No longer can the homeless be told to move along

[Gay Boy Roberto]

Good news... and a wise court decision:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3029392">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392

[Anonymous]

Good news... and a wise court decision:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3029392">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392

Thank you for posting this gbb..

 ac_smile

I don't know what to say about it though..



The social problems of addiction, family breakdown, sexual abuse, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, and mental illness are not solved by this ruling.

 ac_dunno

[RW]

I disagree with this current ruling. I think there needs to be a balance between occupying public spaces while respecting business.  I think any discrimination stems from the nature of the loitering rather than the loiterer. If those who tend to loiter are homeless then where is the discrimination?

[easter bunny]

Good news... and a wise court decision:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3029392">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392

I don't know what to say about this gbb..



The social problems of addiction, family breakdown, sexual abuse, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, and mental illness are not solved by this ruling.

 ac_dunno

Exactly!

I disagree with this current ruling. I think there needs to be a balance between occupying public spaces while respecting business.  I think any discrimination stems from the nature of the loitering rather than the loiterer. If those who tend to loiter are homeless then where is the discrimination?

I agree. I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about a no loitering sign. While I don't like to see people treated unfairly I also don't like it when someone blocks the aisle in the supermarket. The courteous thing to do on their part is to move over so that I can get by, and on my part, to patiently wait until they move. This ruling is like giving someone the right to be rude and just stay there. It does nothing to solve the root causes of homelessness and will only serve to build resentment when someone tries to assert that right.

[Gay Boy Roberto]

The ruling involves PUBLIC property... not privately owned places like supermarkets.



The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association.  That is just wrong.

[easter bunny]

The ruling involves PUBLIC property... not privately owned places like supermarkets.



The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association.  That is just wrong.

Public property belongs to everyone and is there for the enjoyment of everyone. No one should have to hire private security guards at their own expense in order to give the public free access to their own land.

 

Technically, a homeless person's place of residence is wherever he or she happens to park himself. I can't build a house on public land so why should they be allowed to?

[RW]

The ruling involves PUBLIC property... not privately owned places like supermarkets.



The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association.  That is just wrong.

Why is it wrong?

[Gay Boy Roberto]

I can't build a house on public land so why should they be allowed to?

The homeless, by definition, do not build houses on lands, private or public

[Gay Boy Roberto]

The ruling involves PUBLIC property... not privately owned places like supermarkets.



The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association.  That is just wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Private security guards can tell people to move along on private property. The homeless are part of the public, and they have as much right to be on public property as anyone else, IMHO

[easter bunny]

I can't build a house on public land so why should they be allowed to?

The homeless, by definition, do not build houses on lands, private or public

"It was just a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin but it was a house to us."

[Frost]

I disagree with this current ruling. I think there needs to be a balance between occupying public spaces while respecting business.  I think any discrimination stems from the nature of the loitering rather than the loiterer. If those who tend to loiter are homeless then where is the discrimination?

I agree RW. Telling someone camping out in front of your business isn't discriminating at all, they need to move on to the park, or in front of the court, or government buildings.

Homelessness is a social issue, to me it's society failing at teaching, or taking care of the mentally ill.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with this current ruling. I think there needs to be a balance between occupying public spaces while respecting business.  I think any discrimination stems from the nature of the loitering rather than the loiterer. If those who tend to loiter are homeless then where is the discrimination?

I agree RW. Telling someone camping out in front of your business isn't discriminating at all, they need to move on to the park, or in front of the court, or government buildings.

Homelessness is a social issue, to me it's society failing at teaching, or taking care of the mentally ill.

I agree Blue, this ruling inconveniences small business owners and doesn't fix the root problems of homelessness.

[RW]

The ruling involves PUBLIC property... not privately owned places like supermarkets.



The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association.  That is just wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Private security guards can tell people to move along on private property. The homeless are part of the public, and they have as much right to be on public property as anyone else, IMHO

I see and agree with you.

[Odinson]

Its a good thing that some homeless person camps infront of the market.

They should all come inside to keep warm.

[kiebers]

Good point.

Perhaps the business owners should submit documented proof of a decline in business due to the homeless camping in front of their businesses and then the government can subsidize them to make up for the lost business. After all its just tax dollars. ac_rollseyes