City council rejects developing criteria for allowable tent encampments

A motion to direct city administration to develop criteria for allowable tent encampment areas in Thunder Bay was lost at Monday night’s city council meeting after a split vote and a failed amendment.

The initial proposal, introduced by Coun. Kristen Oliver, was intended to set clear guidelines for where tent encampments could be safely located as part of the city’s human rights-based community action plan.

During the debate, Coun. Rajni Agarwal moved to amend Oliver’s motion by removing sections that would have delegated authority to administration to work with “agency partners and individuals living in encampments” to select locations once overall criteria was approved, and mandated staff continue to update council and share information with the public. Agarwal argued that decision-making should remain with council until public consultation is complete.

“This is such a sensitive topic,” she said. “If the administration chooses areas that the public doesn’t want, then what? We get all the calls.”

Agarwal also talked about stressing the need for robust engagement with residents, businesses, service providers and people with lived experience of homelessness before moving forward.

Councillors voted a 5–5 tie on Agarwal’s amendment, resulting in a loss.

During the discussion, Coun. Brian Hamilton voiced skepticism about council’s ability to make effective policy on encampments.

“The public has about zero public confidence in this body to make good decisions around public policy on homeless encampments,” Hamilton said. “I certainly don’t have the confidence that this body can make these very tough decisions that are absolutely dependent on having good data and good information.”

“We get swayed easily by emotions, we get swayed easily by the politics of it.”

His comments drew a sharp response from Coun. Mark Bentz.

“To have a member speak that he has zero confidence in this body … I take great offence at that,” he said. “This is a body duly elected, and as councillors, our code of ethics states that we get on board with (council decisions).”

When Oliver’s original motion returned to the floor, it also ended in a 5–5 tie and was lost. Hamilton noted three councillors were absent from the meeting.

“This could be a very different conversation when it comes back — in a couple of weeks — when it comes up for ratification,” Hamilton said. – tbnewswatch.com

article website here

Any chance of controlling encampments around the city was lost years ago.  Had our high salaried residents of City Hall acted swiftly and decisively right from the start, with strong enforcement, we would not be in this situation now.  Claiming that its a human right to set up a tent anywhere a person wants in the city is just plain stupid.  That approach to the homeless situation only creates chaos. And that is what we have now in Thunder Bay.  Chaos. Chaos and lots and lots of garbage.

The term ‘service providers’ to identify the ‘unhoused/addicted/mentally-ill industrial complex’ is also a misnomer as all of these groups that service this community are, one way or another,  funded by the taxpayer. They have no other form of income.  If the ‘unhoused/addicted/mentally-ill’ suddenly disappear, all of these organizations will disappear. The workers will be unemployed with little hope of finding another job.  Their skill set is limited.

I am afraid that the battle is lost. The giant money sucking pit that is the ‘unhoused/addicted/mentally-ill industrial complex’ has its tentacles firmly wrapped around our high salaried residents of City Hall. City Hall is afraid to make any decision that will offend that complex even though the vast majority of the population of the city want them to do something to clean this city up.  Grow a backbone.  Get tough.

I do not believe that any solution to help the ‘unhoused/addicted/mentally-ill ‘ population should make them better off than the working poor in the city.  Free everything forever for the ‘unhoused/addicted/mentally-ill’  is hard to take for someone working a full time job earning just enough to cover rent and food.

Another thing….why is the Indigenous portion of the ‘unhoused/addicted/mentally-ill  encampment population not the problem of the Indigenous FNs?  Why are they not taking responsibility for them?  I don’t hear anything coming from the FNs as far as possible solutions are concerned.  Do the FNs not have land that can host encampments?  Do the FNs not have money to support their share of the ‘unhoused/addicted/mentally-ill’ population?  Why is this just a city problem?

If City Hall does not act soon, this situation is going to get ugly.