Tent Camping Homeless to Politicians: 'Face Facts!'
Court allowed temporary shelters in Victoria parks, but officials still fighting it.
Shelters were full, the park wasn't.
That the city of Victoria and the British Columbia government are so determined to keep fighting to prevent homeless people from sheltering themselves speaks volumes, said Simon Ralph, who knows the pressure first hand.
"I think the city just doesn't want to face the facts. The city doesn't want to honour the law," said Ralph, one of a dozen or so people named as defendants in the landmark case that last year overturned Victoria's anti-camping bylaws.
The case stems from an October 2005 City of Victoria injunction against people who were camping in Cridge Park, a city-owned property a block away from the provincial legislature. Lawyers for the campers challenged the injunction, arguing people had no choice but to camp when there were only 170 shelter beds for a homeless population of 1,200 or more.
The city's appeal of that ruling was presented to three court of appeal justices in two days of hearings June 10 and 11. Since the ruling, erecting shelter in Victoria parks has been legal, though the city has moved to limit the hours and has arrested people for leaving their tents up during the day. The ruling was widely seen as setting a precedent for other cities in B.C. and Canada.
"I think they're saying business and property owners have more rights than people with no property," said Ralph. "It seems to me we should all have equal rights."
'We say that that is anarchy'
Ralph is now housed, but said being able to tent with others made a huge difference in his life. "It's a transition from being completely hopeless to having a place to live," he said.
Within a few months in 2005 he went from being around homeless shelters rife with drugs and alcohol, to living with others in a tent city, to kicking his addictions. He refound his spirituality, he said, got a job and found a place to live.
Through the short-lived tent city, he said, he returned to "being a productive member of society again."
That kind of transition will be less possible if the city wins its appeal. The provincial government and the Union of B.C. Municipalities both intervened in the appeal to support Victoria's position.
In his closing remarks, the lawyer for the city, Guy McDannold, said the court striking down the city's camping bylaws took away Victoria's ability to manage public property.
"The order amounts to an allocation, an opening up of land, park land and public land," he said. People would be able to stake a claim to whatever spot they wanted, he said. "We say that that is anarchy."
No definition of 'homeless'
Representing the province, lawyer Veronica Jackson said the ruling put the city in a strange place because it was asked to regulate an activity that had previously been prohibited. You can't regulate something unless you first allow it, she said.
There were also questions about whom Madam Justice Carol Ross' ruling affects, she said, as it is unclear who is counted as 'homeless'. "The error was in not having it defined before she incorporated it into an order," Jackson said.
The ruling referred to the fact that there are many more people homeless in Victoria than there are available shelter beds. It was unconstitutional, Ross found, to prevent people from erecting shelter when there was nowhere else for them to go.
Jackson questioned what happens on nights when there are available beds. She asked, would it be practical to have city workers check whether there's space in shelters before allowing a tent to stand? And what about people who shun shelters and choose to sleep outside?
'Certain amount of hysteria'
"We're not asking you to tell the city what to do," said Catherine Boies Parker, acting for the campers. The ruling requires nothing from the city other than that its workers allow homeless campers to shelter themselves, she said. "She's left them a very large range of discretion on what to do."
Concerns were raised about 'scary people' taking over the park and making the public feel unwelcome, she said. "Many people would find it less distrubing if someone's sleeping in a park to know they were properly sheltered."
Boies Parker went through the same arguments she made to win the original case last year.
Ron Skolrood intervened on behalf of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, reiterating arguments he made in the original case as well. "At any given time in Victoria there are more homeless people than there are shelter beds," he said. "On any given night there are a significant number of people who have no option."
He noted that the city's response to the ruling appears more rooted in fear than any belief that Madam Justice Ross misinterpreted the law. "When this decision was released, there was a certain amount of hysteria from the politicians and the media," he said. "Some of this hysteria has crept into the submissions of the city."
The decision was fair and was rooted in the evidence, he said. "There's no need for this court to interfere with that."
Housing is a right: Brodsky
The Pivot Legal Society and the Poverty and Human Rights Centre also intervened in the appeal.
"The right to housing is such an important issue, a centrepiece to Canada's obligations under international human rights law," said Gwen Brodsky, one of the lawyers for the PHRC speaking outside the courthouse.
"Every resident of Canada has a right to adequate housing," she said. At the very least, government officials should not be preventing people from erecting shelter, she said. In the future, they may be forced to provide housing.
"We'd like governments to understand that their obligation should go much further," she said. "This case may not directly raise the question of the full extent of the government’s obligations, but they're there in the background."
Having heard the arguments, Madam Justice Risa Levine, Madam Justice Kathryn Neilson and Justice Harvey Groberman said they will release their decision at a later date.
Related Tyee stories:
- Homeless by Choice?
A Victoria court challenge depends on what's voluntary and what's not. - Court overturns Victoria anti-camping bylaws
- Victoria Mayor Lowe: camping defeat fault of province, feds
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
nechakogal
15-06-2009
a glimmer of light in an otherwise dark saga in BC
"Within a few months in 2005 he went from being around homeless shelters rife with drugs and alcohol, to living with others in a tent city, to kicking his addictions. He refound his spirituality, he said, got a job and found a place to live.
Through the short-lived tent city, he said, he returned to "being a productive member of society again.""
The fact that he was able pull himself together in such difficult circumstances is very admirable and there are likely many lessons to learn from his experience about community, connection and self-efficacy. I doubt government is capable of giving this to anyone. I believe government can only create opportunities for communities and individuals to foster these kind of possibilities. Government needs to restore core funding to community groups/non-profits for the provision of key programs and services, stop downloading core government services from mental health to income assistance case management and just get out of the way so able citizens can create new, innovative solutions in our communities.
Knee jerk coverage of this in the mainstream media has promoted the idea that homelessness is incorrigible and is only a problem in Victoria and the downtown eastside. People are homeless all over this province, but the problem is not insurmountable. It just takes resolve and compassion - two ingredients that appear to be missing in today's political stew.
sunshine coast girl
16-06-2009
Here's a good one for you...
Some of you know that I have a homeless, mentally ill daughter who resides in the DTES. About a month ago, she was beaten up and robbed by three men who stole her money and broke her glasses (without which she can't see a thing). She was admitted to hospital with a severe concussion and black eye. While there, victim services made contact with her.
She was released after the night to the streets again. A former boyfriend, who is also mentally ill, has been seeking her out and following her around town, yelling and screaming at her (the police are very aware of him and their problems). He found her after the beating and continued following and yelling at her. She called police, who declined to help. She was desperate for help so she called victim services. They could hear the former boyfriend screaming at her in the background. They said that even though he was not connected to the reason she had been connected with them, a victim was a victim and they could hear that she needed help. She was asked to come in.
While there she was given the address of a brand-new, transition type house that had just opened and in fact was only 1/2 full. My daughter went there and was immediately given a beautiful little studio suite, with a small kitchenette and her own bathroom, and a patio just big enough for a chair. She was over the moon when she called me. She can stay for a month. Supervised. Bug-free. She can have her three rats. While there they will help her with a housing search and it sounds like they will extend it another month if she's not successful. They have a big commercial kitchen so the residents can cook together, shop together. Common TV room. She can come and go as she pleases. Best of all there are cameras and a security guard so the former boyfriend can't harass her.
Too bad all it took was getting beat up and hospitalized. She's been down there for 8 years now and it's the first break she's caught.
Nice province we live in, eh?
Name
16-06-2009
Why is this even an issue...?
Governments, businesses and other citizens cannot simply try to keep "scary people" out of public parks. I find politicians scary but don't hold out much optimism for new bylaws to keep them out of public sight.
There is however, a perfectly legitimate case for setting rules to ensure that permitted activities at each public location are compatible (e.g. restricting off-leash dogs to certain areas, tent-only vs. RV camping sites, day-use parks, noise bylaws, lakes that permit only un-motorized boats, etc.)
If the courts have upheld that homeless people have a right to erect shelters on public property to protect themselves, then this becomes one more legitimate user group of public space that must be accommodated. The city and the province therefore have an obligation to move immediately to provide facilities to accommodate tent cities or tent villages in ways that are both appropriate and compatible with other public uses (unless they'd prefer to actually house these people).
These tent villages need not be located on the Victoria waterfront or the lawn of the Legislature, but they need to be located on a reasonably accessible space. Government must also provide and maintain public restrooms and other appropriate facilities, just as they would for other park uses (don't forget the charming flower baskets, Victoria!).
I don't see why this is complicated or problematic... It's no different from (and cost-wise a fraction on what we spend on) providing public boat launches, marinas, etc to accommodate boaters, playgrounds for children, skating ovals, curling venues, public campgrounds, visitor information centres, public hiking and cycling trails, public libraries, dog parks, fire and rescue, etc., etc...
Governments spend $25 million annually just on fish hatcheries to give BC anglers something to play with. How can anyone begrudge setting aside a couple acres here or there to allow homeless people to shelter themselves from the elements?
North of Hope
16-06-2009
A bit off topic but...
Name said, "I find politicians scary but don't hold out much optimism for new bylaws to keep them out of public sight."
Actually G. Campbell keeps himself and his ministers out of public sight very well. They did a very good job of keeping below the public's site-lines in the last election. And the MSM made sure they were not disturbed. Nor were any issues discussed that made make them appear.
BC Mary
16-06-2009
Of course, we could do it
Having an inkling that homelessness may become the lifestyle of the future, it is somewhat comforting to hear the upside of the story.
Many thanks to Andrew MacLeod for another solid report.
I can't deny feeling a little more hopeful after reading about Simon Ralph's success as a transitional camper; then the triumph of a decent home snatched from the disaster of Sunshine Coast's daughter's homeless life ... Madam Justice Ross's ruling ... Catherine Boies Parker for the campers, Ron Skolroyd for BC Civil Liberties and Gwen Brodsky for Pivot Legal Rights.
I especially like Name's matter-of-fact management style. Really, what's the problem? New user group, new designated land use, new basic facilities, problem solved.
Well done, all. I always figured we could find a way of letting people camp out ... if only we truly wanted to do it.
Bailey
16-06-2009
A modest proposal of a sort
May I suggest that instead of ordering the city to allow tents in parks, that a more appropriate place would be the grounds of the legislature and city hall?
This is public land as well, and as a bonus the only people allowed to use it now are the creators of the homelessness they refuse to acknowledge - our politicians. You know, the ones who claim they have no duty to the public, only to the contributors who pay for their privilege in large checks made out to campaign or party accounts.
I believe it would be well within the mandate of the Supreme Court to make this order, and also to order both buildings to open their bathrooms to the public, without prejudice.
Perhaps our elected worthies might be motivated to find that they really always intended to house everyone in society decently after all, and just by coincidence they can do it right away.
RickW
16-06-2009
BC Mary
In the news, and according to the economists, we have "bottomed out" and things should be getting "better" anytime now. Except, there is that niggling little fact that unemployment is STILL rising, and will continue to do so for the next year or so.
So even though things are getting "better", one must needs ask: "For Whom?"
And what will the good burghers of our fair cities have to say when the homeless populations begin to swell as they did during The Big One?