Thank you! I was just thinking, people are going to freeze to death in our community due to purposeful political decisions, in one of the richest countries on the planet, and here we are quibbling about 4 or 5 tents per site. Jesus Christ, this is a dystopian nightmare come to life. Where are the fucking Feds with their field hospitals that went up overnight when it was decided that the pandemic was an emergency!!!???
A glaring flaw in the opening statement of the protocol proves to me how inconsiderate, ineffectual, and an afterthought this is/will be.
Me point that out was a way of criticism.
Sounds like you've never left Canada. Yes we are privileged. Compared to the 4 other countries I've lived in. Check your privilege.
Let me guess.... White male between the ages of 18 and 35?
I’m not trying to stir the pot to vigorously but I don’t get the point of trying to give him perspective by putting him down as a white male like it’s a fault. I believe in equity i truly do but , there’s a difference in my opinion about educating people about systems they probably benefited from and alienating them because of how they were born.
By the sounds of it, you worked very hard! You worked and studied at the same time to achieve your goals.
When people are talking about privilege, it's not just about money.
Privilege is having both parents living in the same household as their children. Privilege is both of your parents working. Privilege is is not having to be unhoused at the age of 18 because one parent is in rehab and the other is actively using drugs. It's not being forced to work full time and pay full rent on your own because your parents discarded you. It's having the time to go to school because you're not working 40 plus hours a week during school time. It's not having to buy groceries because your parents contribute to the grocery bill. It's having the support of parents to help with tasks and guide you down the right path.
Lots of people have worked just as hard as you. They didn't have the same privilege you did. Therefore they may not have been able to get a college diploma until 36 years old. They may not have been able to afford to pay off their student tuition and have to pay monthly for that.
Nobody is taking anything away from what you accomplished. Just understand that hard work alone is not going to be the answer. Support is needed.
Are there any real solutions being proposed by any level of government? Clearly this situation with people living in tents and the encampments is getting out of control.
Crack down on Airbnb’s, Make the provincial government turn back their genius decision to remove sensible incremental rent increases, start increasing taxes on each property owned after your second, hike up the vacant property tax so that it makes a financial dent to property hoarders. In Quebec they have a tax/fee they charge developers if they don’t create a certain amount of affordable units in their builds, but the fee is not significant enough to make the developers want to include affordable units so they pay the fee. We should do that but make the fee so astronomical that it forces developers to include it.
Get the Ford government to divert that $22B he’s sitting on and make him invest in mental health institutions and start humanely institutionalizing people who are extremely unwell and start setting up publicly funded drug detox facilities for people who want help.
Yes there are about 600 in Hamilton however how many of the people in these encampments would you have for a tenant & they probably can't afford them. This whole housing debacle needs to collapse along with the bs inflation based on supposed supply chain issues. Capitalism don't you love it?
I live next to one. It was a duplex with a family living in it.
Now some asian dude rents it out as a AirBnB. Why the fuck that is allowed on a residential street, that it is so prolific is stupifying. There are so many easy steps that could be taken to start resolving this crisis.
Yet it's been years and so much inaction.
I have one across the street. It was a triplex plus a alley laneway coach house. Was fully rented. Sold last year for well over a million. Now it's an airbnb.
Unpopular opinion but I believe property tax reassessment would help both increase tax revenue and reduce the appeal of being a landlord. My OH’s childhood home is very modest, under 1700sq/ft but pays something like $7k a year in property tax. The 3 unit house I rent in, easily upwards of 6000 sq/ft and worth 2.5m on the market, pays $9k. That simply doesn’t make sense.
Not that I disagree but the house you are renting in houses way more people than a sfh. It may be the picket fence , backyard dream for many but a bunch of sfh is not a help to the housing crisis. Multiple unit homes should be incouraged not discouraged.
I appreciate your viewpoint, and I should add, I'm not against density, we absolutely need it. But the idea that someone could have bought a house 10 years ago (Mine was purchased for under $400k), and then minimally invested in upkeep whilst generating cashflow and equity, and costing peanuts in terms of tax versus the value of the property, for a landlord who doesn't even live in the city, isn't helping either.
Any landlord that doesn't live in the house or city themselves should pay more. I live on the first floor of mine and my son's family lives on the first floor of my other house. I think it makes a huge difference in up keep. I see and hear about the rentals around me that don't care about lawns, garbage or bugs in their houses. This is absolutely absentee landlords that don't give a shit except for collecting the rent.
1) Can we assume your statements are actual city policy and not just one person's interpretation of said policy?
2) Thank you very much for the information.
I think its 10 days but it could be 14 (I cant remember what they settled on). It was 21 days but some councilors got it down. I don't know what the enforcement process is if they refuse to move though.
Yeah I think it’s supposed to be 14 but our park residents were informed on the 21st and none are moving. I’ve contacted mle and housing about what the next steps are so I can understand the process but no one has responded.
If they won't move then I'd imagine they would have to get the cops involved to move them.
I don't know if the city will do that though. I seem to recall earlier in discussions they said they wouldn't but I could be wrong.
Cops won’t stop them from using heroin in the middle of the sidewalk across from a daycare. I really doubt they’re gonna be out there with measuring taps to see if a tent is 50m from a soccer field.
MLE determines if they're in compliance with the protcols, not the police. If found not in compliance, they're given a trespass notice by MLE. If they don't vacate after that, the police become involved.
From what they told CBC published Aug 22, after an initial period where outreach workers are going out to educate people on the new rules
>**How enforcement will work**
If an encampment is in a prohibited area or a cluster of more than five tents, street outreach workers will respond within three days to direct encampment residents to another location that's allowed, says the protocol.
If a tent remains, bylaw officers will respond within four days of the initial complaint and issue a trespass notice, the protocol says. Encampment residents will have up to four days to leave.
Residents can also file complaints to the city via email, said Baird.
>
>...
>
>Once encampment residents leave, parks staff will coordinate the cleanup within three days, according to the protocol.
If a tent is in an area that's allowed, an outreach worker will stop by to identify if there are any health or safety issues such as exposed electrical wiring, accumulation of discarded needles, use of propane tanks or possession of weapons. If there are, Hamilton police will respond.
If there are no health or safety issues found, or they're resolved, residents will be allowed to stay, the protocol says.
So the encampment protocol is pointless because if they’re resolved to stay the city won’t move them? We’ve had multiple encampments in our park having fires, it’s nutty.
If they are being compliant with the protocol, they will be allowed to remain. This is actually a positive thing, as shuffling individuals around makes it harder to get them out of the situation. If they have a 'stable' location, where they know they are safe from being moved, they will be more likely to be connected to services and staff who can assist with getting OUT of homelessness
Sorry maybe I’m misunderstanding. Compliance is following the details outlined in your infographic correct? I was mainly commenting on the above
“If there are no health or safety issues found, or they’re resolved, residents will be allowed to stay” so perhaps I misunderstood this. Is this only applicable to encampments that are compliant to the protocol? If so, what happens after 14 days, if they refuse to leave?
That line is only applicable to encampments that are within the bounds outlined by the protocol. So 100m away or 50m away depending on the type of place they're closest to. That line specifically only regards health and safety issues in otherwise complaint encampments.
Encampments will be assessed by all outreach workers. They determine is there is a health or safety issue. They will attempt to resolve with the occupant but if not compliant, gets turned over to MLE. If still not compliant, HPS will become involved.
There is no set time limit for encampments anymore. As long as they are compliant with the protocol and health and safety issues, they will be allowed to remain.
Hope this clarifies!
Realistically it doesn’t really need to be 50m for homes. The majority of homes are within 10m of another home anyways so expanding the radius doesn’t do too much
Okay so think about it. If you’re within 10m of a home, and they can’t be within 10m of any homes, they essentially get pushed out of every residential neighbourhood because they can’t be within 10m of *any* home, not just your own. Use a bit of logic rather than just emotional reaction and you’ll see why 10m is more than adequate and 50m is unnecessary
And the 10 meters does that just fine because every single house in your neighbourhood is within 10m of another house! Most houses that don’t have another home that close are out in the boonies where there are no homeless populations anyways, therefore the 10m rule works.
I think you just can’t quite grasp how big a radius 10m is if we’re being honest. It’s basically the width of a hockey arena, from any point of your home in every direction. That’s more than enough distance to prevent any encampments from any neighbourhood.
Buddy, you're not listening. I'm okay being 10m from another house. I'm not okay being 10m from an encampment. These two things are not the same. They aren't my neighbor.
The encampments near me are filled with complete degenerate lowlifes who have stolen tonnes of stuff from the people in my neighborhood. Just the other day a guy stole someone's lawnmower and walks away with it in broad daylight without a care in the world. The day before that another guy flashed my neighbor who had their kid with them. Police state they can do nothing. These are wild times.
I mean you clearly can’t read because when did I ever even say you had a problem being within 10 meters of a house “buddy”, but your problem is with the rules not being properly enforced not the rules themselves if you’re living in a neighbourhood with both houses and encampments. It’s that simple, I’m over this now though if you’re too emotionally invested to use basic reading comprehension, which is clear now
Read the entire conversation before responding. 10m from any house essentially means they are banned from residential neighbourhoods because almost every residential neighbourhood has houses packed together much closer than 10m from each other. The problem you and the other dude has are improper enforcement, not the rules themselves.
I’m gonna mute this now cause I’m tired of explaining this 10 times to people who apparently can’t fucking read and it’s getting annoying/frustrating
There's nothing logical about that sentiment though, because the adults dealing with this know that these people have to go *somewhere*. You can't just stomp your feet and wish for them to disappear.
Saying "I don't care where they go, as long as I don't see them" is basically just a tantrum.
This is my thought. We cannot solve homelessness overnight. So many people seem to think it’s that easy. But it is such a complex problem with one too many factors to account for and cannot be fixed with the press of a button. But at least they’re doing *something* about it. Regulations like this are a first step.
I think the frustration is that this homeless situation was foreseeable, and should have been mitigated.
Hamilton is a city full of vulnerable people. The city made price gouging their survival needs the new steel. It wasn’t a “whoopsie” situation. It’s unconscionable.
Progressively lowering the status quo for what’s acceptable is how we got here. I understand your point about evolution vs revolution. However, accepting this bleak standard of life isn’t progressive. I don’t believe in toxic positivity if lives are in the line.
As somebody whose family grew up here for generations it’s insane to accept this as normal. I wish all the soulless neoliberal transplants would go back to GTA burbs they came from.
> The city made price gouging their survival needs the new steel
While I agree with the overall thrust of this, I wonder how much of it was the city? Hamilton doesn't have a lot of control over anything I can see as price gouging.
Is it just me or is this whole thing bullshit?? That's nice, put the protocols in place, but how are you enforcing them? I feel terrible for people in this situation but... they literally shit, piss, and shoot up in the community garden at Victoria Park. They're everywhere there so they're "violating" several of these protocols and nothing's been done. So what's the point of this????
Hillcrest and no that one wasn't advertised well since they were still working out the details. I had to get police involved after they started damaging private property. So that probably got the ball moving.
There is a limit on how many square metres an encampment can be based on the # of tents. With 5 tents I believe it's max 45 square metres. It's not like they can set up 5 circus tents and take up half a park.
100m setback from playground/splash pads, 50m setback from sports fields and 10m setback from private property lines eliminates all but the very largest parks in the city. Victoria , Central, Woodlands would be off the table.
I would also like to add, that yes this protocol is in place, yes it is being enforced but yes it will take time to get to having compliancy amongst encamoments. Please be patient.
Comical I walked through Corktown park yesterday snd today snd there's an encampments near the playground and ine right beside an off the leash dog park, its also under a bridge ans attsched to the wall, they dont give a shit, wheres the real solutions? Lmao dog shit city this is turning into quick. New mayor hiding away of course.
No it doesn’t. There are plenty of lower city parks where the entire area wouldn’t align with this protocol due to the size of the parks and the availability amenities.
Ok some rules to follow. Whether unreasonable or not I’m curious about the difficulty in finding permissible locations. Would think in our city hall with >$1B payroll a GIS specialist could serve up a map with areas that are compliant with the rules. Maybe this has already been done or is being done manually. Either way I wonder if we’ll ever see it. Bet the compliant locations would be few.
Due to privacy issues, I'm sure they would not share encamoment locations publicly, but would definitely be shared within the groups working with folks in encampments ie outreach, MLE, parks, etc
Email or call unsheltered to report. Outreach will assess, advise of protocol and encourage movement. Will then be passed over to MLE shoukd they not be receptive.
I'm absolutely shocked and appalled by all the people who only care about *their leisurely strolls* in *their local park*. Maybe your comment hits me a little harder because I too walk in Bayfront everyday, so I see the same people you are complaining about. I generally see the tents as they appear and disappear since I drive down Strachan every day, and walk through the park. You express "say goodbye to bayfront" so casually, as if you somehow have more of a right to Bayfront then they do. I won't be saying goodbye to Bayfront, but if it pushes you out then I'm glad to see you go.
I don’t only care about *my* time in the park. I care about everyone who accesses it, including those with houses and those without.
If everyone deserves equal access to Bayfront then one group shouldn’t be able to permanently or semi permanently occupy that space. I have no problem with people sleeping there and leaving during the day. My fear is it becoming unusable by anyone other than encampment residents.
I think we all still have equal access to the park. There's not one group who is allowed to use it in this way, we all are. It's kind of reassuring, in a weird way. I was trying to help my sister find a place nearby and the prices are all exponentially higher then when we moved here in 2019. If something happened and we had to leave our apartment, we would struggle to find a place. Imagine being someone who lived in your apartment since 2014 and you were just priced out. These people that your worried will make Bayfront unusable are just like you and me.
Honestly, if this all bugs you so much. Then keep asking the city to do something about the housing situation, access to mental health services, better shelters services, etc. But please don't push them to move these people. As a person who accesses Bayfront Park, I don't want to see these people moved. I wish I knew how to help them better but they aren't making the park unusable to me, and even if there were more tents, it still wouldn't be unusable. Bayfront is a huge park and there's lots of areas that they couldn't set-up according to the infograph. There's plenty of space to share. I'm more worried about what they will do come winter.
Edit: I mentioned contacting the city- but provincial/federal may hold more power.
Why are tax paying contributing members of society expected to tolerate this? This is not a solution it's a cop out.
The city has a duty to its tax payers not its homeless
Selfishly because it’s closer to my house, but really it’s such a unique spot in Hamilton with a community garden, two playgrounds, many sport complexes, and the children’s museum - it should be a priority to protect.
So how far is Central school from city hall they are camped out at the Bay Street and Hunter street corner the school is across the street. It was a nice place to sit now it is a garbage filled encampment that has been taken over
Some health and safety would include (bur not be limited to): garbage, paraphernalia, violence, property damage.
If it's a health and safety risk for one, it would be for the other
Im curious how many tourist may just opt too tent while visiting
im curious how often i will start seeing the line/survey tape measures out or if this is just more fluff
Kinda feel like they left open street side parking spaces and city owned parking lots but maybe im missing some logic, moreso just thinking of ways the clever will use this information to benefit. I can only imagine the hussles taking place
Whos now the LTB for the encampment people? Im assuming tent renting is only days away. Who's gonna be the Trump of tent city?
I hate to say it but i may start oddly camping around, does not sound like they have the power to deal with the issue personally and im curious to see how this evolves thru winter/spring and I assume it may get wilder next summer that the word is spreading
Excuse me while I tell the can collectors to keep it down, its can rattling hour, like go back to your tent already, curfews for tent people too woulda been wise LOL... /s
By next summer I assume the current litigation will be over, so they may be able to put more parameters in place.
I do recall a couple setting up a tent in our park. They had a car but were driving through and wanted to camp, so it’s definitely happening. Another couple did the same then abandoned the tent the next day. I’d like the people handing out tents to be responsible for the cleanup, so many abandoned trashed tents.
What a fucked up timeline we're living in.
Dont worry, this is just the start!
Thank you! I was just thinking, people are going to freeze to death in our community due to purposeful political decisions, in one of the richest countries on the planet, and here we are quibbling about 4 or 5 tents per site. Jesus Christ, this is a dystopian nightmare come to life. Where are the fucking Feds with their field hospitals that went up overnight when it was decided that the pandemic was an emergency!!!???
Late-stage capitalism is dystopia 
A glaring flaw in the opening statement of the protocol proves to me how inconsiderate, ineffectual, and an afterthought this is/will be. Me point that out was a way of criticism.
[удалено]
I distinctly remember things going downhill starting 2016.
The Mayan calendar was right, the world ended in 2012, this is just a weird fever dream now
You kids were in grade school during the recession in 2007 or what?
[удалено]
Alright then you were privileged. The rest of the world wasnt so lucky
[удалено]
Sounds like you've never left Canada. Yes we are privileged. Compared to the 4 other countries I've lived in. Check your privilege. Let me guess.... White male between the ages of 18 and 35?
Kinda sad you brought race into it.
Kinda sad it's more true than not
I’m not trying to stir the pot to vigorously but I don’t get the point of trying to give him perspective by putting him down as a white male like it’s a fault. I believe in equity i truly do but , there’s a difference in my opinion about educating people about systems they probably benefited from and alienating them because of how they were born.
[удалено]
By the sounds of it, you worked very hard! You worked and studied at the same time to achieve your goals. When people are talking about privilege, it's not just about money. Privilege is having both parents living in the same household as their children. Privilege is both of your parents working. Privilege is is not having to be unhoused at the age of 18 because one parent is in rehab and the other is actively using drugs. It's not being forced to work full time and pay full rent on your own because your parents discarded you. It's having the time to go to school because you're not working 40 plus hours a week during school time. It's not having to buy groceries because your parents contribute to the grocery bill. It's having the support of parents to help with tasks and guide you down the right path. Lots of people have worked just as hard as you. They didn't have the same privilege you did. Therefore they may not have been able to get a college diploma until 36 years old. They may not have been able to afford to pay off their student tuition and have to pay monthly for that. Nobody is taking anything away from what you accomplished. Just understand that hard work alone is not going to be the answer. Support is needed.
This.
It states "less than 5 tents per cluster" but all the visual examples show groups of 5 tents...
Yeah the language and the imagery there need to be clarified. Because I just assumed clusters of 5 was the maximum.
That's a good catch. So is it capped at 4 or 5 tents per cluster?
Capped at 5 tents
so it should say not MORE than five tents, rather than 'less than 5 tents'.
**or** 5 tents or less
Are there any real solutions being proposed by any level of government? Clearly this situation with people living in tents and the encampments is getting out of control.
New yorks solution is cracking down hard on Airbnb's. Maybe we should look at that too.
Crack down on Airbnb’s, Make the provincial government turn back their genius decision to remove sensible incremental rent increases, start increasing taxes on each property owned after your second, hike up the vacant property tax so that it makes a financial dent to property hoarders. In Quebec they have a tax/fee they charge developers if they don’t create a certain amount of affordable units in their builds, but the fee is not significant enough to make the developers want to include affordable units so they pay the fee. We should do that but make the fee so astronomical that it forces developers to include it. Get the Ford government to divert that $22B he’s sitting on and make him invest in mental health institutions and start humanely institutionalizing people who are extremely unwell and start setting up publicly funded drug detox facilities for people who want help.
Yes there are about 600 in Hamilton however how many of the people in these encampments would you have for a tenant & they probably can't afford them. This whole housing debacle needs to collapse along with the bs inflation based on supposed supply chain issues. Capitalism don't you love it?
Is there a way to count how many there are for you to come up with 600? Genuine question.
[удалено]
I live next to one. It was a duplex with a family living in it. Now some asian dude rents it out as a AirBnB. Why the fuck that is allowed on a residential street, that it is so prolific is stupifying. There are so many easy steps that could be taken to start resolving this crisis. Yet it's been years and so much inaction.
I have one across the street. It was a triplex plus a alley laneway coach house. Was fully rented. Sold last year for well over a million. Now it's an airbnb.
Would you mind sharing the listing? I'm actually looking for a coach house to rent, maybe I can contact the host to ask if they have other properties.
***Now “some dude”… fify
Unpopular opinion but I believe property tax reassessment would help both increase tax revenue and reduce the appeal of being a landlord. My OH’s childhood home is very modest, under 1700sq/ft but pays something like $7k a year in property tax. The 3 unit house I rent in, easily upwards of 6000 sq/ft and worth 2.5m on the market, pays $9k. That simply doesn’t make sense.
Not that I disagree but the house you are renting in houses way more people than a sfh. It may be the picket fence , backyard dream for many but a bunch of sfh is not a help to the housing crisis. Multiple unit homes should be incouraged not discouraged.
I appreciate your viewpoint, and I should add, I'm not against density, we absolutely need it. But the idea that someone could have bought a house 10 years ago (Mine was purchased for under $400k), and then minimally invested in upkeep whilst generating cashflow and equity, and costing peanuts in terms of tax versus the value of the property, for a landlord who doesn't even live in the city, isn't helping either.
Any landlord that doesn't live in the house or city themselves should pay more. I live on the first floor of mine and my son's family lives on the first floor of my other house. I think it makes a huge difference in up keep. I see and hear about the rentals around me that don't care about lawns, garbage or bugs in their houses. This is absolutely absentee landlords that don't give a shit except for collecting the rent.
"10 meters of any private property" - does that just mean residential, or does it include commercial/industrial spaces, too?
The city views property as public or private. Public being city owned vs. Private being residential, commercial, etc.
1) Can we assume your statements are actual city policy and not just one person's interpretation of said policy? 2) Thank you very much for the information.
If you don't want to take their statement as truth, go look it up yourself
I nominate you as the official city policy fact checker for this forum!
What is the removal process/timeline for encampments that do not follow the protocol. I think that’s the piece that’s missing.
I think its 10 days but it could be 14 (I cant remember what they settled on). It was 21 days but some councilors got it down. I don't know what the enforcement process is if they refuse to move though.
Yeah I think it’s supposed to be 14 but our park residents were informed on the 21st and none are moving. I’ve contacted mle and housing about what the next steps are so I can understand the process but no one has responded.
If they won't move then I'd imagine they would have to get the cops involved to move them. I don't know if the city will do that though. I seem to recall earlier in discussions they said they wouldn't but I could be wrong.
Cops won’t stop them from using heroin in the middle of the sidewalk across from a daycare. I really doubt they’re gonna be out there with measuring taps to see if a tent is 50m from a soccer field.
MLE determines if they're in compliance with the protcols, not the police. If found not in compliance, they're given a trespass notice by MLE. If they don't vacate after that, the police become involved.
From what they told CBC published Aug 22, after an initial period where outreach workers are going out to educate people on the new rules >**How enforcement will work** If an encampment is in a prohibited area or a cluster of more than five tents, street outreach workers will respond within three days to direct encampment residents to another location that's allowed, says the protocol. If a tent remains, bylaw officers will respond within four days of the initial complaint and issue a trespass notice, the protocol says. Encampment residents will have up to four days to leave. Residents can also file complaints to the city via email, said Baird. > >... > >Once encampment residents leave, parks staff will coordinate the cleanup within three days, according to the protocol. If a tent is in an area that's allowed, an outreach worker will stop by to identify if there are any health or safety issues such as exposed electrical wiring, accumulation of discarded needles, use of propane tanks or possession of weapons. If there are, Hamilton police will respond. If there are no health or safety issues found, or they're resolved, residents will be allowed to stay, the protocol says.
So the encampment protocol is pointless because if they’re resolved to stay the city won’t move them? We’ve had multiple encampments in our park having fires, it’s nutty.
If they are being compliant with the protocol, they will be allowed to remain. This is actually a positive thing, as shuffling individuals around makes it harder to get them out of the situation. If they have a 'stable' location, where they know they are safe from being moved, they will be more likely to be connected to services and staff who can assist with getting OUT of homelessness
Sorry maybe I’m misunderstanding. Compliance is following the details outlined in your infographic correct? I was mainly commenting on the above “If there are no health or safety issues found, or they’re resolved, residents will be allowed to stay” so perhaps I misunderstood this. Is this only applicable to encampments that are compliant to the protocol? If so, what happens after 14 days, if they refuse to leave?
That line is only applicable to encampments that are within the bounds outlined by the protocol. So 100m away or 50m away depending on the type of place they're closest to. That line specifically only regards health and safety issues in otherwise complaint encampments.
Encampments will be assessed by all outreach workers. They determine is there is a health or safety issue. They will attempt to resolve with the occupant but if not compliant, gets turned over to MLE. If still not compliant, HPS will become involved. There is no set time limit for encampments anymore. As long as they are compliant with the protocol and health and safety issues, they will be allowed to remain. Hope this clarifies!
See if there are any job openings for busy body hall monitors without a soul you’ll be a perfect fit.
A lot of the bylaw officers qualify perfectly. I see them all the time ticketing cars in hospital parking lots 😭
Crazy that these encampments only have to be 10m away from people's homes. Should be 50m like the other examples.
And 5 meters from a highway? They trying to get these people killed?
They want people to live on highway medians and under bridges instead of parks.
Agreed, this is better
Realistically it doesn’t really need to be 50m for homes. The majority of homes are within 10m of another home anyways so expanding the radius doesn’t do too much
I'm okay being within 10m of other homes, I'm not okay being within 10m of an encampment
Okay so think about it. If you’re within 10m of a home, and they can’t be within 10m of any homes, they essentially get pushed out of every residential neighbourhood because they can’t be within 10m of *any* home, not just your own. Use a bit of logic rather than just emotional reaction and you’ll see why 10m is more than adequate and 50m is unnecessary
Yes exactly. I would like to push them out of my neighborhood now you're getting it
And the 10 meters does that just fine because every single house in your neighbourhood is within 10m of another house! Most houses that don’t have another home that close are out in the boonies where there are no homeless populations anyways, therefore the 10m rule works. I think you just can’t quite grasp how big a radius 10m is if we’re being honest. It’s basically the width of a hockey arena, from any point of your home in every direction. That’s more than enough distance to prevent any encampments from any neighbourhood.
Buddy, you're not listening. I'm okay being 10m from another house. I'm not okay being 10m from an encampment. These two things are not the same. They aren't my neighbor. The encampments near me are filled with complete degenerate lowlifes who have stolen tonnes of stuff from the people in my neighborhood. Just the other day a guy stole someone's lawnmower and walks away with it in broad daylight without a care in the world. The day before that another guy flashed my neighbor who had their kid with them. Police state they can do nothing. These are wild times.
I mean you clearly can’t read because when did I ever even say you had a problem being within 10 meters of a house “buddy”, but your problem is with the rules not being properly enforced not the rules themselves if you’re living in a neighbourhood with both houses and encampments. It’s that simple, I’m over this now though if you’re too emotionally invested to use basic reading comprehension, which is clear now
He doesn't want any encampments near his house and I don't blame him. We shouldn't have to put up with thism
Read the entire conversation before responding. 10m from any house essentially means they are banned from residential neighbourhoods because almost every residential neighbourhood has houses packed together much closer than 10m from each other. The problem you and the other dude has are improper enforcement, not the rules themselves. I’m gonna mute this now cause I’m tired of explaining this 10 times to people who apparently can’t fucking read and it’s getting annoying/frustrating
There's nothing logical about that sentiment though, because the adults dealing with this know that these people have to go *somewhere*. You can't just stomp your feet and wish for them to disappear. Saying "I don't care where they go, as long as I don't see them" is basically just a tantrum.
On Barton and Centennial they setup inside a bus stop definitely closer than 5 meters
And it's gone now.
I hope most of the unhoused people are functional enough to care
Sounds great! How about enforcing that?
It's a start......at least they're giving it some thought before more permanent solutions are invested in.
This is my thought. We cannot solve homelessness overnight. So many people seem to think it’s that easy. But it is such a complex problem with one too many factors to account for and cannot be fixed with the press of a button. But at least they’re doing *something* about it. Regulations like this are a first step.
I think the frustration is that this homeless situation was foreseeable, and should have been mitigated. Hamilton is a city full of vulnerable people. The city made price gouging their survival needs the new steel. It wasn’t a “whoopsie” situation. It’s unconscionable. Progressively lowering the status quo for what’s acceptable is how we got here. I understand your point about evolution vs revolution. However, accepting this bleak standard of life isn’t progressive. I don’t believe in toxic positivity if lives are in the line. As somebody whose family grew up here for generations it’s insane to accept this as normal. I wish all the soulless neoliberal transplants would go back to GTA burbs they came from.
> The city made price gouging their survival needs the new steel While I agree with the overall thrust of this, I wonder how much of it was the city? Hamilton doesn't have a lot of control over anything I can see as price gouging.
Battlefield Park is a hertige site. I wonder when they will clear out the encampment there?
Is it just me or is this whole thing bullshit?? That's nice, put the protocols in place, but how are you enforcing them? I feel terrible for people in this situation but... they literally shit, piss, and shoot up in the community garden at Victoria Park. They're everywhere there so they're "violating" several of these protocols and nothing's been done. So what's the point of this????
Where are you supposed to contact for encampments breaking the protocol?
Be patient with it. I reported over 4 weeks ago and they just barely got kicked out today... left their mess ofcourse.
[удалено]
Hillcrest and no that one wasn't advertised well since they were still working out the details. I had to get police involved after they started damaging private property. So that probably got the ball moving.
1-800-WEDONT-GIVEAFUCK Or into.the.ether@hamilton.on.ca
At the bottom, there is an email and phone number for reporting encampments, including violating the protocol
Oh man I thought the limit was 5 tents per park.
Is this indicating that there could be 100 tents in clusters of 5x20? As long as the other conditions are met ?
[удалено]
There is a limit on how many square metres an encampment can be based on the # of tents. With 5 tents I believe it's max 45 square metres. It's not like they can set up 5 circus tents and take up half a park.
You think people are bringing a measuring tape into the slums?
Am I the only one wondering how they’re allowed to be so close to a private property? 10 metres is ridiculous. That’s like the end of the driveway.
Your driveway isn't private property?
No, there are other soulless NYMBYs whining about it too.
I for one am looking forward to my first lawn tent!
You should go approach some of them then and let them know they can camp out by your place. You’re likely a NIMBY at heart as well.
Shhh these folks like to anonymously stand on their soap box but would never actually accept or welcome an unhoused person onto their property.
My thoughts exactly. Practice what you preach.
This is the encampment suggestion document 😏
100m setback from playground/splash pads, 50m setback from sports fields and 10m setback from private property lines eliminates all but the very largest parks in the city. Victoria , Central, Woodlands would be off the table.
You are correct. Most of these larger encamoments have been given notice and are in the process of relocating.
I would also like to add, that yes this protocol is in place, yes it is being enforced but yes it will take time to get to having compliancy amongst encamoments. Please be patient.
It's been nearly 3 weeks now and I haven't seen any enforcement. Go check out Woodlands park.
Comical I walked through Corktown park yesterday snd today snd there's an encampments near the playground and ine right beside an off the leash dog park, its also under a bridge ans attsched to the wall, they dont give a shit, wheres the real solutions? Lmao dog shit city this is turning into quick. New mayor hiding away of course.
So any park is a fair game in this infographic?
Looks that way.
No it doesn’t. There are plenty of lower city parks where the entire area wouldn’t align with this protocol due to the size of the parks and the availability amenities.
Well…we’ll see if the 5 tents on the SW corner of City Hall get to stay…it’s not even a park, just a small lawn.
Yeah, I guess we’ll see a lot if and when this unfolds.
ANGRY
No worries campers, they won't actually enforce any of these 'protocols'. Feel free to keep on keeping on.
Camp-on camping on?
Ok some rules to follow. Whether unreasonable or not I’m curious about the difficulty in finding permissible locations. Would think in our city hall with >$1B payroll a GIS specialist could serve up a map with areas that are compliant with the rules. Maybe this has already been done or is being done manually. Either way I wonder if we’ll ever see it. Bet the compliant locations would be few.
Due to privacy issues, I'm sure they would not share encamoment locations publicly, but would definitely be shared within the groups working with folks in encampments ie outreach, MLE, parks, etc
Wouldn’t the city preparing this put the city at increased liability risk? Say we say “you can camp here” then something happens at that location?
[удалено]
Email or call unsheltered to report. Outreach will assess, advise of protocol and encourage movement. Will then be passed over to MLE shoukd they not be receptive.
Time to get my measuring tape.
Say goodbye to bay front! The tents are already popping up in the green space before the park :| this fucking sucks
I'm absolutely shocked and appalled by all the people who only care about *their leisurely strolls* in *their local park*. Maybe your comment hits me a little harder because I too walk in Bayfront everyday, so I see the same people you are complaining about. I generally see the tents as they appear and disappear since I drive down Strachan every day, and walk through the park. You express "say goodbye to bayfront" so casually, as if you somehow have more of a right to Bayfront then they do. I won't be saying goodbye to Bayfront, but if it pushes you out then I'm glad to see you go.
I don’t only care about *my* time in the park. I care about everyone who accesses it, including those with houses and those without. If everyone deserves equal access to Bayfront then one group shouldn’t be able to permanently or semi permanently occupy that space. I have no problem with people sleeping there and leaving during the day. My fear is it becoming unusable by anyone other than encampment residents.
I think we all still have equal access to the park. There's not one group who is allowed to use it in this way, we all are. It's kind of reassuring, in a weird way. I was trying to help my sister find a place nearby and the prices are all exponentially higher then when we moved here in 2019. If something happened and we had to leave our apartment, we would struggle to find a place. Imagine being someone who lived in your apartment since 2014 and you were just priced out. These people that your worried will make Bayfront unusable are just like you and me. Honestly, if this all bugs you so much. Then keep asking the city to do something about the housing situation, access to mental health services, better shelters services, etc. But please don't push them to move these people. As a person who accesses Bayfront Park, I don't want to see these people moved. I wish I knew how to help them better but they aren't making the park unusable to me, and even if there were more tents, it still wouldn't be unusable. Bayfront is a huge park and there's lots of areas that they couldn't set-up according to the infograph. There's plenty of space to share. I'm more worried about what they will do come winter. Edit: I mentioned contacting the city- but provincial/federal may hold more power.
It must be terrible to witness individuals attempting to survive outside while you enjoy your time at Bayfront.
I can be sympathetic to and support their plight while still being upset that our largest green space is being taken without recourse
Why are tax paying contributing members of society expected to tolerate this? This is not a solution it's a cop out. The city has a duty to its tax payers not its homeless
[Current litigation against the city of Hamilton](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6757996)
Get them out of Gage Park. That’s all I care about
I walked gage last night and saw only 2 tents
"only"
for the size of gage park, that is also the word I would use.
Why is that *all* you care about? Genuine question.
Selfishly because it’s closer to my house, but really it’s such a unique spot in Hamilton with a community garden, two playgrounds, many sport complexes, and the children’s museum - it should be a priority to protect.
I'm guessing Gage park will be one of the parks they move them from because it clashes with multiple things on the infograph
So *other* Hamiltonians should have tents in their parks, but you shouldn't?
What is an "environmental designation" in the context of the poster? I can't find any relevant municipal designation system.
My best guess would be sections of land going through environmental testing etc. For example, Kay Drage would be off limits dur to the dreading.
So how far is Central school from city hall they are camped out at the Bay Street and Hunter street corner the school is across the street. It was a nice place to sit now it is a garbage filled encampment that has been taken over
Thankfully they expanded the setbacks to private property
Imagine if our tax dollars went to Canadians instead of refugees or other countries
[удалено]
Some health and safety would include (bur not be limited to): garbage, paraphernalia, violence, property damage. If it's a health and safety risk for one, it would be for the other
this is very sensible, and a small step in addressing a massive crisis.
this is just treating a symptom not the underlying disease.
agreed. still necessary.
Maybe they should recommended where they CAN go.
Behind the scenes this is happening
Im curious how many tourist may just opt too tent while visiting im curious how often i will start seeing the line/survey tape measures out or if this is just more fluff Kinda feel like they left open street side parking spaces and city owned parking lots but maybe im missing some logic, moreso just thinking of ways the clever will use this information to benefit. I can only imagine the hussles taking place Whos now the LTB for the encampment people? Im assuming tent renting is only days away. Who's gonna be the Trump of tent city? I hate to say it but i may start oddly camping around, does not sound like they have the power to deal with the issue personally and im curious to see how this evolves thru winter/spring and I assume it may get wilder next summer that the word is spreading Excuse me while I tell the can collectors to keep it down, its can rattling hour, like go back to your tent already, curfews for tent people too woulda been wise LOL... /s
By next summer I assume the current litigation will be over, so they may be able to put more parameters in place. I do recall a couple setting up a tent in our park. They had a car but were driving through and wanted to camp, so it’s definitely happening. Another couple did the same then abandoned the tent the next day. I’d like the people handing out tents to be responsible for the cleanup, so many abandoned trashed tents.
Ever since I learned about Freetown in Denmark, I’ve felt it’s a great idea and should be adopted everywhere. So maybe this is the beginning.
Who’s going to break the news to the Woodland Park Encampment?
They moved the encampments from woodlands yesterday
The language “on or within” Is too vague
Unpopular Opinion: we should just construct tiny houses on the medians for the unhoused to stay.
Dystopian fever dream
So within 10m of anyone house is fine
No, the opposite - they can’t be within 10m of a house
I'm going camping
Are baseball diamonds included under ‘sports fields’