The Major’s Corner….Victoria’s tent city

I always smile when I hear about people who have moved to a subdivision at the end of an airport runway because it is less expensive and then complain to government about the noise. The same goes for those who move to a “wonderful house” beside an animal rendering plant and then are shocked, shocked by the unseemly odours.
But I do not begrudge the outraged neighbours their dismay about the squalor of Victoria’s infamous Tent City. They did not sign on for this eyesore, and it is not fair.
Our beautiful city has made ending homelessness its No. 1 issue for many years. All well and good, but that is not what a city is there for. It is supposed to deal with local problems, not bumper-sticker ideals such as peace and hunger.
The homeless deserve a federal response involving the entire country, not a municipal one. But Victoria has over the years flirted with a leadership role on the national stage, suggesting in a chiding voice that we perhaps have a better understanding of homelessness than others. Well, the chickens have come home to roost.
We now have a disgusting quagmire right in the heart of our city, thanks to our tip-toeing council. The last mayor, whose name I have already forgotten, made this his and our city’s prime issue and we the voters elected him, so it was our fault. We became the “soft touch” of Canada. The homeless arrived by ferry, plane and bus, sometimes paid by other places to have them move along.
Where are the singing grannies now? Where are all the people who said they could live in parks? Now the city is worried that American tourists will see not happy citizens, but hard-eyed squatters lying about in their own sewage shouting about their rights.
“Not good!” the councillors have decided. Perhaps if they had not encouraged the so-called homeless without a means test to enjoy the good life here, we would not have our park turned into a human biffy. The nearby homeowners are watching their real-estate values fall as people avoid even walking in the area, much less renting or buying there.
The city went to court as tourists avoided the area, and lo and behold, a judge at the B.C. Supreme Court who does not live in the neighbourhood came down on the squatters’ side. It is so much easier to be airy and aloof when one is at arm’s length from the sight of young runaway girls in the grip of older men with guitars who do nothing but shout about what they feel they deserve.
A judge can be clear and lucid when he doesn’t have to deal with the smell of happy campers’ feces and garbage. I wonder how he would react if a hundred shacks appeared in the park where he walks Fluffy the dog every day. Somewhat differently, I suggest. We will soon lose our faith in the court system if common sense is not allowed to take hold.
Whatever happened to the idea of “the common good?”
My question: What would happen if everyone sat in a park and no one went to work? What would be the outcome? Who would pay for everything?
Then we have the theory that mental problems are the reason for all this. Is that really the answer? Or is it just the usual excuse to cover all abhorrent acts? I would say there are hundreds of syndromes to cover most any uncivilized thing one does. Nonsense.
Those people in the park are society’s pond scum and must be cleared out immediately. That is the end game in any tent city. Large men, four abreast, must wade into the shacks, tearing them down and forcing people out for the general good of society. We cannot let people take advantage of unintended legal loopholes and ruin lives, those of functioning citizens who must get up every day and go to work whether they feel like it or not.
It is time for a little tough love, I am afraid.
Copyright Christopher Dalton 2016