QUICK FIXES DON'T LAST
Entrusting a park board to regulate encampments is a profound mistake
In the continuing debate surrounding homelessness and encampments, one critical aspect is under-examined: the role of park boards in regulating unhoused populations.
On April 8, Vancouver's park board unanimously amended a bylaw to further restrict where and how unhoused people can shelter in city parks. A week later, park rangers dismantled tents in CRAB Park while people were away and threw belongings in garbage cans.
From both a governance and justice perspective, the resulting situation is shameful: inhumane treatment of a vulnerable group orchestrated by a body with neither expertise nor legitimacy adequate for dealing with this civic crisis.
The Vancouver area has seen a 32 per cent increase in homelessness in the past four years. People are sleeping in parks because they have no other alternatives. Certainly, the question of how to address homelessness is complex and contentious. But what is not at issue is that the constitutional rights of the unhoused to shelter in public spaces are involved. B.C. courts have been clear: Under Canada's Charter, local governments cannot move people out of parks at night when there are fewer accessible shelter spaces than unhoused individuals.
In 2020, Vancouver's elected park board — the only one of its kind in Canada — passed a series of rules, setting distances for shelters from such things as flower beds and playgrounds. Homeless people were limited to just over 21 per cent of park space overnight, much of it far away from the services they access daily. Now, under the latest amendments, merely 16 per cent of park space is available for nighttime sleeping. As we saw, park rangers can search and destroy people's homes and belongings with slim restrictions on staff 's discretion to do so.
Why is our seven-person park board the front line for regulating shelter on public civic lands? On the one hand, proponents argue the park board is well positioned to address homelessness. Park commissioners are elected by residents, tasked with representing the electorate's interests and priorities. As such, they are theoretically responsive to the concerns of local constituents, including, perhaps, on issues related to homelessness. And encampments are often located on park land.
Regardless, in our opinion, the park board should not be a default mechanism for addressing complex social issues like homelessness. Their expertise — and their mandate — is park maintenance, recreational programming, and environmental conservation, not providing housing solutions, regulating shelter or addressing systemic issues of poverty and inequality. Expecting them to effectively manage encampments is outside their training, scope and expertise. As we have seen, park boards too often approach encampments from a very narrow perspective focused solely on the esthetic and functional aspects of parks. Of course, we want parks to be clean and widely accessible, but prioritizing these concerns over the human rights and core survival needs of unhoused individuals is wrong.
Managing homeless shelters on park lands should not be left to the park board. The complexity of homelessness — that the unhoused occupy public land for shelter because they have no private space — requires a multi-faceted approach that goes beyond the scope of park boards' competency. The mix of factors involved is wide: affordable housing, mental health issues, the legacies of colonialism. It cannot be reduced to simply ensuring that shelters are distanced from various park features and use only simple tent materials.
The park board has itself acknowledged its own limits. In 2021, it entered into an agreement with the province and the City of Vancouver in relation to Strathcona Park. The park board committed to enforcing the relevant bylaw only when there were sufficient shelter spaces otherwise available. The agreement put in place cross-jurisdictional co-ordination. These latest amendments signal a sharp turn from those commitments and recognition of the limitations of park regulations at a time when homelessness is at a record high.
Decisions made by park boards regarding encampments prioritize short-term solutions over long-term systemic change. Sweeps and evictions may temporarily clear a park, but without access to adequate housing and supportive services, individuals experiencing homelessness have few alternatives but to set up shelter in other public spaces. In the meantime, they will have lost their survival gear and personal belongings, causing further trauma. Displacing the unhoused from one area to another does not solve the problem.
Instead of relying on our park board to manage encampments, we need a more holistic and compassionate approach to addressing homelessness. This includes investing in affordable housing, mental health services and harm reduction. It means engaging directly with those experiencing homelessness to understand their needs and preferences and involving them in decision-making processes that affect their lives.
We need a more holistic and compassionate approach to addressing homelessness.
Local governments should establish multidisciplinary task forces or advisory panels comprising experts in homelessness, social work, public health, and community engagement to develop comprehensive strategies for addressing encampments. These approaches should prioritize harm reduction, housing-first initiatives and wraparound support services to help individuals transition out of homelessness permanently.
Entrusting the park board with decisions about encampments is a grave mistake. We must recognize the limitations of a park board in addressing complex social issues and, instead, adopt approaches developed by appropriate decision makers that prioritize compassion, equity, deep consultation and evidence-based responses.