Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
St. Ann's update- Wednesday, Aug. 29th, 2007: if you have interest in the 'right to sleep' read this update.
| Message Board > Controversy and Quarantine > St. Ann's update- Wednesday, Aug. 29th, 2007: if you have interest in the 'right to sleep' read this update. |
| DAJ User Info... | St. Ann's update- Wednesday, Aug. 29th, 2007: if you have interest in the 'right to sleep' read this update. - Good day all. I will be short. Here is a brilliant article that is in this week's Monday Magazine- City wants out of case, Monday Magazine, Aug 29 2007 Homeless campers who took over Cridge Park in 2005 will be denied their day in court if the City of Victoria’s lawyers get their way. The city is applying for a “discontinuance” of a case that would have tested the constitutionality of Victoria’s anti-camping bylaws and a temporary injunction the court granted in 2005. Nine days of court time were scheduled starting September 4. “Their intention was to end the intolerable situation that arose at Cridge Park in October 2005,” says Bruce Jordan, a Staples, McDannold, Stewart lawyer, who represents the city. The campers left, he says, therefore it’s no longer necessary to argue in court about whether the bylaw and injunction are constitutional. The park is at the corner of Blanshard and Belleville streets. But the lawyers defending the campers, Cathie Boies Parker and Irene Faulkner, say the campers have stayed out of the park partly because they knew they would get their day in court. “People have waited in good faith for two years to have the matter decided,” says Boies Parker. “If the discontinuance is granted, the bylaws would still be on the books.” The judge in 2005 granted the injunction but set a one-year limit on it so the city would be motivated to come back to court to defend it, she says. “I was very surprised the city would take this step. I thought it was clear from the first injunction application that it was appropriate the constitutional issues be heard.” Faulkner says they will argue the case should continue. “The court recognizes that at this point in the process the plaintiff doesn’t wholly own the litigation. The defendants have an interest in the outcome. It’s an issue that’s in the public interest to decide.” Corporate administrator Rob Woodland says it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money to hold a trial, and he hopes the court will approve the discontinuance in the next few weeks. If it’s granted and the city fails to defend its bylaws, watch for David Arthur Johnston and others to erect a new tent city faster than you can say “cowardly abuse of process”. --Andrew MacLeod --30-- Andrew MacLeod Monday Magazine staff writer (250) 382-6188 ext 136 [email protected] ///////////////// that about says it all. I knew they were intending seeking this “discontinuance”, finding out now that they made it official. It is expected and very fun. We are all about to witness a genuine miracle. I do not know, yet, when their thing goes in front of a judge... I'll find out, I'm sure, soon enough... it will be anytime between now and Sept. 4th. k- see you. Love you all... even the one's waiting for me to finish typing this... David Arthur Johnston [email protected] Home page- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann's Academy (Victoria, BC, Canada)- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman/welcome.htm Crimes of Necessity- http://www.loveandfearlessness.com/home.html (from filmmaker Andrew Ainsley. Very comprehensive.) - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:55pm | ||
| Chopper User Info... | The only thing most of us are waiting for is you taking your drivel elsewhere. Maybe if you start answering some of the querries you've chosen to ignore in other threads, people might take you a bit more seriously. As long as you dance around the issues, with your typical nonsensical style, you're going to be treated like a leach. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 1:35pm | ||
| Jl User Info... | maybe im gunna start up an "anti-homeless" campaign and see how much support i get ;) Since you think its ok for YOU and your followers(daj) to take over OUR parks that WE(taxpayers) PAY PEOPLE TO CLEAN UP AFTER YOUR FUCKING FILTH; then I think its fair that we DONT WANT YOU LIVING IN OUR CITY. Take the hint bud, and just take your dribble elsewhere in the world where someone might be sympathetic to your cause. I dont care for your dribble for an answer. I do not wish to hear your repsonse; though i do wish for you to leave our city. why? because the majority DONT WANT YOUR KIND(thats right i said it). I have little to no sympathy for bums like you; and you give those that have illness's that have caused them to flounder their lives away a bad name. At least those that have mental/physical dibilitations have reason to not being able to work. But you? what justice have you served yourself other than being a lazy fuckwad that preeches about a society that gives him the oppourtunity to BITCH ABOUT OUR SOCIETY. Take your head out of your ass; leave this island, start a family where ever you want.... just dont do it here. YOUR NOT WELCOME. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 2:15pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | I heard that Daj is already a grandpa and that his daughter is a teenage meth addict living on Saltspring. "Oh yeah, this is gonna be awesome" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9z2ELaBVJY ...did he say "awesome"? - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 2:24pm Edited: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 2:39pm | ||
| Chopper User Info... | Actually it's very likely dear old DAJ actually does have some mental imparement. His mother is just as crazy and religiously 'strange' as he is. Genetics, gotta love em. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 3:11pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | One day, DAJ will be dead and the world will finally be rid of this disrepectful thief and vandal. Hopefully, one day, the issues around homelessness will be resolved. Hopeully, in the future, parasites like DAJ who choose only to take from but not to contribute to their society, will be exiled, imprisoned or reformed. Understand there is no stopping him and his delusions. Its called mental illness and can be treated, but our treatment programs are already overburdened with more severe and outwardly harmful cases. So sadly, it seems there is no end to this. However, forcing people to spend money on your behalf is no different than taking and using money yourself. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 3:19pm Edited: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 3:19pm | ||
| DAJ User Info... | I like the gratitude dance - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 4:36pm | ||
| zinger User Info... | I think that responses [or perhaps accusations is more correct] so far attempt to uphold some ridiculous ideal. For starters, there is lots of drivel and nonsense on this board, and in the world. Why stop now? Oh, right I get it, because it's DAJ. Next up, he's homeless and is using 'our' parks. Duh! That's the fucking point, that supposedly 'public' spaces are not really public at all--they are maintained by and serve private corporate interests, which is why there is even a case in the first place. You don't want homeless people living in your city? Why? Because you want to see shiny happy people buying coffees, and shopping at malls? Fuck that. I'd rather see a homeless person than another SUV, or giant luxury condo development. Oh, and homeless people make a mess? Right, I forgot, it's just rich people that should be able to pollute the environment. And while we are on double standards, what about the bitching about 'our' society? Now only certain people can do that too? I guess maybe everybody should just quit the complainin', shut the fuck up and work their jobs. Ahh yeah, that means you too. Boring. You can start your anti-homeless group, but just don't do it here, anywhere else though. And the unsubstantiated suggestion that DAJ may already be a grandad, or the father of a teenage meth addict? Uh, that's a first. Even if it is true, why is this something to wave about on a flag? Who cares? There are lots of teenagers that have babies and drug habits, and many of them are from supposedly 'good' middle and upper class families that do the suburban 9 to 5, mom stays at home, dad pays the mortgage. Quit ascribing to limited definitions of what is normal and appropriate. Shits fucked up all over the place. Then, the cherries on the sundae, well you know DAJ [said with a conspiratorial whisper], he's craaaazy. I think that Dave Chapelle said it best during an interview on The Actor's Studio: "The worst thing to call somebody is crazy. It's dismissive. I don't understand this person, so they're crazy. That's bullshit. These people are not crazy they are strong people. Maybe the environment is a little sick. [applause] Ohh, I'm droppin' dimes tonight." Yes, he is talking about Hollywood, not homeless people. You want to hear it for yourself, quote starts somewheres around 4:40: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh4yr4cS-9w&mode=related&search= I hate the gratitude dance. And that's my ten cents. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 5:55pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | I was merely pointing out that he indeed already has a family, okay I crossed a line in pointing out his daughter's substance problem, sorry. It's just that when someone comes along with a holier than thou condesending attitude, they had better be perfect in their own lives. I'd rather see expensive brand new condos (with aloted low income suites) as opposed to seeing our mentally challenged stuck living in tents in a park. How could you wish that on anyone? ......the Daj dude is totally "craaaazy", imo you're craaaazy too, so bite me for having an oppinion, hater. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 6:11pm Edited: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 6:23pm | ||
| Chopper User Info... | Unless you've had the displeasure of attempting to converse with either of them... Go read some of the nonsense he's posted and tell me that's coming from a mind based in reality. This should be a lot of fun. Good luck attempting to analyze his inane posts. Hope you have a few months, and a psych degree, to filter out the psychosis and fantasies. Although maybe it's the term crazy that's the issue. Feel free to replace the term with mental imparement if it makes you feel any better. And unless you can show some proof that St Annes, or any other public park or space, is maitained by and serves private corporate interests then that arguement is nothing more than mindless prattle. One of these days I'll have to get the complete story from one of the cops (supervisory position) that assisted clearing out these schmucks from St Annes. The parts I've allready heard are quite the opposite from what he attempts to portray himself, especially regarding being peaceful. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 6:37pm Edited: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 6:41pm | ||
| Zinger User Info... | "It's just that when someone comes along with a holier than thou condesending attitude, they had better be perfect in their own lives." Hey trevor corey, I am quoting you, because I think we are on the same page here. Nobody's perfect, so it seems dubious to point out flaws based on some sort of impossibly perfected norms. Yes, some of DAJ's shit is ridiculous, circular and downright preposterous but so are the rest of the posts attacking his position. I would rather there was some sort of debate based on the issues raised, but then this is C&Q. So I thought I'd throw my shit-apples into the shit-storm. I probably am crazy, with a minor in hater, but here's 2 smokes anyways :) - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 6:51pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | How could anyone hate the gratitude dance? It's "awesome"! - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 7:00pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | Thanks fer the smokes. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 7:02pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | My mom's family moved to Vancouver island after a years long trek across the praries back in the early sixties. There was five kids and no welfare. They lived in Goldstream park until my Grandpa found work. People should not have to live that way. If Daj wants my respect(which he doesn't) he will work for social housing not third world "tent" cities. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 7:07pm | ||
| Zinger User Info... | trevor corey - you're most welcome for the smokes. Your recent post about the family trek to the island in the early 60s is fascinating to me. Did you get to hear alot of stories about it when you were a kid? Does your family still talk about it, or is it more in the past? I love hearing personal experiences, how families made a go of it, the challenges they faced and still face. At least your mom's family didn't get kicked out of Goldstream while your grandad tried to find work--or maybe this was an issue? You are right on two points here, first that people shouldn't have to live this way, especially if they do not want to. I do not see it getting any easier for working people the way that property values have ballooned in the city over the last 20 years. Urban development is a major factor in the increase of property values, especially when the building trend is luxury homes, condos, hotels and resorts and NOT affordable housing. As the value of land and its surrounding spaces go up, you can bet that what the public--especially the poor public--can and cannot do will be increasingly monitored and controlled. The second point you are correct on is that DAJ doesn't want or need your respect. DAJ, like any social protester wants and needs a way to communicate what is going on in the proceedings of his case and of his 'cause'--the right of the public to sleep in a 'public' space. The fact that the city is currently trying to avoid going to court suggests that there may be a 'real' constitutional challenge here. What would make the most sense is to spend the money that would go to pay lawyers on some affordable housing on land donated by the city--but that's pretty unlikely when money talks louder than the health and welfare of citizens. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 8:57pm | ||
| Zinger User Info... | Chopper - I realize that there are other threads involving DAJ as well. I have been a very long-time lurker and short-time poster on this site. I don't buy DAJs arguments whole heartedly, I grew up on a failed commune and have heard plenty of delusional idealism in my time. I do however support the challenge regarding public space because I think that public space isn't really public at all. What I meant by my earlier post is not that St. Anne's (or other public parks) is in actuality owned by private interests, because it is not, it is owned by the government. [NB: A gov't that has privatized everything from my personal medical data to BC Hydro, as part of its neo-liberal money-grubbing tactics, and yes I will have some cheese with that whine] What I meant is that public spaces are increasingly becoming corporatized, in a way that seriously limits public access. Take St. Annes--yes, it is open to the public, I can go and wander the grounds during the day if I want--but the main purpose of the building and the grounds is as a rental space [sez so on the website - http://www.bcpcc.com/stanns/rentals.htm]. So, if there is a private function going on I cannot hang out and do whatever. That means that it is not really a truly public space, it is a semi-private space in public clothes. This is not to say that the grounds and buildings do not serve the community in other ways. These 'services' are however IMHO a rather limited version of public space, one usually reserved for those who can afford it, rather than as a commons for everybody. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 9:28pm | ||
| Chopper User Info... | As long as you're not acting like a complete moron, they have no issue with you being on the property of St Anne's, or any other publicly funded 'space', even if there is a private function going on. We've had picnics down there, in semi-large groups, when there were art exhibits goin on inside. Can't say I've ever even heard of the grounds being close when the actual building is open, or even when it was closed/condemned. The only event I've even seen on the actual grounds was an SCA informational event, and that was completely open to the public. They do tighten security a bit at night, but after DAJ and his cronies, it's understandable why. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 9:40pm | ||
| trevor corey User Info... | Goldstrteam is a campground, equiped with outhouses and garbage removal. They would never have thought to set up camp in a city park, without some sort of bathrooms and water supply. The "trek" is a very interesting tale, as is growing up in a commune, but I don't think this is the proper forum. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 9:55pm | ||
| Zinger User Info... | trevor corey - Right, right, the campground. When you said Goldstream Park, I forgot about the campground. I wonder how many families did that when they arrived to the Victoria area. I think we camped at Mount Doug Park for a few nights when we first got here--and the rental to renter ratio was probably much higher then than it is now. Chopper - what if I excel at being a total moron in public spaces, internet included? On a more serious note, if the grounds are rented for a wedding or something, can you still hang out? It didn't look that way from the website, it looked like it was all for rent, with public access being bought out by private functions. Long, long ago before DAJ, I had the unfortunate experience of walking through St. Annes at night. It was beautiful, the moon shining and all. Then, me & my 5 pals got totally hassled by security, even though we were not camping, throwing garbage, drinking or anything very moronic. The security guard kept us for ages, but finally let us go when the cops failed to show up. Since then, I have not spent alot of time there, perhaps I ought try a picnic before the summer is over. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:31pm | ||
| bbjones User Info... | ffs... what is wrong with people these days... when did this forum become a haven for the mentally handicapped. I'm all for supporting people who want to live a different lifestyle than what normally surrounds them. But... I am 100% against the same people trying to change everyone around them to suit their own crackhead ideas. Zinger, you're like a master backpedler.... care to share your secrets? Please remember, DAJ chooses to be homeless. There are many homeless that have full time jobs and are trying their damndest to get a permananet address. People like DAJ eat up tremendous amounts of public resources that will never help anyone but the lawyers involved. Way to go moron. I don't suppose you could find a more productive (and less wastefull) way to make a point? No? Didn't think so... - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:00pm | ||
| Jl User Info... | I wish the gov't would watch the south park episode on the homless... THAT would solve sooooooooooooo many problems. and as for you zinger... you can believe all you want; but Daj and his cohorts*(aka LEECHES) deserve nothing more than the dust my feet kick up. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:00pm | ||
| Chopper User Info... | If you excel at being a moron than I guess you would have issues, and rightfully so. As I said, there has been 1 event that I can recall where the grounds were used and that was a public event. I have never seen a wedding party, or reception, held on the grounds. Keep arguing semantics, it's really doing a lot for your credibility. Either way, you still haven't sufficiently explained the moronic 'private corporate interest' statement. All you've done so far is waffle on a lot of your prior statements. Which pretty much says to me you haven't a fucking clue about what you're talking about. - Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:11pm | ||
| Zinger User Info... | Everyone who responded to my most recent posts - I am not certain where you think I have backpedaled, or how I have not outlined the ways that public space can be and is being privatized and corporatized. In my first post, I responded to what I viewed as the underlying assumptions contained in everyone else's posts. I was very clear that I felt that the posts ascribe to pretty limited definition of normal and appropriate behaviour and full of double standards. Nothing in this first post stated that I am an undying believer/follower of what DAJ has to say, it was based on everyone else's posts. Then, in my second post, I acknowledged that some of what DAJ has to say is ridiculous, circuitous, and preposterous - not unlike the responses to his posts which tend to be along the lines of flame-baiting personal attacks rather than issue-based debates. Calling someone crazy, mental or moronic doesn't get at issues, it just says that you haven't looked beyond the surface, or have no interest in doing so. In my third post, I said that I can smell delusional talk a mile away, because of my childhood spent on a commune. That whole 'I love you anyways' stuff drives me up a wall during debates, it is as disrespectful as flame baiting. During this post I attempted [apparently not well enough] to clarify the elements that I felt were worth retaining and discussing. If you strip away all the excess blather on either side, what is really at issue is how public space is used, thought about, contested etc. And in my opinion, this is an important issue. Truly public spaces, or a 'commons' as I called it exists less and less because as property values increase throughout cities, because it does not serve private corporate interests [read: developers]. Private corporate interests and the commodification of spaces in turn affect what government will and will not support. There is a great Italian neo-realist film called 'Hands across the City' [ or Le Mani sulla Citta ] directed by Francesco Rosi, about urban development in Naples that takes up this issue further. Everyone chose to take my rather light-hearted statement about excelling at being a moron in public spaces VERY LITERALLY, despite the fact that my next sentence started with the phrase: On a more serious note. I made the joke in response to Chopper who seemed to suggest that only those who act moronically are singled out for corrective action - this is akin to people who respond to infringements of their personal freedoms with the statements like, well if you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about? The underlying logic of such statements is based on the assumption that only those who are deserving will be infringed upon. Lots of exceptions to that rule. For those of you who feel that I have not hammered down unequivocally my argument that public space is not actually public, and that it is becoming privatized - perhaps we disagree about what public space really is. My point is simply that when money talks, private interests will always manage to insinuate their needs upon the public, and the spaces we call public. If you want more reading material on the topic there is plenty, although much of it is not on Victoria specifically: http://vancouverpublicspace.ca/index.php/campaigns/corporatization http://www.betterparks.ca/ http://www.research.uottawa.ca/perspectives/10023 http://www.vancouverpublicspace.ca/ http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-Neighborhoods-Privatization-Public/dp/0415944635 http://www.amazon.com/Right-City-Social-Justice-Public/dp/1572308478/ref=pd_sim_b_1/105-5480131-3283604 can't type or paste any more bedddtime... - Thu, 30 Aug 2007 1:10am | ||
| trevor corey User Info... |  Mental health patients that are not taking doctor prescribed medications can be very violent and frighten old ladies and little children. Plus I know for a fact that the majority of homeless carry some sort of shank to protect themselves from their own, and occasionally lose it and attack some un-prepared jock to the death. Don't try to turn Victoria into one of the filth hole American style city. Treat Daj as he is, a media whore, who just wants as much attention as he can get. - Thu, 30 Aug 2007 1:36am Edited: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 1:43am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | again... ffs. Zinger... does this forum look like an intelligent debating ground? Are you not aware that this is part 4 of this rediculous topic? Are you not aware that everyone still posting has been attacking/begging DAJ to respond to his la-la-la land comments? You step in, basically defend the way DAJ is doing things, then proceed to attack everyone else resopnding. What did you expect to get in return? DAJ posts links to his drivel all the time. Go read some then come back and see if you too wouldn't be happier if he was locked in some institution. What issues are important here? It sure isn't about who controlls our freaking parks! Are they your parks? Do you have some "right" to force the city to provide parks and public space everywhere? Think about it for just one minute... This is a tourist city. Until that changes, there will be spaces that public activities will continue to happen in, and spaces that will continue to make our city look appealling. What does it matter the definition of how "public" they are? A public use park doesn't mean private interest cannot control it. You still get to use it, but you sure ain't got no right to move in with your buddies and make a campground. The only issue worth trying to resolve is the homeless issue. There is little to debate apart from perhaps which homeless deserve help or not. And don't blame our city's problems on SUV's... at least people owning/driving them pay their taxes. - Thu, 30 Aug 2007 8:21am Edited: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 9:15am | ||
| Chopper User Info... | Like I said, you tout this BS about private corporate interests in public spaces but have yet to properly back the statement. If we take you asinine sentiment that because something is rented out for use, that it's backed by private corporate interests. So you probably have an issue with community centers, which are partially funded by the province, are also furthering private corporate interests by renting out hall space? Seems to me that you really haven't a clue about what you're talking about but use common, 60's mentality, terminology to try to make a point when it doesn't even remotely fall into the parameters of the term. So until you can properly back your statements with actual fact (post the private corporate interests that gain financially from St Anne's being rented out), then really you're no different from DAJ in a lot of ways. - Thu, 30 Aug 2007 9:45am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | What timing... http://communities.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/blogs/news/pages/homelessness.aspx DAJ, looks like you have a new buddy! Another turd that chooses to be a drain on everything around him... at least he's shared his burden with most of the country. Maybe you should move to Montreal? Guess who deserves a kick in the pants? - Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:41am Edited: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:42am | ||
| Chopper User Info... | That's one of the homeless types that really get under my skin. If you choose to be homeless, for whatever factor other than mental illness or working poor, then you're nothing but a leach. I have friends who chose to live on the streets, some for 10+ years. Eventually they woke up, and their lives are 100x better for it. They look back now and wonder why they wasted so much time, because 'selling out' to societal values wasn't as bad as they thought it would be. - Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:44am | ||
| Jeremy Baker User Info... | I got no problem with the idea that someone could sleep in a park... I've had the pleasure of doing it. And from a purely... "I should have the freedom to do what I want." I on a basic principle would suport the cause... the problem is not that these people people sleep in the park, its that they take over the park, make a mess of the park and don't provide for the upkeep of the park. Their rights should not superceed the rights of others to enjoy the park. If my girlfriend is "scared" to go into the park or the park is not safe for a child, then some "rules' need to be imposed. If they want to sleep under the stars... BUY an acre or two out in Mitchosen and love life... but I guess that would involve you know... getting a job and actually working. If anything, I am upset at these crusaders because THEY have made it that no one can camp in parks. Urban camping could and should be fun and its too bad that because of a few people abusing the priviledge, this even has to be an issue. - Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:55am | ||
| DAJ User Info... | St. Ann's update- Friday, Aug. 31st, 2007: the other alternative is martial law and internment camps (absolutely no joke) - Good days. The city 'discontinued' their injunction and subsequently the Charter Challenge. Apparently, we are going to use the option of going in front of a 'master' to see about the city getting told that it cannot discontinue this action. So... On WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5th at 9:45 AM at the Victoria Law Courts we hope to make clear how much this case going ahead is in the public's interest and get a 'master' (not quite a judge, yet with some limited authority) to tell the city that it cannot back out. The ball is in the court's hands. There is much conjecture about possibilities- the 'master' says the city is allowed to discontinue and our lawyers begin their own action, hopefully using the same time that was set for the other (which had changed from starting Sept. 4th set for nine days to starting Sept. 10th and scheduled for 4-6 days)... if there is rescheduling I still intend on pressing the issue in the form of 'civil disobediance' before the end of Sept.... the 'master' says the city cannot discontinue then the same stuff for scheduling... this is all very convoluted, I know... bare with it. So. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5th at 9:45 AM the court will have opportunity to expidite justice. We will see what happens. This is really important, it will reveal the court's anxiousness to determine the 'right to sleep', when it has the opportunity to do so. Everyone should be there. No, really. Every mother and every father. Every religious person, Every person that has ever smiled at the notion of freedom. Everyone. If the natives ever want to see freedom again they should be there. Every environmentalist. Every activist. Everyone should be there. We were all born in a cage and not given a full picture of what has been happening to our world. This is a way out. If you don't want interment camps and martial law this is the only way. peace and a love of truth be with us all. David Arthur Johnston Victoria, BC, Canada [email protected] Home page- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann's Academy (Victoria, BC, Canada)- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman/welcome.htm Crimes of Necessity- http://www.loveandfearlessness.com/home.html (from filmmaker Andrew Ainsley. Very comprehensive.) - Fri, 31 Aug 2007 6:23pm | ||
| Jl User Info... | Go AWAY you leech - Fri, 31 Aug 2007 8:26pm | ||
| J. Peatman User Info... |  DO NOT compare losing the possibility of turning publicly enjoyed spaces into a semi-permanent settlement for lazy stinkers, with a first step towards a totalitarian abusive regime. That is an arrogant, lousy and lame tactic. Somehow I think that spending a year in a Siberian Gulag facility would actually do you some good. - Sat, 1 Sep 2007 1:24pm | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | Imagine how many drunken crazed beating runs there would be every weekend through the parks of Victoria if these do-nothings actually won the right to deface and pollute the parks. Do you think the useless cops would even try to stop such a thing? Really though, I can't see DAJ and his tard brigade winning this one. The general taxpayers public outcry would automatically overturn such a verdict. In a battle between taxpayers and non-taxpayers concerning tax funded issues, the taxpayers will always win. You lose, Dave. - Sun, 2 Sep 2007 10:27pm | ||
| mangelsen User Info... | Hey, I gotta say, I was someone who made the choice to live on the streets when I was in my teens and early twenties. And DAJ you seem a little hypocritical from what I've been reading, to say nothing of the fact you are preaching something that has no chance of ever winning a wide following. You spurn money (supposedly) yet are willing to allow lawyers to defend you, if you were so righteous you should have no need of people who get paid big bucks to fight your battles for you. The very nature of your court fight is to sleep on the grounds of a facility that is artificially maintained through paid maintenance. If your ideals were anything like you claim you would not want to live surrounded by the concrete jungle, you would be happier living in the wilds that are left of our country fighting for them to be left pristine so you and your following could get back to nature. It seems to me that you made some choices or they were made for you and then you created the weak structure of your philosophy to back up your misguided lifestyle. As I said in the start of this post, I made the same choice when I was younger. The only differences are that I didn't try to convince others that my choices freely made should be forced on them. Also I awoke from my delusional way of thinking and decided that I had had enough, I wasn't willing to raise a child in the manner I was living, as that would be abusive. I made my choices as I had the right to do. Stop preaching at people and make your decisions for you and you only and let the rest of the world make their own choices. - Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:27am | ||
| Tyler User Info... | I agree with mangelsen. I said the same points in a previous topic but DAJ never responded. - Tue, 4 Sep 2007 1:21am | ||
| Mofo User Info... | mangelson....couldn't have said it better myself; well said. I too lived on the streets at an early age. The streets of Toronto are much less forgiving than the climate friendly (politically and weatherwise) ones of Victoria. What better a place than to make a stand against a system than here, a system which DAJ blatantly ridicules in one breath and in another utilizes the power of lawyers (as you mentioned) to support his own....god I don't even know what to call them, delusions? DAJ, if patience is a virtue you sure as hell have tried all of ours. - Tue, 4 Sep 2007 5:32pm | ||
| DAJ User Info... | St. Ann's update- Wednesday, Sept. 5th: a 'master' will give ruling Friday morning - Went well. Noticeable moments. Irene was lawyering perfectly. Bruce Jordan, the city's attourney, again brought up my 'choice' to be homeless and how it made me unworthy of seeking or getting justice. I wonder if it has occurred to them that, in a world were choice would be possible, every person got to where they were through the 'choices' they have made... so the question is do we criminalize 'lack of discipline'? or do we start shining with the discipline we would like to see? I know discipline cannot be enforced and any who would suggest so is under a horror of a delusion... may we forgive them in their insane belief that order can be maintained through malicious behaviour... may they have ease in their acclimatization of divine order (it is through trusting that others trust that we can feel freedom)... however much sense that makes. The 'master' (seemed astute enough) is going to give his ruling on Friday morning and then we will see if the city is allowed to drop this thing they started (by getting an injunction and subsequently allowed for the defence of it by way of the Charter Challenge, which is now scheduled to begin on Monday if the city isn't successful on Friday...). If they are not we presume they will try to postpone as much as they can to avoid having to defend their bylaws. That attempt could possibly come on Monday (Sept. 10th). We'll see. My bravado is measured. I hope provision can be made so that I do not feel the need to engage in 'civil disobedience' in the not too distant future. love you all David Arthur Johnston Victoria, BC, Canada [email protected] Home page- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann's Academy (Victoria, BC, Canada)- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman/welcome.htm Crimes of Necessity- http://www.loveandfearlessness.com/home.html (from filmmaker Andrew Ainsley. Very comprehensive.) - Wed, 5 Sep 2007 9:21pm | ||
| Endeløs User Info... |  | ||
| DAJ User Info... | St. Ann's update- Thursday, Sept. 6th, 2007: monumental comprehensive magazine article - good morning. Monday Magazine has done real good. found this after I wrote yesterday's update (can be found at- http://web.bcnewsgroup.com/portals/monday/ ). There were many pictures as well, that are only on the printed edition... can anyone say exponential escalation? here it is. have good days... Pitching the Camping Case Victoria police enforce check-out day at Cridge Park in October, 2005 By ANDREW MacLEOD Sep 05 2007 Two years ago police evicted homeless people from Cridge Park. Why won’t the city see them in court? One could pass Cridge Park a dozen times without noticing it, but it is at the centre of a court case that could reorder how we look at public places and how we treat the homeless. The park is tucked in the curve Blanshard Street makes as it turns into Belleville Street, between the Church of Our Lord and a lawn bowling club a block from the Inner Harbour and the provincial legislature. Several mature trees, including a couple huge broad-leafed maples, provide shade. The grass underneath looks ratty and unloved. A small rose bed is past its peak. A chain link fence, broken at one end, runs several metres along the sidewalk. Beside the fence a red sleeping bag spills out of a garbage bag. On a warm Friday morning in late August, David Arthur Johnston and I are the only visitors. “It’s a throughway,” says Johnston, a self-styled monk with a long beard and a straw hat who for several years has been in and out of jail as he’s fought the city and the province for the right to sleep in public places. “It’s not the city’s Raj, it’s not their jewel.” Even the park’s two benches face out of the park, seeming to confirm the road offers the best view around. The park may not be much to look at, but it could have a huge impact on the city’s street issues thanks to the coming court case. The case was set to open September 4, but as of this writing it has been delayed and lawyers for both sides were to be in court September 5 to argue whether it should continue at all. For two weeks in 2005 the park was a much livelier place. A group of 15 or more homeless people and supporters, barred from the provincially owned St. Ann’s Academy grounds across the street, set up camp in the city park. Johnston, who at that point had earlier been barred from St. Ann’s, joined them. He points out a spot near the sidewalk where the group had their kitchen, beside a tree that city workers have since cut down. Under the trees near the church, he says, was a large tarp with several tents below. Another “suburb” with more tents popped up further back. “It grew pretty fast. In three or four days it had gotten up to about 25 tents, 70 people. It shows that people thought it was useful.” City officials, however, didn’t want campers taking over a public park, even one as grotty as Cridge. A long-standing bylaw forbids a person to “loiter or take up a temporary abode overnight on any portion of any park.” Erecting a shelter is also against the law. So is “placing a chattel,” a belonging, in a public place. So the city asked the courts for an injunction. The city sought a permanent injunction against the campers, but lawyers Catherine Boies Parker and Irene Faulkner, representing the campers, argued that it was unfair and likely against the Canadian constitution to block people from sleeping in the park when there is nowhere else where they can legally sleep. The city didn’t have nearly enough shelter beds for the 700 or so people believed to be then homeless, and the beds that did exist were always full. Judge Allan Stewart agreed those arguments were worth considering. He granted the city its injunction, but only temporarily—it expired in August, 2006—so the city would have to come back to court and make its case for why the order was necessary and fair. Meanwhile, the campers had to go. On a grey October day police officers cleared the park. Photos from the day show at least nine officers standing around while campers roll up their belongings, in some cases stuffing them into shopping carts. One of the officers carries an arm-load of zip ties, frequently used to handcuff prisoners. A camper plays the fiddle. A fire fighter in a blue helmet douses the campers’ barbecue. The campers have been gone nearly two years and the temporary injunction expired one year ago, but now the city wants to avoid having to defend its position in court. On behalf of the city, Staples, McDannold, Stewart lawyer Bruce Jordan has asked the court to “discontinue” the case, arguing the injunction is no longer necessary. If that permission is denied, Jordan says, he’ll be in the “highly unusual” position of having to prosecute a case the city doesn’t want to fight. “[City officials] think [the injunction’s] purpose has been served,” he says. “Their intention was to end the intolerable situation that arose at Cridge Park in October, 2005.” With the campers gone, the city has little to gain from going to court, and plenty to lose. A win would reinforce the status quo and camping in city parks would remain illegal. But if the city loses, Jordan says, “Potentially camping would be allowed in city parks at any time by anyone.” The loss would set a precedent that would apply not just in Victoria, but throughout Canada. Tents could go up in city parks from Victoria to St. John’s and Windsor to Whitehorse. Anti-camping bylaws would become meaningless, and police couldn’t use them as a stick to chase people out of parks. Homeless organizers and anti-poverty activists across the country are watching the case carefully. Defending the camp When I meet with Catherine Boies Parker and Irene Faulkner, the lawyers representing the Cridge campers, they are coming to terms with the city’s move to discontinue and figuring out what to do next. “We didn’t think the city would take this step of discontinuing,” Boies Parker says. She picks her words carefully, but says she was shocked. “People have waited in good faith for two years to have the matter decided.” Their Fort Street office is in a series of high-ceilinged rooms in an old house. An issue of The Guardian, the newsletter for the Hospital Employees’ Union, celebrating the win on Bill 29 is on the mantelpiece. Boies Parker worked with Joe Arvay on the case, which overturned the Gordon Campbell government’s law that broke contracts with some 200,000 public sector workers. When an injunction like the one for Cridge Park is granted, Boies Parker says, things tend to move quickly. Once the city had the legal authority, the police cleared people out. It’s quick and dirty, and the finer points of the law don’t get argued until later. In the United States, she says, it’s the kind of case the American Civil Liberties Union might pick up and argue. In Canada, such cases are much less likely to get heard, even when there’s an obvious injustice being done. “One of the things we were concerned about when the clients first came to us is there seemed to be such an obvious constitutional issue here,” she says. “The people who are affected by this law are really unable to comply with the law.” It is illegal to trespass on private land in the city. The police and the city were also making it clear there was nowhere on public land where people could sleep. The shelters were full and inadequate for the number of people who were homeless. If the campers could have gone to a home somewhere, they would have, she says. Faulkner adds, “They didn’t have that choice.” In a situation like that, where it was impossible to obey the law, the constitution should protect people. Says Boies Parker, “It was an issue that needed to be addressed.” The thing is, it’s not easy for people who are homeless to push forward a legal case. If there’s no money for rent, there likely isn’t money for a lawyer either. If a person is having a hard time doing what it takes to get and hold a job, how are they going to conduct litigation? “It just seems very unfair that it should be so difficult,” Boies Parker says. “When you have an ongoing concern, it seems like it’s in everyone’s interest to have it decided, because it’s not going away. The problem of homelessness, so far, is not going away.” A growing need A homeless survey conducted last winter found some 1,200 people homeless in the CRD. That’s up from a count of around 700 a few years earlier. Most people accept that homelessness is increasing, Faulkner says. “Lack of housing is the main cause. We’re not building any more social housing, or we’re building very, very little.” The breakdown of families, difficulties for some people finding work, a low rental vacancy rate and failure to help people deal with mental health and addiction issues all play a role. And yet we’ve done little to stem the growth, despite the rising concerns voiced by downtown business owners and others. More people are forced to sleep outside, says Faulkner, because despite the growth in the number of homeless people “the number of shelter beds hasn’t increased.” The city has options. “There are all sorts of ways the city can address this,” says Boies Parker. “It’s a political question, how they’re going to address homelessness.” Solutions might include designating a place for camping, creating more shelter beds or helping people afford market rents. Boies Parker and Faulkner aren’t arguing that people should be allowed to sleep anywhere, anytime, just that you can’t apply bylaws to people that they can’t comply with. “You can’t try to legislate people out of existence,” she says. “I think one of the important things about the case is people who are homeless, there’s a tendency to want to sweep the problem under the rug, make it go away.” More support for the case going forward came when David Arthur Johnston was released on bail last summer. After 36 days on a hunger strike in Wilkinson Road Jail, the release was on the understanding he would put his energy into the court challenge. At the bail hearing judge Robert Bauman agreed that was an appropriate avenue for him to have his voice heard, says Boies Parker. So did judge Robert Metzger at the sentencing appeal. Says Boies Parker, “But [now] the forum gets yanked out from underneath him.” Faulkner says she and Boies Parker will argue the case should continue. “We’re preparing to go. Our clients are ready to go and we’re ready to go.” If the city succeeds at stopping the case, it will be asked to pay the legal costs for the months of work that have gone into preparing an argument. The city would also face a new action aimed at striking down the camping bylaws, this time with the campers acting as plaintiffs. The case is already filed, but won’t proceed until the first case is resolved. If the court grants the city its discontinuance, the anti-camping bylaws will remain in effect. If a new tent city goes up, as it surely will, Boies Parker asks, would the city use the bylaws again? To seek another injunction based on bylaws it has failed to defend in court would amount to an abuse of process, she says, and she would plan to argue that in court. “To start the whole process over again seems incredibly unfair to people who have difficulty accessing justice to begin with. In our view it would be much better to proceed with the current action.” Perhaps, she says, the city has decided it can’t win. “One would think if they were confident, they would want to proceed.” Or maybe the city agrees the bylaws are unfair and has other plans to deal with homelessness that will make the case irrelevant. “It may be the city looked at this issue and said, ‘we shouldn’t defend these bylaws,’” she says. “It may be that the city is declining to defend these bylaws because they intend to do something that will enable people to have a place where they can go.” She adds, “If the city has some other plans, it would be good to let us know about them . . . If there was an opportunity for people to have safe, secure shelter, other than this in the city, we couldn’t make the constitutional argument we’re making now.” Whatever happens, Boies Parker, Faulkner and their clients won’t let the city walk away. “We’re very committed to making sure this issue is addressed. If the bylaws are going to be relied on and enforced, their constitutionality needs to be tested.” Pitched position Victoria’s corporate administrator, Rob Woodland, says the city stands behind its anti-camping bylaws, but there’s little point proceeding with the Cridge case. “In the interest of being prudent with taxpayers’ money and the fact it hasn’t been repeated, we felt a lengthy trial at this point wouldn’t be worthwhile,” says Woodland. “When we dealt with the matter in the fall of 2005 there was a massed camp that was causing damage to the park.” Now, he says, things have improved. Of course things have improved in part because recurrent campers like David Johnston have stayed out of the park while they wait for the case to be heard. If the city backs out, they’ll be back. So, when they start setting up a new tent city, will the city use the bylaws again? Woodland says, “We’d have to review the situation as it arose at the time. The city is concerned to maintain parks that are open for all users.” It would depend on how the use and “integrity” of the park were affected, he says, and certainly people would be encouraged to move on and make use of whatever resources are available from non-profits or the government before any enforcement was made. But what about Boies Parker’s argument that a court is unlikely to grant another injunction based on bylaws the city has chosen not to defend? “I can’t say, to be honest with you,” says Woodland. “I can’t predict the future and I wouldn’t make a judgement on how we’d respond.” However, mayor Alan Lowe says the city would likely use the bylaws again. If a new tent city starts, he says, “We’ll go back for a temporary injunction. We believe the parks are for everyone to use and not for individual groups to take over.” Lowe says the city is right to pull out of the case. “The temporary injunction worked. We didn’t want to spend more money to do something that may not be necessary . . . From our point of view there’s nothing to go to the courts for at this point, so why spend money on something we don’t need?” The courts aren’t the place to deal with social policy issues anyway, he says. The city is making progress on homelessness, he says, and will continue to make progress. In mid-October the mayor’s task force on breaking the cycle of homelessness, mental illness and addiction will report. Says Lowe, “We’re about to see great things.” When pressed for details he says the task force is looking at other models from Canada and abroad, but everyone will have to wait until October to see what the task force recommends. Asked if the city would ever start its own tent city, which could then be managed with the public interest in mind, he says, “No, the city would not, I don’t think. I just don’t believe that’s what we should be doing.” He’d rather see resources go to temporary shelters and other housing, he says. Woodland says dealing with homelessness requires the co-operation of the provincial and federal governments. Right after police disbanded the Cridge camp, the city and the province introduced the cold and wet weather protocol which saw more shelter beds opened during the winter, beds that were removed when the weather improved. The city has also contributed money and support to open the new Our Place building on Pandora Street. When it opens in December, it will provide housing for 45 people. The new housing replaces 22 beds that were part of the Upper Room, meaning the multi-year project will result in a net gain of 23 places to sleep. Staking the next tent A tent city would help reduce homelessness, says Janine Bandcroft, co-ordinator of the Victoria Street Newz. “To me it’s a viable solution in this society,” she says. “At least it’s a step. Then they’re visible somewhere, they’re accepted as part of society.” With high rents and expensive real estate, people need somewhere to go. “The cost of housing is not going to change,” she says. “{A tent city] is a stopgap for some and for others it’s just where they want to be.” It provides people a measure of security so that they can sleep without being afraid of violence or theft. Tent cities have existed successfully in Portland and Seattle for many years, she says. Edmonton had one this past summer. It had a water tank, a portable toilet and a fence, all things which helped it run smoothly and hygienically. Media reports said more permanent housing was found for some 30 residents before the camp was closed last week. Bandcroft is hopeful the Victoria case will proceed. “I think it’s going to be precedent-setting here and for Canadians everywhere,” she says. “I think it’s a big deal. Irene and Catherine are wonderful for taking it on.” Sitting in Cridge Park, Johnston imagines what the next tent city will be like. “Right now everything is on schedule,” he says. “Pending political manoeuvring, it’s always hard to say how things will go. I predict at the very least the judge will find the anti-camping bylaw unconstitutional.” Perhaps, he says, the judge will go further. “I hope and fantasize the city will be ordered to make provision for basic facilities in the form of washrooms, maybe a kitchen, maybe showers.” Last time around, without the city’s support, campers had challenges with things like finding places to go to the washroom. Johnston says during the day they would use nearby public washrooms at places like the library and the bus station. Night was more of a challenge. “Some people learn to poo in bags,” he says. A little bit of infrastructure would make a huge difference to the running of the camp. The tent city will be a family-friendly place, he says. It will draw some of the people who sleep on the sly in other parks around the city. “I’m looking forward to tent city as a community of highly intelligent, industrious people helping each other out,” he says. “The tent city will be like the wild west. There will be good sturdy folk, there will be sheriffs and there will be . . .” he pauses, looking out at the street for a few moments, before adding, “I want to say something like ‘the flailing victims of this delusional society.’” Like last time, it will be open to a wide variety of people. “Even obnoxious drunks, flailing meth heads, need sleep and love and the support of a community,” says Johnston. “There are basic necessities of life that draw us together no matter where we come from. The first one being community. That is more important than sleep.” He predicts some people won’t like it. They’ll throw beer cans at the campers and hurl insults as they drive by. But others will support the camp, seeing the need people have for a place to stay and the power of what it represents. “Old retired people will come to like us because we represent a kind of freedom most of the first world has never seen before.” He adds, “It’s about basic freedom. There are those who, rightly so, can not adhere to normalcy”. Whether the Cridge case goes ahead or not, there will be another tent city in Victoria, Johnston says. The case should be heard so the city doesn’t have to come back time and again to waste the court’s time with injunctions. There’s no doubt, he says, people need somewhere to go. “The tent city is housing. The judge may very well in an instant solve the affordable housing crisis in Canada.” M ///////// alright. not much else. waiting for the master's ruling Friday morning. then for Monday... k peace, David Victoria, BC, Canada [email protected] Home page- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann's Academy (Victoria, BC, Canada)- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman/welcome.htm Crimes of Necessity- http://www.loveandfearlessness.com/home.html (from filmmaker Andrew Ainsley. Very comprehensive.) - Thu, 6 Sep 2007 9:16am | ||
| BBJones User Info... | Asshole. I stopped reading at this point: "If the campers could have gone to a home somewhere, they would have, she says. Faulkner adds, “They didn’t have that choice.”" Too bad your legal teams thinks it appropriate to lie to the press to gain exposure to your bullshit story. With all your delusional nonsense, why not try a little honesty during your next interview and pass that on to your social-tax-money-sapping jackass lawyers. - Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:50am | ||
| Doc User Info... | I thought it funny that DAJ is quoted as saying that “Old retired people will come to like us because we represent a kind of freedom most of the first world has never seen before.” I think if anything, the old retired people will come to dislike you more than the younger people, because they have worked their whole lives to earn what they have and now DAJ and his followers plan to be a filthy, pustuous boil on the face of their fair city. Maybe it is time to start a petition among the general public to present to the city asking that these people not be allowed to camp in our parks because we don't want them there. Since the parks are public spaces and we are the public, I think that this would deal a crippling blow to any argument that DAJ's lawyers may plan to present. Something to think about. Peace in a hygenice, non-drug addicted hippie way, ~Doc - Thu, 6 Sep 2007 1:18pm | ||
| J User Info... | "... One could pass Cridge Park a dozen times without noticing it, but it is at the centre of a court case that could reorder how we look at public places and how we treat the homeless..." whether you win or not Daj... it wont change my opinion of you or your followers... you will always be and never be forgotten as a LEECH. You need a good bitch slappin' "Whether the Cridge case goes ahead or not, there will be another tent city in Victoria, Johnston says" I'll take that fucking eyesore down with my bare hands you asshole. And i'll make sure to not only bitch slap you; but to bitch slap all your followers... A WHOLE ROUND OF BITCH SLAPS! In all seriousness, your tent city wont fly this time. I CAN GARENTEE THAT. - Thu, 6 Sep 2007 2:31pm | ||
| DOOMHAMMER User Info... | Well i know who the real crazy person is here - Thu, 6 Sep 2007 3:22pm | ||
| speedymarie User Info... | for a guy who doesn't use money i sure see you with a lot of steaming take out coffee cups in your hands DAJ. early this morning it was a BLENZ cup. do these establishments serve you no-charge? or are you doing what you do best, taking? the reason these laws are in place DAJ is because, if not, people like you take advantage and take over our public places leaving garbage and shit everywhere and hiding behind poverty. homelessness is an awful catch 22-not having a job-not having a home or address at which prospective employers to reach you....but you know what? there are services available for people wanting to help themselves! i agree that there is a terrible situation of homelessness and lack of funding...but the drug dealing and filthy behaviour i see going on is deplorable and we need laws to keep this in check unfortunately! as much as an anarchist ideal sounds great, many people aren't capable of governing themselves, they are lazy and selfish! i don't hate all homeless people, there are a lot of real social concerns and i ache for lack of solutions, it just pisses me off that people like DAJ carry the shield of human rights while wasting time and energy fighting the wrong fights! i would love to have an answer to my inquires DAJ, both this coffee question and other things i have addressed in other posts. the only reason i haven't asked you in person is because i am usually riding the bus to WORK or to SCHOOL when i see you and i can't be bothered to get off to call you on your bullshit in person(nor is that my style, although you get the kudos for actually being able to piss me off, most people don't get to me much) you are a jerky - Thu, 6 Sep 2007 3:39pm Edited: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 3:40pm | ||
| J User Info... | heh... i may be crazy but i ain't no nutter like teh daj. and at least im not shy about my opinions of those who reject our society yet still leecehes off it. - Thu, 6 Sep 2007 4:35pm | ||
| DAJ User Info... | St. Ann's update- Friday, Sept. 7th, 2007: 'discontinuance' set aside - Good day. Patience be with us. The court denied the city its 'discontinuance'. MONDAY (this MONDAY. The 10th. The one where there is going to be a zoo of activity... should be very fun) the trial will begin with the city asking for an adjournment (because 2 years hasn't been enough time to prepare a defense). We will not oppose no longer than 60 days with the condition that the city make provision, at least until the actual challenge happens, in the form of a place where the bylaws are exempt within walking distance from downtown. Added with that a provision for growth (when capacity is reached another one is started). The city, so far, does not agree with the suggested provision. It is hard to say what the judge will do. He could give the adjournment for any amount of time, or not give it at all and the case will begin in earnest the next day (Tuesday). He could give the city an 'ultimatum' where they can be ready to go now or accept being ordered by the court to make the provision that is asked... or 10000 pianos might fall out of the sky- it really is hard to say... I'm in a position where every 'variable' is taken into account- so I'm just chillin' and enjoying this very real dance. Hope you all get here. in humility, David Arthur Johnston Victoria, BC, Canada [email protected] Home page- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann's Academy (Victoria, BC, Canada)- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman/welcome.htm Crimes of Necessity- http://www.loveandfearlessness.com/home.html (from filmmaker Andrew Ainsley. Very comprehensive.) - Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:54pm | ||
| J User Info... | "or 10000 pianos might fall out of the sky- it really is hard to say..." on your followers? that would solve sooooooooo many problems... though i dont hink sacrificing a piano for that cause is really worth it lol - Sat, 8 Sep 2007 1:50pm | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
