'Prison-like conditions' 

Re. Rail trail camp still 75% full (Castanet, May 25)

Kelowna Mayor Tom Dyas was asked why this new version (of “Tent City”) is still only 75% full, and why more tents seem to be popping up across the city since the (Okanagan) Rail Trail encampment was capped, fenced and reconfigured into a highly controlled zone.

His response was bylaw and RCMP (officers) are monitoring the situation and letting people know that pitching a tent anywhere else in Kelowna “is not something that they can do.”

Readers may not know that in order to stay at the new Tent City, an unhoused individual must sign the “Good Neighbour Agreement” – a document that requires residents to surrender much of their autonomy in exchange for an eight-foot by eight-foot gravel lot, bordered with cement barriers, within the fenced-in encampment, where they are only allowed one tent, one tarp and no outside visitors.

Bylaw officers are allowed to search their bags and tents at any time and can discard anything they deem to be of no value. Any violation of the agreement results in immediate eviction from Tent City without property or shelter.

As Unhoused Solidarity Collective Okanagan has previously documented, this agreement imposes prison-like conditions on residents—a broader strategy seen across municipalities to control the behaviour and restrict the spatial mobility of the homeless.

It should come as no surprise many spots remain vacant. Dozens of people who previously lived at Tent City prefer the daily harassment and displacement by bylaw and police, rather than subjecting themselves to prison-like conditions.

As one unhoused individual stated in an interview with a USCO member, “I hate that I have to do this. I have to drag everything I (...) own into that tent if I don’t wanna lose it tonight. That tent isn’t even big enough for me to stretch out in. I never asked for the fire that took my acreage out. I never asked for the litany of nightmares that have followed in the last four years. But I’ve repeatedly asked for help I’m not getting.”

Dyas neglects to reflect on why the new Tent City site has never reached capacity, despite homeless numbers growing, and instead states, “I credit the on-call teams. I credit the bylaw. I credit the RCMP (...) to continually work to find an alternative housing arrangement for these individuals.”

Where is this alternative housing? Two projects were mentioned by Dyas—one on Pacific Avenue and one on Bertram Street—but both have not moved forward since last year.

Dyas also mentioned “mandatory type of care” being discussed with (the province) however, studies have shown forced treatment does not work.

Why is no-one asking for the perspective of the unhoused themselves? The problems are well-known but no-one wants to discuss possible solutions with the people directly affected.

Members of USCO, both unhoused and housed, would like to meet with Dyas and bylaw (department officials) to discuss the newly reconfigured Tent City, as well as start working together to help support the unhoused who are directly affected by the decisions being made about them, without them. We feel we would bring a much needed voice to the table.

We all want to find solutions to support the unhoused and to help the housing crisis. Let’s work together, not against each other.

Erika van Oyen
On behalf of USCO