Isitt dogged by conflict questions over camp ban
Victoria councillor slammed for voting on tenting ban at park across from home of his daughter and ex-wife
The fact that his ex-wife and 10-year-old daughter live across the street from one of four pocket parks in which tenting has been disallowed had nothing to do with his advocating for that ban, says city councillor and tent city advocate Ben Isitt.
But Stephen Hammond, whose Mad as Hell group was formed in response to neighbourhood concerns about the tent city on the courthouse green space, said Isitt was being hypocritical in advocating for the tent city on one hand, then pushing for the camping ban in other parks — including one next to a family member.
“It seems like a complete and total conflict,” Hammond said.
Isitt has been an outspoken advocate of the courthouse tent city as well as designated tenting areas in general, arguing, in part, that having a designated tenting area reduces camping pressure on other parks.
Problems with homeless camping in tiny Kings Park near her home were outlined by Isitt’s ex-wife, Melissa Ann Moroz, in an affidavit that formed part of the judgment issued by Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson in March. The judgment dismissed the province’s application for an injunction to dismantle the encampment.
“She attested to having discovered human feces, hypodermic needles, garbage and uninvited persons in her backyard while there was a significant camping presence in the nearby Kings Park. There are no washroom facilities there, and insufficient sanitation. She also stated that she experienced significant disruption during the daily 7 a.m. ‘wakeups’,” Hinkson said in his judgment.
Hinkson noted that Moroz said her problems with campers disappeared after the courthouse encampment was established in the fall of 2015.
“Ms. Moroz said that since the fall of 2015, overnight sheltering has stopped completely in Kings Park, and she has not seen a single tent there since December 2015. She believes that this change is due to the development of the encampment. She is concerned that if the encampment is removed, overnight sheltering will resume at Kings Park, along with the negative impacts on her and her neighbours.”
Isitt said he has not had a financial interest in his ex-wife’s Caledonia Street house since August 2014, and therefore no reason to step aside from any debate over camping in the park.
“Essentially, I came to the conclusion that the conflict was no longer pecuniary and that it wouldn’t recuse me from sort of broader public-policy considerations, including issues relating to sheltering in city parks,” Isitt said.
Hammond, however, rejected that argument. “You have no interest when your daughter is living there? Do I have to say the word hypocrisy, because I will,” he said.
Isitt noted that seven parks were identified in a staff report in April 2015 as experiencing chronic sheltering problems. Three of those, Beacon Hill, Topaz and Stadacona, are larger, so there is a wider buffer between tenters and neighbouring residences. Cridge, Haegert, Kings and Arbutus parks are smaller and camping was more of a concern.
Isitt proposed that as part of a four-point housing-first strategy, the city look at amending the parks bylaw to prohibit camping in the four smaller parks.
The issue of the ban in the smaller parks was initially tabled, but brought back for consideration in April this year — a month after the original Hinkson ruling — by Coun. Charlayne Thornton-Joe.
Isitt participated in the discussions and voted on the issue.
One of the council members who did not participate in the discussion was Mayor Lisa Helps, who lives about two blocks from Haegert Park.
Helps said she absented herself from the discussion to avoid any perception of bias.
Isitt said his decision to support a ban on camping in the four parks was based both on his firsthand experience living near Kings Park and a deluge of emails from neighbouring residents.
“They weren’t emails coming from my ex-wife,” Isitt said. “They were emails coming from various residents living in the neighbourhood and saying the issue was untenable and I found there were sort of no clear policy proposal coming from staff or from other councillors to address the disproportionate impact of this sheltering activity.”
Now that the tent city has been ordered to be cleared out, camping has been increasing in other parks, notably Beacon Hill Park.
Michael Prince, Lansdowne professor of social policy at the University of Victoria, said while Isitt has done nothing illegal, it probably would have been in the public interest to disclose the relationship.
“This is a very particular circumstance and, not to drag in family history, but there is a connection. And I think it’s one that could be seen by some reasonable people as having a bearing on his decisions and now his pronouncements on the success of tent city,” Prince said.
Dermod Travis of Integrity B.C., a non-partisan political watchdog, said Isitt was being “too cute by half” in claiming that because he has no financial interest in his ex-wife’s property, he doesn’t need to disclose the relationship or recuse himself from the discussions.
“As an elected official, the obligations on him are higher than they would be on others and he should know that. His automatic default should be full disclosure, when circumstances require it, so that his colleagues and the public can put his comments in context,” Travis said.
“The absence of a financial interest doesn’t allow him to escape a very real interest: his daughter.”
Isitt agreed there might be a perception of unfairness in that the smaller parks will be free of camping while tents can pop up in other parks, but said his decisions were based on broader policy principles — not by the fact that his 10-year-old daughter lives part-time near one of the smaller parks.
“I’m closely aligned with antipoverty advocates. My sympathies align with people who are homeless, so it’s not easy [for me] to suggest bylaw changes that make outdoor sheltering more restrictive. But I honestly felt that was a sound policy given the size of those parks,” Isitt said.
“I felt that because I had no interest in the property and it had to do with sort of a public-policy issue around sheltering in the city’s park system, and because it had to do with multiple parks, it seemed that any potential conflict was sufficiently remote that I could participate in the decision.”
In his initial refusal to grant the province an injunction, Hinkson also referenced an affidavit from Isitt.
“[Isitt] indicated that city council had been advised that the existence of the encampment had reduced the burden on the city to provide services relating to sheltering in municipal parks,” Hinkson’s judgment said. “In [Isitt’s] view, the reported problems associated with the encampment were the result of homelessness generally, and not specifically due to the presence of the camp at the Courthouse Green Space.”