Yet another court ruling has upheld the right of people to pitch tents overnight in public parks, but it鈥檚 a victory for no one. Municipalities must still wrestle with the knotty problem of tent cities, and the homeless are still homeless.
This isn鈥檛 a problem that can be resolved with bylaws, lawsuits and court decisions. Federal, provincial and local governments must come together to form strategies that combine compassion and practicality, that balance the rights and needs of the homeless with the rights of everyone to enjoy safe and clean public parks.
sa国际传媒 Supreme Court Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson ruled on Wednesday that homeless people in Abbotsford have the right to erect temporary shelters in parks between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. because of a lack of accessible shelter space in the city.
Hinkson referred to a 2008 ruling in which the court struck down a Victoria bylaw aimed at preventing homeless people from setting up tents and sleeping in city parks. The court ruled the bylaw deprived the homeless of life, liberty and security in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Hinkson echoed the 2008 ruling.
鈥淎llowing the city鈥檚 homeless to set up shelters overnight while taking them down during the day would reasonably balance the needs of the homeless and the rights of other residents of the city,鈥� he wrote.
It might be a reasonable balance in a legal argument, but it鈥檚 not a reasonable solution in reality. Tent cities in public parks are not acceptable. They are good neither for the parks nor the people camping in them.
The parks were not designed to be campgrounds; they do not have suitable hygienic facilities and other amenities. Parks were set aside for all to use, where people can enjoy nature and the open air, where families can feel safe. Using them as campgrounds for the homeless degrades the quality of the parks, to no one鈥檚 long-term benefit.
Hinkson acknowledged that, saying that the temporary nature of the overnight camping permission would alleviate poor living conditions that arise out of more permanent makeshift settlements, such as the proliferation of drug paraphernalia, garbage, human waste and criminal elements.
But that means the campers must get up by a certain time every morning, pack up their shelters and belongings and go somewhere else. They have no secure places to store their belongings. Many of the homeless people are ill, mentally and physically. It鈥檚 an uneasy, uncertain lifestyle, not conducive to treatment and healing.
The courts have made it clear that bylaws booting campers out of the parks won鈥檛 pass muster. And such measures only serve to shuffle the problem around, rather than alleviating it.
The courts keep tossing the problem of homelessness back to the municipalities, whose resources for dealing with it are limited. The provincial and the federal governments must take larger roles. Senior governments have to accept their responsibilities in social services, mental health, addictions treatment and supportive housing. They can鈥檛 keep downloading the burden to cities and districts.
Court rulings dwell on the rights of the homeless, as they should. But collective rights are also involved. Between the rights of individuals and the needs of the community, some balance must be struck.
The causes of homelessness are as numerous as the homeless. There is no quick and easy solution, no single magic answer. Bold ideas are needed, but so are small, doable steps.
Legal battles are expensive, wasting resources that could be put toward services and housing. This shouldn鈥檛 be an adversarial battle fought in courts, but a co-operative effort to find reasonable, practical ways of helping people make their lives better.
