Homeless win right to camp in city parks

[martini]

City of Victoria loses court challenge

Jim Gibson
Times Colonist

Tuesday, October 14, 2008


The city's homeless can camp in Victoria parks, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision handed down this morning.

"Yesterday it was illegal to set up my tent, today it isn't," said David Johnston, one of the homeless activists who argued they have a right to sleep outdoors on public property.

Lawyer Catherine Boies Parker, who with Irene Faulkner acted on behalf of the homeless campers in their court challenge of the city's anti-camping bylaw, confirmed the 108-page judgment upheld their argument that a City of Victoria bylaw that prohibits using "temporary abodes" like tents and large tarpaulins for shelter in parks and public spaces, violates the rights of the homeless.

She said the judgment noted that in the absence of sufficient safe and secure beds for the homeless, it was unconstitutional for the city to prevent them from erecting some form of overhead shelter to protect themselves from the elements.

The decision came three years to day that a number of people were arrested in October 2005 for setting up a "tent city" in Cridge Park -- a small greenspace at the corner of Blanshard and Belleville streets. The eviction sparked the court challenge.

Following a sparsely attended noon rally at the courthouse, Johnston said he intends to set up a tent in a part of Beacon Hill Park known as the Mayors Grove. He said he didn't want to return to the Cridge park, which he describes as "such an ugly little square of land."

Mayor Alan Lowe said he will respond to the court decision at a press conference at 3 p.m.

Johnston predicts that tent cities will spring up in other municipalities once the decision becomes widely known.


http://www.canada.com/victoriatimesc...4-44c794a97a88

[LJ]

So I guess that they aren't "homeless" anymore.

Good - one more problem solved.

[Dylan Leblanc]

Absolute BS. There's plenty of crown land these people can camp on.

[Newlywednotnearlydead]

So, I have to spend 15-20 bucks a night to camp at a provincial park, but these jokers get to set up a tent in city parks? What a crock. Maybe tourists will start setting up a tent in the park to save on hotel costs.

[Zimquats]

Oh boy...that Beacon Hill Park group that tried to stop the Terry Fox thing are gonna have their hands full now.

[mat]

Alan Lowe is going - Thank God it's not me that has to deal with the fallout. Maybe this will push all levels of Gov. to actually do something, and build social housing, along with more detox beds and community services.

[Caramia]

Well that should light a fire under the butts of anyone dragging their heels about putting shelters and affordable housing units in their neighbourhood. I sincerely hope that James Bay, Fairfield and other park-rich "take it to Burnside" neighbourhood associations will suddenly decide that these issues are important enough to make room for in their areas too. And I hope that homeless people who plan to set up a camp for the winter remember that there are 12 other municipalities in Victoria who have successfully managed to keep services for street people out of their areas. Oak Bay and Saanich have some nice parks... and it was Saanich that refused the BC government's offer to build a shelter if they provided some land - which is why the shelter in Burnside is so damn big.

[Mike K.]

Trust municipalities to adapt with strategic sprinkler systems.

And I'm not being facetious.

[groundlevel]

Could someone explain to me why municipalities are the level of government otherwise sensible people believe should provide the answers to the homeless street population?

Not saying they shouldn't be absolutely involved in finding solutions -- but the province is the ultimate body responsible, isn't it?

I'm truly baffled and awaiting enlightenment.

[aastra]

He said he didn't want to return to the Cridge park, which he describes as "such an ugly little square of land."

Ouch. So it's not even good enough for street people to camp in it? That little park needs a makeover in a big way.

I'd be curious to know the particulars of this ruling. So it's okay for me to go set up a tent in Beacon Hill Park now? Is there a limit on the size or number of tents that I'm allowed to set up? Do we have a definition of a campsite? What are the rules? Am I allowed to camp right beside another camper? How will disputes be handled if two or more campers make claim to the same spot? Am I allowed to have a barbecue and a temporary fence around my campsite? How long am I allowed to camp in the same spot?

Am I allowed to set up a tent anywhere in the park or just in the woods? Doesn't this ruling have the potential to impinge on public access to the parks?

I'm sure they covered all of this in precise detail in their 108-page ruling. It would be interesting to know the details.

[mat]

Originally Posted by groundlevel

Could someone explain to me why municipalities are the level of government otherwise sensible people believe should provide the answers to the homeless street population?

Not saying they shouldn't be absolutely involved in finding solutions -- but the province is the ultimate body responsible, isn't it?

I'm truly baffled and awaiting enlightenment.

Municipalities are responsible for zoning and development, and to lobby upper levels of Government in recognition of a problem like homelessness. The Province cannot simply apply the funding and say a shelter or certain type of housing will be built 'here - on this street'. It does take all levels of Government, including Federal through CMHC to come to a solution.

[martini]

Originally Posted by groundlevel

I'm truly baffled and awaiting enlightenment.

*sigh* me too.

[ted - 3 - dots]

Originally Posted by martini

*sigh* me too.

It's called Human Rights ...!

( if your NOT familiar that concept )

Try the Canadian Charter of Rights ...!


--- As an experiment ---

try being homeless for a day ...!

Even better , lining up at one of the shelter's tonight
( it's cold enough )

and see what happens when you don't get one of 178 beds available ...!


Then come back here and spout off ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


;{-


.
.
.

ted ... ( perhaps Sue can enlighten you a little )

where do you go , when you got no place to go ...?????



grrrrrrrr

[Caramia]

I love how you assume no one posting here has ever lived on the streets Ted. You know what they say about assumptions...

[martini]

Originally Posted by ted - 3 - dots

It's called Human Rights ...!

( if your NOT familiar that concept )

Try the Canadian Charter of Rights ...!


--- As an experiment ---

try being homeless for a day ...!

Even better , lining up at one of the shelter's tonight
( it's cold enough )

and see what happens when you don't get one of 178 beds available ...!


Then come back here and spout off ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


;{-


.
.
.

ted ... ( perhaps Sue can enlighten you a little )

where do you go , when you got no place to go ...?????



grrrrrrrr

Excuse me?!
This isn't the first time you've been rude to me, and I was not spouting off!
Lighten up

[rjag]

Originally Posted by ted - 3 - dots

It's called Human Rights ...!
( if your NOT familiar that concept )
Try the Canadian Charter of Rights ...!
--- As an experiment ---
try being homeless for a day ...!
Even better , lining up at one of the shelter's tonight
( it's cold enough )
and see what happens when you don't get one of 178 beds available ...!
Then come back here and spout off ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
ted ... ( perhaps Sue can enlighten you a little )
where do you go , when you got no place to go ...?????
grrrrrrrr

I'm sorry I dont buy that for 1 minute. I pay taxes to many levels of Government and I expect a portion of these taxes to go to providing shelter for those less fortunate.

However, by setting this precedent they have opened Pandoras Box to all sorts of issues regarding the failure of the Feds and Province to assist the Cities to manage this problem.

This should not be about our Charter, I hold it in high esteem and respect and believe it can be abused in situations such as this and was not the intent when it was created. People have a right to shelter, and basic shelter should be provided if they are incapable of doing it on their own. They do not have a right to choose to set up a tent in the middle of a public park. They have the right to protest and to communicate their issue and in this case they succeeded 3 years ago at Cridge. The Court was wrong in this decision, the Court should have indicated that it is their basic human right to shelter, not their basic human right to camp in public parks.

This will be appealed and it will be overturned and in doing so, I hope the Court order the senior levels of Government provide the resources required to provide......shelter.

Yet again, another example of abuse of our system.

Why do I even bother to pay tax?

[mat]

Originally Posted by Caramia

I love how you assume no one posting here has ever lived on the streets Ted. You know what they say about assumptions...

very well said Caramia -

[ted - 3 - dots]

Originally Posted by Caramia

I love how you assume no one posting here has ever lived on the streets Ted. You know what they say about assumptions...

------ Ya if I could , very quickly , explain -----

See the picture I use ...?

It's from 1935 when people were able to sleep in a park ...

Note that there is a roof over their head ...!


----- The Victoria bylaw says YOU CAN-NOT ,
cover up ...! (ie: shelter yourself)

Unless sleeping bag is waterproof,
covering yourself to PROTECT YOU FROM THE RAIN ,
was illegal here in Victoria .



------ And no ,
I don't believe you were homeless , just because of what you wrote ,
and the way you wrote it ...!


( ya that's me , talking to Lot's of the homeless people every month )


and writing about too ...!


I just don't see it in your words.

Actually I hear something else
(too bad )


------- ted...

please make me a believer ...

type a few words ,
let's see where that leads us .


;{-

[ted - 3 - dots]

Any ways ,

people are getting heated up over nothing here .


Just read the ruling , parts will be printed in news-paper's .
( I was there I saw the report's & talked to them too )


-------- The important part to remember is this --------

That if there is NO SHELTER-BED ,
then you should be able to access a public park to sleep ....!


And , if it's rain's or snow's ....????????????

You should be able to build a temporary shelter ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

------- Temporary --------

like a tent @ night

when NOBODY IS USING THE PARK
( except for sleeping because they can find a shelter bed )
ie: @ night time ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--------- Some body mentioned Tax's ----- and they pay so very much


Well guess what ...? Your being ripped off

Sally-Ann gets paid more than $ 35.oo / head per night from your Tax
dollar ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you know that ...?


the "street-term" is Poverty-Pimp .

Sally-Ann also gets more money ( from several other sources ) as well


YOUR GETTING RIPPED OFF for your Tax dollars.


( doesn't Al's place get $550.oo / resident ) that's a $175.oo more than welfare pays


----------- Ok ,,,,,

------- sorry if I ,, didn't think , you know what you are talking about
( in fact I think your trying to flame war with me ) so please stop it




-- Can't we just talk about homelessness ,
and this historic court case ....?



( isn't a tent , more humain than just a sleeping bag ...? )

[Rob Randall]

Funny, today I was in a meeting of the DVBA Clean & Safe committee talking about social issues when A-News' Stephen Andrew came into the room with the shocking news.

It may be in the City's best interests to set up a tent city that is serviced and supervised in order to control the situation and prevent rogue tent cities from being set up causing social and policing problems. Police resources are stretched to the limit right now and we simply can't allow things to get out of control. I'm concerned for the security of all residents, including the homeless who are sometimes victimized in tent cities.

[Caramia]

Rob I suspect that for the most part this will not cause chaos but rather will encourage homeless camps to spread throughout the CRD, rather than concentrate themselves in Burnside and Downtown where most people are camping now. The ability for these folks to disperse is more likely to decrease conflict among homeless people, and the ability to camp in open, well-lit areas is more likely to decrease victimization. Police resources are currently eaten up moving these people from place to place. Perhaps now they can concentrate on arresting those involved in crime.

My one concern is for needles left in parks near where children play. Particularly with the fall leaves covering everything. I hope every citizen will be diligent about making sure parks near where they live are needle free. If you do find a needle, rather than trying to break off the tip, drop it in a transparent pop bottle before putting it in the garbage if possible to protect our garbage collectors.

Ted - read your private messages. Failure to do so might cause your account to be suspended.
I've also included "a few words" for you.

[Sue Woods]

Originally Posted by rjag

This will be appealed and it will be overturned and in doing so, I hope the Court order the senior levels of Government provide the resources required to provide......shelter.

Well said. We need shelters for the homeless and supervised facilities for the mentally ill - and this ruling will do a lot to pressure the Fed govt to act. This has ramifications for every city park in Canada and I don't think Canadians will stand for this for more then a minute or two.

Part of this problem, among others, stems from the gentification of the downtown in most major cities, condos built in what were once poor parts of town with under-code and rooming houses. But there is no discounting that there are people in every society who want to live alternative lifestlyes - who will never choose to fit themselves into the normal stream of life - even if there are a options and agencies who exist to help them. When I moved the Island 20 years ago there was a community of people living (squatting) in make shift cabins/tents etc at Sombrio Beach. It was subsequently closed down for a variety of reasons. They were for all intense and purposes happy to live on the fringes and I often wonder at the wisdom of closing it down. I actully think it should have been allowed to exist - or they could have been given another area of unused land to live as they wished.

ROB: I agree - set up a special area - monitor it - provide washrooms etc and at least put in some controls. But I would far prefer to see all the churches in the CRD open their basements for winter shelter for the homeless. Maybe by spring needed construction will commence. Sue

[Caramia]

Sombrio and Bear Beach were wonderful communities, and after decades living their, the inhabitants should have been able to claim some kind of squatter's rights. The kids that grew up there turned into amazing people, proof that allowing people to become self sufficient is unequaled medicine for society's ills. One thing about this ruling - had it been in place prior to that eviction, Sombrio would now be a small town, rivaling the population of some of our northern communities (no exaggeration- look at Ocean Falls population can't be more than around 75)

There was a documentary made about the Sombrio evictions.

[Roger]

Originally Posted by Caramia

Rob I suspect that for the most part this will not cause chaos but rather will encourage homeless camps to spread throughout the CRD, rather than concentrate themselves in Burnside and Downtown where most people are camping now. The ability for these folks to disperse is more likely to decrease conflict among homeless people, and the ability to camp in open, well-lit areas is more likely to decrease victimization. Police resources are currently eaten up moving these people from place to place. Perhaps now they can concentrate on arresting those involved in crime.

My one concern is for needles left in parks near where children play. Particularly with the fall leaves covering everything. I hope every citizen will be diligent about making sure parks near where they live are needle free. If you do find a needle, rather than trying to break off the tip, drop it in a transparent pop bottle before putting it in the garbage if possible to protect our garbage collectors.

There is no doubt that we have a homeless problem in Victoria and that we need more affordable housing, shelters and detox facilities to deal with this vulnerable segment of our population. The majority would take advantage of these facilities if they were made available but a minority chooses to live on the street like Mr. Johnston. This BC Supreme Court ruling will have a dramatic effect on our city and change the way citizens view their parks.

I believe the camps will not spread out across the CRD and suspect most will choose to camp in the downtown parks because they are close to support services (Salvation Army, Our Place etc.). Beacon Hill park will become very popular especially in the summer. We should expect more "homeless" visitors once the news gets out. Who wants to sleep in a crowded indoor shelter in the summer when you can camp on the beach? Many can't stay in a shelter anyway because they have pet dogs.

There will not be many citizens cleaning up the parks of needles, litter and excrement. The reason is simple: many won't bother to go there any more. I live in James Bay and never set foot in the park on Menzies because of the drinking and drug use that is prevalent in the daytime. You only see a few children in the park and they are under the watchful eye of their parents. Who wants to deal with needles and crack pipes when you have a family?

I visit Beacon Hill park several times a week but when the homeless start pitching tents everywhere I just won't bother to go anymore and I imagine many of my fellow citizens will do the same. People will not feel safe and the natural beauty will be diminished. The suburbs will start looking even more attractive to families.

A sad day for Victoria and its citizens.

[yodsaker]

Originally Posted by Rob Randall

Funny, today I was in a meeting of the DVBA Clean & Safe committee talking about social issues when A-News' Stephen Andrew came into the room with the shocking news.

It may be in the City's best interests to set up a tent city that is serviced and supervised in order to control the situation and prevent rogue tent cities from being set up causing social and policing problems. Police resources are stretched to the limit right now and we simply can't allow things to get out of control. I'm concerned for the security of all residents, including the homeless who are sometimes victimized in tent cities.

Agree, but it would require a degree of imagination and decision by the city not seen yet. Tent cities could be policed by a small number of officers with some supervision and control in a defined area.
Perhaps best of all the residents could develop a sense of responsibility and community now lacking. It can't be worse than people sleeping and pissing in doorways and on sidewalks all over downtown.