Damn, if I were homeless, I’d probably become an alcoholic/drug-addict myself. Besides, I guarentee you there are more drug-addict/alcoholic non-homeless people than there are homless ones. And if the house has been seized by the govt, then it’s govt property–and since when have the conservatives ever had a problem with taking that away (incidentally goboy, I do agree with you–while I hate everything William Saffire stands for, I respect him because he’s intelligent, unlike our friend Rush)?
We actually had a similar problem in Baltimore a few years back; the government (or maybe it was private, I don’t remember) was taking people from inner-city Baltimore and subsidizing them to live in nicer suburban areas like Towson, so they could send their kids to better public schools and not worry about crime. There was a huge controversy–people were afraid of the “scary downtown blacks” (Baltimore city is mostly black, the county mostly white) moving into their neighborhood. There was fierce opposition. ** And these were people carefully selected to be stable families without addiction, violence, or other problems. ** But Baltimore County is full of racist jerks who were afraid of having their neighborhood disturbed… * by families who were just like them, only less wealthy and black. *
The city kicked out the activists and sealed up the house last sunday. Three activists were arrested. The house, presumably, will continue to rot.
The neighbors seemed pleased, although this struck me more as reverse racism than anything to do with the reality of the situation. The activists probably made a bad political decision in not consulting with the neghborhood before hand. They were accused of “colonialism,” as though any of the neighbors personal property was affected.
Councilman Jim Graham seemed to have mixed feelings about the matter. He acknowleged that there are hundereds of homes which are going to rot in the city, and felt that the district needs to be doing more about this.
The real losers in this matter are the homeless couple slated to move in. Why the Post ignored their story is beyond me.
I dont have a link to the exact story, but I’m sure you can find it at http://www.washingtonpost.com if you are interested.
As an absolute number? Of course. Since there are more non-homeless people than homeless people, characteristic X will always occur in larger numbers in the non-homeless population.
As a proportion of the population? No way. I’d guarantee that those particular pathologies exist in greater proportion in the homeless population.
pldennison: eventually, you will agree with me on something. Really.
Of course that was not meant to be as a proportion of the population. I was simply pointing out that there are plenty of non-homeless with the same problems. To condemn the homeless as a bunch of psychotic drug-addled alcoholics seems a bit unfair, even that these problems exist in abundance in the rest of the population. Of course that number lies. All numbers do. I used it to make a point, though.
But I’m beginning to ramble…
Hey, I’ve been looking for that thread, the supposed “hit and run” thread, that this person started. I thought it was here in the Pit but I can’t find it. Are you sure it was locked and not deleted?
Sorry, I’ve been gone again for a while but I can’t find it anywhere. If you have the straight dope on it let me know.
As someone who has had a lot of experience in this area, housing these people is not nearly enough.
In order for these people to be successful, you must supply them with any needed treatment (drugs, mental, alcohol) as well as job and education assistance and teach them living skills (budgeting and so on). Very rarely is not having a place to live the only problem these people are having. There are always other hidden reasons for which they are homeless.
I also do not agree with the practice of possessing another persons property without their permission. There are so many other programs for which to obtain housing.
I admit that this is a radical and stupid way to go about it, but at least they’re doing something–which is better than most of the population (myself included). And it should be pointed out that at this point it was govt property, and we all hate the govt, right?
pldennison–the man who’d club an orphan, if the orphan clubbed a seal.
Hey PETA-boy… it seems you really do endorse inhumanity to Man over inhumanity to animals.
Morally bankrupt, as usual.
(Note-this refers to pldennison only, it is not a comment on any other position from any other poster on this thread,. Neither is it a moral judgement on the OP’s topic.)
While there certainly are many mentally ill people and/or substance abusers in the homeless population, the couple these activists were trying to house did not appear to be either, based on what I saw of them on the local news.
Bosda, whatever PL Dennison’s views on PETA or baby seals may be, how do you get inhumanity out of his post here?
Hey, Bosda, you can fuck right off. As anyone who knows me in person knows, I give to the homeless whenever I can. Pointing out that drug and alcohol abuse occur in greater proportion among the homeless (a proposition that Diane, who works with the homeless every fucking day, supports) has nothing to do with helping them.
If you’re going to make accusations about me, you witless freak, you had better be damned sure they’re accurate, or you and me are going to the mat.
I speak as an alumnus of the streets myself, having been homeless in the middle 1980s in New York–
a) Policy-makers are convinced ‘mental illness’ is the cause of homelessness, therefore programs are available to people with a mental health diagnosis. If, therefore, you are homeless and want access to one of these programs (i.e., a permanent bed, mailing address, and a place to put your stuff, rather than a randomly assigned temporary bed that you must leave the next morning), you identify yourself as ‘mentally ill’ to one of the social workers.
b) Even in the more rarefied atmosphere of a shelter specifically for ‘homeless mentally ill’ New Yorkers, I found a large population of people who, like myself, were homeless because of a confluence of events and bad luck, like the pharmacist whose license was ruled invalid due to clerical oversights in the original application, or the psychiatrist who sold her condo and then could not move into the new one because the city got into a fight over the 2nd bldg’s tax records.
c) Many homelessness activists do indeed suck. Policy-makers listen to them, not those of us who are or have been on the streets ourselves. The activists and policy-makers both base their careers on the continuation of the problem for which they are either paid to supply solutions or make political careers by generating media coverage of themselves as hero-wannabes. A great many of them are contemptuous of real live homeless people.
d) If I have insufficient reason to abide by the rules of the social contract, I’ll probably stop abiding by it. At the moment, I’m employed and I have food and an apartment so I tend to obey laws and pay my taxes, but if I were again homeless and I saw no obvious way out of the situation, why the hell would I care if the building I break into is owned by some absentee idiot in Massachusetts? It exists, I want to be indoors, I can get indoors, and once there I can be out of the public environment while I sleep. I’d rather not have some noisy activist put me there so everyone (including the cops) knows about it, but I also don’t respect anyone’s right to keep an empty building free of folks like me.
So they deserve to be homeless, then? Yeah, that will really help their addictions and mental disorders, living on the street with no contact with the “normal” world. :rolleyes:
But I’m sure it works out just fine for all the “I’m all right, Jack” members of society who appreciate having the unwashed and disinfranchised kept out of their sanitary neighbourhoods.
The reason so many people think that homeless and anti-poverty activists are jerks, is because they want to upset the status quo. This is the same status quo, btw that has kept you all safe and warm in your comfy, comfy beds.
So naturally, you would hate and fear them. They want to change a society that does a grave injustice against the poor, the mentally ill and the unlucky. Of course, this would be the same society that put you in your Audi, cruising to the strains of the new Santana CD, on your way to Starbucks for a frappuccino. God forbid any of that should be disturbed.
The difference is that I’ve worked for my Audi, Santana CD, and trendy coffee. The people in the OP did nothing to get that house other than steal it. You can argue that there’s many reasons as to why they’re homeless (lost job, mental illness, bad luck, drug problem, sheer laziness) but the bottom line is that they’re taking a house that they did nothing to earn.
Not to say that everyone living in a nice house earned it…
That is nowhere in my post. Nobody deserves to be homeless.
If the staus quo keeps me in a comfy bed, am I supposed to object? BTW, I pay for my bed, and the rent on my townhouse, which I share with three roommates and my cat. I don’t own a car, and I’m far from rich. why am I supposed to feel guilty about enjoying things that I work long hours at minimal pay to pay for?
God, liberal guilt trips! OK, here are my points from the OP.
Sticking people in a house might make the Rage Against the Machine crowd feel righteous, but if you don’t fix the reasons why they’re homeless(alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, or just bad luck, per AHunter3, then you haven’t really fixed the problem.
Breaking the law and antagonizing the neighbors is a bad idea if you want your homeless clients to do well in their new home. Liberals mistake supporting a good cause for virtue in themselves, so they believe that they can ignore
laws and the niceties of decent human behavior.
AS** Larry Borgia** pointed out, the city closed the house, so what good did the kids accomplish?
While I don’t agree with their methods. they brought attention to the problem. they are at lest trying. which is more than anyone can say for you you stupid fuck (sorry, it’s the pit. I couldn’t resist).
Are you familiar with the Great Depression. it’s a little known historical event, happened in the 30’s or 40’s I think. Anyway, during the Depression, frequently, when someone would get evicted for non payment of rent. the police would come down and put everything on the sidewalk. Well, the neighbors would come along, gather verythign up, and put it back in the house. This wsa a fairly commonoccurance in large cities.
As a counselor for homeless vets, you can rest assured that I neither fear nor disrespect them in any way.
By far the largest homeless population is due to addictions or mental illnesses. A much smaller, but still substantial cause is a basic lack of living skills (however, this usually goes hand in hand with addictions and/or mental illness). A very small percentage are homeless due to bad luck such as Alan described. An even smaller percent are on the street simply because they choose to live that lifestyle.
As I previously stated, the problems go well beyond a roof over their head. These people need treatment for addiction or mental illness, taught living skills, job training, education, and a number of other things that will help them to be self sufficient. To provide them with housing without any of these other services is an almost guaranty that they will again be homeless in a short period of time.
No matter the how good the intentions, moving into an abandoned house is stealing another persons property. Not only is it wrong, but you are putting the tenants into an unstable living environment.
For his next trick, **Oldscratch[//B]compares apples with oranges!
Why don’t you post something germane to the discussion next time. The problems of folks evicted during the Depression
have nothing to do with solving the problem of homeless people 70 years later. Putz!
I’ve always liked the apples to oranges analogy. depite their differences they are similar. for example, they are both fruit. Although, I think my nexttrick will be using the bold function correctly.
