Enough with the one sided story- why don't you just pull out the violin Damery and play the pity story. Godin was given time to get his personal effects out of the structure and you both knew this was going to happen at some point in time because it is illegal. So don't play the victim. The city was more than patient and accommodating in this circumstance as noted by it taking approx 6-8 wks before it was removed. You can't convince me that the city did not have dialogue with the son-in-law over the course of that time. And what was supposed to happen after winter Damery- he should continue to live there in a tent until you build him another tiny home next winter. I think the son-in-law should pay for him to have a room somewhere in the city until maybe he can get a room at the Norfolk shelter. They have some rooms that are not shared in that facility where he could be on his own. You both thumbed your noses at the city and paid the price for that.
So what do these council members recommend to deal with homeless people making verbal threats to citizens ( I have personally experienced this twice) and stealing and property damage occurring by people in encampments. Guelph is becoming a free range psychiatric hospital
He demonsttrated his aggressiveness to bylaw and the Police from the sounds of the story. I think there is an element of drug addiction with this person as well and not just schizophrenia.
I am sure the city had dialogue with the son in law and the person in the tiny house. They would have been given warning of when to vacate before the demolition date. It appears Damery and Godin chose to ignore it. So the city has not other choice than to proceed.
I would appreciate if this paper could present a more balanced perspective instead of always putting these sensationalized headings about how horrible this bylaw is. I support the bylaw 100% . It is not preventing tents from being set up just location- your articles do not reflect the experience of citizens affected by erratic behaviour forced upon them by some encampment individuals . Individuals who are high on drugs are not predictable- should the safety of children and citizens count for nothing? This topic came up in February- is 6 months not sufficient time for the public and interest groups to bring their concerns to the Mayor and their Council reps. I think they had sufficient time. And why did none of the encampment people attend the August 28rh meeting where they had the opportunity to speak for themselves
Finally some good news and common sense. I am very happy for her. The person who filed the complaint should apologize to her as well as give a donation to her cause
You should have to spend a week with a small business owner downtown and see what they endure before spouting off. Better yet why don’t you offer a homeless person shelter in your house walk the talk
The individuals in St. George’s square will be moved to areas that the land use bylaw has designated as allowable to set up tents. This problem is not going to be solved municipally so attacking the Mayor solves nothing. Provincial and federal support and money is needed to provide to deal with the long wait list to get treatment and have housing. As for the person dying as a result of using drugs in St Georges square the Mayor is not responsible for the actions an individual takes. It is free will whether someone chooses to ingest/inject drugs and nobody has forced them to make that choice. Every time an addict uses drugs they take the risk of getting something contaminated. I would recommend that all the people who feel that homeless people are helpless victims particularly drug addicts that you offer one of them shelter in your home.
There is nothing I the charter saying you have a right to camp on the sidewalk- it is about not denying a person a right to housing/shelter. Designating areas where encampments can be set up is NOT denying a person a right to shelter. Also if a homeless person declines a shelter bed offered to them - which does happen because they are not allowed to use their drugs in the shelter is not violating their human rights. They chose to turn the bed down so whose fault is that?
I have no problem with his decision. He is recommending that an alternate approach of providing treatment should be explored. Evidence does not support that safe injection sites reduce deaths. In fact the death rate from drug use in guelph has increased in the past year. There is no such thing as “safe drug use” and continuing to keep these sites open only enables self destructive behaviour that inevitably ends with death. Enabling drug use is not compassion
How do you know they didn't contact or speak with the son in law? The city is not going to give a statment due to legalities. That is the norm for any government officials when it comes to issues of this nature. And do you consider it acceptable for someone to engage in illegal activity?
I attended the meeting and I wish I had not- the group who I later found out was Your friends of Downtown Guelph ( a misnomer if I ever heard one as they presented themselves as less than friendly). There incessant finger clicking when someone was speaking against the bylaw was disrespectful to those in support of it and very immature. And the fool walking around with his face completely covered looked exactly like that - a fool. If you feel strongly about an issue have the fortitude to show your face. This group alienated people. It was mentioned a few times by opposers of the bylaw that some homeless people TURN DOWN the offer of a bed in a shelter because “they don”t feel safe” and don’t have the freedom to do what they want which is likely shooting up drugs You have not violated an individuals rights if you offer them shelter and they turn it down. They made the choice and they can accept the consequences- it is called being an adult.
I get it you don’t like the Mayor and your bias comes through loud and clear. I read the recent issue of the Wellington Advertiser and I learned more from their reporting on what is happening in Guelph in relation to housing and homelessness. Your bias also clearly shows that you have no interest in pursuing other avenues to help drug addicts other than services to continue taking drugs- don’t know what sources of information you use that safe consumption sites have a positive benefit when there is a preponderance of studies that show it does not. Again your bias is showing . I am becoming less interested in reading Guelph Today because of the high level of biased reporting
Don't be such a Debbie downer- putting a roof over someones head without addressing their addictions/mental health issues accomplishes nothing. I am all for supporting someone to get addiction out of their life and get back on their feet to contribute to society and develop a sense of self worth. The only way to get there is to get addiction off their backs. Addiction leads to only one thing - death whether a slow prolonged way or a quick way.
It is disgusting how we treat the elderly and infirm. They should not be moved away from family in their final years- families can provide quality of life for someone in LTC. Their voices need to be heard. If infuriates me how much time we spend defending the rights of drug addicts living on the street and no compassion is given the elderly
Longfield would support Freeland? What has he been smoking. She propped up Trudeau and increased our debt to a level higher than what they even projected. I have zero trust in any Liberal- they are lying self serving individuals with no cohesiveness in their party. They have a long way to go to regain the public trust if that is even possible. One positive is that the lead narcissist (Trudeau) is leaving
I think there was more than one complaint in this situation. Also it is illegal. Either the city follows the laws that are in place or the laws become irrelevant.
They can stay on strike forever for all I care . I have found ways to get things done without them. How do you justify wanting more money when the corporation has been losing money in significant amounts year over year. Time to pull the plug on Canada Post.