On Thursday, Victoria’s city council took another major step toward addressing the ongoing challenges of homelessness and sheltering in its public parks.

At a Committee of the Whole meeting on Thursday, several amendments to the Parks Regulation Bylaw were presented by staff as recommendations within a detailed, 38-page Sheltering in Parks and the Parks Regulation Bylaw report. 

The report is a response to the council’s direction last year to recount the city’s experience with homelessness over the past 15 years and to make recommendations as to how to better address the ongoing crisis.

The report was co-authored by city lawyer Tom Zworski, the city’s director of parks, recreation and facilities, Derrick Newman, and Adam Shefield, Victoria’s manager of operations and bylaw services.

“Sheltering in parks is not an answer to homelessness,” Zworski said right off the top. Homelessness is not unique to Victoria and impacts cities across the country, Zworski said, adding what’s needed is a “comprehensive targeted response” attacking the underlying causes of homelessness such as mental health and addiction as well as economic inequities. 

“These are not matters municipalities can address,” Zworski said.

The report underscores the legal framework established by past court rulings, particularly the 2008 Adams decision, which permits temporary overnight sheltering when adequate indoor shelter is unavailable. It also highlights the adverse effects of prolonged encampments on park infrastructure, public safety, and municipal budgets.

Adams decision assumes no consequences

In the Adams decision, the Court assumed that overnight sheltering would not interfere with other uses of the parks, and reads in part:

“If, on the other hand, a piece of park property is used for someone to sleep at night with shelter, this does not mean that it cannot be used by others for other recreational uses during the day. There is simply no evidence that there is any competition for the public ‘resource’ which the homeless seek to utilize, or that the resource will not remain available to others if the homeless can utilize it.”

“Nobody should have to shelter in a park,” said Zworski. 

“Public parks and open spaces are not empty spaces,” he said. “They are built amenities that are a vital part of the urban fabric and play an important role in the health and well-being of the community. They are not intended or designed to house people,” he said.

The report cites several public safety concerns around people sheltering in parks and public places, including improperly disposed-of sharps and substance-use paraphernalia, hazardous and human waste, open drug-dealing, unattended overdoses, violence, and anti-social behaviour.

Other municipalities see Victoria as their solution

The report also levies some serious allegations against other municipalities and Island Health:

It suggests that city staff have found people getting off a bus with new luggage and asking directions to Beacon Hill Park. It alleges they were sent from an encampment in the Lower Mainland with one-way tickets and directed to shelter in a Victoria park.

The report also alleges patients with ongoing medical conditions have been released from Island Health hospital care to a Victoria park. It further alleges that some people were provided with a doctor’s note directed to Bylaw Services requesting that the prohibition on daytime sheltering not be enforced against them due to ongoing medical conditions. 

Finally, it alleges people experiencing homelessness have been transferred to Victoria parks after being released from hospital care or custody in neighbouring municipalities.

One proposed bylaw amendment (f) would “prohibit any local government or public authority from directing any person experiencing homelessness to shelter in a park or transferring or transporting any person experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness to Victoria without first securing for them accessible shelter or housing.” 

When asked by Coun. Krista Loughton asked how the city could enforce it, and Zworski said, “We expect local governments to respect the law and our bylaw.” 

Sheffield explained that, by way of enforcement, he would begin with a communications and education campaign, but if that didn’t work, staff would “have to explore whatever alternatives they have available to them,” he said.

“Ultimately, we need other local governments and public authorities to step up and provide housing for the unsheltered within their jurisdiction, and Victoria cannot manage this complex crisis on its own,” Newmann said.

Over the years, the city has amended bylaws to better balance competing public uses of parks. Many of them have functioned to reduce the number of parks in Victoria where sheltering can take place.

The city doesn't have the legal muscle

These have been Band-Aid solutions to a problem of jurisdictional duty.

Zworski laid out the case that the city has no legislative responsibility over homelessness. 

The responsibility for health care, mental health and substance use, social benefits, and complex care housing care sits with the province, he said.

While the province delegates responsibilities to local governments through the Community Charter, municipalities are forced to deal with issues related to homelessness, “despite their lack of legal tools or resources to do so,” he argued. 

Coun. David Thompson recommended that anyone wondering what the city has been doing about homelessness read the report for its history, context, and description of levels of jurisdictional responsibility.

The report proposes several bylaw amendments, including:

• Changing the term “homeless person” to “person experiencing homelessness” to align with recent legal interpretations
• Restricting the definition of “temporary overnight shelter” to include only basic overhead protection, preventing the establishment of larger, semi-permanent structures
• Increasing the minimum distance between shelters and playgrounds to 15 metres from eight 
• Prohibiting sheltering in all parks except for specific locations such as Alexander Park, Alston Green, and Banfield Park, among others, and only under circumstances directed by court decisions (for a full list, visit the document)
• Banning any government or public authority from directing individuals to shelter in parks without first securing adequate housing 

Newmann said the amendments “improve alignment with court decisions on sheltering and to ensure regulations are clear.”

Loughton said it’s important for people to understand that municipalities “have no means to provide housing and health-care support for people experiencing homelessness and addressing these issues in court is best directed at the governments who are jurisdictionally responsible because that is what will create real solutions.” 

Loughton pointed out that municipalities collect nine cents of every tax dollar, while the remaining 91 cents get split between the province and the federal government. They simply don’t have the resources to tackle these issues and yet, added Coun. Chris Coleman, “municipalities own or manage 60% to 65% of all infrastructure in the country.”

City has spent almost $11M on shelter management

The report highlights the rising costs of managing sheltering in parks. Since 2023, the city has spent more than $10.8M on bylaw enforcement, park repairs, waste management, and emergency sheltering efforts. Specific costs include:

• $7M for bylaw enforcement related to sheltering
• $3.6M for park maintenance and waste disposal
• $163K allocated for extreme weather response programs

Additionally, the city has invested nearly $12.5M in housing initiatives, including funding for social service providers and the acquisition of property for affordable housing projects, a far greater investment than any of its municipal neighbours. Mayor Marianne Alto has repeatedly said she no longer wishes Victoria to bear these costs alone. 

Coun. Marg Gardiner asked whether the province had ever reimbursed the city for any of the associated costs outlined in the report. City of Victoria Finance Director Susanne Thompson said she was unaware of any compensatory payments from the province. 

Victoria has some financial juggling to do

Esquimalt’s March 3 decision to not fund additional police positions or the late-night policing program only added to Victoria’s fiscal pressures. Under Section 27 of the Police Services Act, a line item can be excluded from the financial plans of both municipalities if it is not approved by one of the two councils. 

Victoria’s recourse to Esquimalt’s decision is to agree to cut those budget lines or to take them on and levy additional taxes to cover them, as it did in 2023, for two additional police officer positions. 

The financial impact of Esquimalt’s decision on Victoria’s budget is significant. The budget items Esquimalt declined total $1.2M.

• Victoria’s portion of that is $997.5K, which represents a 0.55% tax increase to recover
• If Victoria removes the items, its tax increase drops to 7.23% from 7.78% 
• If the council chooses to levy taxes for some or both of the declined budget items, that decision would require a formal resolution

The tax lift will not be finalized until the bylaws are, at the end of April.

Alto summed up the amendments’ intentions by saying, “The City of Victoria will no longer accept the placement of individuals in parks when they are placed there by organizations who have the authority to care for them themselves, whether that is another local government or a public authority, for example Island Health, that is no longer acceptable,” she said

“This moves from being a simple statement to a declaration of what is expected by our colleagues,” she said.