« Moving Chris Gardiner from under the Gardiner »

An interesting story popped up this week, or was pulled down, I should say.  Chris Gardiner, a homeless man, who was living under the Gardiner Expressway, under one of the ramps to Spadina, was evicted yesterday, and his home was dismantled to make room for desperate repairs needed to the popular highway.

I find it curious that he felt that it was his right to live there, and that any offers of help from the city to relocate him, or find him housing were rejected.  His claim was that it's "against his religion to rent from a landlord".  Essentially, he didn't believe in land ownership.  I'm not convinced that land ownership can be claimed as a religious belief, or if it was simply a fitting arguement to the man's situation.  Regardless, he's now gone, but has told the city "they have't seen the last of me yet".

Curious.

technorati tags:Chris Gardiner, Homelessness

Comments

[Adrian]

I feel the same. It is a curious situation.

On the one hand, I can totally get that he doesn't want to be encumbered in the system, that he was perfectly happy where he was.

The reasons he's being moved is because he built his "house" under a highway that's undergoing major repairs, and it is physically dangerous for him to be there.

I might be speculating, and you can call me a cynic, but I'm willing to be that if he hadn't been moved, and he got hurt, he'd suddenly see the wisdom of the system and use it to exact as much litigative revenge as possible against the city, the construction company, and the insurance companies (then construction costs go up, taxes go up, insurance rates go up, and he buys a nice house, because after all, he'd not be renting any more).

But like I said, I'm probably a cynic.

[Jamie]

I have known Chris for 12 years now, I brought him some of the material he used to build his home. His "religious " beliefs were in place long before he decided to move in under the Gardiner, and after speaking to the construction workers in the area Chris found that his house would in no way interfere nor would he be harmed by the work being done. After OCAP brought this to the attention of Barrie Chaval, a by-law enforcer the eviction noticed was changed to an infraction of "right of way" of traffick. He lived UNDER the bridge there is NO traffic there it was simplay a way to get rid of someone they found Undesireable, CURIOS?? I think NOT!!!!