Coun. Ben Isitt鈥檚 sunny view of the tent city on the courthouse lawn is not likely to spark widespread agreement. Granted, the encampment brought much-needed attention to the issue of homelessness, but at a heavy price.
Isitt said at the city council meeting Thursday that the police presence in and around the encampment has proven that, with proper measures, tent cities can work.
But the downtown tent city is an eyesore, a health hazard, a cause of legitimate fear and concern among those who live nearby. Many of the people who live or have lived there have deep needs, and so the tent city became a concentration of dysfunction. The negative effects of the encampment were mitigated by an increased police presence, as well as the provision of such services as fresh water and portable toilets.
But it has been an ordeal for neighbours, and it鈥檚 not right to focus so many resources on one small area.
As Coun. Geoff Young said: 鈥淚f we spent $1 million of our police budget on one tiny neighbourhood of half a square block and we manage to achieve some semblance of civilization, to me that is not a sustainable model.鈥�
鈥淭he lesson we have to take from this is that there is a way to manage outdoor sheltering that is safe 鈥� safe for the people sleeping there and safe for the broader community,鈥� said Isitt.
Good point 鈥� with the region鈥檚 mild climate, tent villages could be one answer to homelessness. It could be an option for those who choose to live outdoors. But not on a courthouse lawn, not in public parks, not in a residential neighbourhood, not near schools.
The tent city forced the province to find transitional housing for the homeless. To that extent, it succeeded. But if future tent cities are to be part of the solution to the homelessness problem, they should be set up where they will not degrade the quality of life for neighbourhoods and schools.
Not everyone sees the tent city as Isitt sees it.
