Victoria is not a stranger to tent cities
L ocal residents were upset about the tent city, so Victoria’s fire chief and a member of city council went for a look. They expressed concern about the sanitary conditions faced by the tent dwellers, as well as the risk of fire to the neighbourhood.
But in the end, nothing could be done.
It was March 1913. People had set up tents adjacent to Hollywood Crescent. There were single men, couples and families, most likely new arrivals drawn to Victoria by an economic boom.
There was not enough accommodation for these new people, so they were making do with whatever they could. Small shacks made sense to them, as did tents.
Besides, tents had been seen as acceptable temporary homes for decades. They had been used here by people on their way to the Klondike gold rush, and they had been commonplace in new communities on the Prairies as well.
That does not mean that everyone was happy about them.
On March 19, the Daily Colonist published a letter from Peter Robinson of 1042 Johnson St., a man who was less than thrilled.
“Surely it is about time the whole city, including even the notorious un-progressives, should recognize the fact that the dirty, ragged tent-shacks along our beautiful sea-front are more harm than credit to our public sense of decency,” Robinson wrote.
“Car after car passing stop to allow the visitors to observe the wretched contrast — asphalt road, boulevard, cement sidewalk, dirty, ragged shacks, and beautiful sea and mountains.
“Whole families are herded in together like so many cattle. Why should the authorities allow these shack owners to ignore the regulations respecting sanitation and fire protection and yet soak a respectable working man for putting up a decent, though humble cottage?”
Given the views of the local residents, Fire Chief Thomas Davis and Ald. William Gleason drove to Foul Bay to take a look for themselves.
What they saw, the Colonist reported, was clear: A danger to permanent structures from fire, unsanitary conditions due to the lack of adequate drainage facilities, and the “detriment which the unsightly tent dwellings are to the beauty of the neighbourhood.”
The problem was not confined to Victoria. There were reports of shacks in Esquimalt. Oak Bay tried to get ahead of any issues by declaring that tents could not be erected on any property unless the medical health officer had approved the location.
Not everyone was angered by the tent city; in fact, this unsigned commentary in the Colonist provided another point of view — but please, bear in mind that it was written almost 103 years ago:
“The erection of tents in rapidly growing cities has often offered a safe solution to the problem of overcrowding. Is there anywhere within reasonable distance of a carline a neighbourhood where people would be allowed to put up tents far enough apart for safety and decency?
“There are vacant lots enough in the neighbourhood of the city and in the summer a tent may be a healthy dwelling for a man’s wife and children. But it must be near enough to the city to allow of the man coming in to work and the older children going to school.
“A tent is a far better home that a crowded room in a city lodging house. Any man who has steady employment during the summer and a careful wife should be in a position to rent a better home or, perhaps, secure one for himself before the winter comes.”
The tents had value. The classifieds in the Colonist included an ad for a partially furnished tent-shack at 1747 Hollywood Cres., and another for a two-roomed house tent with no address shown.
This employment ad from March 1913 is even more revealing:
“Wanted: Female teacher for Headquarters School, near Comox. Must accept tent accommodation, which is free. Salary $60 per month.”
It would be hard to argue, then, that the tents themselves were a problem, as unsightly as they might seem to some.
Not that it mattered. The council committee soon discovered that provincial legislation did not allow the city to regulate the location of buildings, and there would be no authorization for a bylaw to restrict the location of tents, or the construction of tents.
Stoves in tents were seen as a hazard, but they were not covered by the fire-prevention bylaws. The city decided to have a fire hose attached to a hydrant next to the tent city, just in case.
The faces have changed, the reasons have changed, the location has changed, but one thing is clear: A tent city is nothing new.