Homelessness is uncalled for

[chriswerner_1]

I live in London, Ontario Canada pop: approx. 350, 000. This city does not have a large homeless population but it is present and frankly annoying, not to mention repulsive. Not to be insensitive to the feeling of others (waaaaaaaa!!!!8-{} ) but in this day & age, and particularly with the extensiveness of our social saftey-net ie. "Ontario Works" (a.k.a. "fare-well" aka welfare), Men's mission, Salvation Army, numerous churches etc, etc, etc. There seems to me really no excuse for someone to be homeless unless of couse they are criminals (in which case we have jails) or mentally defective (in which case we have institutions) In our quasi-socialist country we provide everything that a person requires NOT to be homeless so there should be no excuse for it. Therefore I draw the conclusion that this is a chosen way of life. Simply put, someone who is sleeping on the streets made choices that forced them to sleep on the street... for example... going to drink somewhere instead of making the 11PM curfew at the misson or wherever. That is why it is my opinion that people who choose to be homeless should perhaps live in the wilderness or some far off location away from our urban areas. If they wish to drop-out of our civilization and not participate in our society, they should not feel so offended when our officials ask them to leave. What is so Draconian about asking someone who doesn't want to play our game to leave the the game area. How about a new slogan "This is is for CITIzens only... bohemians will be asked to leave."

What is most bothering about the homeless is not how they clog up traffic while they push their 2-shopping cart contraption down a main traffic arterial giving the finger to the people honking behind them; it is not the incessant rambling the disturbs your reading while you wait for the bus; it's not even the "spare change" they ask for when really, they just don't want to ask mom or dad for $10 so they can get a gram of weed because mom and dad are being @$$holes about the tongue peircing and the empty bottle of Crown they found; The MOST bothersome thing is that this type of behaviour keeps the timid from visiting downtown because it so DANGEROUS. (last year our murder rate doubled from the year before... to 4 murders up from 2 the previous year.... no... that's not a day or a month... that was all year.... citywide) Homeless people make a bad statement to visitors and citizens alike. It's say.... "yeah, we're building a new arena... brand new central library... but we're not doing enough to keep these people off the street. Frankly, we are doing more than enough... except keeping the mentally ill institionalized or at least taken care of and being firm on anti-vagrant by-laws. Tax paying citizens pay for our beautiful tree-lines streets and new libraries, parks etc etc. We shouldn't be afraid to use them because the "non-participants" are blocking the entrance asking some change "for something to eat."

[BKM]

Has Mugbub emigrated to Canada?

[JNA]

my apologies
definition #2 admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret

[Dan]

Administrator's note: Since this thread is relevant to more places than just London, Ontario, I'm moving it to Economic and Community Development, which is really the closest related sub-forum. (Cyburbia doesn't have sub-forums for specific social issues, such as homelessness and racism.)

Please, no comments about Mugbub. They add nothing a topic I think the OP intends to be serious about. You've been warned.

[Cardinal]

This is the third post in which I am going to agree with the "heartless" view of homelessness. The way our social welfare programs are set up (at least in the non-Canadian states) there are people who, despite their legitimate efforts, can fall through the cracks. Even these, though, likely made some decisions that contributed to where they are - spending up credit cards, not getting the education offered for free to all, or deciding to have the four kids by four different missing fathers. This evening I saw a homeless drunk shouting and swearing at three guys because they would not give him some money. That is not the behaviour that creates a livable city. Should these people be allowed to roam around, annoying or even intimidating people? Should they be allowed to urinate in the streets? Should they be allowed to disrupt the lives or mere daily routines of the responsible citizens of a community? My answer is NO. Sober them up and force them to work (maybe a structured program similar to the military?). If that does not work, lock them up or ship them off to Canada.

Note #1 - Don't send them off into the wilderness. Those of us who enjoy the wilderness don't want to run into them there.

Note #2 - London, Ontario! Not far from Delhi, eh?

[Repo Man]

I have conflicting views on the homeless. There are some homeless that suffer from mental illness and truly need the assistance that shelters and social service agencies provide. However there are some homeless that seem like they are fully capable of holding a job, but they would rather not work. There was this one guy in Milwaukee who would hang out near bars and ask people for money. One night my car got "booted" for being illegally paked and the guy who unbooted it told me that he set up a job for this guy and he showed up for an hour then left and never showed up again. People like that I have no pity for.

[BKM]

In all seriousness, I think the problem is that the "compassion industry" has, to a certain extent, conflated/confused the various categories of people who annoy us average citizens. There are truly the desperate, who are down on their luck. But, there is, and always has been, a significant "hobo" contingent. These free spirits simply don't want anything to do with rules or "standard" social roles.

I have a problem with people who have made a career out of begging. There are a couple of women beggars in Berkeley who have been sitting there calling out in a pained voice "Spare Change" for over TEN YEARS. Because I don't buy the argument that sitting on the sidewalk cadging change is a legitmate occupation, how is my contributing money to this individual of any benefit to them, as it enables them to continue their begging lifestyle?

I think I need to change my moniker from "Skeptical Lefty"

[The Irish One]

There will ALWAYS be people wanting to live on the streets and Berkeley is the perfect example. For years you could see the same guys pushing their act on the street -always with a cup or guitar case for change collection. From Shattuck & University over to Telegraph and Bancroft.

[jresta]

i never give money to people on the street. it just encourages them to spend more time there. Don't even get me started on the poverty pimps and Christian "missionaries."

but most of the people who make a permanent home on the street around here are struggling with mental illness. The drug addiction is more or less a symptom. Self-medicating they call it. If you know anyone with schizophrenia you'll know that it only takes a few days without medication before they start resisting all attempts at re-medicating in the traditional pharmaceutical sense. From there it's a downward spiral.

I think the prevalance of mental illness (particularly schizophrenia) and addiction in our society is more or less the writing on the wall.


here's something on the homeless and their "effluent" from the Philly Daily News that sums it up for me . . . except for jim keeney assuming that addiction causes mental illness when it's normally the other way around.

Paul Levy, executive director of the Center City District, whose mission is to attract residents, tourists and businesses by keeping downtown clean, said Philadelphia agencies have housed and social-serviced "all but the most shelter-resistant, most seriously addicted, most mentally ill people."

Those hardcore homeless who refuse care "may be physically incontinent or totally unaware that they are urinating and defecating in public," he said.

Guaranteed civil liberties prevent outreach workers and police from forcing the chronically homeless to accept shelter and services, Levy said, "but a person lying out in the street in his own urine or feces is not a person exercising his civil liberties. He's a person in desperate need of help."

The man living under the decaying Eric's Place marquee wears similar messages and shouts gibberish at passers-by. He needs mental-health services. He isn't getting them. He needs indoor plumbing. He isn't getting that, either.

A prominent Realtor's sign is propped against the theater's pee-stained lobby window: for sale or lease. Fat chance.

"I'm here seven years," said Danny Ganon, who manages Classic Kids Clothing a couple of storefronts away, "and for seven years it's been like this. It's horrible, man. It always smells of urine.

"The one bum lives there, sleeps there, pees and does everything else there. We called the guys from the Center City District. They hosed it a couple of times. The bum came back. The owner of that building doesn't do anything. Somebody needs to close that place up, so the bum can't live there."

"Every day when I open the store, I smell the urine," said Tal Jacobson, manager of Moda women's fashions next door. "It's especially bad in the summer. Customers will say, 'What's that smell?' But they know what the smell is."

City Councilman Frank DiCicco said the excrement storm will continue until the city deals with the root cause: homelessness.

"In recent months, I've noticed an increase in people sleeping on sidewalks in Center City," DiCicco said. "The other night, around six o'clock, I saw 50 or more men sitting on benches on the Parkway between 16th and 17th, waiting for the food trucks to arrive.

"These so-called humanitarian do-gooders come in from the burbs and feed these people out of the back of a truck or a van, and then drive away. It's just like putting out a bowl of milk for a stray cat that you don't want to take in.

"And the homeless guy figures, 'I'll eat my meal and go piss and take a dump and find some place to sleep, and tomorrow I'll beg for money to support my addiction.' The number of beggars is getting back to where it used to be years ago. And they all know that six o'clock is feeding time on the Parkway."

"The ultimate problem of these street people is their addiction," said City Councilman Jim Kenney. "If I fell down on the street and split my head open and the rescue squad came and saw that I was unconscious, would they ask me if I wanted to go to the hospital? No. They'd take me to the hospital and fix me. Well, these people are broken, too.

"But instead of taking them before a compassionate community court judge who would compel them receive proper treatment, we force our police to ask them if they want treatment. If they say no, they're right back out living on the street. So the homeless problem is like a hamster wheel. It just keeps going around and around. It never ends because we are unwilling to end it."

[Cardinal]

This is turning into a very interesting discussion. The purposefully homeless and menatally-ill homeless are not merely annoying. They are more than a threat to community quality-of-life and economic well-being. They are a risk to public health and safety. The liberal element that has been advocating so hard for the "rights" of these people have failed to see that by creating these "rights" they have in fact deprived a majority of decent, hard-working people their rights. I have a solution for Philly. Round these problems up, haul them a couple hundred miles east of the city, and drop them off. I they find their way back, then maybe you can let them stay.

Originally posted by BKM
I think I need to change my moniker from "Skeptical Lefty"

There is plenty of room on the dark side. Welcome.

[Chet]

Originally posted by Michael Stumpf
Round these problems up, haul them a couple hundred miles east of the city, and drop them off. I they find their way back, then maybe you can let them stay.

Mike - I mentioned this in the other homeless thread. The cops here where I work do that everytime one wanders through.

[BKM]

I know that you were being somewhat tongue-and-cheek, but unless you live someplace like Necada (sorry, Nevadans), there is noplace that you can drive them a couple of hundred miles away and drop them off. Why should Fairfield have to deal with San Francisco's homeless from 50 miles away?

As I noted earlier, there is something about our culture/society/economy that produces a larger number of people who cannot cope with everyday realty. Probably add all the chemicals we've been dumping to the environment for 100 years.

But, I agree, it is not "humane" to allow someone to sit in a puddle of his or her own feces.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by Chet
Mike - I mentioned this in the other homeless thread. The cops here where I work do that everytime one wanders through.

Yes, dropping somebody off a hundred or so miles east of the Milwaukee suburban area would be comparable east of Philadelphia. (Think about it.)

[Jeff]

A while ago the Philly Daily News did an article on a "fake bum" who camped out every day in front of Bridge-Pratt (on of the main Public Transit hubs in Philly) ... the guy drove a BMW and made a great living by begging daily.

[biscuit]

Originally posted by Michael Stumpf
Round these problems up, haul them a couple hundred miles east of the city, and drop them off. I they find their way back, then maybe you can let them stay.

The city of Atlanta actually did this before and during the '96 Olympics. The City gathered up homeless people near game venues and gave them one-way bus tickets across the state line. Many of them ended up in Asheville, NC and Greenville, SC, and neither one of those cities were very grateful for the new visitors.

I currently work with many of the homeless support groups that my city contracts with and know firsthand that there is no real reason for any of those persons living on the streets to be there. There are well funded shelters for families, for women, teenagers, drug addicts, you name 'em...anybody who needs a place could have a place. But yet there are still those "professionally homeless" persons who are in strategic locations panhandling throughout the day. It's lead me to believe that these are either mentally ill and/or simply choosing to live under highway overpasses and bridges - Either way I refuse to give them money.

[Tranplanner]

Originally posted by Mike D.
A while ago the Philly Daily News did an article on a "fake bum" who camped out every day in front of Bridge-Pratt (on of the main Public Transit hubs in Philly) ... the guy drove a BMW and made a great living by begging daily.

We had one like that here too - the "Shaky Lady". The Sun did an expose on her. She took a swing at the reporter and ended up in court.

[Greenescapist]

Originally posted by biscuit
There are well funded shelters for families, for women, teenagers, drug addicts, you name 'em...anybody who needs a place could have a place. But yet there are still those "professionally homeless" persons who are in strategic locations panhandling throughout the day. It's lead me to believe that these are either mentally ill and/or simply choosing to live under highway overpasses and bridges - Either way I refuse to give them money.

I do agree with a lot of you that, depending upon the area, there are some services for the homeless. However, I think they vary widely and the mentally ill are perenially short-changed. I don't purport to be some expert on homelessness, but I've always heard that a good percentage of them are suffering from either drug/alcohol addiction or mental illness. Most areas do not provide any serices to help with these diseases. True, hot food and a cot provide minimum requirements for sustenance and shelter - but we're not really helping a large group of the homeless unless we go after some of the underlying causes.

On the side note of the homeless on streets, I've lived in two big cities in the US - Boston and DC and traveled to lots of others. In terms of numbers, DC and San Francisco have the most I've seen anywhere. Maybe other cities have more shelters and treatment? I don't know what it takes.

[BKM]

Well it doesn't help that San Francisco:

1. Has a militantly compassionate political establishment

2. Leveled much of its "skid row" (where the Modern Art Museum, high priced condos, and Yerba Buena Gardens are today). Admittedly, I understand it was pretty tatty-but it provided cheap housing. (Thus, can the blame for the explosion be partly attributable to us planners? (j/k)

3. Is still insanely expensive. $1000/month for a tiny studio in the nastiest parts of town.

4. Is the "end of the road" for dreamers, people running from their lives in the east/midwest, and other assorted nonconformists. (I was working counter one day, and this kid (maybe 21, sorry youths) shows up. He had driven across the country in a rattletrap car, was out of money, and had only a scrap of paper with a nonexistent street and address on it. He had left the east coast to come live with someone he had "met" through the internet!)

[jordanb]

Originally posted by BKM
I was working counter one day, and this kid (maybe 21, sorry youths) shows up. He had driven across the country in a rattletrap car, was out of money, and had only a scrap of paper with a nonexistent street and address on it. He had left the east coast to come live with someone he had "met" through the internet!

The obvious solution would have been to tell him that the address was actually in LA.

[madhi]

These are all really rough numbers:

About 25% of the homeless are mentally ill. That's a much higher percentage than the general population. There's also usually a pretty high percentage of drug and alcohol addiction among homeless populations.

The belief that homeless people like living on the street is a myth. When surveyed, most homeless people don't respond that they would prefer to continue living on the street - most of them would like the implied stability of a home / job / community. -- Which is not to say that quite a few homeless people aren't employed; they just don't make enough to afford a house. Here's an interesting fact: since the 70s and 80s most large urban areas have had fairly sharp declines in the amount of single-room-occupancy housing. That's a big issue if you're living on less than 900 bucks a month, have a drug addiction and / or mental illness and perhaps don't have family or friends you can turn to for help.

Then you've got major deinstitutionalization of mentally ill patients in the 70s and 80s, fairly draconian cuts in social service agencies, outdated and ineffective care for drug addiction (when a person with no home or income, who doesn't qualify for state care can even get it).

Point is, there are so many contributing factors that it's a little simplistic to say things like "they like living on the street because they do drugs and are mentally ill. We should cart them into the boonies so I don't have to step over them on my way to my morning latte." That attitude isn't recognized by anyone who works with homeless people as being a valid solution.

(and that's all without even going into detail about why a homeless person has just as much right as you to be in public, or the generally disregarded notion that poverty somehow equates to a deficiency of character or mental capacity. wealthy homeowners aren't genetically superior to poor people. )

Just throwing stuff out there...

[BKM]

You do bring up some good points Madhi (thus my admission on the other post that I had mixed feelings about the issue).

I'm not sure I agree with everything, though. I think some people do argue that they don't have a right to hang out in public spaces (spoiled suburbanites from gated communities, maybe??), but I doubt that many of us are making that argument. I would never agree that a homeless guy should be removed if his shabbiness or unkempt appearance are "unpleasant" and make my shopping trip less fun. If a homeless guy is threatening people for money, defecating in public, or (as I observed) hiking her skirt in the middle of the sidewalk and "letting it flow," that kind of behavior cannot be tolerated. Nor should it be tolerated for drunken college kids after a football game.

I think you also downplay the degree of choice by a certain proportion of the homeless population. Some, because they are off meds, others because they think they have a right to not follow any rules or have any responsibility.

Again, ten years as a professional beggar bothers me.

[BKM]

And, I would argue that being so out of control that your drug addiction/alcoholism has led to/contributed to being homeless IS in fact a deficiency of moral character. Poverty-not really. Sitting in a drunken stupor at noon with a bottle in a brown bag-yep.

[madhi]

Actually, I agree with you and it would definately be negligent to presume that many homeless people (from my experience at least) are not in control of their lives and situation. They are. In many cases they've made decisions that have led them to the streets, and they can make the decision to better themselves and attempt to get Off the street. My assertion is that acknowledgeing that is only one of the steps in combatting homelessness.

I work, part time, with homeless people and we're Constantly presenting them with options, finding and providing them resources for getting stability and education. We're constantly modelling behaviour and getting them into programs. And sadly enough there Are some people who conciously choose to stay on the street. The bond there is just incredibly strong. There are also some incredible successes - it's just that they don't happen overnight.

To say that a homeless person has only to choose to not be homeless and voila! - that's also delusional. (not that you're asserting that, i'm just sayin') . I think the next step is recognizing that it's a complex issue that touches on how we treat and deal with drug addiction, and how addiction interferes with an individual's ability to make positive decisions for themselves. It touches on how we establish and organize our communities and economic priorities to include everyone, even the very very poor. How we fund our education system. How we confront racism and sexism and how they play into creating the stressors which can lead a person to the street. How we treat illness and where that is failing the poor and houseless.

It's important to look at all those, and more, so that we (those of us who feel like it's our duty to create functional cities and generally help out the less-priviledged) can attempt to provide options for people who have few. Yep, homeless people have choices, but in general they also have a significantly higher number of obstacles. Lets recognize those obstacles and work towards tearing them down and finding new ways of dealing with those issues by being inclusive and creative.

I know this is long... thanks for reading...

In addition, we should hold everyone up to a standard. You shouldn't be able to get away with criminal activity simply because you live on the street. You can't abuse people or crap all over the place, because the streets don't exclusively belong to any one person - homeless or not homeless.

Can you tell it's a slow day at work? :P I think it's great that this is being discussed.

[madhi]

upon review my reply seems a little dramatic and has a bit of an "us doing it for them, the retards of the world" attitude - which was not my intention.

[jordanb]

What I'd like to see is the homeless rates in this country as opposed to the homeless rates in a country with first-world social services and labor laws like Canada or Britian.