That Council direct Staff to prepare an amendment bylaw for “Parks, Recreation and Culture Regulation Bylaw 2022 No. 7340” to revise Schedule B to include Nob Hill Park and Deverill Square Park as locations where temporary shelter and overnight accommodation are prohibited.
I would like to move that council direct staff to prepare a bylaw amendment to the parks recreation and culture regulation bylaw 2022 number 7340 to revise schedule B to include non - pill park and Deveral Square Park as locations for temporary shelter and overnight accommodation are prohibited. Secretary Council Prino. Councillor Hemmons. Thank you, your worship. Council will be familiar with scheduled via bylaws 7340, which lists the city parks where overnight sheltering is prohibited. These include Matheo Sutton, Georgia McGregor, the promenade and others. The list was made with careful consideration and understanding of where folks were already sheltering without issue. Balanced with the desire to protect our most heavily used parks and streamline enforcement efforts. Council is equally familiar with the unique situation, the South End and NONPhill neighbourhoods find themselves in playing host to significant concentrations of in proximity to social services. The motion we're debating tonight if it passes would pull those two parks into the restricted category of the bylaw. I arrived at tonight's motion after many weeks of dialogue with representatives from the South End Community Association, the Milton Heckett Block Watch Group, as well as city staff where I learned the following. Overnight sheltering at Deverol poses less of an issue. It's already fairly restricted based on the proximity, sorry, proximity of open spaces to playground structures. However, regular Camping, particularly in the summer months is growing. Pulling this park into the bylaw would provide residents with the certainty and clarity they've requested from us as they navigate the challenges specific to their neighbourhood. This is not dissimilar to the recently approved amendment to city plan where we stated our desire to see a more equitable distribution of social housing throughout the city. Knob Hill is a bigger problem. Camping is more common in there's ambiguity around if and where campers are allowed. We have no camping signage installed yet the park is not included in the schedule of restricted parks. And further applying the 20 metre buffer that's in the bylaw from Playground Structure, pushes campers into the underbrush of the sensitive Gary Oaks in the park, which is complicated for bylaws. Um, I want to be clear that I'm a supporter of the bylaw, which in effect designates spaces for people who have nowhere else to go. Um, with nearly 100 unsheltered people in our community and some of the worst shelter stats in the province, compassion must guide us. That compassion, however, must also extend to those who live in our most impacted neighbourhoods and who are enduring significant daily strain as a result of the concentration of
Armstrong East Mirror Brown and Thorpe, please. Well, thank you. I'll be supporting this neighbourhood spent years trying to clean itself up back in the 90s. I remember that very well when it was, uh, used as a stroll for the sake of argument. There was lots of issues. They worked really hard. They worked with the police. They worked with the neighbours to try and get things better. Um, they also have, um, shelters near them, which also brings people there. So I think, um, it's pretty scary when you count. Like your kids go to community neighbourhood park. And I think personally, I think all neighbourhood parks should be off limits, but we're not talking about that right now. But I'm more than happy to support this motion because I think these kids deserve to be able to go out and play safely. And it's very important to
me. Thank you. Thank you, Council Centre. Thank you. I see the desire for this. And why this is important to the Southend Community Association and those neighbourhoods. I think this does open up a more broad conversation around what makes a park an appropriate place for people to shelter overnight. And for me, you know, taking some perks off the list and then pushing people into other parks that don't have amenities for people to be able to really shelter overnight with what they need, which is like access to washrooms. Like if you're allowed to camp in a park overnight, but there's no washroom accessible. That's, we're creating a messy situation to say the least. So. Um, I'm interested in, and I know we have been having conversations about where. People are able to sleep overnight if they do not have a home. And I know that's a very difficult challenge for us as a city because we have a serious lack of shelter beds, um, in the city, especially during the summer and pushing people into the parks creates safety risks around fires. And heavy use in the off trail areas of parks. So I just think it's a really tough issue. And we don't have appropriate places for people to camp overnight. Um, and city parks are not set up in a way that, that really make them appropriate for overnight sheltering. They're just right now it's like a last ditch option, but, um, they're not really set up for that. So I do think we should be having a broader conversation around, can we create a safe space in the city for, that is designated for camping overnight for people who do not have a home that has access to running water and washrooms at the very least. Um, but for now with this particular conversation, sure, I'm supportive of removing camping in Knob Hill and Deborah Park. Those parks are not at all appropriate for overnight sheltering. But this is part of a much broader conversation that we need to do more on than
Good discussion around the table here. I am. Hate to see people camping in barks. And, uh, we hear complaints about, and serious concerns about people camping in Bowen Park. And I live half a block from Bowen Bark. And it's a serious concern for myself and my neighbours about fires that, and I've talked to the fire chief about this, the number of times they've had to go in there. Um, we need to get beyond this situation. You know, we have a court ruling that says that people, if they don't have access to shelter. Have a right to camp in city parks. And I recall in the 1980s when food banks were a temporary measure. And now they are an institution to the point where we're building a massive warehouse for our local food bank. And, um, we need to get back into building affordable housing so that low income seniors and people with disabilities and low wage workers have a place to live in a decent place to live. And that, uh, shelters are for emergency purposes only. Um, but at this stage, I think I will support this. I do share the concerns that councillor Brown has expressed about the legal concerns. And, um, I just, I do hear from people in other parts of the city that are, you know, the participant park up in Bebbin, uh, Bowen Park. We hear from people regularly about concerns in these other parts. And so, uh, you know, we advocate to the provincial government for more affordable housing and more shelter spaces. And that's the work that we need to continue to do. Thank you. Thank you.
Thorpe and Council Manning. Thank you, worship. I may have a comment that leads into a question for staff. Um. And I'm, it's going back sometime though, but. I believe the purpose of this bylaw. Was brought in after the judicial ruling with respect to camping. Or camping in parks could not be necessarily prohibited if there wasn't enough shelter space within a given community for, um, or there wasn't enough beds or shelter space in a community for those that were experiencing homelessness. So at the time there was conversation and I think most of that work was done by staff around identifying parks. That would. Provide, I think, the kind of parks that we imagine parks being in us, you know, safe places for all those that use them. While also finding balance with meeting kind of whatever that judicial ruling laid out without a perfect formula. So my question through the staff is if the way this motion reads, it's a direct amendment and I completely understand. It's a direct amendment to address two parks. Um. My question to you to staff though is, is doing. So if staff read this motion literally, would there be any of that internal discussion about finding that balance to make sure that we're kind of safe from legal challenge. You
worship absolutely this, um, amendment to our parks by, uh, came from that court decision. There's no question. Was it direct relation between needing to find that balance and looking for places where people who do not have access to shelter can, um, provide or can be accommodated on a temporary basis. And it is just the overnight hours that are allowed. Um, so we were, we were very careful in terms of which parks were restricted. And there is a list in the bylaw where no camping's allowed. And those primarily, um, those areas along our waterfront from departure bay all the way to Cameron Island, I would say. A couple of additional points like around City Hall. The gardens around city hall, but the provision in there about 20 metres away from, um, improvement in a park. So that'd be like a playground or a pool or. A garden. Washing facility. Um, so if you apply those setbacks, the number of parks, especially smaller neighbourhood parks, it would be excluded. So you kind of, and we recognise this at the time push people generally to larger to our larger parks as places where temporary accommodation was permitted. So that, that was the balance, trying to protect the infrastructure, trying to protect neighbourhoods, but also respect the court order. At the time. On the two that are in front of you tonight, I would say, um. I haven't mapped it out myself, but I would be almost certainly devil square. If you apply the 20 metre, um, the 20 metre setback around like the play fields and everything, there is no place to camp there. It would be one of those parks that would be excluded because of the setbacks. But having it clearly in the byla would be helpful. Uh, haven't done the same for no appeal. I suspect the smaller area in the middle of that park maybe where arguably camping would still be allowed for under the bylaw. But it would be very limited in area,
but still it is definitely occurring. Okay. And if we, like I'm just cognizant, all of a sudden we start adding on park after park at what point are we risking the legal challenge of effectively prohibiting camping in parks
citywide. I don't know the answer to that. I think, I think, um, unless the courts provide further clarity around that, I guess that's always a risk. It's a risk with our existing bylaw maybe today too. Um, but we do have one thing that I'm always blessed with is a significant amount of park land. Is it in the most accessible locations for people? I don't know, but we do have some fairly large parks where this is still allowed. And a call, it can be accommodated under the
bylaw. Okay. Thank you. I'm a little bit torn by this one just because like I fully appreciate any neighbourhood park. Don't want camping, but I'm also worried that if we start pushing people into too deep of parks, the associated fire risk of that. When you don't know where folks are camping, um, can increase. So. You know, ultimately, I think I'll vote in favor of this because it would come back with amendment bylaws and a staff report. So, uh, I will support it at this stage. Thank
Councilprino. Uh, thank you, your worship. It's interesting when I first read this, um, it's the fire risk, right? You've got all those beautiful, huge trees throughout our parks and having people camping there needing to keep warm or, or cook food. It's, it's a dangerous mix. And I, I. The very first thing that I thought of when I saw the two parks was good, too less that don't have to face the horrible risk that are out there. What I'm wondering, uh, through your worship, if I could ask a question of staff, something that councillor Thorpe said about operational. And I tend to agree with that statement. And I'm just wondering if staff. From an operational perspective, are there other parks? Are these two that would have been considered? Are there others that, uh, you would have
considered as well. Your worship, I don't think staff have really turned their minds to reviewing this license, the bylaw was drafted. So I don't think I can really answer that question. Okay. Other than acknowledging, we have certain parts of our community that are definitely under strain and have been. And we're seeing, you know, more activity in some areas of the city than other. That's just, that's just
the reality. Yeah. Okay. So the strain of what people are going through in our community is horrible. And we, we know we need help. Obviously, from the provincial government. But the strain that our parks and the neighbourhoods are going through is also a huge consequence. And we need to mitigate some of that. So for that reason, I'll be voting in favor of this. But I definitely, I think, um. I think it's important to note there is some legal issues that we would, that we could be facing. And that was an important comment that we heard here at this table, but, um, I think for the life of our parks, I think we need to be as protective as possible. So I'll be voting in favor.