascots" a street person they are on good terms with who hangs out in their store especially in the colder months, and who will run errands for the staff and are generally tolerated with good humour.

There is a lot of symbiosis going on that the polarising articles in the paper don't ever mention.
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

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users