Of Rights, Shelter & Government-Imposed Classes

This post is in response to MetisRebel's Survey THIS Homeless Medication.

The issue of pets touches me personally. Many people who live isolated lives, by choice or otherwise, have animal companions. A number of them, in turn, are extremely poor.

For those with animal companions, their lives may well depend on that association. Pets can help the lonely or the isolated maintain their humanity. The animals are someone to come home to, someone to care for, someone who appreciates their human's affection and ministration. The presence of an animal can be the only thing left that mediates between life and death.

Trapped in a province that allows property owners to deny others' rights they themselves have, in a province where less than 1 in 20 rental units are pet-friendly, I am paying over 70 percent of my income to stay in this bachelor apartment. With the cost of rental units soaring and the vacancy rates plummeting below two percent, nothing else is available.

BC's Residential Tenancy Act essentially supports at least 12 different classes of people. Listed in order of those having the most to the least rights in terms of housing or shelter, they represent people who:

1. own their own home and have property they rent out.
2. own a freehold home.
3. own a strata home.
4. singles or couples who rent and have no children or pets. This group has choice among 100% of rental units available.
5. couples who rent and have children.
6. single people who rent and have children - unless they are known to be on welfare, in which case they join group 7.
7. renters who are non-white, openly LGBT, or are members of other groups that are targets of discrimination.
8. people who rent and have animal companions.
9. street people with children - more likely to be sheltered than 10, 11 or 12.
10. street people living on their own who are not known addicts.
11. street couples - shelters often separate the pair.
12. street people with pets - shelter almost always denied the animals.

As to the welfare of homeless animals, I've not seen any animal with a street person who is other than cherished and cared for - see, e.g., these photos of a 'homeless' community.

I'd choose living on the street with my companions than give up either of my cats in order to be housed. Their companionship is essential to my health and the continuance of my life.

ETA: Firefighters recognize the importance of animals, as evidenced in this story just reported in the Victoria Times-Colonist.

Recommend this post

Home Ownership About Autonomy Not Equity

There are three classes of people when it comes to shelter: home-owners, home-renters and home-owners who lease homes to renters.

Home-owners have autonomy and can, if they wish, smoke, have animal companions and do whatever they like within the walls of their own homes, subject to the law.

Renters do not have similar licence. They are subject to the dictates of the people who own the home. Renters of homes have no protection in law, for example, to smoke or have animal companions. Landlords can deny renters privileges the owners themselves have, for no other reason than they own the property in question.

This issue of autonomy, more than housing as equity, is what makes home ownership for renters so vital, especially for renters whose autonomy is already reduced by income or health barriers.

In British Columbia, landlords can refuse to rent to people who have animal companions. Now some landlords of multiple-unit dwellings are refusing to rent to people who smoke.

I don't smoke. Selfishly, I'd appreciate living in a smoke-free building. But I think it's wrong that people who smoke can be denied rental accommodation. I think it's wrong that, in terms of autonomy, 'home' doesn't have the same meaning for owners and renters and that owners can impose rules that they themselves don't have to live by.

Essentially, I think it's wrong that owners can lord it over people who've no choice but to rent their homes.

Recommend this post

Worsening Economy Hard on Animal Companions

Same old story, over and over and over again. Yet the interests of property owners continue to override the right of renters to hang onto what may be the only thing keeping them alive.

The North Cariboo SPCA, one of the busiest in the province, takes in more cats than any other shelter in the province, and it's second only to Surrey in rescuing dogs.

Anne Gough, who manages the branch that stretches from Prince George through Mackenzie, said many people in the area have lost their jobs and now they can't afford to fill their dog dish.

"We have some people that love their pets but can no longer care for them," Gough said.

Another problem, Gough said, is that some people are being forced to leave their homes and that often means they must give up their pets.

"More and more are moving into rental complexes that don't allow animals," she said.

Ever wonder why there are so many homeless singles with pets?¹

The fact is that for some, the presence of a pet is the only thing preventing suicide.

So when your choice is between having shelter and suicide, you've really no choice left. And temporary shelters don't allow pets either nor do the overwhelming majority of subsidized housing units in BC.

When everything else is gone, when distrust of humans has taken hold, for those with an affinity for animals their companions are all that's left to help them maintain their humanity, their ability to care for and love another being. Yet these most vulnerable members of our society are shut out from the very services which are supposed to help them, services such as shelters and subsidized housing, because they literally cannot live without their animal companions.

The BC residential tenancy act must be changed to reflect this reality.

¹ Take a look at the first category listed in the Photos section of the Dignity Village website. Such a village, of course, would never be tolerated in places like Victoria or Toronto. And one can completely forget about BC's (and Alberta's) corporate government disallowing no-pets clauses in rental agreements.

Recommend this post

Toughen Animal Abuse Laws NOW

UPDATED with a third case reported today.

At least two three stories of animal abuse are in the news today.

One reports a cat which was set on fire and left to die a horrible death. The other second tells the tale of the shooting of a 14-week old puppy. And the third describes the case of five puppies which were thrown down the hole, and left slowly to die in a stinking outhouse.

Regardless of whether you're an animal lover, these incidents should matter to you. It's well known that animal abuse and torture almost always precedes an escalation to the torture of humans.

Even if you don't care about other species' welfare, at least consider the consequences to human life of letting animal torturers go untreated and unpunished.

My furry companions are kept indoors because, living in an apartment on an upper floor, we've no choice. I've always felt guilty about that, although veterinarians argue that cats live longer, healthier lives and don't suffer from being kept indoors if they've never known otherwise.

Unfortunately for me, I don't buy that argument and so the guilt continues.

But I do buy the argument that keeping Kiltie and Brodie indoors keeps them safe from those who would torture animals just for the fun of it.

As for our ridiculous, antiquated animal abuse laws, Parliamentarians have talked and talked and talked, and introduced bill after bill after bill - and it never results in substantive change.

Well, we've got a federal election happening right now.

Which party leader will step up and PROMISE IN WRITING - with the statement signed, witnessed and notarized - that legislation will be enacted that treats the matter of animal abuse as seriously as it should?

Recommend this post

Cats Win Eviction Fight

As 2008 neared its end, Hollyburn Properties, proud new owners of a west-end Vancouver apartment building, handed out eviction notices to seven long-time residents.

Why? The tenants who were served the notices (that is, the humans) shared their apartments with cats.

Such households were not news to the new owners who had done several inspections since they'd purchased the property about a year previously. Not only had the tenants always had cats, but they'd been given oral permission when they moved into the building to bring their animal companions with them, such permission having been granted by the resident manager who worked under the previous owners.

Despite this, Hollyburn insisted on written permission which, of course, the tenants could not produce and Hollyburn wasn't about to issue.

The tenants balked. They refused to give up their furry companions and they refused to leave the premises.

Since the BC Residential Tenancy Act is designed more to protect property owners than tenants, it's rare to see the residential tenancy branch coming down in favour of tenants when interceding in disputes.

Yet that's what they did.

Dispute resolution officer S. Okada wrote in a March 4 judgement that the tenants had not breached a material part of their tenancy agreement, even though they had oral rather than written permission to keep pets. Ergo, "the notices to end tenancy are cancelled, with the effect that the tenancies continue."

Wow. A win for the good side. It gives me hope that if one day someone comes along and buys THIS apartment building, they can't arbitrarily go around evicting tenants like me who also got oral permission to bring along their furry companions.

Recommend this post

Kiltie Goes to SPCA

[Originally posted to economicus ridiculous]

I've thought about not writing this.

Our intention when starting this blog was to share our day-to-day lives in the poverty well, to put two human faces on it. It means sharing the decisions we make, the barriers we confront, the silly things we do, our talents, our faults, even certain toilet habits.

The point was to bring home the reality of two lives in poverty and their struggles to maintain dignity and a sense of self-worth. If readers have been following this blog since it launched January 1st, they'll have already detected the inner conflicts, the desire and determination to maintain X and not do Y while ultimately having to do Y anyway, and then the struggle to adjust to the new reality. For life in the poverty well, it's forever a struggle to adjust.

The following I began yesterday, at 2:30 in the afternoon, as I waited for Daphne to arrive with a car to transport Kiltie and I to the SPCA.

--

I'm crying as I write this.

Kiltie got sick again, was vomiting the past two days. An hour ago, she vomited blood. This condition is new and unlike the two urinary tract infections she had previously. Those appear to have cleared up entirely, thanks to a special diet paid for by a kind benefactor and several hit-and-miss series of antibiotics.

Kiltie and I have been together for ten years, ever since I rescued her when she was about eight weeks old.

Today, I can't keep doing it anymore. There's no money to have Kiltie go back to the vet, again, be examined, again, get x-rays and likely go to surgery. So I must do what I've dreaded having to do these past three years, since she first developed FLUTD. I've phoned Daphne and she's coming over. Together, we're going to the SPCA. They will take care of Kiltie in a way I can't. It's a no-kill, clean, caring shelter with lots of volunteers. I'm bringing the blanket Brodie uses so Kiltie will feel a sense of home; and a full prescription of Cipro that I've had standing by, just in case.

--

Last night was the first night without Kiltie. Emotionally exhausted, I slept 11 hours. Brodie and I cuddled more than usual, last night and again this morning.

Tonight or tomorrow night we may have Kiltie back. The lady at the SPCA - manager Sandi Trent, it turns out - said they'd prefer to keep Kiltie with me ... if it's possible. That they'd likely not be able to find Kiltie a new home, given her age and maybe needing special care.

Sandi said to leave Kiltie with them for a day or two and for me to call her later today. They'll get Kiltie vet-checked, monitor her condition and see what they can do to support her staying with me... And I'm crying all over again, dammit.

People who make the blanket declaration that poor people shouldn't have pets have no clue.

Did you pick up above that I rescued Kiltie? She's had ten years of life, a good life in a home where she has been much loved. Those ten years she likely wouldn't have had.

Kiltie and Brodie (I rescued him too*) have also been my lifeline. Too many times to count, their presence prevented my suicide. As a mother would feel about her children, I couldn't, wouldn't, leave my two furry companions without someone to care for them. They needed me, someone, to make sure they were alright.

What would happen if I died? I feared no one would take the two cats in or if they did, it wouldn't be a good home, and then they'd be abused or die.

Kiltie and Brodie are the only reasons I kept going through some terrible years, including the years I was doing the WISE project.

I will always need an animal companion. They help me maintain my humanity....

Which brings up the point of BC's anti-pets tenancy act. Rarely in this province can one find a rental unit - private, subsidized or public - that permits animal companions.

*Foolishly, in late 2000 I expected to become employed. Didn't want Kiltie to be alone all day, hence I got a second cat. Never did get anything but brief, contract or part-time employment.

ETA: It's 1:40pm and I've just spoken with Sandi at the SPCA using SkypeOut. Kiltie's vet hasn't returned Sandi's call yet. Kiltie hasn't eaten since she arrived but there's also been no vomiting. Sandi will keep her there another day. We're both thinking Kiltie may not be eating due to stress (as with her human). If she still hasn't eaten by tomorrow afternoon, Sandi may take her home to her place and put her in a room of her own so she might settle down. Either way, there's two of us now concerned with Kiltie's health and I'm reassured that Kiltie is in good, caring hands.

Recommend this post

Vancouver Homeless Fix: About damn time!

The solution? Less than aesthetically-pleasing, 'temporary' housing intended to deal with the immediate situation. Not that similar ideas haven't been promoted for decades by those at risk of homelessness and homeless people. But of course, no one ever listens to us, the real experts on what will and won't work.

A plan to house Vancouver's homeless is taking shape on the drawing board of a local architect. It calls for the rapid erection of temporary villages assembled from the same type of modular units that mining companies provide for remote workers.

"Stop Gap Housing" is what architect Gregory Henriquez calls it...

"It's portable dwellings. It's not meant to be a permanent fixture on the landscape. But it could serve for several years until we complete the construction of permanent housing," he said...

It's also cheaper... this sort of housing would save B.C. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year in police, ambulance, and health expenses...

Henriquez took plans from Britco Structures, which operates plants in Agassiz and Penticton, and showed them to managers from the Portland Hotel Society, which rents to hundreds of the Downtown Eastside's hardest-to-house individuals.

The Portland team suggested that individual units - with ensuite bathrooms and fronts that open directly to the outdoors - would be more acceptable to individuals not accustomed to coping with neighbors, as well as to those reluctant to give up pets or bicycles.

Pets! People who have been homeless would be 'allowed' to keep their animal companions! It's about damn time.

If this actually gets done in Vancouver, I would hope the project would spread to other parts of the province.

Recommend this post

One Homelessness Factor Avoided Like Plague

This story illustrates one major contributing factor to the swelling numbers of homeless in BC. It's constantly avoided by the powers-that-be in this province.

Sherry was polite and resolute.

I was puzzled. I asked why she was willing to sleep in a parking lot in order to be with her cats.

"They've always been with us," Sherry told me. "Even just moving out of the house, one of our cats - because she'd been abandoned before and she'd been abused - she thought that we were going to leave her. She just got really freaked out and stuff."

Sherry looked me in the eye. Tears welled in hers. I forgot whether she was talking about her cats, or herself.

"We're not going to leave her," she declared.

Lori gave Sherry an armload of food, and promised to check back in a few days. We wished her well and left her at the edge of the crumbling blacktop.

The minivan was quiet as we drove away. Lori finally broke the silence.

"Actually, that happens quite a lot," she said. "People who've lost everything else, they get quite attached to their pets. Their pets are like family."

Not quite. For people who have lost everything else, their pets aren't LIKE family, they ARE family.

Consider this question, seriously: Would you give up your family for a roof over your head?

Before you answer that, don't make the same mistake Lori did. Accept the fact that for some people, their pets ARE their family. You may not consider animal companions in the same light. If you have pets, you may view them as being LIKE members of your family, but you are not so attached to them that you couldn't imagine giving them up for a roof over your head. Such is not the case for the people I'm talking about. For the purposes of my question, your view of pets isn't the issue; it's their view that matters, which is why I've framed the question as I have.

So again, I ask: Would you give up your family (your children, or dependent sibling or parent) for a roof over your head?

The problem in BC isn't just about the scant few pet-friendly shelters for the homeless. Contributing to the problem is the BC Residential Tenancy Act which allows landlords to deny accommodation to people with pets. And because property owners can do this, almost every last one of them does do it.

No serious discussion about housing for low-income BC residents can endlessly avoid this issue. The more destitute or alone a person is, the more likely s/he is to have a pet. For housing legislation to allow that a pet be given up for the sake of housing, temporary or permanent, only contributes to the problem of homelessness.

Recommend this post

BC Government Aims to Force Homeless into Shelters

Legislated paternalism is on the march.

First, we have Rona Ambrose sticking her federalist nose into municipal affairs. Regardless of the fact she has legal authority to order a vote of striking Ottawa Transit workers, the question remains whether the legislation itself - that section of the Canada Labour Code, 108.1, 1 (a) and (b) - is legal and should be challenged in court.

Now, it's the BC Minister of Housing, Rich Coleman, looking to limit the rights of people who are without bricks and mortar housing.

“There are provisions under the Mental Health Act for a committal and that sort of thing. I think we need to have some stronger provisions for this sort of situation... [W]hen someone puts their life at risk, at that level, there are probably issues with mental health and addictions... We should have the power to be able to say, ‘We have a bed for you and you're going to that bed.'”

By that logic, race car drivers, Olympic skiers, snowmobilers and snowboarders, etc. "probably have issues with mental health and addictions."

[Coleman] conceded that the challenge is to figure out what would compel people to remain in shelters after they were removed to them.

“I think, in most cases, if we had the ability to say, ‘You're going,' a lot of them would [stay],” he suggested.

Well, that demonstrates how well he knows people who are homeless, doesn't it? They/we have quite the independent streak.

Mr. Coleman said there is no timetable to advancing with the idea...

“The work is ongoing,” he suggested. “It is a pretty big process. We do have to take into account the Charter and whether these things would have a Charter challenge attached to them but, you know, I just honestly believe some people are so ill on our streets that they can't make decisions for themselves and they become a danger to themselves and the public,” he said.

“We should have the opportunity to intervene because, if we can, we can save them.”

The BC Government and Housing Minister Coleman have had the power to intervene for the past eight years, to intervene, that is, by creating conditions which would enable people who are homeless to form their own communities or to enter existing communities and be housed as others are housed. And with all their rights intact, rights such as those accorded to property owners: to keep all their possessions and their animal companions.

Kerry Jang, a councillor with the majority Vision Vancouver party on Vancouver city council, said Mr. Coleman's “heart is in the right place,” but there may be a better way to work towards the same goal.

“Not all homeless people are mentally ill and so simply using the Mental Health Act won't cover all the homeless people,” he said Wednesday.

Well someone gets it at least. Or maybe not...

Instead, ... when the temperature was sufficiently cold, it should be the basis for apprehending people and putting them in shelters, [Jang] suggested.

More faulty reasoning. By that logic, EVERYONE who remains on the streets "when the temperature was sufficiently cold" would be rounded up and herded into shelters.

“We're also cognizant of civil liberties, so forcing someone against their will [into shelter] is problematic from a legal and mental-health treatment perspective,” said Dr. Jang, also a psychiatry professor at the University of British Columbia.

He said he looks forward to further discussing the idea with the minister this year.

I'm sure he does. Psychiatrists do a thriving business. After all, they get to charge for treating - and labelling -people with mental health disorders. There's no business quite like it. Well, Big Pharma might be one: create the disease, then the treatment to alleviate it.

Oh, and Surprise!, those in the lowest income quintile, the ones whose voices are the least heard or accorded respect by the powers-that-be, are disproportionately represented as being 'mentally ill'. The homeless, of course, more so. This association of homelessness and mental illness is unfounded and must stop.

Recommend this post

Living Alone vs. Living in Companionship

This photo says it all.


Although I've tried to express the issue in several posts on animal companions, pets and homelessness, that image says it best.

Recommend this post