Bradley Lee Apr 28 2023 at 12:44PM on page 1 General Looks to be a good plan and strategy. We need to provide safety in these public spaces, to maintain a desire for resident to attend and enjoy use of these spaces. Also agree with See Something Say Something. Within reason, we all need to be a part of a good, healthy and safe community0 replies
Cameron Baughen Apr 21 2023 at 1:07AM on page 2 Question Where does marijuana consumption in public spaces fit in this? 0 replies
Cameron Baughen Apr 21 2023 at 1:04AM on page 5 Question This refers to $50,000 per offence with up to 6 months jail time. This is very draconian. There should be smaller amounts identified especially for lesser offences. If smaller amounts are applied how will they be enforced? How will people pay for these offences if they have no funds? In the US there are stories of people behind bars as they could not afford basic fines as they are poor. 0 replies
Cameron Baughen Apr 21 2023 at 12:59AM on page 5 Suggestion There needs to be some way for materials to be recovered. Someone losing their ID or personal possessions is unreasonable. This should be laid out so there is a fair process to recover materials. 0 replies
Cameron Baughen Apr 21 2023 at 12:56AM on page 3 Suggestion The definition is so broad that this bylaw restricts a number of normal activities like the Salvation Army setting up near businesses at Christmas or charities setting up near an entrance. Panhandling is not illegal. The focus should be on aggressive panhandlers not anyone asking for funds. The sun up provision is especially tough in winter. I'd rather see people ask for help than turn to stealing to survive.0 replies
Cameron Baughen Apr 21 2023 at 12:52AM on page 2 Suggestion This definition is too broad. What about someone canvasing for cancer research or some other charity?0 replies
Cameron Baughen Apr 21 2023 at 12:45AM on page 2 Suggestion These are in no way Public Spaces. As such they should not be considered under an exemption. 0 replies
Cameron Baughen Apr 21 2023 at 12:44AM on page 2 Suggestion This definition is too broad. It should be limited to City property and private property where the owner has requested enforcement. 0 replies
Joanne Montgomery Mar 27 2023 at 7:12PM on page 4 Question I hope this does not include swimmers or others using the lakes who leave their towel and flip-flops on the beach?0 replies
Joanne Montgomery Mar 27 2023 at 7:10PM on page 3 Suggestion Consider adding facilities providing health care and the offices of health care providers.0 replies
Joanne Montgomery Mar 27 2023 at 7:07PM on page 4 General I don't know a runner or triathlete who hasn't spit in the course of training or racing. 0 replies
Joanne Montgomery Mar 27 2023 at 7:05PM on page 3 Question What is the definition of a "seniors residence"? Complex care and assisted living facilities (operated by or contracted by Interior Health) are not necessarily just for seniors. Some private residences (with and without added services) are advertised as 55+. I am a senior, therefore is my home a "seniors residence"?0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 6:05PM on page 3 Question Are there bathroom facilities available for unhoused people at all times? I am not keen to see human feces but I absolutely don’t want someone punished because they had no where else to go and were desperate. Has it been the genuine experience of anyone involved in the construction of this bylaw that there are people who would prefer to defecate in the street when given the alternative of a toilet? Wouldn’t this be better solved by finding a way to provide 24 hour access to bathrooms for those who need it? The threat of punishment is not going to eliminate someone’s basic biological functions.0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 6:01PM on page 5 Suggestion I suggest this be changed to “intentionally providing false or misleading information”. It seems it is against the bylaw not to cooperate, so simply not talking isn’t an option, and even in the best of circumstances human memory is highly mediocre. So much of this bill targets people in difficult circumstances involving homelessness and/or addiction that it is entirely unreasonable to require there be no mistakes when they recount things. 0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 5:25PM on page 5 Question Is the concern here about accessibility because some people might need to sit while waiting? If the person who is lying across the bench is there because they have no safe place to sleep and are exhausted, will fining them actually help? Is it not true that bylaw officers already have the authority to intervene and talk to the person and direct them to resources? How would fining or jailing them eliminate their ongoing need to find a safe place to sleep? 0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 4:39PM on page 4 Question “ … behave in such a manner as to be objectionable to another person using, or in the vicinity of, the washroom or change-room” What if two people are using the washroom and they each find the other objectionable? Do they both get fined? Being objectionable to another person sounds incredibly subjective. This seems so vague. What if I’m excitedly having a loud nerdy conversation within the vicinity of a washroom and someone finds that objectionable? This example is absurd, but the language here is so lacking is specificity that it seems not impossible that it could fit. Given how subjective this is, how do we ensure that this does not end up being a case of certain classes of people dictating what is allowable because they are more likely to be listened to? What kind of objectionable characteristics or behaviours are we seeing fit to punish here? In what way is this not already adequately managed by the de-escalation tools available to the bylaw officers and in what way would this be more fairly managed with punitive measures for the “objectionable” people?0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 4:28PM on page 4 Suggestion The provide definition of loitering isn’t clear to me as a layperson. I am concerned, given the other details of this bylaw, that the same act will be interpreted differently depending on who is doing it, and that some people will be seen as simply using a resource and others will be viewed as preventing others from using it. Is there language that can meaningfully distinguish what is reasonable use of, say, a bench and what is considered preventing someone else from using it? 0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 4:14PM on page 4 Suggestion This sounds like a medical issue. If someone is unresponsive and unable to care for themselves why would we want to fine them or jail them or otherwise punish them instead of getting them help? Is there a way to further empower bylaw officers to get people to the services they need whether that is a clinic or a hospital or care facility or a shelter or something else? A fine isn’t going to make an unresponsive person no longer unresponsive. It sounds like they need help and not to be criminalized. If you are going to claim that punishing people who are suffering from addiction is going to stop them from using to the point of unresponsiveness, I would like to see extensive citations backing this claim. These are members of our community and they deserve respect and care and dignity just like everyone else.0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 4:06PM on page 3 Suggestion Property and public peace seem of a very different category than life, safety, and health. I could much more easily see empowering a bylaw officer to enforce rules that can result in fines and jail time in the case of the life, safety and health than regarding the protection of property and public peace. Currently bylaw officers seem like a more peaceful way of handling issues, and making them more similar to police officers seems like undoing some of the good that was done by dividing these tasks off from the RCMP. I would suggest narrowing the scope here.0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:47PM on page 3 Suggestion We are a community that greatly supports sports and recreation. Some of these come with some amount of risk so being more clear about what “may cause harm” means would be helpful so we don’t accidentally make is a potential fineable offence to compete in iron man. I imagine this is meant to cover a specific concern that has come up, so perhaps there is a way to explicitly state what it is while still allowing it to encompass what it needs to?0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:40PM on page 3 Suggestion Why not either link to an existing legal definition of indecent act or specifically define it here. If m@sturbation (the terms and condition wouldn’t let me say the word) is worth listing separately, surely the other types of acts are too so that we can all have a clear understanding of what’s illegal. 0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:36PM on page 3 Suggestion Agreed. We are a city with two beaches and a large amount of tourism. Are we going to be policing people’s swimwear? Is a bikini indecent? Is a tank top? Is this to be decided by the bylaw officer? How do we deal with the implicit bias that results in some types of bodies being perceived as inherently less decent? This is much too vague.0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:31PM on page 3 Suggestion Disorderly conduct is so broadly and nebulously defined. It needs to be a lot more clear and specific for this to be fair or reasonable to enforce. There is just so much room for interpretation that it is unfair to the individual community member as well as to the officer who is burdened with deciding how to apply it. Please greatly clarify that definition so we know what is truly being proposed here.0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:24PM on page 3 Suggestion This list constitutes most of downtown. Is the aim here to prohibit solicitation anywhere there are significant numbers of people? Given that it seems like the proposed consequences [from my layperson understanding of section 263(1)(b)] are large fines and possible jail time, this seems really extreme and cruel. Are we just punishing people for being poor and needing some help? Should a person be fined for being so deeply in need that they’ve tried asking for spare change? How will that help people? Making it illegal doesn’t mean they aren’t in desperate need any more. If there are servies to help, we should be directing people to them, not punishing them for needing help and making their situations worse. This list of restrictions is way too much. Especially given the way sections 5.2 and 5.4 already cover specific details that might impact safety. 0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:14PM on page 2 Question What constitutes convenient passage? How would this be changed if it said something “reasonable passage”? Are they the same? You aren’t saying here that sitting itself is prohibited, for which I’m glad, but I’m worried that convenience is such a high bar that sitting might be effectively prohibited even if it is not technically so.0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:09PM on page 2 Suggestion Is there a time frame that constitutes occupying a space over merely using the space? Someone else can’t use the bathroom when I’m using it, so that makes it temporarily not usable by others. Same with the part of the bench I’m sitting on. How do I disambiguate between regular use and occupying a space? Is it possible for me to sit on a bench and enjoy the view for too long? This description seems vague to me.0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:05PM on page 2 Suggestion “Comfort and convenience” seems really broad and open to interpretation. Surely some amount of occasional discomfort or inconvenience naturally comes from sharing a space with other human beings. I don’t want someone fined or jailed merely because I was inconvenienced. That seems very different than something that actually impacts the safety of others.0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 3:01PM on page 1 Question To be clear, is the street is legally distinct from the sidewalk? Are we strictly talking about people on the road and not merely on the sidewalk along the bus stop? 0 replies
Vanessa Y Mar 26 2023 at 2:55PM on page 5 This is a great suggestion. As someone without a legal background, I would also like a plain language explanation. The details are here: link And to me this sounds like large fines and possible jail time, but it isn’t clear.0 replies
dino giurissevich Mar 24 2023 at 7:59PM on page 5 Suggestion Perhaps you could insert a link, or show what "section 263 (1) (b) of the community charter" is. 1 reply
Jamie Fawcett Mar 24 2023 at 5:56PM on page 3 Question Should 'indecent act' be defined within the bylaw or in reference to existing definition?0 replies
Josie Tyabji Mar 24 2023 at 5:30PM on page 5 General I think bylaws are great as long as the officers are well trained, well resourced and have the back up they require to enforce the bylaws when needed. 0 replies
Josie Tyabji Mar 24 2023 at 5:28PM on page 3 General Should not be permitted at any time of the day not sure why it specifies a time?0 replies
Josie Tyabji Mar 24 2023 at 5:25PM on page 3 Suggestion "Clad in an indecent manner" also open to interpretation - needs to stay specific1 reply
Josie Tyabji Mar 24 2023 at 5:24PM on page 2 General This is so broad and open to alot of interpretation? Should stay specific and clear and any other matter that is liable to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of individuals or the public;0 replies
Betty Mahar Mar 24 2023 at 5:17PM on page 2 I would like to know what training the bylaw officers have. Also, I believe the City of Penticton should enforce the bylaws we currently have that are not enforced before we add new ones. Without knowing specific details I believe it gives too much authority to the bylaw officers. I am against the motion. Bylaws not enforced enough…..noise, leash bylaws, bad drivers, speed limits.Even the R.C.M.P.do not slow down to 30 as posted in front of the school. Speaking to what I have witnessed.0 replies
Robert ADVOCAAT Mar 24 2023 at 1:45PM on page 2 Suggestion Safe injection sites should not be permitted. Regardless of the naive spirit of reducing the stigma of drug use, the majority will identify an Addict as an Addict, period. Making it legal does not make it acceptable and sites such as these should not be encouraged. Case in point, Vancouver’s DTES. 0 replies
Robert ADVOCAAT Mar 24 2023 at 1:39PM on page 4 Suggestion Damage to property and misuse of property is already covered under the criminal code of Canada. (Damage to property, mischief. These sections are redundant 0 replies
Robert ADVOCAAT Mar 24 2023 at 1:37PM on page 3 Suggestion Should not be permitted at anytime0 replies
Robert ADVOCAAT Mar 24 2023 at 1:35PM on page 3 Suggestion Solicitation should not be allowed anywhere! And only be permitted to recognized charity organizations 0 replies
bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary…
Comments
Close