Report for Community Services Committee June 23, 2008 meeting.



Public Order/Disorder

(M. Phair)

[pic]

|Recommendation: |

|That the April 29, 2008, Planning and Development Department report |

|2008PDD006 be received for information. |

Report Summary

This report provides information on standards to handle public order/disorder from other cities.

Previous Council/Committee Action

• At the May 26, 2008, Agenda Review Committee meeting, the

April 29, 2008, Planning and Development Department report 2008PDD006 was postponed to the June 23, 2008, Community Services Committee meeting.

• At the June 19, 2007, City Council meeting, Councillor M. Phair made the following inquiry:

I would like the following information from Administration with input from the Edmonton Police Commission and Service:

1. What standards of public order/disorder have cities considered and/or implemented (examples might include Saskatoon and Vancouver)?

2. In reviewing bylaws and police policy, what is currently in place to handle public disorder?

3. Are there areas that either Administration or Police might suggest need to be reconsidered?

4. What research/information is available regarding the breakdown of public order and actions to solve public disorder?

I would like this report to return to the Community Services Committee.

Report

This report was forwarded to the Edmonton Police Service/Commission for review and comment. This report was forwarded to the Edmonton Police Service/Commission for review and their comments are contained in

Attachment 3.

• There are many types of public order/disorder concerns the police or municipal enforcement staff are expected to address. These can range from anti social behaviour to criminal actions and from panhandling to allowing nuisance conditions. While some public disorder is planned well in advance, a significant amount is spur-of-the-moment. After consultation with the inquiry maker a review of panhandling and public behaviour type bylaws was the intended focus of the inquiry.

• This report should be considered in conjunction with the “Panhandling” (S. Mandel) report which provides bylaw options to deal with panhandling. The “Panhandling” report sets out three bylaw options to address what seems to be a growing negative reaction by the public to either control or eliminate panhandling.

• Option one builds on existing legislation within the current Traffic Bylaw 5590. The current language sets out that no person shall crowd, jostle or harass pedestrians in such a manner as to create or cause discomfort, disturbance or confusion. This current offence section is arguable well suited and sufficiently broad enough to address any aggressive type panhandling behaviour not criminal in nature. However, the “Panhandling” report makes the suggestion that existing powers be expanded to include all public spaces and to increase the fine amount.

• Option two proposes the creation of a new bylaw that would prohibit the asking or soliciting for money from any person. Consideration would also be given to legislative scope, sensitive locations, set back distances, exemptions, fine amounts, and enforcement impacts. Council would need to decide if there is sufficient justification to support what maybe a violation of equality provisions and free expression rights.

• Option three outlines drafting a bylaw similar to the City of Winnipeg. Edmonton may wish to consider drafting legislation similar to Winnipeg’s earlier more restrictive efforts; however the likelihood of a legal challenge is significant. In the alternative, consideration could be given to adopting Winnipeg’s 2005 bylaw that identifies sensitive services and prohibits solicitation at an ATM or bank, public pay phone, transit stop, downtown walkway, entrances to restaurants etc. See attachment one

• The report highlights that stopping this activity requires measures that go well beyond bylaws that simply restrict panhandling. External reports suggest a range of targeted services are required to address the health, housing, employment, education and social problems panhandlers face. And, unless the systemic problems and gaps in service and supports are bridged, preventing people from panhandling may only drive them to access funds in other ways, not all of them legal.

• With respect to updating public behaviour legislation, people seem more concerned about anti social behaviour as reflected in the increase in complaints to police and bylaw enforcement areas and increased support for tougher penalties. Excessive noise, anti-social behaviour, causing nuisances and violence impact quality of life. Vancouver recently solicited input on public disorder setting in motion plans to find long-term sustainable solutions to maintain order and civility. Highlights from their survey indicate panhandling, open drug use, litter, public urination and sleeping in public spaces as the major public concerns. See Attachment 2.

• Respondents to the Vancouver survey indicated their overwhelming need to feel safe in all parts of the city, feel a sense of pride in their city, people want to be solution orientated, people recognize issues are complex and recognize many aspects of street disorder are symptoms of underlying root causes of poverty drug addition and mental illness.

• Edmonton recently requested public input to a number of proposed public behaviour bylaw amendments through the Bylaw Consolidation Project Phase II. Those results were provided to City Council in August 2007. Phase I of the project saw Council approved the creation of two new functional, modern and foundational pieces of legislation to address community and public place standards. The result was a strengthening and broadening of existing public order legislation.

• During the Bylaw Consolidation Project efforts were made to solicit input on a number of possible public behaviour amendments. These questions followed a similar pattern to those recently adopted in Calgary. Results from an online public survey, open house input and detailed discussion, with a public advisory committee, found some public behaviour concerns identified lacked the necessary support to be brought forward at that time.

• In February and March of 2008, City Council approved public behaviour legislative enhancements to the Community Standards and Public Places Bylaws. Council also approved in the 2008 budget a number of community support programs and enhanced enforcement services that are able to address some identified community concerns.

• Public disorder concerns are regularly reviewed by the various enforcement agencies. Efforts to remain responsive and adaptive to ongoing and future concerns are critical elements in addressing public disorder matters. Public order policing continues to balance governmental and societal demands, collective and individual rights, and interests in society.

• Discussions with the Edmonton Police Service found support for the implementation of legislative sanctions to deal with public disorder. The Service also felt that any legislative change should be accompanied by a well formulated media/public awareness campaign. 

• Noteworthy is that much of the literature commissioned by other municipalities points to a much broader approach than just a bylaw solution.  The monitoring of public disorder and establishing broad stroke action plans are key in resolving these issues.

• In conclusion, the standards for public order and regulations governing public disorder are wide and ranging. Edmonton City Council has recently review public behaviour standards through the Bylaw Consideration Project and is currently considering panhandling regulatory options. Additional work or input on specific disorder issues, current or future could benefit from a more focused review.

Attachments

1. Summary of Winnipeg Bylaw Restrictions

2. City of Vancouver, Office of the Mayor, November 2006

3. Edmonton Police Service - Response to City of Edmonton Reports 2008PDD030 and 2008PDD031 Panhandling / Public Disorder

Summary of Winnipeg Bylaw Restrictions

|Table 3.3. Summary of By-Law Restrictions |

|By-law |Distance |Time |Sensitive Services |Other |

|1995 |X |X |- the main entrance to a bank, credit union |- Regulates panhandling. |

| | | |or trust company; |- Prohibits a person from continuing |

| | | |- an automatic teller machine; |to ask another person for money, |

| | | |- a public entrance to a hospital; |or continuing to follow that |

| | | |- a bus stop; |person, after a negative response |

| | | |- a bus shelter; |had been made. |

| | | |- in a Public Transit bus; |- Sets penalties |

| | | |- in an elevator or in a pedestrian walkway; | |

| | | |from an occupant of a motor vehicle, | |

| | | |which is parked, or stopped at a traffic | |

| | | |control signal. | |

|2000 | | | |Regulates obstructive solicitation by |

| | | | |prohibiting: |

| | | | |- to obstruct or impede the |

| | | | |convenient passage of pedestrians |

| | | | |in a street; |

| | | | |- continue to solicit or follow a |

| | | | |pedestrian after that pedestrian has |

| | | | |made a negative initial response; |

| | | | |- verbally threaten a pedestrian; and |

| | | | |- physically approach a pedestrian |

| | | | |as part of a group of three or more |

| | | | |persons. |

|2005 | | |Prohibits solicitation in the situations: |- Regulates obstructive solicitation. |

| | | |- at an automated teller machine, a bank or |Amends causes of obstruction by |

| | | |credit union; |prohibiting: |

| | | |- at a public pay telephone; |- to obstruct or impede the |

| | | |- at public transit stop or taxi stand or in |convenient passage of any |

| | | |transit buses; |pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a |

| | | |- in elevators; |street; |

| | | |- in the downtown pedestrian walkway; |- to solicit a captive audience. |

| | | |- getting in, out of, on or off a vehicle, or | |

| | | |who is in a parking lot; | |

| | | |- while seated in an outdoor area of a | |

| | | |restaurant or bar in which food or | |

| | | |beverages are being served. | |

Panhandling in Winnipeg: Legislation vs. Support Services. Volume 2: Literature and Legislation Review. May 2007

City of Vancouver, Office of the Mayor, November 2006

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

On September 22, 2006, Mayor Sam Sullivan launched a survey about public disorder in the City of Vancouver, posted on his website mayorsamsullivan.ca. In just a matter of days, hundreds of Vancouver citizens had logged on to provide their views on issues such as aggressive panhandling, littering, open drug use and noise infractions. The survey closed November 1, 2006, with a total of 2,469 responses received. Based on the results, it is clear that many Vancouverites feel that our City has a serious public disorder problem and that action must be taken.

Of the almost 2,500 people who completed the survey, 1,909 people took the time to provide specific comments or observations based on their own personal experience or their perceptions of the conditions in their neighbourhoods. Below is a summary of survey responses as well as some of the specific themes and ideas that emerged from the public feedback.

General Findings and Observations

The web-based survey was designed to elicit public response and feedback and was not intended to replace more traditional public opinion surveys. Although the respondents were self-selected, the survey (both the open-ended and closed-ended) questions helped to provide important insights. Based on the findings of the survey, it was clear that:

▪ Vancouverites care about their city! There were a total of 2,469 responses received from across all parts of the city – in English, Chinese and Punjabi - with more than 20 neighbourhoods represented;

▪ Of those who responded to the survey, more than 75% took the time to provide comments about specific conditions in their neighbourhoods. The responses to the open-ended questions tended to range from general observations and/or concerns through to personal stories or experiences. Some respondents also tried to identify potential remedies to address the problems they had identified.

Highlights

▪ 84% of survey respondents feel that public disorder problems in Vancouver have become worse in the last 5 years;

▪ 81% are very concerned that Vancouver is losing its international reputation; and,

▪ 67% feel that City Council must take immediate action to address the problem.

Complete Results

1. How would you describe City Council's efforts thus far to address public disorder issues?

2.07% __Good: Council has done all that it can to reduce public disorder

23.21%__Fair: Council has made some progress, but could do more

66.87%__Poor: Council has not done enough to tackle this problem and must act now

7.86%__Don’t know

2. How do you think Vancouver's reputation has been impacted by public disorder?

3.81%__No impact – I don’t believe our city’s reputation has suffered

13.41%__Minor impact – I am somewhat concerned but feel that most visitors don’t notice public disorder in Vancouver

80.88%__Significant impact – I am very concerned that Vancouver is losing its reputation as a safe destination

1.9%__Don’t know

3. In reference to public disorder, which of the following statements is closest to your personal experience?

83.8%_ Over the last 5 years, public disorder has increased (it has become worse)

13.65%_ Over the last 5 years, public disorder has remained constant (no change)

2.55%_ Over the last 5 years, public disorder has declined (it has improved)

4. Please indicate which of the following public disorder issues are of most concern to you (check all that apply):

55.85%_Littering

83.35%_Aggressive panhandling

70.68%_Sleeping/camping in public parks or on beaches

41.07%_Noise infractions (e.g. loud motorcycles, stereos, car alarms)

79.63%_Open drug use in public places

48.60%_Graffiti and tagging

12.47%_Cyclists not wearing helmets

62.29%_Public urination/defecation

66.83%_Excessive garbage on streets and in alleyways

18.27%_Jaywalking

24.79%_Other

5. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for reducing public disorder?

[1,909 responses received]

6. Please tell us which neighbourhood you live in:

SURVEY COMMENTS

The following represents common themes expressed in the 1,909 comments submitted by survey respondents:

1. People need to feel safe in all parts of their City;

2. People want to feel a sense of pride in their City;

3. People want to be compassionate and solutions-oriented;

4. There are circumstances where an individual’s conduct violates what should be the community norm;

5. People recognize that the issues are complex and multi-dimensional and that many aspects of street disorder are symptoms of the underlying root causes of poverty, drug addiction and mental illness.

Highlights

▪ Based on responses to the open-ended questions in the survey, more than 22% of all respondents believe that there is a need for both community-based solutions as well as broader social ‘safety net’ solutions to address issues related to housing and homelessness.

▪ Approximately 20% of all survey respondents see a need for stronger enforcement of laws and by-laws in the City of Vancouver.

▪ Only a very small percentage (1.5%) said they feel that the current harm reduction strategies to address drug addiction (including the safe injection site) were working to address the issue of public disorder and crime. Rather, the survey findings suggest that a larger number of respondents feel there is a need for “tough love” designed to help those challenged with mental illness and drug addiction to get the services that they need.

▪ The general observations and conclusions related to the current harm reduction model also applied to panhandling and binning. Within this context, some survey respondents believe that the need for panhandling and binning reflects a failure of society and represents part of the ongoing “infrastructure of poverty”. These individuals tended to stress the importance of looking for longer-term solutions rather than simply moving people through the system, or displacing the problems from one neighbourhood to another.

▪ Other survey respondents expressed concern that panhandling and binning made them feel unsafe, with a number of respondents describing specific instances where they had a negative experience.

▪ A number of survey respondents indicated that their concern rests more with the negative image that panhandling and binning can create. Those who held this perspective reported that they had recently traveled to other international destinations where they had expected to see similar problems or worse. In some cases, respondents reported that they were “shocked” to find that other cities did not have the same incidences of panhandling and binning.

-----------------------

J

2

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download