Archive Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240830135608/https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/what-guelph-council-said-before-voting-on-public-space-use-bylaw-9452677
What Guelph council said before voting on public space use bylaw
Three were against, 10 in favour during this 'soup of confusion' debate
At the end of an hours-long session on Wednesday night, city council voted in favour of passing the public space use bylaw.
The bylaw has been highly controversial since it was first presented to council in February, and would dictate where encampments and temporary structures can and can’t be to address public spaces with competing use – the general public and those living in encampments.
Throughout the meeting, hours worth of delegates argued the bylaw was essential due to environmental degredation, open drug use, feeling unsafe in public spaces, and business loss, while others argued the bylaw would carry negative implications for those unhoused.
Here is what city council members had to say.
Mayor Cam Guthrie
Mayor Cam Guthrie, who called the special meeting to vote on the bylaw, voted in favour.
He said stories from the delegates “completely validated” his reasoning to do so, and that he doesn’t need to justify his intentions and desire to help people – “I’m comfortable in myself.”
“I think that the bylaw, the way it’s been crafted with our professional staff, has been laid out in a way that actually does give some regulation.”
He said it should come as no surprise that he supports the bylaw.
“I want to have everyone healthy and safe in our community, and I think my job as the mayor is to try to bring things forward and try to gather as much unity around these types of issues for our society, for our city to thrive.”
Coun. Erin Caton
Coun. Erin Caton voted against the bylaw, saying policing the location of encampments “is a waste of taxpayer money and tax resources.”
“Segregating the living spaces of the unhoused doesn’t address the issue of open drug use, waste, mental health episodes,” they said, adding that a better use of resources would be for accessible public toilets, encampment waste pick up and safe drug waste disposal, and to add more funds to supportive housing.
“We are in a strong mayor-mandated budget crunch for the next year, we need to think logically and consider the real value and implications of enforcing this bylaw.
“It’s easy to see why this bylaw feels like an attack on homelessness with moving people farther from services, which is the opposite of what our consultants chose to do for our unhoused neighbours.”
Caton also highlighted the lack of lived experience and accessibility consultation, saying it doesn’t speak well to the intention of the bylaw, and urged other councillors to vote against it.
“We need to put our energy into supportive services which alleviate stress, rather than restrictions that breed resentment.”
Coun. Dan Gibson
Coun. Dan Gibson said he came into the meeting with an open mind, wanting to listen to what the delegates had to say.
He said he sympathizes with downtown business owners and patrons, as well as those living rough who want to stay close to essential services, and said the community did a good job at covering both sides of the argument.
He personally decided it was time to regulate public space over the summer, after being sent a picture of a tent next to a children’s baseball bench. The field had been rented by the team; he called the bylaw office and police in advance of the game but was told they couldn’t do anything because there was no bylaw saying a tent couldn’t be erected there.
“There was no judgement that day. The parents who came put on their best face; there was no back and forth between the patrons who had set up the tent.”
But they had speakers blaring, people cheering, children around, “and then right in the middle of the entire environment was a tent, and it wasn’t moving.”
“It’s not an appropriate occurrence to have children trying to play a baseball game with a tent next door to their bench.”
He emphasized he feels council isn’t saying encampments can’t or shouldn’t exist, but that they need to be “in an appropriate location.”
“We’re not saying no, we’re saying where. And I think that’s important context.”
Coun. Rodrigo Goller
Besides asking social services administrator Luisa Artuso about the number of shelter beds and if people are people turned away, Goller did not comment on the bylaw. He voted in favour.
Coun. Carly Klassen
Coun. Carly Klassen did not speak much either, but brought forward a motion for the bylaw to specifically cover the entirety of St. George’s Square and Market Square as sensitive public areas.
At the end, she thanked the delegates, and noted that “Just because you may not have had a negative experience with encampments, doesn’t mean that it’s not very real for others.”
Klassen voted in favour.
Coun. Phil Allt
Coun. Phil Allt, who voted against, said the bylaw is ultimately a zoning bylaw that “fails on a fundamental level.”
“It zones where and when tents can be erected, and because of that, I cannot support it.”
“It will disappoint those wanting downtown cleanup and tent dwellers to get out of dodge. It does not even address people sleeping on the streets in sleeping bags, only in tents.”
He said come Oct. 1, when the bylaw is set to come into force, we will not see any changes of real significance.
“We won’t see the crowds of homeless or poor people leaving downtown. Little has been stated as well about the permissiveness of this bylaw (that) allows everyone to tent in zoned areas in Guelph parks, on city land.”
“We’re establishing an expectation that cannot be delivered, that we’re going to solve the problems downtown and within the community. This doesn’t solve people hanging around downtown, it doesn’t solve IV drug use. It doesn’t address downtown decay,” he said. “We cannot arrest ourselves out of poverty.”
Coun. Michele Richardson
During the meeting Coun. Michele Richardson questioned how the 10-metre distance from schools and childcare centres, when some delegates indicated the distance wasn’t far enough. Besides that, she didn’t speak much, but voted in favour.
Coun. Christine Billings
Coun. Christine Billings voted in favour of the bylaw.
She didn’t comment besides noting she would appreciate seeing the map of permissible and non-permissible areas by the Sept. 10 meeting, which is when the bylaw to put Wednesday's decision into force will be voted on.
Coun. Linda Busuttil
Coun. Linda Busuttil said passing the bylaw was a bitter pill to swallow, and that the bylaw places undue pressure and risk to vulnerable community members when it comes to their safety and security.
“As a councillor, I have the authority to have a vote and a say in a bylaw, but I also have a responsibility around human rights, and considering all members of the community as a whole equally, including whether there is a bigger impact on one part of the community versus another. And in my view, there is.”
Voting against the bylaw, she said it’s simply rearranging people, and questioned how those living encampments would know when a space is booked, and whether the bylaw takes a human rights-based approach that “doesn’t further contribute to stigma or isolation of individuals.”
“We are rearranging people. And I bet you a silver dollar that we will be back here again with the same issue around public spaces. It’s going to be a revolving door around this issue. I will not be supporting this.”
Busuttil also questioned whether there would be arrests or charges down the line if people don’t comply, and said it’s unrealistic that service agencies will be able to support people in all the permissible areas.
Coun. Leanne Caron
Coun. Leanne Caron said this is the one of the hardest decisions she’s ever had to make in her nearly two decades on city council, “because the regulation of the use of public space is so deeply personal for so many.”
“But tonight it’s clear to me that everyone in the gallery, everyone who spoke… that we care very deeply about all citizens.”
She said everyone deserves to live in dignity and that unhoused people need direct access to resources and facilities.
“I think we can all agree that our provincial and federal governments have failed us miserably” in terms of low-income and supportive housing, mental health and addiction supports.
“Until recently, my compassion, my history and humanity, would have led me to reject the proposed bylaw. But it is so much more complex than that.”
Even while she was speaking near the end of the meeting, she said she was unsure.
“No matter what happens, whatever the outcome of the vote is tonight, we still have a lot more work to do. We need to make sure that basic needs are met wherever people are living.
“I’m trying to stick to the stated purpose of the bylaw, but it’s very difficult to remove it from the context of those who are going to be impacted the most by the decision to make tonight.”
But ultimately, she voted in favour.
“We as a council, we regulate all kinds of things. Parking, running of dogs at large without leashes… the regulation of the use of public space to me is something that every city would normally have,” she said.
Coun. Cathy Downer
Coun. Cathy Downer, likewise, said the decision was also one of the most difficult she’s had to make.
“I think we are a lot of passionate voices tonight. I have to agree that this is not going to solve homelessness.”
“The bylaw, from my perspective, it doesn’t solve those things, but it can address some of the conflicting uses that we have around programmable space.”
“If you’re in a place that’s not permissible, we will help you,” and she hopes it doesn’t lead to anything beyond trespass notices for the unhoused.
“I am supportive of it. It does deal with the temporary structures in the downtown.”
She did express interest in ensuring people living in prohibited areas are helped – given assistance with moving to areas they’re allowed in and connected to necessary services.
Coun. Ken Yee Chew
For Coun. Ken Yee Chew, the evening made it clear everyone was confused.
Yee Chew said he got a sense from the delegations and discussion “that we’re all coming from various advocacy viewpoints where we’re stressing different needs that are culminating to this point in time,” he said. “It just seems like we’re in a soup of confusion.”
“Really, at the heart of what we’re trying to discuss today is implementing a bylaw that can help us … better interact and engage with folks on the ground. We are not criminalizing individuals.”
He feels council wasn't criminalizing individuals, and that the community needs to be unified on this, “even though the convictions that we hold are so true in our hearts.”
“This is not a solution whatsoever, but it is a way in which we can better aid the situation… while we wait on the province and federal government.”
While he voted in favour of the bylaw, he wanted to make it clear the regulations aren't a solution to the many concerns delegates brought up, like violence, open drug use, loss of business and more.
Dominique O’Rourke
Coun. Dominique O’Rourke believes the bylaw will help “guide people to place where they will be less stigmatized,” and that it is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to addressing homelessness and other related issues.
“I’m concerned that people believe the public use bylaw will magically (solve) the issues we’re facing,” she said, agreeing with Gibson that it’s not perfect.
“But it does help to ensure public spaces can be enjoyed by all residents. It does create more safety with distances from train tracks and rivers. It does protect environmentally sensitive areas. It does allow us as a city to guide unsheltered people to a place where they can be and to be clear with members of the public that those folks are allowed to be there.”
She, too, said they are not criminalizing unhoused people, and the city is actively exploring solutions like tiny homes and incentives for affordable housing.
“The city and its partners through the health and housing symposium are breaking down silos between health and housing that we’ve never done before. Every meeting is a housing meeting right now.
“So many letters that we received are calling for better funding for community health services and increasing affordable housing. We absolutely echo that. Tonight is one piece, but there are many other pieces that have to come before and that are coming now.”
What does it rhyme with?