Defining the problem is the easy part; devising a solution is much more difficult. Yet the tent city must go. Making the tent city a permanent part of downtown will not resolve the issues that led to the encampment’s establishment. It will only worsen the problems that inevitably result from a concentration of people in a place not designed or equipped for that purpose.
The installation Friday of an outside tap for clean drinking water was understandably welcomed by tent-city residents and their supporters.
But it’s also understandable that it adds to the anxiety of people who live and work near the encampment on the courthouse lawn. They see it as a sign that the encampment is here to stay, and that fear is backed up by the provincial government’s announcement that showers and flush toilets will soon be installed on the site.
Meanwhile, police statistics support claims that the tent city has resulted in more disturbances, drug abuse and violence in the area. And that should come as no surprise — Victoria deputy police chief Steven Ing wrote provincial officials last November warning that allowing the campers to become entrenched would lead to problems.
“Past experience has also shown that a proactive approach to these types of situations is preferable to a reactive approach once the situation reaches a critical level,” he wrote.
To say that the situation is becoming intolerable for the neighbours is not to imply the neighbours are intolerant of people in need — it’s a recognition of the reality that an unplanned, unregulated tent city does not belong in the downtown core.
The people associated with Christ Church Cathedral have not only been tolerant of tent-city residents, they have been caring and supportive. They have set examples of service and compassion. They have fed and clothed the campers, and have allowed them to use their facilities.
But, as M. Ansley Tucker, dean at Christ Church Cathedral, notes in her commentary on the opposite page, it is time for the tent city to be moved. It does not serve anyone well, she says, including the campers.
Since its inception, the tent city has had its detractors and its supporters, and they have not necessarily been in two separate groups. Many who criticize the encampment have also expressed concern about homelessness and other social ills that have brought this situation about.
A few on the fringes might be of the “bring in the bulldozers” mindset, but most want to see compassionate, effective solutions.
The province, the city and social agencies collaborated on various solutions, including transitional housing and accommodation at the former youth correctional centre. Some campers declined to accept those offers, saying they want more permanent arrangements or that they prefer to live in the downtown.
Well, to quote the Rolling Stones, you can’t always get what you want. To seek a perfect solution is futile — the aim should be to improve in steps, and some of the steps will be small and less than convenient. Problems years in the making usually defy quick solutions.
And yet, problems solved too slowly tend to stay unsolved. The province’s application for an injunction won’t be heard until September, but waiting until then to formulate a strategy would mean more misery for the tent city’s neighbours and no improvement in the lives of its residents.
The tent-city issue has reached a tipping point. Patience is running out. The solution isn’t to make the courthouse camp a better place, but to find a better place for it.
