The judge’s ruling that the tent city on the courthouse lawn must be dismantled closes one chapter of the controversy, but it is not the end of the story. Homelessness and its attendant problems are not so easily banished.
Ruling in favour of the province’s application for an injunction Tuesday, Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the B.C. Supreme Court said dismantling of the tent city must begin immediately, with everything and everyone to be gone by Aug. 8.
Based on the evidence presented to him, the chief justice said he found that “there has been considerable degeneration and deterioration in the health and safety circumstances at the encampment, and for those reasons conclude that the encampment poses a health and safety risk to both its residents and the residents and businesses in the area of the encampment.”
Those who have opposed the encampment, which has occupied the courthouse lawn since last November, are relieved. The tent-city dwellers and their supporters are claiming a victory, given that the province has spent millions on transitional housing.
Both perspectives are valid. The tent city was disruptive, unhygienic and unsafe, not to mention illegal. It was more than a mere nuisance to people who lived nearby or who frequent the downtown core — people genuinely feared being accosted on the street or having their homes broken into. They rightly objected to the noise, smoke and litter emanating from the camp.
And the presence of the tent city forced the province to sit up and pay attention. It put homelessness front and centre, making it impossible to ignore. Soothing words and vague promises were not enough; action was required.
Consequently, over the past eight months, nearly 200 units of transitional and permanent housing were secured by the province for homeless people, including the purchase of three buildings and nearly $26 million in funding for spaces and services.
In a previous decision, Hinkson refused to order the tent-city residents to vacate the courthouse property because they had no place to go. He is satisfied that sufficient accommodations are available, or soon will be.
Problem solved? Not likely.
In February, accommodations were made available at the Mount Edwards care facility and the former youth detention centre, and some tent-city residents moved. But others took their place, and the population of the encampment did not decline.
Over time, conditions worsened. In his ruling, Hinkson said the nature of the tent city had changed, quoting a witness who described himself as homeless in Victoria for many years. The man said tent-city residents were initially local people he knew from his time on the streets. But he now doesn’t recognize most of the residents and he believes many came from other communities specifically to live at the tent city.
The judge has wisely ordered residents of the camp who want to take advantage of the accommodations offered to identify themselves to authorities. No newcomers will be allowed to camp on the courthouse property. That’s good — we have enough to do dealing with local homelessness; we don’t need to import more.
That’s not heartless — each region should be looking after its own people.
The accommodations provided by the province and other agencies will do much to alleviate some immediate problems, but let’s not pretend the problem will go away. Housing prices, addiction, mental illness, lifestyle choices and other factors guarantee we will always have homelessness. It’s a sort of refillable cup.
But perhaps the tent city has taught us some lessons on how better to deal with it.
